The Conspiracy to Deny the Reason for the Crucifixion

This is the issue in a nutshell:

Jesus was murdered because he threatened the teaching of the Jewish religious establishment on the Doctrine of “resurrection”; the Sadducees denying the Doctrine of “resurrection” altogether; the Pharisees interpreting that Doctrine in accordance with the pagan-Egyptian doctrine of the raising of a dead physical body from the grave (in violation, by the way, of the admonition, understood esoterically, of Chapter 31 of the Book of Isaiah); and Jesus, echoing the Revelations received by Isaiah, Daniel and Ezekiel, teaching the Doctrine of “resurrection” as a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’.

And, for almost 2000 years, both the Jewish and the Christian religious establishments—and their accomplices in the mainstream, secular and religious, print, broadcast, and Internet media—have conspired to keep details of this theological conflict from being publicized; something that continues to this very day (even Wikipedia is involved); the reason being the significant threat that such a Doctrine would pose to the multi-billion dollar economic interests of Judaeo-Christianity, Inc.

To begin with, Jesus taught that John the Baptist was “the Elijah who was to come” (the Gospel of Matthew 11:14), thus implying the Doctrine of “resurrection” as a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’; and, at the time of the crucifixion, this Revelation was etched into the very hearts of his followers; Chapter 27:52-53 of the Gospel of Matthew being a very clear metaphorical description of the revelation of the memories of previous lives.

In other words, prior to the Resurrection of Jesus, the immediate followers of Jesus had a very clear understanding that the Revelation of “resurrection” includes the revelation of the memories of previous lives.

Enter the Pharisee Paul, believing that the Resurrection of Jesus was, instead, a validation of the Pharisaical doctrine of a physical raising of a dead body from the grave; but, not having been one of the immediate followers of Jesus at the time of the crucifixion, with no Knowledge that the “resurrection” includes the revelation of the memories of previous lives…

For which reason he murdered the original followers of Jesus who had either received the revelation of the memories of previous lives or who taught the Doctrine of “resurrection” as a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’.

So, for Paul, the crucifixion represented something of a ‘problem’: Being a Pharisee, and believing in the doctrine of a physical resurrection, he could not acknowledge that the reason for the crucifixion was over a Doctrinal disagreement over the “resurrection”. In other words, Paul could simply not acknowledge that Jesus was murdered for teaching the Doctrine of “resurrection” as a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’; despite the fact that that was precisely the reason why Paul murdered and persecuted the original followers of Jesus.

So Paul, the Pharisee, and apostle of the Gentiles, had no choice: he had to concoct an alternate ‘explanation’ for the crucifixion; for which he pounced upon the gruesome, blood-thirsty pagan doctrine of “vicarious atonement for the sins of all men”; a doctrine which, of course, required that Jesus be ‘God’ in order to be an ‘appropriate sacrifice’ for such an ‘atonement’—the ultimate consequence of which was almost 2000 years of Christian anti-Semitism culminating in the horrors of the Holocaust

In other words, had it been widely known from the very outset that the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish priesthood was over the Doctrine of “resurrection” being a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’, there would have been no doctrine of “vicarious atonement”, there would have been no deification of Jesus as ‘God’, there would have been no demonization of “the Jews” as ‘Christ-killers’…

And, thus, there would have been NO Holocaust; it being widely understood that any Gentile could very well be ‘raised from the dead’ as a Jew in his or her next life; and any Jew could very well be ‘raised from the dead’ as a Gentile in his or her next life.

Thus, even after the murder of millions of Jews during the Holocaust, there is no widespread willingness of either the Jewish or the Christian religious officials for the reason for the crucifixion to be widely publicized at all: the deification of Jesus as ‘God’—which is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity—being a very direct consequence of Paul’s attempt to preserve the Pharisaical doctrine of a physical raising of a dead body from the grave—which is a fundamental doctrine of Judaism.

In other words, the theological reason for the crucifixion and the Holocaust is precisely the same: both the Jewish and the Christian religious establishments are in error about the Doctrine of “resurrection’.

But the fact that this Revelation is being publicized at all at this particular time has to do, very specifically, with the Prophecy of Chapter 12:9 of the Book of Daniel: “…these words—that is, the references in Chapter 12:1-2 to the “resurrection”—are to remain secret and sealed until the time of the End”; the word “sealed” being an echo of Chapter 8:16 of the Book of Isaiah in reference to the ‘Revelation (of the “resurrection”) which is sealed in the heart’.

Michael

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Jesus, echoing the Revelations received by Isaiah, Daniel and Ezekiel, teaching the Doctrine of “resurrection” as a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’.

Christ was resurrected in his own form. He didn't "come back" as someone else.

(even Wikipedia is involved); the reason being the significant threat that such a Doctrine would pose to the multi-billion dollar economic interests of Judaeo-Christianity, Inc.

The Wikipedia editors likely revert your changes to the page on Resurrection because they are interested in facts, not unsupported conjecture.

To begin with, Jesus taught that John the Baptist was “the Elijah who was to come” (the Gospel of Matthew 11:14), thus implying the Doctrine of “resurrection” as a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’;

No, he says "THE Elijah", not "Elijah". A prophet, not Elijah returned. At any rate, John denied that he was Elijah, Christ differentiated between the two, and Elijah didn't die, so how could he be "reborn"?

Chapter 27:52-53 of the Gospel of Matthew being a very clear metaphorical description of the revelation of the memories of previous lives.

No, it is not a "clear metaphorical description." It is a clear literal description.

The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

There's nothing in there that implies it describes anything other than a real event. Dead people, resurrected in the body, who were later seen in Jerusalem.

There is no support, holistically, in the Bible for your reincarnation theories. Even when you pick and choose, you're stretching the scripture pretty thin to find something that can even be confused with it.

For which reason he murdered the original followers of Jesus who had either received the revelation of the memories of previous lives or who taught the Doctrine of “resurrection” as a Doctrine of ‘Rebirth’.

Paul murdered the Apostles? What evidence do you have of this outrageous claim?

So Paul, the Pharisee, and apostle of the Gentiles, had no choice: he had to concoct an alternate ‘explanation’ for the crucifixion; for which he pounced upon the gruesome, blood-thirsty pagan doctrine of “vicarious atonement for the sins of all men”; a doctrine which, of course, required that Jesus be ‘God'

Claiming that Paul would remain a Jewish Pharisee and would knowingly concoct such a ridiculous and blasphemous lie, then die for it, demonstrates that you have no understanding of Jewish beliefs in the time of Christ. Absolutely, under no circumstances, would a Pharisee lie about a man being God. Would never happen, not for any reason, your wishful thinking aside.

The conspiracy to Deny the Reason for the Crucifixion.



Jesus was hung unto a pole, it wasn't a cross

It's no conspiracy. Since Jesus birth he was destined by the Father to give up his blood as ransom for our sins. (cruel)

Godstaged episode.

Abba?


Ah, jah, His life was full of fruits!



what Bible are you reading? Jesus was crucified to a cross and then the rest of the story. I'm not a Christian and I know the Christian version of the story of Jesus.
Crucfixon of Jesus


------How the 'I don't know' could you come to such a..

reply to post by etherical waterwave


what Bible are you reading? Jesus was crucified to a cross and then the rest of the story. I'm not a Christian and I know the Christian version of the story of Jesus.
Crucfixon of Jesus

reply to post by adjensen

(Sigh)

Are there quite reasonable replies to each and every one of the 'objections'--I am being charitable here--that you raise?

Of course there are.

And I have explained most of them (some are too ridiculous even to respond to) in rigorous detail in a book I wrote a number of years ago.

Will I even tell you the name of the book?

Of course not.

You might buy it and read the arguments, and I would then be required to return your money to you because you cannot understand those arguments.

Will I present those arguments here or argue over this with you?

Of course not.

Why?

First of all, you already have Moses and the prophets; including, unfortunately for you, Daniel.

Forget everything that I have said. Just believe what they wrote.

Secondly, I don't care whether you believe me or not.

And, thirdly, it wouldn't do any good.

I've seen this before.

Maybe several dozens of times over the past 34 years.

Jesus himself could fly out of the sky on a white horse; turn water into wine; multiply loaves and fishes; heal the sick and raise the dead; walk on water; Prophesy the future...

And, then, out of the billions of people on this planet, he could walk up to you personally and say "The Doctrine of "resurrection" is a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'...

And your response to him would be "Prove it."

Michael

He was executed because he revealed their hypocritical application of the law.

They feared that he would lead a popular revolt. All well documented history, as much the "story of Jesus" as the historical setting, including the expectations of a "messiah".

Of course, you gnostics only arrived 100 plus years after, with your "dualism/nondualism" isms and hidden truths, (which Jesus knew but didn't share), and gnosis, and stuff.

I still don't get your hatred for Paul, SAVE that he was a "traitor" to the established religious and secular authorities of the day. Who hated him too. Oh wait ....

The sad part is, they all claim to KNOW something they DON'T KNOW! It's a way to control the masses, so it's only natural that they oppose anything that threatens/questions their means of mass control and power...religion.

Originally posted by harryhaller
He was executed because he revealed their hypocritical application of the law.

You have fallen for the 'cover story'.

This is always the 'cover story' of the religious 'authorities': that it is nothing more than a superficial conflict or a political conflict.

They feared that he would lead a popular revolt. All well documented history, as much the "story of Jesus" as the historical setting, including the expectations of a "messiah".

Hook, line and sinker.

Of course it was "well documented".

'Cover stories' are always very well documented. That is the whole purpose: to convince people of something contrary to reality.

Do you actually 'think' that the Jewish religious establishment would announce to everyone the Doctrinal conflict with Jesus?

Were they to do that, the response would be "Oh, I did not know that there was an alternative explanation of the Doctrine of "resurrection"." Their curiosity would be awakened. And that would be lethal.

Similarly, perhaps one of the best books on the Albigensian Crusade, Massacre at Montsegur, referred to the Albigensians as "Western Buddhists" who taught a doctrine of 'reincarnation'--NEVER mentioning that the Doctrine that they termed 'reincarnation' was really the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'.

Why was that NOT mentioned?

Either because the author did not know that; or because he knew that...

But wanted his book to be PUBLISHED.

Michael

Originally posted by harryhaller

Of course, you gnostics only arrived 100 plus years after, with your "dualism/nondualism" isms and hidden truths, (which Jesus knew but didn't share), and gnosis, and stuff.

Maybe you've never heard of the Gospel of Thomas.

Saying # 11: "...on the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two what will you do?"

Saying # 106: "...When you make the two one, you will become the sons of man...

Michael

Nothing is not of this world.

To dis-appear to reappear, you have never been there.

I know Michael, you have ain't seen these bananas yet.

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Saying # 11: "...on the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two what will you do?"

Come on, Michael, you've gotta admit that this sounds like a line from Dr. Seuss, eh? lol

Jesus himself could fly out of the sky on a white horse; turn water into wine; multiply loaves and fishes; heal the sick and raise the dead; walk on water; Prophesy the future...

And, then, out of the billions of people on this planet, he could walk up to you personally and say "The Doctrine of "resurrection" is a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'...

On the contrary, if Christ himself told me that this was true, I'd accept it. That's easy to say, because I know that it would never happen. Aside from your own expectations and misreading of scriptures, there is nothing to support reincarnation in the Bible. If this was a crucial component of reality, there would be.

As for the rest of it -- claiming that simple questions cannot be answered without the jibber-jabber of a lengthy book is simply an obvious dodge. I could answer anything I ask in a paragraph or less, and be able to either defend it or provide a legitimate source that could.

You don't answer because your answers don't bear up to logical and factual scrutiny, so you avoid the obvious embarrassment by dropping back to your elitist defense of "you are incapable of understanding." I can't blame you for that, but don't think anyone is going to respect you for it.

Originally posted by adjensen

Come on, Michael, you've gotta admit that this sounds like a line from Dr. Seuss, eh?

Thanks, I needed that. A little humor is a good thing.

But what was being addressed is the whole issue of the differentiation of the 'fallen' consciousness from the consciousness Created by God; the consciousness Created by God being a consciousness of Oneness, the 'fallen' consciousness being the consciousness of Duality or Twoness.

On the contrary, if Christ himself told me that this was true, I'd accept it. That's easy to say, because I know that it would never happen.

Just my point.

You believe what the religious 'authorities' have told you under the assumption that the messiah will NEVER tell you anything different; which, of course, means not only that the religious 'authorities' are the messiah; but, because you believe what they say, you are Omniscient; being capable of Prophesying the future.

This is why the consciousness of the 'thinker' is referred to as the "false prophet" in the Revelation of John.

You don't answer because your answers don't bear up to logical...scrutiny

Well, even a stopped clock is right twice each day.

And here I agree with you.

There is no logic to Revelations at all. Revelations convey a meaning all of their own, but it is completely independent of a meaning derived by logic, which is based upon thought, which is based upon the 'thinker', which is based upon the postulation of the thought of the 'thinker', which is postulated by a "self" out of the FEAR of death and the DESIRE for pleasure.

I have no desire for any respect from anyone.

My only goal here is to explain what I am capable of explaining of the Revelations I have received.

Take it or leave it.

Michael

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by adjensen

Come on, Michael, you've gotta admit that this sounds like a line from Dr. Seuss, eh?

Thanks, I needed that. A little humor is a good thing.

But what was being addressed is the whole issue of the differentiation of the 'fallen' consciousness from the consciousness Created by God; the consciousness Created by God being a consciousness of Oneness, the 'fallen' consciousness being the consciousness of Duality or Twoness.

I presume that your belief is that the soul is eternal (as opposed to everlasting,) so is it your claim that, at one time, I had a soul that was simply that, and, at the fall of Adam, my soul became two -- a part in harmony with God, and a part in opposition to him? Sort of like the "Evil Twin" motif of so many bad soap operas?

I'm not huge on duality, but I do recognize something akin to that, though my belief is that Christ clears off the bad bit, and we get one shot at it. Our acceptance of him accepts and received all that he is, including his righteousness, which is what "saves" us.

On the contrary, if Christ himself told me that this was true, I'd accept it. That's easy to say, because I know that it would never happen.

Just my point.

You believe what the religious 'authorities' have told you under the assumption that the messiah will NEVER tell you anything different; which, of course, means not only that the religious 'authorities' are the messiah; but, because you believe what they say, you are Omniscient; being capable of Prophesying the future.

No, you are misreading my statement. If he told me that, I would accept it, period. I find it highly unlikely (well, nigh on impossible) that he would, but my beliefs do not form reality. If I am demonstrated to be incorrect, I accept it and move on.

You don't answer because your answers don't bear up to logical...scrutiny

Well, even a stopped clock is right twice each day.

And here I agree with you.

There is no logic to Revelations at all.

And that's where it fails, because it has neither a basis, nor a defendable logic. As I've told you before, your vision is important and valid to you, and that's great, but it means nothing more to me than Joseph Smith's, or Muhammed's, or Paul's, for that matter.

Paul makes sense to me because he argues convincingly from scripture and through logic, not because everything has to be validated by his vision. If he offered nothing but views that conflicted with Christ's teaching, backed by a statement that "I had a vision of Christ on the road to Damascus!" I'd dismiss him, as well (and likely become a Catholic, lol. Cracks me up that so many who grouse about Paul don't realize that he's the "Protestant" apostle, and that their beefs with him put them in congruence with the Catholic church.)

There are so many people who want to disconnect you from your beliefs, your pocketbook or your life, one must be wary of what is truth (or closer to the truth) and what is not. Anyone who accepted your notions, on the basis that you present them, would be just as likely to accept Joseph Smith, Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh, or thousands of other proclaimers of the "truth."

Originally posted by adjensen I presume that your belief is that the soul is eternal (as opposed to everlasting,) so is it your claim that, at one time, I had a soul that was simply that, and, at the fall of Adam, my soul became two -- a part in harmony with God, and a part in opposition to him?

You see?

This is the problem.

I say something that is Knowledge; and, IMMEDIATELY, your response is to replace the words I say with the doctrines of metaphysical philosophy; doctrines originating in the 'fallen' consciousness.

I do not assert the existence of any metaphysical 'soul' at all. That is a thought of a 'thinker', and the fundamental motivation of the thoughts of the 'thinker' is the fear of death rather than the desire for Truth. And according to the Quran, the Creator is the ONLY "Eternally Existent".

If he told me that, I would accept it, period.

NO YOU WOULDN'T.

He already told you that John was Elijah; and you do NOT believe that.

He already told you that Elijah would return again. And you do NOT believe that; since, on the basis of the Revelations in the Quran, it must be concluded that Mohammed was both John the Baptist and Elijah 'raised from the dead'.

In BOTH of these instances, you have chosen to believe what the Christian religious 'authorities' have told you INSTEAD of what Jesus said.

If I am demonstrated to be incorrect, I accept it and move on.

Yeah, sure.

Just ONE caveat: You will NEVER be demonstrated to be incorrect, so you won't HAVE to "move on".

Michael

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
I say something that is Knowledge; and, IMMEDIATELY, your response is to replace the words I say with the doctrines of metaphysical philosophy; doctrines originating in the 'fallen' consciousness.

Perhaps, but I am trying to clarify very muddy waters that you keep dispensing. Being mystical to be obscure is being mystical to guise the fact that one is simply making things up.

And according to the Quran, the Creator is the ONLY "Eternally Existent".

Then why do you cling to your Gnostic beliefs? As I've told you before, Judaic and Gnostic beliefs regarding deities, the nature of material, and our relationship with God are utterly incompatible, and they'd be just as incompatible with Islam.

I'm not sure what religion you are most closely aligned to, Michael, but you'd get chucked out of any mosque in the world with your claims. You might claim it, but your views demonstrate that you are not a Muslim.

If he told me that, I would accept it, period.

NO YOU WOULDN'T.

He already told you that John was Elijah; and you do NOT believe that.

No, he didn't. He said John was THE Elijah. The Prophet of the Age. He didn't say John was Elijah, the person. John himself denied it. You are once again starting at a conclusion, and then looking for a little of this, a bit of that, that might support your claim, while ignoring everything that disproves it.

In the Transfiguration, it is written the Elijah was there, it is not written that John the Baptist was there, and Peter most likely knew John and the other two that were there, James and John, were his former disciples, so they surely would have noted who it was. Given that the synoptic Gospels aren't super chronologically accurate, one can't even be sure that John is dead at that point.

Following the Transfiguration, Christ says that Elijah must come again to set things right, and that he has indeed already done so, but he doesn't say that John was Elijah. That his apostles might interpret what he said in that manner is understandable, but, again, separate Elijah the person from Elijah the prophet. Jews do not believe in reincarnation. Never have. In that time, non-Sadducies believed in resurrection, but resurrection as one's self, not as someone else, and as something that only happened at the end of time. Orthodox Jews don't allow cremation, as they believe it denies the resurrection, something that wouldn't matter unless you were resurrection as self.

So the apostles could not be viewing John as Elijah the person. But they could be viewing John as THE Elijah. The Prophet for their time.

Again, Jesus doesn't say John is Elijah, the three apostles are said to have interpreted this, but they can't have interpreted it literally, because reincarnation doesn't exist for a Jew, and resurrection means that John would, literally, have been Elijah, which he denied, and/or Elijah would have been John at the Transfiguration.

In addition, Elijah did not die, John did, so even if Elijah truly came back as John, it would clearly be a special case, and the only one. Elijah cannot be resurrected into someone if he is not dead, so that's obviously not what happened.

If I am demonstrated to be incorrect, I accept it and move on.

Yeah, sure.

Just ONE caveat: You will NEVER be demonstrated to be incorrect, so you won't HAVE to "move on".

I'm sure that it soothes your ego to believe so, but you are incorrect. In matters of faith, particularly, on a number of occasions I have found myself to be going down a path I determined was incorrect for me (such as Fundamentalism and Mormonism,) and "accepted it and moved on."

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

If he told me that, I would accept it, period.

NO YOU WOULDN'T.

He already told you that John was Elijah; and you do NOT believe that.

No, he didn't. He said John was THE Elijah.

I rest my case.

You do not understand the plain meaning of words.

Do you 'think' Jesus spoke English?

And do you know anything at all about the use of definite and indefinite articles in Aramaic or Hebrew?

Never mind.

Michael

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

If he told me that, I would accept it, period.

NO YOU WOULDN'T.

He already told you that John was Elijah; and you do NOT believe that.

No, he didn't. He said John was THE Elijah.

I rest my case.

You do not understand the plain meaning of words.

Do you 'think' Jesus spoke English?

Of course not. But how about, instead of criticizing me, you address the questions that I raised?

I believe that, in the numerous threads that you and I have had discussions in, I have not failed to answer any of your questions, yet you have failed to answer any of mine. At least not in an unobfuscated manner, that is.

Come on, Michael, it's a softball question. Why did Elijah appear at the Transfiguration, when you say he'd already been "reborn" as John? Did he get unborn? Why did John deny being Elijah? Was he a liar?

reply to post by adjensen

I am not going to address any one of dozens of issues ("their name is legion") distracting from the one fundamental fact I brought out in my original note to this thread:

The reason for the crucifixion is being censored by both the Jewish and the Christian religious 'authorities' who would simply loose too much money were the Truth about the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth' to be made known.

As I have said before, there are answers to your questions, but I am not going to provide those answers because it would do no good...and you are not really among any of those with whom I want to talk about such things anyway...I don't really have the connection with you that I have with other people.

Which is similar to Jesus not working any Miracles in villages in which there were too few believers.

You can believe what you want.

In fact, I would prefer that you don't believe me.

You might turn into a "true believer"; absolutely convinced that you understand me; while, at the same time, contradicting everything I say...

Something like a Christian in relation to Jesus.

Paul's substitution of an alternate 'explanation' for the crucifixion lead very directly to the slaughter of millions of Jews during the Holocaust.

In a billion years, Christianity, Inc. will NOT be able to wash that blood from their hands.

Michael

well, to me that makes the renegade Rabbi heavily dosed in Gnostic tradition,
or at least very Eastern tradition

good for the Redemption tale that Rabbi Jesus wasn't alive during the days of Vlad
the impaler... that would have been a most inglorious death.

from my understanding, the Romans had a series of permanent 'poles' stationed
along the road to Jerusalem so visitors or travelers would know that this
is how criminals were treated.
death by crucifixion...where the condemed carried their own cross beam
that was slotted to join with the permanent upright pole = hence the 'cross'


yes indeed, Jesus was radical, and its my thought that he was 'disturbed'.
in that he thought that believing hard enough would re-animate his body
after his dance with death for the 3 day span. of course he was deep into
self-hypnotic states in the 'Garden' the night before his trial & punishment...
he was doing a special type of Yoga and deep meditation rituals so that he
could weather the ordeal, then go into a suspended animation state
for the required time.

sure his interpetation of resurrection & rebirth were completely alien to
the theology of his Tribe...perhaps including self-reincarnation but in a
glorified state... i suggest he actually died, in an attempt to join with a
metaphysical world...or perhaps even becoming a ghost that had the
power to materialize at will... his experiment died with his dream

but a cult that turned into a religion was crafted from the Story

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
reply to post by adjensen

I am not going to address any one of dozens of issues ("their name is legion") distracting from the one fundamental fact I brought out in my original note to this thread:

The reason for the crucifixion is being censored by both the Jewish and the Christian religious 'authorities' who would simply loose too much money were the Truth about the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth' to be made known.

The fact that you won't be bothered to answer simple questions, and instead fall back on some silly claim that you're being suppressed should be sufficient evidence for anyone with a lick of sense that you have no answers, because you're just making it all up.

Even your claim that religious authorities would "loose" (only on "o" in lose, Michael) too much money if your absurd belief was correct makes no sense.

See ya in the next thread.