A Proven Reality

1999-12-31 13:21:00

My Friends,

John's forum received a question that is worthy of a response.

"I am reading a book that states that there is no factual evidence that an actual entity called Jesus the Christ ever existed. It further supposes that the Son that is worshiped today as the Light of God that breaks the hold of Darkness is the SUN. It goes on to say 'The Christians portray Jesus with a halo around his head and that's exactly how the Phoenicians depicted the rays of the sun around the head of their Sun God, Bel or Bil.' It also says that Virgin births are recorded through-out history. Zecharia Sitchin says the Sumerian writings have all the same stories as the bible, but much different time frames. There is much proof of a great flood on the Sphinx in Egypt.

"There is an abundance of questions racing around in my brain; I feel the answers are just around the corner, but which corner. Any thoughts/information you could offer would be greatly appreciated. The instrument of suffering and death (the cross) as a symbol of love and light never made a lot of sense to me and I created much discomfort in church in my early years with questions I was not supposed to have, basically because they couldn't be answered by those I questioned. Thanking you in advance for any insight, I am your loving friend."

JJ
First I might add that a similarity of stories from different cultures add to the validity that something like that did happen, but perhaps not the way we have been presented. Secondly many things happen in cycles and there have been many great floods in our history.

Concerning Jesus, some have said that he was just made up by Constantine around 325 AD after he decided he needed a major religion with which to rule the world.

Now let us look at the logic of this possibility. Let us suppose that Bill Clinton wanted to establish a new religion around a phantom character who is supposed to be the most loving and intelligent person who ever walked the earth.

First of all he would have to find four books, similar to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, that would witness to this phantom figure. These accounts would have to be credible enough to be accepted as true by the common populace.

But the greatest feat that Clinton would face would be in finding words attributed to this Messiah that would be considered, by almost all people who read them, to be the greatest words ever spoken.

Imagine the difficulty in even creating a new "sermon on the mount?" In 2000 years no one has been able to give such a profound short speech. Perhaps the closest would be the Gettysburg address by Lincoln but most scholars will admit that this comes in a distant second to the words of Jesus.

Now it may be true that the Buddha and others said something similar in the past. It is difficult to write anything entirely new, but one must admit that the way the sermon was put together was much more profound than any teacher of the past.

He also gave profound parables with multiple meanings and almost every word attributed to him had such a profound meaning that no one has been able to duplicate. For Instance: You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. The first shall be last and the last first. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I and my Father are One. Ye Are Gods. Father, forgive them for they know not what they do. What other figure in history real or imagined has said such profound words over and over again? None that I know of.

So, if Bill Clinton wanted to create a false messiah he would have to have his staff put together something like the New Testament with 27 books testifying to the divinity of the man. Then after he puts it together it would have to be so believable that the general population would accept it. Now if such a falsehood were to present itself there would be a large percentage that would not swallow it hook, line and sinker. Many of these would leave writings exposing the fraud.

Even considering that the ancient emperors had much greater power than Clinton, this feat would still be close to impossible. An Emperor would have to pick a fairly well established religious belief to create a new Messiah around it.

It is interesting that no one questions the historical validity of Mohammed, Buddha or even the obscure Zoroaster, but with Jesus they will claim that he and his teachings were made up on a lark. When you bring the possibility of duplicating this up to the modern era the impossibility of it becomes obvious.

The very fact that the man and his teachings have withstood the test of time is perhaps the greatest testimony to his reality.

The fact that we have 27 books in the New Testament testifying of him plus hundreds of ancient works that never made it into the Bible is a very strong witness that is completely obviated by those who wish to prove Jesus to be an imaginary character. Few historians doubt that Jesus existed, but many believe that what has been recorded about him may not be entirely accurate.

The Book of Mormon was written as a second witness for Christ. Many have read this and have received additional confirmation about him. Another powerful modern witness is the writings given through Alice A. Bailey. This is one of the latest revelations of the Brotherhood, and when one reads her works a sensitive person cannot help but get soul confirmation. Her writings testify to the validity of the Biblical Christ. Yet another book that brought me closer to him was The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ by Levi. You can download this free from my web page.

Someone questioned my statement that Hitler was a vegetarian. I had never read anything to the contrary so I decided to do a little research. I found that the vegetarians, who are somewhat purist in belief, are very offended at the thought that Hitler could have been a vegetarian and are digging up everything they can to prove that he was not one of them.

Here are the facts as far as I can ascertain them. From 1931 on Hitler was mainly on a vegetarian diet, but was not 100% strict with it. He did deviate now and then and eat a little meat just like many "vegetarians" that I know.

It is an interesting contrast that while Hitler was this squeaky clean abstainer from meat, alcohol and tobacco, his counterpart in the free world, Winston Churchill, was just the opposite. Churchill ate lots of meat, smoked and could drink most people under the table.

If one goes by outward appearances only, many of the true lights of the planet will be overlooked.