Jesus: son of Cleopatra and Caesar

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
youtube.com...

Please take a look at this exceptionally interesting and well researched youtube video showing how Jesus could really be the son of Cleopatra - Blasphemy? You bet!




posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
this is thee most ridiculous thing ive ever seen.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kshaund
 
If you want to see blasphemy, go rent the movie "The man from earth".
Presents an interesting thought, but goes too far.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kshaund
 


Well, I am sure many historians would call it "blasphemy", considering that Caesar was killed in -44 and Cleopatra died a few years later.
So, Jesus was, what, almost 80 years old when he was crucified?
(Sorry, I didn't watch YouTube, I never watch it. Did I miss much?
)



[edit on 18-7-2008 by AdAstra]

[edit on 18-7-2008 by AdAstra]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Note for Jordan Maxwell:

Doctors use the term "C section" Cesarian Section (?) - removed from the womb via scalple. was Cleopatria's Birth of her son (Cesarian ?) by c sect. ?
if so, then think about Cesarian also being suspected of being Jesus or the figure who dreamed this religous stuff up, after learning of the story of Horus or events simliar created christianity to conquer Rome the Roman Empire without war. if I remember the story told by Amenstop Productions. The Empire City State.. 6 hours of popcorn eating suspense on gootube - excellent video that proposed this was the blood line of the blue bloods who claim kin to the throne of England. oh, and they have infomation as to who they think is the ruler of the world.. pretty interesting... and escoteric agenda is also pretty interesting as well.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by BornPatriot
Note for Jordan Maxwell:

Doctors use the term "C section" Cesarian Section (?) - removed from the womb via scalple. was Cleopatria's Birth of her son (Cesarian ?) by c sect. ?


No... it's so called because Caesar himself was born this way. 90% of the women having this kind of birth died.


if so, then think about Cesarian also being suspected of being Jesus or the figure who dreamed this religous stuff up, after learning of the story of Horus or events simliar created christianity to conquer Rome the Roman Empire without war.


That'd be an interesting trick, since he was killed by Ptolomy in 30 BC, when he was 17 years old:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Yet another in a long line of ill-researched pseudo-theories that pseudo-scholars have conjured up about Jesus, which flies in the face of all sound historical and scholarly evidence, and shatters any notion of common sense and logic.

It's amazing how people think one book, or one theory, or one set of "evidences" can overturn literally hundereds of years of painstaking research, particularly the science of textural analysis in regards to the Bible. Some people have no idea.

Do some real research, please.

EDIT: Sorry if I sounded harsh, this topic is one of my pet peevs.

[edit on 18/7/2008 by sollie]

[edit on 18/7/2008 by sollie]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
This video is called Ring of Power. It's afour disc movie. I have it in my library. It's very good. there is a long thread about this video here



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
That'd be an interesting trick, since he was killed by Ptolomy in 30 BC, when he was 17 years old:
en.wikipedia.org...


Don't you mean Ptolemy/Caesarion was killed by Octavian/Augustus?

[edit on 18-7-2008 by TheComte]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Good one, I like. JC was apparently a leader of a political party, liked by the Romans, his mother was a virgin (haha read Mark) and yep, we have a basis for his power, oh and the ol' JC thing (you know, the Julius Caesar) with an all powerful one to rule them, the Emperor. Maybe Christianity was a Roman plot? Think JC (the younger) was independant though (Raiki, Briton Herbs) and so on.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdAstra
reply to post by kshaund
 


Well, I am sure many historians would call it "blasphemy", considering that Caesar was killed in -44 and Cleopatra died a few years later.
So, Jesus was, what, almost 80 years old when he was crucified?
(Sorry, I didn't watch YouTube, I never watch it. Did I miss much?
)

[edit on 18-7-2008 by AdAstra]

[edit on 18-7-2008 by AdAstra]


Yes, you did (miss much)! I don't know all the history - but the video does explain the entire connection as well as the timeline as you mentioned above. Seemed to be very well put together - whether its true or not...?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by sollie
Yet another in a long line of ill-researched pseudo-theories that pseudo-scholars have conjured up about Jesus, which flies in the face of all sound historical and scholarly evidence, and shatters any notion of common sense and logic.

It's amazing how people think one book, or one theory, or one set of "evidences" can overturn literally hundereds of years of painstaking research, particularly the science of textural analysis in regards to the Bible. Some people have no idea.

Do some real research, please.

EDIT: Sorry if I sounded harsh, this topic is one of my pet peevs.

[edit on 18/7/2008 by sollie]

[edit on 18/7/2008 by sollie]


Well, for one, overturning literally hundreds of years of painstaking research means very little when its been bastardized over and over ad infinitum throughout history to begin with so who's to say it was right to the 't' to begin with? Everything based on records - records destroyed, records altered, records made up, best guessed translations of records, etc.

And not sure what you mean by 'real research' - I've read tons of stuff, visited places, interviewed about thirty other researchers (not in this exact area), but research yes - I just happen to think it's all to much for one person to know it all - so why not learn from others?

Did you watch the video? I haven't researched much about any of it (and didn't claim it to be right or wrong) - but found it most intriguing for many reasons, mostly because it may just be another clue in a the big lie.

Not sure why this is one of your pet peeves - it's too new to me (the idea of Jesus being the son of Cleopatra.... ) to be a pet peeve so I presume you've looked at this line of reasoning before?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by BornPatriot
Note for Jordan Maxwell:



BornPatriot - I'm exceptionally curious why you posted this with a Note for Jordan Maxwell? I know of him and have worked with others who have worked with him - so just couldn't help but wondering...


I'm not too good at history stuff so have no idea one way or the other - but I thought it was a very interesting perspective and bound to make a few butts pucker as people sit up straight... or not...



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by redled
Good one, I like. JC was apparently a leader of a political party, liked by the Romans, his mother was a virgin (haha read Mark) and yep, we have a basis for his power, oh and the ol' JC thing (you know, the Julius Caesar) with an all powerful one to rule them, the Emperor. Maybe Christianity was a Roman plot? Think JC (the younger) was independant though (Raiki, Briton Herbs) and so on.


Yeah, definitely my kind of man!



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I watching it right now. Great conspiracy stuff!!!



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Well Jesus was born of Virgin - and if a women has a C sect... well that might be a virgin birth, Jordan Maxwell is one of the most learned persons on the orgins of words and terms. and Cesearian ISIS's Son or Cleopatria's Son.. might explain Cesearians 30 year quest through tibet. as the empire City state or Ring of Power states.
Jordan searches his name out frequently and abovetopsecret will pop up ..

[edit on 19-7-2008 by BornPatriot]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by BornPatriot
Well Jesus was born of Virgin - and if a women has a C sect... well that might be a virgin birth, Jordan Maxwell is one of the most learned persons on the orgins of words and terms. and Cesearian ISIS's Son or Cleopatria's Son.. might explain Cesearians 30 year quest through tibet. as the empire City state or Ring of Power states.
Jordan searches his name out frequently and abovetopsecret will pop up ..

[edit on 19-7-2008 by BornPatriot]


That explains it - I hope he's doing well - he used to talk with Robert Morning Sky at conventions a decade or so ago which is when I came across his work. Thanks for clarifying



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Yes I have seen the video. If I'm not mistaken, it's a clip from Empire of the City. I like some of what is presented in that video, mostly the stuff about the last 100 years or so. This part about jesus is just embarrassing though.

I have read many books that elaborate on this and many other alternative Jesus theories, all of which have nothing but anecdotal and speculative reasoning as evidence - no historical texts, no ancient manuscripts, no oral history, nothing that links them with the past in any way. These 'alternative theories' about Jesus are contemporary fabrications which are either dreamed up by people who claim to have 'special knowledge' (think Madam Blavatsky, Edgar Cayce etc etc), OR are claimed to be great underground secrets passed down through the centuries by occult societies etc (think Dan Brown, Jordan Maxwell etc etc). Or a combination of the two...

One thing all these theories have in common is misrepresenting historical facts to suit a new agenda/narrative. They always rely on bending the facts and figures, say, 40 years or more to line up unrelated events and historical personages, and then they say - "Ohh history is a shady thing, we can't rely on things that have an historical basis, but we can be certain that this new interpretation of unrelated things with no historical basis is not shady at all!". Just silly.


Well, for one, overturning literally hundreds of years of painstaking research means very little when its been bastardized over and over ad infinitum throughout history to begin with so who's to say it was right to the 't' to begin with? Everything based on records - records destroyed, records altered, records made up, best guessed translations of records, etc.


Speaking from a historical and intellectual point of view - this is simply not the case. Why do people have such warped ideas of how the bible came to be?

To say that the bible has been bastardised 'throughout history' is just plain uninformed. The bible we have today does not come from monks who copied it and copied it 'throughout history'. That was the old Catholic vulgate and the old King James translation. No one uses them any more because their edits and mistranslations have become apparant (even though they are relatively minor). The modern bible translations we have today come directly from collections of literally 1000s of manuscripts that existed 100s of years before the Roman Church ever existed.

This site gives a good general overview of the vast areas of research that have gone into Textual Analysis and Biblical Criticism.

Also check out the Wiki entries for Higher and Biblical Criticism.

I don't advocate these particular approaches to studying the Bible, except to say that A LOT of work has been done to scrutinise and dismantle the bible, and still it performs exceptionally well as a reliable historical resource.

I'm not defending the bible or the traditional story of jesus either, I'm just giving a comparison of a theory with a sound historical basis and many lifetime's worth of work behind it, and a theory that has zip, and continues to have zip, because there is zip to confirm it except the speculations of a few axe-grinders and soothsayers who have little to no regard for actual scholarship.

Not blasphemy. Just a theory without so much as a pegleg to stand on.

[edit on 20/7/2008 by sollie]



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
what are you trying to say here? that the bible is accurate? what nonesense, the old testament is not up for debate here and the new testament is a total mess, everything is missing for reasons only obvious to the vatican.
the historians in these times made note of stories that arrived in their areas. Well i cant exclude the possibility of this story actually being true. It's a lot more plausable than these stories of burning bushes telling you to kill you kids, or some guy in the sky telling you to make a list of JUST 10 things you cant do. !!JUST TEN!! come on thats bull# from an omniscient being, this whole bible story is crap. Its right in your face if you read it. God kills everyone(men women children citys even animals, read ezechiel to understand what kind of god your dealing with here) in the bible, whilst the devil kills about 6 people in the whole book. How does that work then?

The story is improbable, but plausable.

what better way for a ruler to become god then to claim to be the new messias.

Its funny how these religions are always trying to kill everybody perhaps that is because these religions are actually war machines, prehistoric propaganda if you will.



  exclusive video


top topics
 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join