Jesus Christ's Superderterministic, Cosmological, Magnum Opus.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Your experience is unique as well. Jesus is no more unique than you or I or anyone else who's ever lived, in my opinion. No two peoples lives play out the same exact way, ever. That seems pretty unique to me.

I'm not saying that he and his message weren't special because they were and still are. Without Jesus' message I wouldn't be where I am right now (mentally), so his message is very special to me personally.

reply to post by daskakik


Don't forget that the reference to the Magi has them visiting Jesus as a toddler, so while

most theologians and religious historians estimate from evidence within the Bible that he was born in the fall of a year, sometime between 7 and 4 BCE.

and thus within the time of Herod, it is true that the signs leading the Magi, if the story is to be believed, did not coincide with his conception and birth, but which would have occurred during his infant years, yes implying that other children were born in even closer proximity to the signs.

However, this doesn't negate the idea of a Jesus sent away for training and in preparation for a return, possibly in a monastery somewhere (where there are books of all kinds) or even the sister Library of Alexandria, because the man had an absolute ingenious gift of psychological and spiritual insight along with artful debating skills, even mastery of the art of disguise, the works - and then, returning onto the scene armed to the teeth to fulfill the ancient prophecy and to perform signs and wonders among the people, while teaching them directly from the holy spirit about the kingdom of God come to man.

My point is that the historical Jesus who can still be found in the gospels, is a rather extraordinary person, for reasons that are very complex and in many ways, sorrowful, forming that sacred heart of his.

I think something dramatic happened in his early years, something formative and directly connected to John the Baptist, like a shared experience leading them to come to believe that they were the reincarnation of Elijah and Elisha, yet with Jesus being handed the role of lamb of God in this case the implication being that he had to remain pure, until the alloted hour, so he WAS working by a schedule, beginning with his baptism at the Jordan River (where he got the long promised double portion of the spirit), and ending on April 3rd, 33AD.

Therefore I think that Jesus did use the Passover lunar eclipse, because it was the only one visible during the governorship of Pilate, while coinciding with the Passover Preparation Day celebration preparation, that's so Jesus to use that to confound his enemies, which would mean that he was a Magi himself, who usually come in groups of 12 (not three, while there were three gifts), so where did he get that from, that knowledge that training and development, from being a carpenter's adopted son? I don't think so.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I have a theory that John the Baptist and Jesus were the same person. Da Vinci's "John the Baptist" alludes to this, along with some of his other paintings, including Bacchus and the Mona Lisa.

John and Jesus used some of the same terminology when speaking and they both went into the wilderness and fasted. You wouldn't be interested would you? I can tell you have an affinity for Leonardo's paintings, as do I.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Historically, John is clearly a different man, but they were like spiritually paired twins (as Elijah to Elisha), and Leonardo in the "Holy Infants Embracing" is depicting what he feels is an absurd conundrum in so far as John is the one who's actually destined to lose his head as the first martyr to the cause, while Jesus, the fair haired one, gets to enjoy free birds overhead and distant fields yonder, the implication being, from daVinci's POV that maybe John as the forerunner, and the elder Elijah type figure, was "the real Jesus" and/or that Jesus, and God, both took advantage of John and his opportunity to live a full life, or that John understood all these things and allowed it, making of him the secret power behind the apparent supremecy of Jesus, where da Vinci is rooting for John like an underdog, in a gravely humorous way. But I'm not sure God is laughing, or maybe he is. Poor John. If you follow the story, his spirit ends up pursuing his head all over the place, I should come back and post that, it's pretty strange, and rather amuzing in a da Vinci impish way.

John's love for Jesus, knowing of Jesus' lineage problem and his willingness to give his life for a cause greater than himself makes him a real hero in the Jesus story, an unsung hero who might even have gotten the short end of the stick, which is perhaps why his staff is always so longggg, and he did hold the whole thing in the secretive crux of his left arm.

Da Vinci seems to think that John and Jesus were in some sort of competition that John secretly won or something like that.

Da Vinci may have actually been another Jesus hater. Then again, with just one more bold re-frame of the context, and the final meaning and significance becomes apparent, revealing da Vinci to be an absolute genius, or just one step short of what God really had in mind.

I got it.

John and Jesus made a pact, years prior, before he went away (although they could easily have maintained correspondance even to long distances) - with John saying, in effect

I'll trade the second half of my life, for the first half of yours (Jesus staying perfect, and let's not forget his secret "problem" ie: fatherless and the root of his sorrow).

But John's already an ascetic Essenian Jew, so he's used to giving things up to be pure, but let's not forget the things he says about Jesus when Jesus is about to arrive and then when he actually shows up (how did John know?).

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Clue or puzzle piece #1)


John the Baptist, by Leonardo daVinci

"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
~ Mathew 3:11

The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
~ John 1:29

When Jesus was informed of John's death, he immediately turned to face Jerusalem, as if facing a fated destiny whereby the lot had been cast.

They were in on it together, right from the get go. There's no other way that John could refer to the returning Jesus as "the lamb of God who comes to take away the sins of the world". He knows precisely through and through, and all the way down the line what the "end game" is, including his own beheading, a fate he sealed when he publicly reprimanded Herod (Antipas) for the sin of marrying his brother's wife while his brother was still alive (the preferred method of execution in Hero's dungeon was likely beheading), with a final outcome whereby Jesus simultaneously binds the devil in his (their) clash with an evil empire and a corrupted temple, while liberating everyone including himself, as last, from the belly of the beast.

Why would John do this? For his love of Jesus, and God, whereby Jesus' early life sorrows become his future overflowing cup of joy, something John makes possible, even functioning as Jesus initiator, like Elijah to Elisha, and Jesus was convinced that John was indeed the reincarnation of Elijah, and thus the baptism at the very same location (Jordan River) where a certain ancient promise was made, as yet unmet, for a double portion of the spirit, which then came in John's vision like a dove to settle on Jesus, including a voice saying "this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased."

They really knew what they were doing those two, that's for sure, but that Jesus actually DID pull it off, AND get to have his cake and eat it too, as planned, is just the most wonderful thing I can possibly imagine. Talk about a triumph!

This doesn't mean that Jesus couldn't have set it up for himself in a double-blind scenario whereby he really was obedient unto the point of death on the cross, while at the same time seeding the means by which he would thread the needle, and exit the tomb three days later, in people like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, maybe even a certain Roman soldier, like secret co-conspirators (either knowingly or unwittingly) with God's plan.

That's pretty cool as far as I'm concerned, a pretty awesome "conspiracy" of the very best possible kind. Pretty though is an understatement, because I think it's just magnificent! A great work among the people, just like Isaiah prophesied.



It makes me smile and even laugh out loud.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Notice how "John the Baptist" and the "Mona Lisa" both share almost identical facial features and the same enigmatic smile.

Mona is short-hand for Madonna in Italian, which Da Vinci spoke, the virgin Mary is sometimes called the Madonna and is the focus of Leonardo's "Madonna of the Rocks".

Lisa is short for Elisabeth, which was John's mothers name. Lisa is also associated with lily flowers, which represent who? The virgin Mary.

The Mona Lisa is most likely a self-portrait of Da Vinci, only as a woman. The gender swap of the Mona Lisa, the facial features, the meaning behind her name, and John's feminine qualities lead me to believe that Mary and John are the same person.

Both John and Mary were born miraculously by very old women, another coincidence. John is also pointing to his chest and sky as if saying "I am god". Jesus was god too...

Now take a look at Leonardo's "Salvator Mundi". It looks like Jesus' face doesn't really belong with the rest of the body, does it? Almost like it was slapped on top of another face. The curly hair and his fingers are very feminine as well, and if you look close you can see what look like breasts as well.

Now look at his painting of John the Baptist in the wilderness, a.k.a. Bacchus. He's pointing off to his left and down toward the ground as if saying "other is Satan". Bacchus was the Greco-Roman god of theater (make-believe) and is considered a "dying god", which include those who die then resurrect. Jesus died and then resurrected just as Bacchus (John) did. Nohn having the attributes of Bacchus painted onto him symbolizes John the Baptist being a make-believe character. Coincidence? I don't think so.

All this (plus other stuff) leads me to believe that Jesus, John, and Mary are all the same person, only morphed into several people by the Romans in order to hide her true identity.

Romans were misogynistic and believed in men having all authority, so a woman coming along and having such authority in her words drove them to suppress her true gender, in my opinion.

Also, John baptizing Jesus was actually Mary giving birth to a baby boy, a.k.a. John the apostle whom Jesus (Mary) loved. John was the forerunner of Jesus because "she" (Mary) was pregnant with him. Baptizing symbolizes birth, Jesus coming out of the water and seeing the heavens opened up to him and the spirit coming down him like a dove symbolizes John the apostle (Jesus) being born, in my opinion.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


That's cool and we'll alll entitled to our points of view.

I think that da Vinci image above is an absolute masterpiece like The Last Supper, and that its' pointing to John's role in the conspiracy as initiator of Jesus.

Combined with "Holy Infants Embracing" and the picture becomes clear as to what daVinci is implying, which from my POV simply shows the magnitude of John's love, as a civilized person, which is in stark contrast to his hairy and disheveled appearance. John is glorified even as his head is falling off, and he'd held the long staff secretly in the left arm, all along.

The feminine aspect I think depicts his love for Jesus, like a motherly, protecting love because that's precisely what it looks like since John is making Jesus' future suffering and future joy possible. Somehow the two of them figured it out. That's what I think, that it's a conspiracy that led to the cross at the intersection with a blood-red moon.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


John has "motherly" love for Jesus? That's funny because my theory is that John is Jesus' mother, that's one spot where our theories connect.

The Last Supper is a good one too. The space between Jesus and John is in the shape of a V, which is a sign of femininity and child-bearing. Another connection to my theory.

Holy Infants Embracing is another good one as well, the two kissing symbolizes the two being one, in my opinion.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
musical interlude..

In the Christian context that some among us have been inquiring into and exploring, consider this like a mutual love song, sung by God to us, and us to God, whereby in the final analysis it doesn't even matter who started singing to whom first.

And when we don't sing to God, and sing our love for God, like David did, then we leave God to sing alone, in mournful longing, which might go something like this

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

First off, does anyone "get" the nature of da Vinci's grave joke in his painting below? (Jesus is the fair haired child, free birds flying overhead..kissing a seemingly somewhat reluctant John the Baptist. who is clawing at Jesus' neck with his left hand).

The Holy Infants Embracing, by Leonardo daVinci

The Holy Infants Embracing is a painting ascribed to Leonardo da Vinci, housed in the Capodimonte Gallery in Naples, southern Italy. It is thought to represent the infant Christ embracing his cousin John the Baptist. The subject matter relates to the two paintings of the Virgin of the Rocks by Leonardo and numerous other Renaissance works by Raphael and others of the meeting of the two children on the road to Egypt while escaping the Massacre of the Innocents.

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not so sure da Vinci has them kissing each other. It's just Jesus baby kissing John baby. John isn't necessarily cooperating, and only subconsciously knows to reach out and paw at Jesus' neck with his left hand.

The earth symbolizes the manifestation and thus the circumstances they were placed in presumably by God.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Sorry but the Bible places Herod, Jesus, the Magi and the Star all together at the same time (within a matter of weeks). This is impossible. Herod, the Magi and the star couldn't have come together no matter how much you shift Jesus' birth. The software that you think proves the validity of this thread actually does the opposite.

I never said that it negates Jesus but it does negate your premise that the signs that happened upon his birth hinted at his greatness or whatever link you want to make between Jesus and the universe, which, I guess, is the reason for the word "Cosmological" in your title.

Don't try to change the message of the OP now. You said:

If, like me, and I'm sure most ATS'rs, you're impatient to get to the heart of a largely unexplored mystery and try to solve the "conspiracy", here's a preview of what's to come, which will serve as a type of foundation stone for our subsequent investigation, one which will I am convinced prove this piece of the puzzle to be completely valid.

With The Real Star of Bethlehem (part 1 of 7) embedded.

Now that your foundation stone has been shown to be wrong you are trying to switch it for:

My point is that the historical Jesus who can still be found in the gospels, is a rather extraordinary person

Sorry but if the story of the Birth/Herod is not accurate then why should anything else in the gospels be taken to be historically correct?

You grokked wrong. You know the humble thing would be to admit your mistake.

reply to post by daskakik


Of course John is "historically" a different person. Did you know that Josephus (a Roman) is the only source outside of the bible to ever mention John the Baptist? And he wasn't even born before John was supposedly beheaded. That leaves room for my theory in my opinion.

The only "concrete" evidence that John the Baptist existed are both Roman accounts. Romans are the ones who crucified Jesus. You can't always trust "official" history. The only sayings from John are from the bible and the way he presents his case is almost identical to the way Jesus did. I plan on making a thread on this at some point in the future after I really flesh out the theory a bit.

ETA: Oops! I replied to the wrong post, sorry. This is aimed at NAM.

reply to post by daskakik

I never said that the birth story of the gospels is historically accurate, and it is believed that the Magi visited him not as a baby, but as a toddler (there's a cite for that somewhere). For reasons that I've covered in this thread, the virgin birth story is shrouded in myth.

But indeed if the Jupiter/Venus conjunction occurred about 3 BC or thereabouts, then the Herod story is thrown into doubt, unless there's any discrepancy in the dating of the years from BC to AD, not counting that there's no year zero.

Also the Cosmological goes with Magnum Opus, meaning the cross, so if I can demonstrate that the day of the cross coincided with that lunar eclipse on Preparation Day of the Passover, then the premise of the thread is still valid, even if there's some confusion around the timing of the Jupiter/Venus conjunction and the Jupiter retrograde motion which is purported to have led the Magi to the young boy Jesus.

What you are disputing is the idea that Herod interacted with these Magi and then ordered the killing of the 300 children, which I agree is suspect. However, Magi do traditionally come as a group of 12 probably to symbolize the 12 signs of the zodiac, so one wonders where Jesus obtained his knowledge and capabilities, which is also a big part of this thread.

P.S. Why are you such a jerk in relation to me and this thread, and my efforts to explore and seek out the historical Jesus?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


To add to this and another post, take a look at "Madonna of the Rocks" again. Why is the angel pointing at John the Baptist while looking at the viewer with a smug look on her face? Like I said with my theory, John the Baptist was the true Jesus and this is another hint in favor of it in my opinion.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Also the Cosmological goes with Magnum Opus, meaning the cross, so if I can demonstrate that the day of the cross coincided with that lunar eclipse on Preparation Day of the Passover, then the premise of the thread is still valid, even if there's some confusion around the timing of the Jupiter/Venus conjunction and the Jupiter retrograde motion which is purported to have led the Magi to the young boy Jesus.

The only thing that has been proven is that the writers of the bible had no problem adapting the stories in it to fit celestial phenomenon. If they did it with the birth why would you choose to believe that they wouldn't do it with the crucifixion?

P.S. Why are you such a jerk in relation to me and this thread, and my efforts to explore and seek out the historical Jesus?

Just being honest and trying to get to the truth. You admit that the bible is inaccurate so why accept anything it says about Jesus.

You are not just seeking out the historical Jesus, you are perpetuating the myth and you have not been able to prove what you set out to prove in the OP. Actually I pointed out other flaws in your theory early in the thread but you chose to ignore them and continued to accuse those who didn't share your opinion as unable to grok it.

There's nothing wrong with admitting that you got something wrong.

reply to post by daskakik

Yes, but you are willing to pin your counter argument based on the year of Herod's death, while at the same time denying the existence of the historical Jesus, which if he's there (which he is), corresponds very closely to the same timeframe, even to within a year to three years, thus making the dating of the crucifixion not impossible and I'll still bring forward that research. Additionally, there's also further clarification that I'd like to offer regarding the nature of the earth moon and sun relationship, which is also relevant in regards to Jesus understanding of his relationship to the father from what I can tell.

But as to the real Star of Bethlehem occuring in near simultaneity with Jesus biirth, that's definitely suspect, I'll admit to that, unless there's any sort of discrepancy or overlap between BC and AD.

I'll admit to that if you'll admit to the existence of a historical Jesus.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

But how can he be Jesus, and Mary, both, and John, I don't get it? And who then went to the cross?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by daskakik

 

Yes, but you are willing to pin your counter argument based on the year of Herod's death, while at the same time denying the existence of the historical Jesus...
...I'll admit to that if you'll admit to the existence of a historical Jesus.

This isn't a competition. Nobody gets extra points for getting the other person to say uncle.

I'm not admitting or denying anything. I don't know if Jesus existed or not but that is only part of your claim and the other is that this person was and/or did something superhuman. Honestly you haven't proven either and even if you could prove that Jesus existed that wouldn't mean that the second point is true.

Whether you admit that a source of information is suspect or not isn't going to change the fact that it is not reliable.

Also the earth moon and sun relationship really doesn't have any direct bearing on the existence/divinity of Jesus, except in your mind.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I have another wild theory for that as well. Mary Magdalene was John the apostle, it was Mary's son (John/Jesus) who was at the foot of the cross mourning the death of his mother.

Reread the trial of Jesus by Pilate, it mentions Pilate offering the crowd to save either Jesus or another man named Jesus Barsabbas (which means "son of the father"). In my opinion, when they seized Jesus (Mary) they also seized John (Mary's son), they then held him captive, which is why he traveled with Paul after the crucifixion. He was held captive, just as he alludes to in Revelation 13:10.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

At the very least they've tried to hold the spirit of God (Christ) captive, on that we can agree, that someone was held captive, but the point with Jesus completing the ritual in the new resurrection life, is that he already escaped, and can never be imprisoned or held captive, not by the church or any power or principality. Like the spirit the spirit of Christ (same thing) is radically free, and that's the same spirit which commingles in one accord with he who receives the free gift of eternal life, and if there's a church somewhere trying to contain it, this would be about the point where it would have to explode, because Christ cannot be contained, cannot be held hostage.

We share different takes on some of the same themes, which is kind of interesting.