Jesus Christ is an extraterrestrial being from Venus, claims a spiritual society The Aetherius

[NeoGreen]

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, Earth’s 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]

1. Well, that would explain why He sometimes enjoyed a nice hot cup of molten lead.

[trotsky]

4. Who doesn't?? n/t

[wryter2000]

2. Just FYI

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]

15. Except Nazareth likely didnt exist at the time.

So it really doesn’t 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]

16. He was also allegedly born in Bethlehem

Although this was almost certainly added to fit the messianic requirement.

[struggle4progress]

19. From Bart Ehrman's blog: Did Nazareth Exist?

... 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 Salm’s 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 Alexandre’s 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 Salm’s protestations say the following: “Salm’s 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 Nazareth’s 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 Salm’s 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 Salm’s reasoning is often weak and shaped by his preconceptions. Overall, his central argument is archaeologically unsupportable” ...

https://ehrmanblog.org/did-nazareth-exist/

[Major Nikon]

20. Compelling to whom?

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:

“Of course there isn’t a name plate to say this is the childhood home of Jesus.

It can’t 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]

21. Ehrman is a scholar of the period

[Major Nikon]

23. I'm not saying he isn't

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]

25. Assuming that the scholarly estimates, for the dates of the earliest Christian texts,

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]

27. The whole point is the oral tradition is garbled

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]

28. Make up your mind: it seems inconsistent with your view that there was no such place,

if you think an earlier Jewish prophecy demanded that the messiah come from Nazareth

[Major Nikon]

29. My mind is rarely made up. That is the realm of the believer.

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]

3. Just as valid as anyone else's claim about him.

[MineralMan]

5. Makes as much sense as the more common story, I guess.

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]

8. I thought Willem Dafoe in the Last Temptation of Christ

played the best Jesus. I could identify with the scruffy radical.

[MineralMan]

9. I'd cast Joe Pesci if I were making a Jesus movie.

Just for the LULZ.

[marylandblue]

10. Well... I could see him driving out the money changers with a baseball bat

[Mariana]

26. I finally figured out who that is.

I knew he looked familiar. He's Joe Manganiello. I've seen him on the teevee machine.

[marylandblue]

6. So Jesus just came to Earth for the weather?

[Binkie The Clown]

7. These people are fricken crazy! Everyone knows men are from Mars, women are from Venus. nt

[atreides1]

12. Uh huh

So, you're saying that Jesus was really a woman???

[Pope George Ringo II]

24. Not necessarily.

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]

11. They've been listening to too much 1970s-era Elton John.

[edhopper]

22. Yes, exactly

"And Jesus he wants to go to Venus..."

Is Bernie Taupin in this cult?

[elocs]

13. Since the claim cannot be definitively proven false, then it must be on equal footing

with all of the other claims about gods and deities and their existence.

[left-of-center2012]

14. Jesus from Venus? No No No

[Iggo]

17. No less ridiculous than the standard story of Jesus. (n/t)

[NeoGreen]

18. Is this one of the mysterious ways?...

...curious minds might like to know..