Why is the hypothesis of ET "highly improbable"?

[William]

From "The fabrication of Jesus." thread, this;

[Replying to post 41 by historia]

But, just because we can't be certain, doesn't mean that all hypothesis are equally probable. It's possible that Jesus was an alien who visited earth, but that hypothesis is highly improbable.

Recently I created a thread called "The Abrahamic religious beliefs taken literally" with the sub-heading "The explanation which involves science rather than magic" in the Members Only Chat forum.

The thread has attracted no interest from Christians on this site and derisive comments from one atheist, with the observation;

You're certainly not going to convince any religious people because they have no desire to start believing in aliens instead of a "God". Not only that but their first question to you would no doubt be "Who created the aliens?".

post 4 by Divine Insight, which in part answers why Christians are loath to broach the subject or get into any significant discussion regarding it.

However, to state that the hypothesis is 'highly improbable' does require explanation.

As far as I am concerned, this hypothesis is still very much on the table and as such, does indeed require serious consideration.

Questions for debate.

1: Is the hypothesis of ET highly improbable because it threatens the beliefs of the Abrahamic Organised Religions?

2: Because it defies the known laws of physics?

3: Or perhaps other reasons I may have overlooked?

[William]

[Replying to post 36 by FarWanderer]

Of course I've been exposed to it. And I enjoy talking about it.

And I appreciate that you are contributing to this thread with your own ideas re this subject.

A number of people witnessing a seemingly impossible event tells us nothing about how that event came about. For example, let us consider some other naturalistic hypotheses:

1) Biblical miracles were carried out by a secret society of Atlantians (humans) with their secret ancient technology.
2) Jesus was a mutant, like in X-men, and used his mutant powers to perform what appeared to be "miracles" to his followers.

Are these hypotheses any less deserving of serious exploration than the alien hypothesis?

While these ideas are popular among different groups, they are not the focus of this thread topic. Even so, it is all very well bringing them to notice but you still would have to explain how they came to be, which is something I have done with the ET.
This would of course entail having to create another thread to explore these as possibly probabilities unless they can be dovetailed with this thread topic.

I am not going to pretend that I understand the "probability" of unknown beings from an unknown place using unknown technology in order to found a religion among humans for unknown reasons.

If that's bias, then I am guilty.

What you are guilty of is not appreciating that just because ET may be involved as the primary trigger they did not 'found a religion' or even plant the idea of GODs into the human social psyche. These come naturally enough. Rather the ET used their influence to steer humans toward a better idea of GOD and that this was problematic.

Their agenda was not to get people to worship them as GODs, but rather to stop worshiping false images of GOD. To 'peace out dudes'. To realign their behavior in order to allow for the best possible chance of surviving as a species.

If you have been reading the context of my other replies in this thread you would also be aware that I am not against the idea of 'afterlife' (it is a part of my overall theology) and in that, individual and collective human behavior also ripples into that dimension, so it is imperative that humans have the understanding that 'what happens on Earth' does NOT stay on Earth but also has an affect - a ripple effect - upon that other realm.

If this is the case, then yes - ET would be aware of this and it would be part of their agenda to find ways to help change that by helping to change the behavior of the human species.

In relation to that, while the focus is primarily on the Abrahamic religions, ET are not confined to that aspect of human culture and their subtle influence can be seen in all other cultures and creeds as well.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence re ET.

Do you mean like crop circles, blurry photographs, and alien abduction stories? Perhaps we could start a thread in the "Science and Religion" subforum.

No - I mean specifically in how human cultures once separated by natural barriers which are now connected have impressive similarities to their cultural mythologies which can been seen as circumstantial evidence of probably ET involvement. As well as this, we have any amount of individual subjective experience which people have shared which also provide us with a fairly coherent picture related to this universe and the alternate one which is also mentioned in this thread discussion.

The most engaging circumstantial evidence I have for myself is my own subjective experience - as brief as it was - with ET.

Perhaps without one paying you a personal visit, you cannot 'change your mind' and perhaps too, even if one were to visit you, you might just put that down to a simple brain malfunction. I find it interesting how different an atheist might react to such a thing as opposed to how a theist might react, but in saying that I also find it interesting how both types of reactions achieve a similar result. As in 'Set the default to Ignore', in order to protect their most comfortable positions re 'world view'.

Well, it's a common psychological defense mechanism. I consider myself a pretty flexible thinker, but I'd be lying if I said I knew exactly how I'd react in a situation like that.

From my own experience, I can only say that how anyone would react is entirely dependent upon their overall psyche. Most of us are not even intimately aware of those deeper truths about ourselves, preferring the relative safety of surface mundanity rather than deep introspection.

[peterk]

[Replying to post 48 by peterk]

I'm sure that some are atheists for such psychological reasons, but in any dialogue with an atheist I would rather treat him with respect and assume that our mutual focus is on issues of truth and reason.

So what are you really trying to say? That the OP and subject generally lacks respect for Christians? Sorry I do not agree and I think if you want to pursue this angle it is best to start a thread about it rather than doing so in this thread.

No, I'm not saying that.
I'm happy to assume that you are respectful of Christians. My point is that it is more helpful in any discussion to deal with issues of truth rather than issues of motivation. If the topic is "Is there evidence in the Bible of ETs?" then let's discuss the evidence or lack of it, rather than guessing at the motivations of the people who aren't discussing it.

You can read more on what I have said about this subject in the links below;

ET and the notion of GODs...
Aliens may have existed in our solar system long before us

Lord on high? What is Adonai's agenda in relation to human beings?

Our Mothership Who Is In Heaven...Could extraterrestrial AI explain a literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden story?

Human beings as a means to an end

ET AI and the idea of interfering in human evolution discussed without the common Conspiracy Theory aspect.

I've browsed some of these articles, and I don't really know where to start. My overall feeling is that this is all about reading ET language into texts which originally had nothing to do with ET at all. I see no reason to give the texts anything other than their standard "God focussed" interpretation. To me it feels like an example of "You can make a text mean anything if you push hard enough."

[William]

[Replying to post 52 by peterk]

My point is that it is more helpful in any discussion to deal with issues of truth rather than issues of motivation.

I get the impression that Yeshua did not separate the two. I tend not to either, but you may be onto something here in relation to the sort of behavior of avoidance.

As grandma used to say 'you've got a tongue in your head boy, use it!'

Occulting when it suits, is not productive to discussion and for a couple of thousand years Christianity has had no problem dishing it out re non-Christian motivations.

The question is simple enough but I appreciate it does require thoughtfulness and that it may not have been something many Christians have contemplated in any meaningful and serious manner.

But the underlying focus is upon the idea that it is 'okay' if the beings are claiming to be representative of a 'one true GOD' if those beings hearken from an 'alternate and apparently non-physical universe', but NOT if those beings are physical, and hearken from this universe.

This is really something no Abrahamic adherent should be keeping silent about, and occulting oneself behind silence isn't productive and if I am to decide from such inaction that the silence represents a questionable motivation, then that is perfectly acceptable under the circumstances, don'tcha think?

At least I am keeping it balanced as I am also noting the atheistic silence about this as well. In that I find it very interesting (as I have already mentioned) that herein can be found a common ground where both Abrahamic theist and atheist anti-theists seem united. THAT certainly gets the old Spirit of Sherlock Holmes active in me. It simply screams out 'pay attention!'.

But know - I do not accept the argument that issues of truth are separate from issues of motivation when asking the hard questions and being meet with walls of silence.

If the topic is "Is there evidence in the Bible of ETs?" then let's discuss the evidence or lack of it, rather than guessing at the motivations of the people who aren't discussing it.

No - the topic is not about that.
The general idea is that the stories in the Bible - if taken literally - could be the product of ET interaction. There is no evidence that the bible stories are actually true, nor is this here nor there in relation to the overarching topic.

This is precisely why the question is being asked of Abrahamic adherents specifically and everyone else generally. It is not just about the biblical stories either, but all cultural mythologies throughout the evolution of social human existence.

I've browsed some of these articles, and I don't really know where to start.

How about staring with asking yourself the question..."Is my faith based upon something which can be explained by ET interaction with human beings in more ancient times?"

Then go through the steps necessary in order to get to the most likely answer to that question.

My overall feeling is that this is all about reading ET language into texts which originally had nothing to do with ET at all.

On what basis are your feelings anymore 'evidence' than the observation that biblical stories may have their source in ET interaction with our species?

I see no reason to give the texts anything other than their standard "God focussed" interpretation. To me it feels like an example of "You can make a text mean anything if you push hard enough."

Well certainly we can examine your feelings about this in more detail and see what can be found in that, if indeed you are as keen to delve into the subject as your initial post indicated.

So 'what is the evidence' which can be gathered to support the supposition that ET is the most likely source of biblical stories?

I have found in studying the idea, that ET can also be found - as I have mentioned - in other culture and creeds throughout the world.

Take the culture of your own country - the indigenous Mori. We can see within their mythology and art a clear enough representation of ET and the effect of encounters upon their collective psyche.

Generally they are represented with fearful respect and consigned as 'ancestors' in relation to visitation.

There is also the familiar related stories of human individuals who are taken up into the heavenly 'layers' and shown things which they tell others upon their return. These individuals more often than not are venerated as cultural heroes.

All such stories do indeed map out the same thing, and that is more commonly known as 'The Astral Universe' - these are where the heavens and hells and everything in between the two extremes reside.

So yes we do have evidence that an alternate universe intimately connected with our own does exist and can be experienced.

However we also have evidence that the Astral universe is a creation of human (and other physical species such as ET) belief systems rather than it being the domain from where the physical universe got its existence from.

So then we have the problem of - if that is the case, how come we are encouraged to think it is the other way around? That we are a creation of it rather than it is a creation of ours?

This opens up a whole new spectrum of questions which have been occulted by the idea that that realm, created this one.

The confusion as far as I can so far tell is that there is the idea of a realm which is outside of this universe which did create our physical universe, but there is also a realm within our universe which has been created by our being within it and our developed beliefs in relation to that.

So the idea is that the Abrahamic organised religions have been lead to believe that the two realms are one and the same. That the universe from where our universe derives is the same as the Astral universe.

This idea - this conflating of the two different universes - is most likely sourced in the Astral universe and if that is the case, then the warning bells tolling 'deception' can be heard by those astute enough to hear them.

To put it into some simplified perspective then;

The Universe which is directly responsible for the creation of our physical universe can be referred to as "Universal Entity Reality" [UER].

As such UER envelopes our physical universe and we can say that our universe is the product/direct result of the belief system of the Universal Entity.

[For now at this point we might agree that the idea of GOD as understood by the Abrahamic religions is represented by the UE.]

Now in that - the creative process of the mind of the UE is 'copied and pasted' into the specifics through the common denominator of consciousness, in that the UE divests aspects of Its consciousness into form created for that specific purpose.

Now we are moving away from the common Abrahamic idea of GOD being a separate consciousness from all other consciousnesses in this universe but was that idea seeded from another source and embraced as truth even that it is not truth? How do we find out? We shall have to put the pieces of evidence together and see what can be found therein.

For now though, we have the UE going deeper and deeper into the density of this universe and in doing so, effectively, those aspects become lost to their true source - they are so deeply embedded into the density of this universe that they have no idea from where they came. They are lost to themselves - to the true nature of their source. (The UE)

Enter therein the natural need to know, and from that, the making up of stories in which to explain what isn't explained in any obvious manner.

Now - check out the pattern of consciousness. UE consciousness undivided creates this universe, and actively divests aspects of It's consciousness [itself] into the creation - and those aspects retain the same ability (albeit in far more limiting ways) and thus the belief systems developed by those aspects of UE consciousness lost to the knowledge of the source consciousness of UE, unavoidably contribute to the ongoing creation of another universe within this universe which is able to be experienced as real by those who collectively as individuals, created it.

Only those individuals by and large have no idea that they created it, and thus they understand it as being a direct creation of the UE (GOD), rather than - in truth - more the indirect creation of the UE through its individual aspects and certainly not the source universe which created this one.

Now here is the punchline as it were. Due to the nature of this process, everything created in this Astral universe is effectively real. It can be experienced as real but it also experiences itself as real.

Thus all 'GODs' and 'heavens' and 'hells' and every other conceivable thing ever imagined - not only by human beings - but by every critter able to do so throughout the whole universe (trillions of Galaxies and zillions of species) ...that is a lot of stuff being created which altogether contributes to the Astral universe so it is no wonder that those who have experienced the Astral have reported that it as being a far vaster universe than this physical one.

So all the things created in the Astral Universe which are sentient - they are REAL in terms of the fact that the creative process and power which created them is sourced indirectly with the UE through the belief systems of Its aspects.

And like all things real, they want to remain real, but in order to do so they have to convince those that imagined them into existence to keep believing in them, because what happens in the Astral realm is that when belief fades, then the creation fades as well. Belief is the key ingredient - the very thing which keeps these astral beings 'alive'.

One super advantage the Astral beings understand is that human beings do not understand that these Astral beings are the creations of human (and other) belief systems and believe them to be real autonomous creatures who are actually responsible for creating human beings!

This is a stunningly significant advantage because it means that as long as human beings are unaware of the truth, the Astral beings retain an upper hand and because human beings have also assigned many Astral beings with supper powers of influence and direction, the Astral beings can manipulate by engaging with the physical universe and influencing HOW human beings should belief, in order to maintain the deception and minimize the risk of unbelief causing the demise of Astral beings.

Crafty for sure.

This is also why - generally speaking - all individuate human consciousness ends up in the Astral realm after they each leave the physical universe upon the death of their bodies.

They SHOULD be returning to the UE, and indeed they THINK that is what they are doing. But what is really going on is that they are going to the place that was imagined into existence and believed in as 'heaven' so to speak - where they will meet the GOD of their imagining and spend eternity with 'Him' in 'His' presence.

Now one might think the above has moved well away from the OP topic, but it has not. It is a very complicated idea which requires studious attention, and if one is unable to see how such an idea could be understood by - say - the run-of-the-mill Christian as being a threat to their faith/beliefs etc, then one is not being studious enough.

Of course there is far more to this than what I have outlined above. Certainly it is focusing of the Extra-Dimensional entities (Astral beings) of which Abrahamics feel to embrace rather than the Extra-Terrestrial entities which they tend to want to ignore.

But that is enough for the reader to chew on for now. Do you have questions or rebuttal?

[William]

[Replying to post 46 by historia]

William's objection that this third hypothesis cannot be deemed "highly improbable" because it is plausible that alien's exist somewhere in the universe simply overlooks the obvious fact that we have to make various ad hoc suppositions about said aliens (which have been abundantly demonstrated above) to explain how Jesus could have been one. Each of these ad hoc suppositions, by definition, lower the probability of the hypothesis being true, thus demonstrating that this hypothesis is, after all, highly improbable.

It should be obvious that I was not so concerned with your arguments about an historical Jesus as I took the opportunity to use your statement to broach the subject in more detail by creating this thread.

As FarWanderer pointed out to you in Post 47;

For the record, I do think it probable that a man named Jesus did exist, had followers, and was crucified. It's certainly a far more sensible conclusion than aliens.

But it's an entirely different matter when it comes to the reports of supposed miracles.

Indeed, that is the focus of this thread in relation to biblical stories which defy all known physics with the observation that they could be explained by contemplating the idea that ET - some vastly more knowledgeable species - has everything to do with those particular stories.

Thus a merely historical Jesus stripped of the powers which are normally associated with him through the biblical renditions is neither here nor there in relation to this thread UNLESS the powers attributed to him are also regarded alongside the historical figure.

THEN "aliens" - the ET angle can be seriously contemplated as a possibly source of said powers through a technological process and is arguably NOT 'highly improbable' for that.

[AgnosticBoy]

Questions for debate.

1: Is the hypothesis of ET highly improbable because it threatens the beliefs of the Abrahamic Organised Religions?

2: Because it defies the known laws of physics?

3: Or perhaps other reasons I may have overlooked?

I don't think that it's highly improbable if you consider that we'll soon be able to walk on other planets. We've already been to the moon and have a space station. Perhaps some or most of the ancient records on angels, gods, etc reflect some contact with ETs.

[tam]

Peace to you William!

[Replying to post 20 by tam]

I don't know if I am correct in thinking that or incorrect. But something does not have to be probable in order for it to be true; it does, however, have to be possible. (even though I imagine that if all the facts and data were known, the thing that might once have been considered improbable would at that time be considered probable).

If all the facts and data were known regarding something, then it is no longer probable. It is certainty.

Yes, that is true. My point was that probability does not make something true or untrue, since probability is based upon current (scientific) knowledge. And that knowledge base is limited (and continues to grow). What might seem improbably today, could be probable (or even certain) tomorrow.

They were physical, when they were here. They simply are not confined to the physical (as we currently are confined). They are able to move from the spiritual to the physical (and back again).

Energy to matter to energy.


This is how my Lord was able to be touched and to eat food, and yet also move between walls. This is how He was resurrected and ascended (physically) but 'changed' before entering into the spiritual realm.

Even so, this does not mean that we are not dealing with a highly advance ET species able to carry out illusions of the laws of physics being broken. The example you gave, may have been the product of a highly advanced form of hologram.

What laws of physics are broken in moving from matter to energy to matter, etc? And if there are such 'laws' that state this is impossible, then might not those 'laws' have been based upon information/evidence/data that is yet incomplete?

As for a hologram, are you suggesting that Christ may have been entirely holographic? His crucifixion holographic, his mother's pregnancy holographic, his entire life holographic?


For what reason should someone accept that?

What is evident though, is in relation to things which happen where individuals experience the overlapping/superimposing of the two realms - through visions and apparently 'miraculous' happenings of clearly alternate reality experience - these are connected through the common denominator of sleep even that obviously those experiencing them are anything but 'asleep' as far as they are concerned. To an observer though, yes they would been seen to be asleep.

Paul was not asleep when he received his vision of Christ. I agree that one can receive visions while asleep, but also while awake. Also Daniel (chapter 10:4-7) was awake when he saw a vision of a heavenly being (actually also Christ), and there were men with him who did not see the vision, but who ran away in fear.

The focus of this thread though, is in the possibility that ET is connected with biblical stories, and how this needs to be regarded as the first most likely point of explanation for those stories before one starts to ponder on the alternate universes being the primary explanation. First the physical, then the spiritual, as one such saying goes.

IF we were going purely on probability, perhaps. Factor Christ and His teachings into the equation though, and His words carry weight. For someone whose faith is in Him, Him and His words are what come FIRST.

One does not have to disprove every hypothesis or theory that men come up with; one need only listen to Him.

Plus, would that not suggest that Christ - who is and who spoke truth - did not speak truth on some things?

Can one speak the truth to those who are unable to understand let alone accept that truth?

Christ did say to His apostle that He had more to teach them, more than they could yet bear. (He then taught them more things as the Spirit: that the gentiles were also being called, for instance.)

HOWEVER...

He never lied to them.

What you are suggesting would mean that He lied to His apostles and disciples. And/or (as you said earlier with regard to His promise to return) that others later made up stories and lies for their own purposes.

I wonder if you realize that this is what other religions claim as well? Islam (peaceful or non-peaceful sects) accepts "Jesus" but their own version of him. Anything that contradicts their version of him is believed to be a false teaching, and if that contradiction is in the bible, then that is believed to be a false teaching that got added into the text. In fact, most religions make room for "Jesus", but make him over in their own image so that he does not contradict their own doctrines/beliefs (make him over enough that He is no longer Himself to begin with).

Even "Christendom" does this.

Yeshua had to deal with the belief systems of that time and work with them.

So I have a couple of questions for you:

Why choose the belief system of Israel?

Why choose a time in which no one could accept (what you say is) the truth? Why not come at a time when at least some could accept (what you say is) the truth?


You must recognize the irony that if what you said were true, the reason those who profess to be Christian today reject this ET hypothesis would be because Christ went along with their beliefs from two (and more) thousand years ago.

Do you think (for example) that what he said to the woman at the well was what he believed was the truth about her? Is it not conceivable that the situation simply demanded he 'agree' with her, because it was far more practical than trying to convince her that her self impression was wrong?

I'm not sure what you are referring to. But if He said something, then I think - without a doubt - that whatever He said to the woman at the well, that is what He believed (rather, what He knew) to be true about her.


We have many examples of Him speaking truth, even if it offended people, even if it shook people up, even if it made things harder for Him, even when it got him persecuted and crucified. So no, I do not see anything to suggest that He would have 'gone along to get along' or even to make things easier for others. The evidence shows the opposite.

Mythology and other man made belief systems effective occult the truth. They act as walls which protect people from having to abandon their beliefs for the sake of the truth.

Many Jews rejected Him (and so rejected truth). However, you are suggesting that He did not speak truth to these people, and so what reason would any of them have had for rejecting Him?

Thus, masters like Yeshua have to allow for this reality - this protective mechanism that humans have built around their beliefs and thus the truth is not used like a wrecking ball, but more like a fine chisel and mallet and brush, slowly and surely chipping away at those beliefs, and sweeping away the debris. Chip too hard, and they might well crucify you.

The fact that He was crucified takes something away from your reasoning, does it not?

He did speak the truth. Truth that some (even many) did not like or want to hear. Do you not recall that most of His disciples left Him when He spoke of eating and drinking of His body and blood? They found it to be too hard a teaching to accept; and yet He spoke the truth anyway. Because SOME (His apostles and those who TRULY had faith in Him) continued on with Him, as He knew that they would.


**

Now what you said about everyone being connected to the "Mind" of the First Source... perhaps you might consider that it is holy spirit (the blood and breath and seed of JAH), more than the mind, that connects us to God (the Alpha and Omega - beginning and end - therefore the first source).



Just some things for you to consider, William. Thank you again for the discussion.



Peace again to you, and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[William]

[Replying to post 56 by tam]

Peace to you William!

Truth to you Tam!

Yes, that is true. My point was that probability does not make something true or untrue, since probability is based upon current (scientific) knowledge. And that knowledge base is limited (and continues to grow). What might seem improbably today, could be probable (or even certain) tomorrow.

Yes - I remember saying as much in relation to how ideas which were once science fiction have become science fact.
Part of this is because the fiction has been based upon the known fact - so the fiction acts as a type of predictor.
It is also why ET are probable, and it is probable they have visited this planet and interacted with human beings. The Science that we know today allows us to understand that this is possible.
In relation to the biblical stories - if taken literally - the best probable explanation is ET.

What laws of physics are broken in moving from matter to energy to matter, etc?

Will you explain to me exactly what does this, so that I can get a better understanding of what it is you are trying to point out here tam?

And if there are such 'laws' that state this is impossible, then might not those 'laws' have been based upon information/evidence/data that is yet incomplete?

Of course. But of the 2 options ET or ED, why assume ED is the better option to adopt?

As for a hologram, are you suggesting that Christ may have been entirely holographic? His crucifixion holographic, his mother's pregnancy holographic, his entire life holographic?

I was being specific to the example you gave tam.

Paul was not asleep when he received his vision of Christ.

2: He may have known he was asleep but didn't want to share that information.
3: He may have been awake as you say, and it was ET he was experiencing, especially if there were others with him who experienced the same thing.

I agree that one can receive visions while asleep, but also while awake. Also Daniel (chapter 10:4-7) was awake when he saw a vision of a heavenly being (actually also Christ), and there were men with him who did not see the vision, but who ran away in fear.

And there we can say that it may have been some form of complex hologram from ET technology being experienced by Daniel. The mere fact that I can say this is because we understand how possible that can be.

Hey - there is even CT circulating which says that the second coming of Jesus will be a staged event using holograms.

I mention this - not to get sidetracked, but to say that our collective understanding on what is possible evolves as our species science does, and if we do not take into consideration that ET might be involved re - not only - Abrahamic religious stories, but ALL cultural stories, then we do so - not because it is somehow beyond the reach of probability - but because the notion somehow changes things drastically if it were indeed the case.

The focus of this thread though, is in the possibility that ET is connected with biblical stories, and how this needs to be regarded as the first most likely point of explanation for those stories before one starts to ponder on the alternate universes being the primary explanation. First the physical, then the spiritual, as one such saying goes.

IF we were going purely on probability, perhaps.

Yes, we are, as far as the thread subject goes.

Factor Christ and His teachings into the equation though, and His words carry weight.

That is besides the point as far as I can tell.

For someone whose faith is in Him, Him and His words are what come FIRST.

Rather than what? His alleged actions, specifically the actions outside the realm of known physics?

Assuming that all the words attributed to actually having been spoken by Yeshua recorded in the new testament were spoken by him , how do those words change the probability that ET is involved? Please give some examples so we can examine them together.

One does not have to disprove every hypothesis or theory that men come up with; one need only listen to Him.

The element of faith - if used to argue against the ET hypothesis of course - only shows that the ET hypothesis does indeed threaten ones faith-based beliefs.
Please explain how you 'listen to him' that it shows clearly the ET hypothesis is incorrect.

Can one speak the truth to those who are unable to understand let alone accept that truth?

Christ did say to His apostle that He had more to teach them, more than they could yet bear. (He then taught them more things as the Spirit: that the gentiles were also being called, for instance.)

And how does anyone know that at some point where the Apostles were able to accept the previously hidden information, that the information Yeshua divulged was not in any way about ET?

HOWEVER...

He never lied to them.

What you are suggesting would mean that He lied to His apostles and disciples. And/or (as you said earlier with regard to His promise to return) that others later made up stories and lies for their own purposes.

Please show us in what I wrote where I suggested Yeshua lied.

And/or (as you said earlier with regard to His promise to return) that others later made up stories and lies for their own purposes.

Please show clearly where it is impossible that others who came after Yeshua could not - even in the name of Yesua, make up stories in order to mislead multitudes - stories which could easily dis-empower the masses through the masses placing their faith in such stories believing them to be from Yeshua...allowing the masses the luxury of resting on their laurels waiting for a savior to descend from the heavens and take command and give back to the masses the very thing which they were unwilling to receive for themselves simply by following his giving commands. In that, might I remind you of what you wrote earlier on re Yeshua's word...

For someone whose faith is in Him, Him and His words are what come FIRST.

...one need only listen to Him.

Is it not true that words attributed to Yeshua specifically warn his faithful that the masses would be deceived in his name?

I wonder if you realize that this is what other religions claim as well? Islam (peaceful or non-peaceful sects) accepts "Jesus" but their own version of him.

Well what of that tam? The truth is that, even within the different sects of Christendom, Christians also have their own version of Yeshua.

Anything that contradicts their version of him is believed to be a false teaching, and if that contradiction is in the bible, then that is believed to be a false teaching that got added into the text.

Before one goes pointing at other religions outside of Christendom, one has to examine the same practice being done within Christendom.

As well as this, the OP is about the Abrahamic religious stories so these different beliefs and versions etc are quite ordinary in relation to that. Of itself, the observation does not offer any serious rebuttal regarding the probability of ET being involved in relation to those stories.

In fact, most religions make room for "Jesus", but make him over in their own image so that he does not contradict their own doctrines/beliefs (make him over enough that He is no longer Himself to begin with).

Even "Christendom" does this.

Yes - even Christendom. But as I say, what of it? Do YOU have the inside scope on the true nature of Yeshua? Are you somehow different from anyone else you are pointing the finger at here?

If so - please share with the readers why this is the case, and how it is definitive evidence that ET has in no way been involved in the stories of the Abrahamic religions.

Yeshua had to deal with the belief systems of that time and work with them.

So I have a couple of questions for you:

Why choose the belief system of Israel?

Why choose a time in which no one could accept (what you say is) the truth? Why not come at a time when at least some could accept (what you say is) the truth?

First off I am examining the idea of ET as a probable explanation for stories sourced in the Abrahamic religions, so I am not claiming any truth tam.

If you follow the facts, you will discover that Israel was used specifically as a platform in which to integrate all human ideas of GODs into one idea of GOD.

This of course was problematic as the stories tell us.

In relation to the probability of ET being involved, timing re the decision to 'go to the next phase' happened after it was observed that all human ideas of GODs into one idea of GOD became established enough to do so. The idea was something which had taken hold as an indelible reality in the minds of enough humans to proceed with the next phase of the operation.

At the time of Yeshua, the Romans were the dominant superpower, but the Roman Empire was already starting to go into decline, albeit this was not obvious to most.

The idea Yeshua placed into the mix was one whereby - if humans followed it - then they could effectively come out from under the yoke of all systems of disparity. The message itself was focused upon that potential, but it would take a massive shift in understanding and support from the general population and as it was well understood the general population often - if not always - took the easy way, that potential still had to be supported.

As it turned out, the general population chose the easy path and heeled to the brutality of those who imposed social leadership and its laws.

Hench, 'history'.

As can be observed, the ET were not interested in being the superhero's who save the planet from human beings and human beings from themselves/each other.

As we now understand, the planet has already gone through at least one major catastrophe which annihilated most of the species which once thrived. In terms of lifetime, the planet has another chance of developing new and even improved biological lifeforms to replace the present ones, should humans prove to be the source of their own demise.

But more to the point, even now human beings do not have to be the source of their own demise. That is still very much up in the air. But as pointed out in earlier posts in this thread, the main agenda is to get human beings to a specific stage of technological know-how, and that agenda has been fulfilled. The rest is academic.

You must recognize the irony that if what you said were true, the reason those who profess to be Christian today reject this ET hypothesis would be because Christ went along with their beliefs from two (and more) thousand years ago.

I don't think that is the reason at all. The idea was to inject notions previously not thought about, into the collective human psyche. That egg would take time to hatch. ET work with what they have and know that to significantly shift the human paradigm, this has to be done in steps and one can see simply by looking, that Christians who reject the ET hypothesis are not doing so because Yeshua 'went along with their beliefs'.

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

You are unfamiliar with the story of the Samaritan women at the well? In that case, what you said following the above statement I will leave to one side for now.

Mythology and other man made belief systems effective occult the truth. They act as walls which protect people from having to abandon their beliefs for the sake of the truth.

Many Jews rejected Him (and so rejected truth). However, you are suggesting that He did not speak truth to these people, and so what reason would any of them have had for rejecting Him?

Where in what you quoted me, have I said Yesuah did not speak the truth to those who's belief systems act as walls which protect people from having to abandon their beliefs for the sake of the truth? I don't follow your argument here...please explain.

Thus, masters like Yeshua have to allow for this reality - this protective mechanism that humans have built around their beliefs and thus the truth is not used like a wrecking ball, but more like a fine chisel and mallet and brush, slowly and surely chipping away at those beliefs, and sweeping away the debris. Chip too hard, and they might well crucify you.

The fact that He was crucified takes something away from your reasoning, does it not?

Not when I also followed it with "We can agree that on occasion Yeshua abandoned the subtle and used a sledgehammer. He was not always patient." which you chose to leave out, so your comment of reply is out of context.

Now what you said about everyone being connected to the "Mind" of the First Source... perhaps you might consider that it is holy spirit (the blood and breath and seed of JAH), more than the mind, that connects us to God (the Alpha and Omega - beginning and end - therefore the first source).

First Source has no body, blood or breath - so who is 'JAH'?

If 'holy' = goodness and 'spirit' = 'attitude' then that is the nature and character of FS and this prevails throughout all that is within the infinite potential of the mind of FS.
Being this deeply involved within one aspect (this universe) of the mind of FS, we might not be readily able to appreciate that, but it is there to see nonetheless.

[peterk]

[Replying to post 52 by peterk]

Hi William,
First up thanks for taking the time to make such a detailed and extensive post. I can certainly tell that this is a subject you are passionate about!

I would also add that this whole area is brand new to me. I feel like I'm in the position of someone who has spent his whole life studying maths and physics, only to be told in his adult years that the world can only really be understood through the lens of medieval Italian poetry. The challenge in such a case becomes multi faceted. Not only do we have the standard questions about what's right or wrong; we also have the problem of even understanding what the other person is saying. You have certainly responded to a couple of my comments in ways that show you have misunderstood me (or I have explained myself badly); and I know for a fact that much of your position is confusing to me.

On now to a few specific comments:

My point is that it is more helpful in any discussion to deal with issues of truth rather than issues of motivation.

I get the impression that Yeshua did not separate the two. I tend not to either ... I do not accept the argument that issues of truth are separate from issues of motivation when asking the hard questions and being meet with walls of silence.

OK. You are of course free to respond to any viewpoint in any way you choose. But choices have consequences. For example, you could say either of these:
1. "I've had no response from any Christians, but I'll ask again because I want to hear their opinions."
2. "I've had no response from Christians, so it must be because they are scared of what it might do to their faith."
I'm just letting you know that for me at least the first of those is more likely to inspire a positive response.

If the topic is "Is there evidence in the Bible of ETs?" then let's discuss the evidence or lack of it, rather than guessing at the motivations of the people who aren't discussing it.

No - the topic is not about that.
The general idea is that the stories in the Bible - if taken literally - could be the product of ET interaction. There is no evidence that the bible stories are actually true, nor is this here nor there in relation to the overarching topic.

This is a good illustration of my point above, that it's hard to even understand each other. I was fairly sure I'd stated the issue correctly, only to be told that I had missed the point. And I find it hard to see the difference between "evidence in the Bible of ETs" and "the stories in the bible...could be the product of ET interaction".

Furthermore, I do consider the Bible stories in general to be true, so this is a point of major difference between us that would have to be explored further. (That exploration would have to include a careful definition of the word "literal" as it applies to Biblical texts. This is probably one of the most abused and controversial words in any discussion about the Bible.)

My overall feeling is that this is all about reading ET language into texts which originally had nothing to do with ET at all.

On what basis are your feelings anymore 'evidence' than the observation that biblical stories may have their source in ET interaction with our species?

My apologies for the wording I used. I'm by nature a thinking person, not a feeling person. I wasn't suggesting that my feelings (or thoughts) are evidence by themselves for the correct interpretation of a text. Just letting you know my position at this time.

I see no reason to give the texts anything other than their standard "God focussed" interpretation. To me it feels like an example of "You can make a text mean anything if you push hard enough."

So 'what is the evidence' which can be gathered to support the supposition that ET is the most likely source of biblical stories?...

...Of course there is far more to this than what I have outlined above. Certainly it is focusing of the Extra-Dimensional entities (Astral beings) of which Abrahamics feel to embrace rather than the Extra-Terrestrial entities which they tend to want to ignore.

But that is enough for the reader to chew on for now. Do you have questions or rebuttal?

[/quote]

Response4

[William]

[tam]

Peace to you William!

I apologize for the delay (plus it was so long I had to cut some things out, so if I have failed to answer a question or address something you wished to address, by all means, please point it out).

What laws of physics are broken in moving from matter to energy to matter, etc?

Will you explain to me exactly what does this, so that I can get a better understanding of what it is you are trying to point out here tam?

https://science.howstuffworks.com/envir ... matter.htm

How does this law affect matter? Albert Einstein theorized that matter and energy are interchangeable. Matter takes up space, has mass and composes most of the visible universe around you. Energy, on the other hand, takes multiple forms and is essentially the force that causes things to happen in the universe. Yet both matter and energy are variations of the same thing. Each can convert into the other. According to Einstein and the first law of thermodynamics, a fixed quantity of energy and matter exist in the universe.

So yes, humans can manufacture matter. We can turn light into subatomic particles, but even the best scientists can't create something out of nothing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrodger ... 16795c26ac


I did not realize scientists had already been able to transform energy (light) into matter until I looked this up just now, but I knew that it was possible to do the reverse.

Standing wave theory helped me get a sense of this (putting on and taking off the flesh) as well. Not suggesting that the science is complete or even entirely accurate yet; only that it helped me to get a sense of the truth my Lord was teaching me.


**

To go even farther, this also supports our realm (the physical realm) having come out of the spiritual realm. Considering that Christ (who came from God) is the Light through whom God created all things.

**

So what laws are being broken?

And if there are such 'laws' that state this is impossible, then might not those 'laws' have been based upon information/evidence/data that is yet incomplete?

Of course. But of the 2 options ET or ED, why assume ED is the better option to adopt?

Because my Lord teaches about the spiritual realm. Nor does science contradict His teaching. But I would like to be clear on something. Dimension might not be the most accurate word to use. Just the closest scientific word we have at the moment for that realm (when describing the spiritual realm versus physical realm).

As for a hologram, are you suggesting that Christ may have been entirely holographic? His crucifixion holographic, his mother's pregnancy holographic, his entire life holographic?

I was being specific to the example you gave tam.

So then why would my Lord do this? Use a hologram to pretend to move between walls, appear and disappear, or to eat food and allow Himself to be touched (after His death and resurrection)? Or to ascend?

Why would He do that (actively encourage the beliefs of the Apostles) and allow them to believe that it was He, Himself?

Why are you troubled, [Jesus] asked, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself. Touch Me and see " for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have. And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and feet. While they were still in disbelief because of their joy and amazement, He asked them, Do you have anything here to eat? So they gave Him a piece of broiled fish, and He took it and ate it in front of them.

I agree that one can receive visions while asleep, but also while awake. Also Daniel (chapter 10:4-7) was awake when he saw a vision of a heavenly being (actually also Christ), and there were men with him who did not see the vision, but who ran away in fear.

And there we can say that it may have been some form of complex hologram from ET technology being experienced by Daniel. The mere fact that I can say this is because we understand how possible that can be.

So then sleep is not a common denominator after all, correct? Because I had been responding to your words here:

What is evident though, is in relation to things which happen where individuals experience the overlapping/superimposing of the two realms - through visions and apparently 'miraculous' happenings of clearly alternate reality experience - these are connected through the common denominator of sleep even that obviously those experiencing them are anything but 'asleep' as far as they are concerned. To an observer though, yes they would been seen to be asleep.

Did I misunderstand what you were saying?

Hey - there is even CT circulating which says that the second coming of Jesus will be a staged event using holograms.

Considering that there are different views of how that return might happen, if something like this hologram event were to occur it might fool some people, maybe even many people, but certainly not all people. It should not fool those people who know their Lord; and who are walking by faith (and listening to His voice) rather than by sight.

But I have no doubt that this possibility is being put 'out there' for a reason: to discourage people; to try and make people doubt that they could know it is Christ when He truly does return... and/or try and make them doubt that it is Him when He does return (if that is even possible).

I mention this - not to get sidetracked, but to say that our collective understanding on what is possible evolves as our species science does, and if we do not take into consideration that ET might be involved re - not only - Abrahamic religious stories, but ALL cultural stories, then we do so - not because it is somehow beyond the reach of probability - but because the notion somehow changes things drastically if it were indeed the case.

That might be so.

That being said, God and His Son are more advanced than our current scientific knowledge - they know it all (we know a tiny tiny portion). Christ said that He would lead us into all truth. All truth would include scientific truth as well; therefore I will just listen to Him.

IF we were going purely on probability, perhaps.

Yes, we are, as far as the thread subject goes.

Hence, the reason I did not feel like I should contribute to this thread. I do not put much weight upon probability. Since probability is often determined by CURRENT knowledge and does not take into consideration that knowledge and evidence we do not yet possess or understand.

Factor Christ and His teachings into the equation though, and His words carry weight.

That is besides the point as far as I can tell.

Surely, not in a conversation that is about Him (and His Father), or in a theory that mentions Him? Not when you are questioning why people in "Abrahamic religions" (or in my case, people who are worshiping the God of Abraham, as revealed by Christ) would ignore or discard the idea of ET.

For someone whose faith is in Him, Him and His words are what come FIRST.

Rather than what? His alleged actions, specifically the actions outside the realm of known physics?

I meant Him and His words come first, rather than theories and theologies that others set forth.

HOWEVER...

He never lied to them.

What you are suggesting would mean that He lied to His apostles and disciples. And/or (as you said earlier with regard to His promise to return) that others later made up stories and lies for their own purposes.

Please show us in what I wrote where I suggested Yeshua lied.

Remember I did add and/or that others made things up and lied for their own purposes.

But did you not just suggest above that He allowed His apostles to believe that it was He, Himself, instead of a hologram?

Why are you troubled, [Jesus] asked, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself. Touch Me and see " for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have. And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and feet. While they were still in disbelief because of their joy and amazement, He asked them, Do you have anything here to eat? So they gave Him a piece of broiled fish, and He took it and ate it in front of them.


That is more than allowing; that is stating outright.

And/or (as you said earlier with regard to His promise to return) that others later made up stories and lies for their own purposes.

Please show clearly where it is impossible that others who came after Yeshua could not - even in the name of Yesua, make up stories in order to mislead multitudes - stories which could easily dis-empower the masses through the masses placing their faith in such stories believing them to be from Yeshua...allowing the masses the luxury of resting on their laurels waiting for a savior to descend from the heavens and take command and give back to the masses the very thing which they were unwilling to receive for themselves simply by following his giving commands. In that, might I remind you of what you wrote earlier on re Yeshua's word...

For someone whose faith is in Him, Him and His words are what come FIRST.

...one need only listen to Him.

Is it not true that words attributed to Yeshua specifically warn his faithful that the masses would be deceived in his name?

That some would claim to come in His name and would deceive many, yes.
Hence, we must remain in Him, look to Him, listen to Him... not to men. Nor is He dead, but alive, and as a living being (who promised to be with us until the end of the age), He speaks and His sheep listen to His voice.


But why you would put stock in those words (that false prophets would come and deceive many), and not the rest of His words?

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

You are unfamiliar with the story of the Samaritan women at the well? In that case, what you said following the above statement I will leave to one side for now.

I am familiar with the story. I am not sure what you meant about the woman's 'self perception':


Do you think (for example) that what he said to the woman at the well was what he believed was the truth about her? Is it not conceivable that the situation simply demanded he 'agree' with her, because it was far more practical than trying to convince her that her self impression was wrong? - William

Thus, masters like Yeshua have to allow for this reality - this protective mechanism that humans have built around their beliefs and thus the truth is not used like a wrecking ball, but more like a fine chisel and mallet and brush, slowly and surely chipping away at those beliefs, and sweeping away the debris. Chip too hard, and they might well crucify you.

The fact that He was crucified takes something away from your reasoning, does it not?

Not when I also followed it with "We can agree that on occasion Yeshua abandoned the subtle and used a sledgehammer. He was not always patient." which you chose to leave out, so your comment of reply is out of context.

Not at all. It is the same thing. (well, not quite the same thing, since you can only imply that He was not patient, rather than that He was simply speaking the truth regardless of how others reacted.) But it is the same in that He did not have a problem speaking truth even if it offended people, or caused some to turn away from Him, or if it caused people to persecute Him, even eventually to crucify Him.

Now what you said about everyone being connected to the "Mind" of the First Source... perhaps you might consider that it is holy spirit (the blood and breath and seed of JAH), more than the mind, that connects us to God (the Alpha and Omega - beginning and end - therefore the first source).

First Source has no body, blood or breath - so who is 'JAH'?

JAH is the Most Holy One of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God and Father of Christ. The Most High God, whom Christ also called the one true God. There is no other god over JAH. He is the alpha (and the omega). There is no source before or above Him.


(Not all receive holy spirit - that is the breath/blood and seed of JAH, which makes us sons. But holy spirit is what Christ breathed out upon His apostles; holy spirit is the 'water' of life; this is also what Christ poured out on the people at Pentecost; holy spirit is what we are anointed with if we are anointed and made sons.)


Peace again to you William,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy