Neither religious people or secular people can completely explain Joan of Arc for several reasons, possibly because they both impose their own limitations on what they're willing to consider. It shouldn't be hard to figure out that if God exists at all, he couldn't have the characteristics attributed to him by most, if not all religions. However, occasionally there is extraordinary evidence of a major unsolved mystery, as many skeptics often demand, even though it doesn't prove many conclusions that go too far. Joan of Arc may be one of those examples, although I wouldn't consider her case the simplest. More often than not the leading example I think overwhelmingly proves there are major unsolved mysteries is ancient megaliths that shouldn't have been possible to move with ancient technology, yet they were. Many other major unsolved mysteries may be related, although it may be difficult to tie them together conclusively.
If God exists and he's benevolent, as religious people believe, then there should be no doubt taht he would have communicated to all people, not just a handful of prophets. And if his messages were being distorted to lead people into wars based on lies, then he would have found a way to let us know that wasn't what he meant, and he could have done a better job than communicating through a peasant girl telling her how to fight wars, instead of how to avoid them. I can narrow down God’s characteristics, assuming he exists at all, with help from a quote from Epicurus, who lived long before Joan of Arc, although I doubt she ever heard of him:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
This means that either God doesn’t exist or he has an undisclosed motive and isn’t looking out for our best interests; therefore, he’s not a credible source of morality and shouldn’t be worshiped. If the God worshiped by Joan of Arc and other Christians have worshiped for thousands of years exists, there should be little or no doubt that he could have advised people how to get along much better long before the Crusades, Inquisitions and other religious wars as well as wars that may not be based on religion, assuming people think it through. But, of course, religious people have a long history of shutting down the thought process when it comes to major problems with their God, often saying something like, "It's not my place to question God's actions," and even though Joan of Arc was able to organize people for war to fight off the British, far better than you might expect any woman to do, since their culture didn't allow women to be leaders, or teach them to take this role, she also refused to question God's will.
When I express doubts about any woman being able to lead the masses, it's not because I doubt the potential skills of many women, any more than men; but because the masses at that time were taught not to accept the leadership of women, and they routinely suppressed women, even when they were as able, if not more able than men. The alleged explanation as to why they were willing to accept a seventeen year old peasant girl as a spiritual leader is not only that she allegedly heard voices that were attributed to God or messengers from God but also because several others including Charles VII also allegedly heard the voices on at least one occasion. As reported in Trial of Joan of Arc transcript which says:
Asked whether all who were there with the king, saw the angel, she answered that she thought the archbishop of Reims, the Lords d'Alençon, de la Trémouille, and Charles de Bourbon saw him, and many churchmen and others saw the crown who did not see the angel.
Historians have been baffled by the fact that Joan of Arc had a leadership role fighting the British starting when she was only about seventeen years old, although they don't know when her exact birthday was. What is especially baffling is that under her leadership they had an enormous amount of success fighting the British, which they didn't have before. There's little or no doubt, according to almost all sources, that she allegedly heard voices from several representatives of God, including the Archangel Michael, Saint Margaret, and Saint Catherine, or God himself, or she was somehow able to convince her followers that she was sent from God. One of the definitions of pseudo-skepticism is a skeptic who claims something is false, without providing evidence, instead of claiming that they consider it highly unlikely or unproven; another definition is when the skeptic provides alternative explanations so irrational that they're less likely than the far-fetched claims they're trying to debunk.
There seem to be two leading explanations for Joan of Arc, like many other major unsolved mysteries, one for believers and another for skeptics, but neither one of them seems to make complete sense, assuming people look close enough at the details, which most people often don't. In most cases religious people, especially Catholics, are more likely to take a closer look at the history behind Joan of Arc, and other Catholic Saints, some that may also have major unsolved mysteries attributed to them that skeptics might find hard to explain. But the faithful believers in God conclude that this might be evidence showing that God exists, and their own chosen beliefs about God must be true, even though there are many flaws about that version of God, like Epicurus's quote implying that God must have an undisclosed motive that's not in our best interests. If God was primarily interested in the best interests of the human race, as many religious people seem to believe, then he would teach them how to avoid wars based on lies, especially lies based on religious beliefs, instead of teaching them how to fight wars based on lies, and he would have done this thousands of years before Joan of Arc was born. But religious people, including Joan of Arc are taught from birth never to question God, and believe what they're told.
Skeptics go to the opposite extreme, often instead of trying to figure out what is true, they try to prove their own chosen beliefs are true, and this doesn't involve any unknown advanced intelligence. One of the most common explanations for Joan of Arc is that she's schizophrenic and as some people, including me and at least one other person wonder A mentally ill person couldn't convince anyone to lead an army. Yet this is exactly what Joan of Arc allegedly did, and there's an enormous amount of historical evidence supporting this claim. In many cases, skeptics come up with explanations that are absurd as the beliefs of the faithful without paying attention to an extensive historical record, which many others have gone into before so I'll only cover a small fraction of it here.
There's a long record about how she claimed she heard voices from several Saints or Archangels, and these alleged visions were routinely accompanied by a bright light. There were allegedly only a handful of other people that also saw some of these visions, and they only saw a small number of them; but there were many more that believed they were legitimate and they were messages from God. These claims were repeated many times by people living at that time, and there was a detailed record of these claims in the Trial of Joan of Arc transcript which few historians doubt. Some modern academics diagnosed her, based on the historical record, with schizophrenia or some other mental illness; however, whether you accept this explanation or not it doesn't come close to explaining how she could convince Charles VII and other leaders of the French to accept her as a leader or advisor to other military leaders, who also inspired the fighters, although she didn't fight herself, as some versions claim. She was most widely known for carrying a banner which helped inspire French soldiers, and claimed she preferred this during her trial. But she also wore armor, which was considered blasphemous in her time, and there is a legend about her finding a sword which allegedly had some mystical power helping them win battles, or so some thought, but she never fought with it; and at at least one point she carried a different sword, but didn't fight with that one either.
There are many more accounts much more detailed for Joan of Arc including the Wikipedia page for Joan Of Arc, which isn't the best or most detailed, but does provide many additional sources; and few of them can make complete sense of why she was allowed to take a leadership role in the war, except that she was guided by God, or at least able to convince people of this; but as I explained that version of God couldn't possibly be true. But without some kind of influence from an unknown advanced intelligence, whether you call it God or not, or some other far-fetched explanation, it's hard to imagine how she could have been such a convincing leader.
In Ancient Aliens: Season 2 Episode 10: Alien Contacts 12/30/2010 they ask "Are holy books the word of God, or guidebooks passed down by more advanced civilizations? Who told Joan of Arc how to defeat the English Army–saints or extraterrestrials?" As I've said on numerous occasions, Ancient Aliens isn't the most credible source, but even though they make lots of blunders, and don't always present their theories in a way that seems credible, they do get some things right, and unlike traditional scientists, they don't ignore major unsolved mysteries. Their claims clearly have to be fact checked, and in some cases they hold up, at least partly; but there are also many cases where their evidence is far from complete, and there may be much more supporting evidence than they cover.
If Joan of Ark was an isolated incident without any other precedent in history, it would be much more difficult to argue that she's being influenced by an advanced intelligence of some sort whether you call it "God," "Aliens," or something else; however there are dozens if not thousands of other alleged mystics of some sort that have unsolved mysteries surrounding them, although most of them, especially the ones hundreds of years old, have weak evidence to support these claims, and often have virtually no historical record of their lives. There must be close to two thousand, if not much more Catholic Saints which are always supposed to have some miracles attributed to them as part of the canonization process; however, there's very little historical record for a large portion of them, let alone convincing evidence of unexplained miracles. This is especially true when it comes to at least eighty Popes that became Saints. There are only a few of these Saints that that I have looked close enough to determine there might be a major unsolved mystery surrounding them, although there may be more, some listed at Mystics of the Catholic Church which are worth a closer look; but I wouldn't consider them compelling cases until after taking a closer look.
I have looked close enough at at least one or two dozen alleged mystics to determine that even though all the beliefs surrounding them can't be completely true, there are stil unexplained mysteries surrounding the, which might be explained by some kind of influence by an unknown advanced intelligence of some sort. These alleged mystics include Joseph Smith Jr.; Andrew Jackson Davis; Helena Blavatsky; the children who claimed they saw "a pretty lady" that partially predicted the so-called "Miracle Of The Sun;" Padre Pio; Edgar Cayce (See his biography also); Grigori Yefimovich Rasputin; Edward Leedskalnin; Nikola Tesla; José Arigó; Uri Geller; Nostradamus (See his bio also); and Leonardo da Vinci. These alleged mystics may establish a pattern of behavior, which closed minded skeptics are unwilling to acknowledge, which could support the hypothesis that an unknown advanced intelligence might be influencing human evolution. It may seem easy for skeptics to dismiss these mystics since there's always something absurd or provably false about them; but from a scientific view, as long as there are major unsolved mysteries surrounding them as well, we should rush to rule out the possibility that something unexplained, possibly influence from an unknown advanced intelligence of some sort, is happening.
At least two thirds of these people, including Joan of Arc, allegedly heard messages from an unknown advanced intelligence, although in most cases they seemed to know where the messages were coming from, or at least they thought they knew, although their explanations didn't make sense. In at least two cases, if not many more, they appear to have made predictions that simply should not have been possible, although even in these two cases skeptics will argue the point in circles without admitting to an unsolved mystery. When it comes to the three children from Fatima who claimed that they saw someone on May 13th, 1917, that told them to come back to the same spot in the thirteenth of each month for the next five months until Oct. 1917 and that there would be mysterious events happening on those days, there were a growing number of people each month testifying to strange events, which peaked on October 13th 1917, with 50,000 witnesses of strange events. And Andrew Jackson Davis accurately described new technology that wasn't developed until decades, if not a hundred years after he published Penatralia, in 1856, which no one at the time could have known would come true. For some reason this attracted far less attention than other mystics, even though it is one of the most convincing cases of unexplained phenomena.
Andrew Jackson Davis also made several other accurate predictions, as well as an enormous number of false claims. He declared that the speed of light was 200,000 miles per second ninety-four years before it was calculated scientifically and proven to be 186,000 miles per second, and in his first book, "The Principles of Nature," 1847, he got the length of the day correct for Jupiter and Saturn correct with about ten Earth hours each, long before it was scientifically calculated. He also got the length of the day correct for Mars, but that had been scientifically calculated before he wrote his book, and the majority of the rest of the book was false, including the length of the day for Venus and Mercury, which weren't even close; and he described, in extensive detail, advanced life on at least four or five other planets in our solar system, which we now have scientific evidence to show it is all false.
If you compare this with the stories of other alleged mystics that claim to have received messages from an unknown advanced intelligence of some sort, which they often attribute to God, messengers of God, the Spirit World, or some other source, this may establish a pattern of behavior, where some of them make claims more sophisticated than you would ever expect them to make, occasionally even true claims they never should have known about, but virtually always mixed up with a large volume of information that is clearly false. This could be part of a control process for some undisclosed motive, and it might indicate that some of the other alleged mystics, with weaker evidence, might be part of this control process, and they might go back much earlier, including a handful before Joan of Arc that might be reasonably well documented, and more that have inadequate evidence do to poor historical records.
When I previously discussed Mary Baker Eddy, who founded Christian Science I considered this possibility, since there were few if any major unexplained mysteries, except for the fact that she was able to attract so many followers with claims that make little or no sense. The only alleged evidence of her alleged divine inspiration were dozens, if not hundreds of letters from people that claimed to be miraculously cured, but these people were never named or investigated by an impartial source. This pattern of behavior might also extend to Muhammad; Constantine the Great, who allegedly had a dream telling him to put the "cipher of Christ" on the shields of his troops when battling Maxentius and also had a vision in the sky, supposedly helping him win the battle and leading to the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity and Ashoka the Great an Indian emperor who, according to some sources, converted to Buddhism after having a revelation of some sort, which followed the Kalinga war; and this pattern of behavior may also apply to Jesus, Moses and many other Biblical prophets, even though they've never been well documented from a historical point of view. It should be considered odd that the alleged prophets with the least evidence often attract much more attention than some, like Andrew Jackson Davis that may have more supporting evidence. But the explanation for this might be the support of those in power who used indoctrination to dictate their beliefs without fact checking to their followers.
In addition to some legends about Ashoka having an alleged revelation, which wasn't documented well, and many historians don't agree on it, there's also evidence of another major unsolved mystery, since he managed to have massive megalithic pillars, made out of polished sandstone, moved throughout India that weighed up to at least fifty tons and one possibly as heavy as sixty to eighty tons, even though, as I explained in 107 Wonders of the Ancient World, this should have been impossible with technology available to them, as experiments showed that could only move megaliths up to ten tons without cheating, and didn't even try to move megaliths above forty tons, because it was too difficult. Yet ancient civilizations moved megaliths over seven hundred tons over four hundred miles. This evidence should be much easier to see and virtually impossible to deny; yet skeptics either ignore it or make incredibly bad claims to dismiss it. Not only does this raise doubts about the official explanation of how Ashoka's pillars and many other ancient megaliths were moved in ancient times, but it also raises doubts about how Edward Leedskalnin moved megaliths at Coral Castle in Florida in the early twentieth century. If this wasn't a result of influence from an unknown advanced intelligence of some sort, whether you call it God, Aliens, or something else, then there has to be another explanation, which skeptics aren't even trying to find. If it is the result of influence from an unknown advanced intelligence, then it could be the same advanced intelligence that is somehow influencing many mystics going back hundreds if not thousands of years.
Furthermore, even the Bible doesn't describe a benevolent God looking out for our best interests; instead, if you read it critically, it clearly describes a control freak manipulating the human race for an undisclosed motive, assuming you take it literally, as some religious people claim you should. Genesis 15:13-5, 17:4-8 are just a few verses that demonstrate this, which says:
Genesis 15:13-5 Then Yahweh said to Abram, 'Know this for certain, that your descendants will be exiles in a land not their own, and be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years. But I shall bring judgement on the nation that enslaves them and after this they will leave, with many possessions. For your part, you will join your ancestors in peace; you will be buried at a happy old age.
Genesis 17:4-8 'For my part, this is my covenant with you: you will become the father of many nations. And you are no longer to be called Abram; your name is to be Abraham, for I am making you father of many nations. I shall make you exceedingly fertile. I shall make you into nations, and your issue will be kings.
And I shall maintain my covenant between myself and you, and your descendants after you, generation after generation, as a covenant in perpetuity, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. And to you and to your descendants after you, I shall give the country where you are now immigrants, the entire land of Canaan, to own in perpetuity. And I shall be their God.'
Why would God plan this generations ahead of time, especially if he's as powerful as they claim? There should be little doubt that if he communicated and provided advice about how to get along with each other, instead of inspiring wars based on lies, often inspired by religion, he could have prevented many disasters, including the Crusades and Inquisitions which Joan of Arc should have been aware of, since they were recent history. I went into how the Biblical God was more interested in controlling people more in The Biblical "God" Is A Brainwashing Cult Leader! which cites more Biblical excerpts about how the Bible is used for indoctrination, not to teach moral. But even if you doubt the claim that the Bible is the literal truth, which it's virtually guaranteed that it's not, then God, assuming he exists, will still be guilty of massive negligence for refusing to communicate in an honest manner.
As I reported in several previous articles, including one about Andrew Jackson Davis, whether these alleged mystics are influenced by an unknown advanced intelligence or not, at least a couple of the more recent mystics have partly debunked previous superstitions, but, unfortunately they often create new ones, which may not be quite as extreme. Andrew Jackson Davis exposed an old obscure story about how the Bishops may have manipulated which books were chosen to be included in the Bible during the Nicean Council in the following excerpt from "The Penetralia" 1856 p.145:
The proceedings at the Council of Nice are, like all events in the ancient history of the Church, veiled in obscurity. Indeed, a strong desire seemed to possess Eusebius and others who were present to conceal its details from the world, or at least to clothe the whole affair with the garb of mystery. Thus Pappus tells us that the Bishops, having “promiscuously put all the Books that were referred to the Council for determination, under the communion-table in a church, they besought the Lord that the inspired writings might get upon the table, while the spurious ones remained underneath, and that it happened accordingly."
This recital is quite in accordance with the usual practices of the Church Fathers, who are referred to with so much reverence by the modern priesthood, but who, if we credit the concessions of Dr. Mosheim, were artful, wrangling, and grossly dishonest men. He declares, in vol. i., p. 198, that “It was an almost universally adopted maxim, that it was an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interests of the Church might be promoted.” As regards the fifth century, he says: “The simplicity and ignorance of the generality in those times furnished the most favorable occasion for the exercise of frauds; and the impudence of impostors in contriving false miracles, was artfully proportioned to the credulity of the vulgar; while the sagacious and wise, who perceived these cheats, were awed into silence by the dangers which threatened their lives and fortunes, if they should expose the artifice.” p.145
Both Andrew Jackson Davis and Helena Blavatsky cited the quote from Pappas, claiming they were guided by the spiritual world or some other mystical source, but the quotes were also published in previous books which were very obscure so it's hard to imagine how they could have known about them, especially Andrew Jackson Davis, who had very little education and wouldn't be expected to read these obscure books. Helena Blavatsky doesn't cite Dr. Mosheim, that I know of, but she does write "But we are not told who kept the keys of the council chamber over night!" following the quote of Pappas in Isis Unveiled 1877 Part II Chapter VI The quote from Pappus, who probably wrote it in the fourth century, about the time it happened, was reported again in 1820 by William Hone "The apocryphal New Testament" p. xiv-xv, who also writes about all the writings of Arius being burned, and anyone concealing his writings being sentenced to death, clearly implying we have no way of knowing how many scrolls were destroyed and lost to history; and the quote from Dr. Mosheim was reported in 1948 in "The Bible, Its History and Inspiration" By Parker Pillsbury. Clearly it's possible that Andrew Jackson Davis could have gotten these quotes from these sources or at least one other source that cited Pappus, but he had little or no education and it's very unlikely that someone like that would have stumbled across these sources. Helena Blavatsky may have been a little more educated and there's also a possibility that she copied Davis, although if so, you would think she would also mention Dr. Mosheim; but regardless of whether their writings were inspired by mystical means or traditional research, they raise legitimate questions about how the Bible was edited, although there's little or no chance Joan of Arc knew about this. She was clearly taught, like the vast majority of people in her time, to blindly obey their leaders or preachers, who selectively read the Bible for her, since neither she or the majority of the public could read, and the Church still banned people from reading even the Bible for themselves. This didn't change until after the Protestant reformation a hundred years after Joan of Arc lived, and for many devout Catholics, they weren't even allowed to read the Bible directly for decades if not centuries longer.
There's a somewhat consistent pattern of behavior that applies to many of these mystics, including Joan of Arc, although all the characteristics of many mystics don't necessarily apply to all of the mystics, and there are many variation. Two of the alleged mystics and their followers that have the most might be Joseph Smith Jr. and Helena Blavatsky, although many of these characteristics may also apply to Andrew Jackson Davis, Edgar Cayce and several others. In both cases there was a leader that allegedly had communication with an unknown advanced intelligence, and they attracted at least half a dozen to a dozen followers who claimed to have witnessed unexplained phenomena, in many cases the number of witnesses grew, but after their followers grew there were fewer mystical events, assuming they ever happened in the first place. In both cases, the leaders wrote or dictated in a trance long texts that they almost certainly shouldn't have been able to come up with on there own, even though large portions of it turned out to be false, or seemed like gobbledygook, this also applies to Andrew Jackson Davis and Edgar Cayce. In the case of the Theosophy Society founded by Madam Blavatsky, there were dozens more books written by her followers, the most mysterious which might be The Mahatma Letters mostly to A. P. Sinnett.
Almost all of these mystics, including Smith, Davis and Blavatsky have been accused of being con-men or women, and there's plenty of evidence of some false claims, perhaps intentional fraud, but these are extremely sophisticated scams, if that's all they are, and there's often evidence to show that the mystics weren't sophisticated enough to come up with them on their own, and if you look close enough there are often some things the skeptics can't explain rationally. In the case of Mormons, Catholic Saints, and several other mystics, they claim their revelations came from a God, which they almost always consider benevolent, even though God doesn't communicate openly with all or provide advice to prevent many atrocities. Andrew Jackson Davis and numerous lesser known mystics, including John Murray Spear and Emanuel Swedenborg (Some people consider Spear and Swedenborg as compelling as the mystics I listed above, but since I haven't looked close enough myself I did not, although they may be worth a closer look, along with many others.), allegedly had contact with what they call the spirit world, and many of them also claim God is sending them messages. Helena Blavatsky and her followers preach tolerance of all religions and many of them claim to worship God, but their leaders or teachers, often called Mahatmas or several other names, including members of the Brotherhood teaching tolerance, including Koot Hoomi, Master Morya and Djwal Khul. These are the only three prominent Mahatmas or Members of the Brotherhood known, although tehy claim there were more in Tibet, but only some of the original leadership of the Theosophy Society have ever met them and there's no records of them traveling to India or England, even though Koot Hoomi allegedly did, and probably the others as well. This has led to some claims that they don't exist at all, and that Helena Blavatsky made them up.
Other assumptions about the Mahatmas include the possibility that they come from the spirit world, like many other advanced intelligence visiting mystics, including Moroni visiting Joseph Smith Jr. or Saints Margaret and Catherine visiting Joan of Arc. They allegedly wrote letters to A. P. Sinnett and A. O. Hume, which were published in The Mahatma Letters in 1923 claiming that they could communicate through dreams or in astral form, among other ways. But at one point Koot Hoomi admitted that they were not Gods, and in another letter he even admitted that they don't believe in Gods at all, and declared they don't exist. But they do claim to be adepts in the Occult, which they supposedly use for good, and to have abilities to appear in astral form or in peoples dreams, along with other paranormal abilities.
Basically, we began with two options, generally speaking, and we still have the same two unlikely options, with more information to determine which is more likely, and more evidence to show that one of those options many considered more rational might not explain everything. Either there has been an unknown advanced intelligence influencing our society from the earliest recorded history, or there isn't. Most religious people never doubted there was, which they refer to as God; but they consider him benevolent, and as my earlier quote from Epicurus shows that can't be the case. Most atheists seem to believe that there is no God or any other advanced intelligence influencing our society; and before I looked close enough at ancient megaliths, mystics, and other unexplained activities, like UFOs, Crop Circles, Cattle Mutilations, etc. I was probably one of them. If there is no God, aliens or other unknown advanced intelligence, then there has to be another explanation for these unsolved mysteries, which skeptics can't explain without coming up with more absurd beliefs.
As long as skeptics can't explain these unsolved mysteries, assuming they even try, instead of resorting to ridicule, then the more viable explanation might be that there has been an unknown advanced intelligence all along, with an undisclosed agenda, and one of the possible explanations for this might be Ancient Aliens, even if the show by that name makes a lot of blunders. If that is the case, then reviewing research on mystics and UFO research, which is often mixed up with as much false information as research on mystics, might help narrow down the nature of their abilities and objectives. This might include the ability to create images from the Spirit World or some other form of illusions, even those that might look like messages from various Gods people believe in for one reason or another. This doesn't guarantee that all of the alleged abilities of this unknown advanced intelligence are real, since they would still be mixed up with exaggerations and outright lies. But it does open the door to consider different possibilities, including much more research about alleged alien encounters, including abductions, although the research on that is often as poor as it is with the mystics, but careful and sincere peer review can improve it if people take it seriously. If that is the case then this can also be applied to Joan of Arc and might explain her activities which seem highly unlikely.
The vast majority of people, at that time, including Joan of Arc, were discouraged from thinking critically, which is what makes it so surprising that she was so assertive and capable of inspiring people with extremely bizarre claims, or at least they're claims that seem bizarre now. Furthermore, the belief in mystical communication from God or some other advanced intelligence of some sort was much more common; in fact, their beliefs involve accepting revelations as divine fact, assuming they're not from "false prophets," butt here's no wat to tell the false prophets from the alleged real ones. There is at least one Bible verse that says that if the claims of a prophet don't come true then that was a false prophet; but by the time people find out it's to late, and they're also taught that there's potential punishment for those that don't believe the real prophets. This means, if God really does exist, by refusing to communicate honestly he's entrapping people enabling so-called false prophets to deceive the gullible. There were also common beliefs in messages from other unknown advanced intelligence, including faeries, which some of Joan of Arc's relatives supposedly heard by the "fairy tree," although Joan claimed she never heard them, only messages from Saints.
Joan of Arc seems to be far more confident, intelligent, and witty, among other things than many people might expect from a peasant girl at that time. The Trial of Joan of Arc transcript is of course not the only record of her activities, but it may be among the most thoroughly reviewed by academics and it shows an image of someone hard to explain without influence from an unknown advanced intelligence as indicated in the following excerpts, and more if you read the full transcript:
Asked what revelations and apparitions the king had, she answered: "I will not tell you. It is not now the time to tell you; but send to the king and he will tell you."
Then Jeanne said that her voice had promised her that as soon as she should come to the king he would receive her. She said also that those of her party knew well that the voice was sent to Jeanne from God, and they saw and knew this voice. She said further that her king and several others heard and saw the voices which came to the said Jeanne; and there were present Charles de Bourbon, and two or three others. [46]
Asked if she knows she is in God's grace, she answered: "If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me. I should be the saddest creature in the world if I knew I were not in His grace." She added, if she were in a state of sin, she did not think that the voice would come to her; and she wished every one could hear the voice as well as she did. She thought she was about thirteen when the voice came to her for the first time. [52]
Asked in what form St. Michael appeared, she answered that she did not see his crown, and she knows nothing of his apparel.
Asked if he was naked, she answered: "Do you think God has not wherewithal to clothe him?"
Asked if he had any hair, she answered: "Why should it be cut off?" She added that she had not seen St. Michael since she left the castle Crotoy, and she does not often see him, or know, she added, whether he has any hair. [74]
She said she had heard her mother tell how her father said to her brothers: "In truth, if I thought this thing would happen which I have dreamed about my daughter, I should want you to drown her; and if you would not, I would drown her myself." And her father and mother almost lost their senses when she left to go to Vaucouleurs.
Asked whether these thoughts and dreams came to her father after she had her visions, she answered yes, more than two years after she first heard the voices. [100] ...
Asked if God was for the English when they were prospering in France, she answered that she knew not whether God hated the French, but she believed it was His will to suffer them to be beaten for their sins, if they were in a state of sin. [128]
Asked if she entertained any doubt concerning whom she should obey, she answered that she did not know how to instruct him to obey since he asked her to say whom God wanted him to obey. For her part she believed that we should obey Our Holy Father the Pope at Rome. ... Asked if she had said she would have counsel on the question of the three popes, she answered she had never written, or caused to be written so, she swore by her oath, anything concerning the three popes. [178]
To this thirty-third article, this Wednesday, March 28th, Jeanne answers: "It is for God to make revelations to whom He pleases," and of the sword and other things to come which she told, she knew them by revelation.
On Saturday, March 17th, asked how she knows that St. Margaret and St. Catherine hate the English, she answered: "They love those whom God loves, and hate whom He hates." Asked if God hates the English, she answers that she knows nothing of God's love or hatred, or what God will do to their souls, but she is certain that with the exception of those who shall die there, they will be driven out of France, and that God will send victory to the French and against the English. Asked if God was for the English when they were prospering in France, she answered that she knew not whether God hated the French, but she believed it was His will to suffer them to be beaten for their sins, if they were in a state of sin. [190]
She will not deny them for anything in the world. What Our Lord told her and shall tell her to do she will not cease from doing for any man alive. It would be impossible for her to deny them, and in the event of the Church commanding her to do anything contrary to God's bidding, she would by no means undertake it. [240]
.... And the said Jeanne answered, "Yes, and He alone can deliver me. I ask for it to be administered to me." Then the same brother said to her, "Do you still believe in these voices?" She answered, "I believe in God alone, and will no longer put faith in these voices, because they have deceived me."
To the theologians, poisoned as they were by this unhealthy literature of demonology, all that Jeanne attributed to God could equally be ascribed to the Devil. The greatest ruse of the Evil One is precisely the imitation of Jesus, the counterfeiting of His miracles.
If you reply in spirit: "How can I know whether it is God who is speaking?" here is the answer: "You shall have this sign: if a prophet has announced something in the name of God, and it cannot be realized, it is not God who has spoken; you are concerned with an invention of the prophet and of his spirit of arrogance." [521]
Some people have portrayed Joan of Arc as a liberal and advocate for women's rights, but this clearly doesn't appear to be the case; like many other Saints she preached blind obedience to authority with God at the top of the hierarchy. She repeatedly claimed that she would check with her voices before agreeing whether to answer certain questions or not, without necessarily understanding why they should be kept secret, except that she was told what she should be allowed to answer or not, although reluctance to answer hostile questioners is understandable in some cases. She also repeatedly claimed that she supported God first, followed by the Pope and King Charles VII; she may have treated the peasants with respect and could be counted on to stand up against invading tyrants from England, but didn't speak out against oppression from their own leaders, which was as likely as any other King, although he wasn't fully in power at the time. She also worked with Gilles de Rais, although, according to most sources, she couldn't have known that he would turn into a mass murder involved in the Occult killing people in an attempt to summon demons.
She had a witty reply to avoid saying either that she was in God's grace, which supposedly could get her in trouble since no one could no that, or admitting that she wasn't, which was considered by many theologians at the time to be a trap that she wisely avoided. She also avoided answering about what clothes her visions were wearing or if they had hair in a witty way, but few people noticed this might mean she wasn't quite sure about all the details of these alleged visions, which is very common among those receiving alleged visions. She was surprisingly adept at answering all their questions for someone that might have been very intimidated under the circumstances, although she did eventually claim that she only trusted God, since the voices betrayed her, but shortly after that, even though she agreed to wear a dress, she said that the voices visited her again and her trust in them was restored. Perhaps her trust in both the voices and in God were mistaken, since they allowed her to get burned at the stake, and passed up opportunities centuries earlier to teach people to get along without war, but, of course, she was taught to blindly trust authority, not think for herself and recognize what the God she worshiped would be capable of if he exists.
If there is an unknown advanced intelligence influencing our society, once you get away with belief in a Good God that deserves to be worshiped, which should be out of the question, then there's a chance to consider other possibilities, like an unknown advance intelligence, which could be Ancient Aliens, that has an undisclosed motive. This won't answer all questions, but it could help narrow things down. I've gone into other possible motives in other articles about this subject, including a large variety of research operations, that could involve studying social development, medical research, and possibly even research on weather control. My previous article about Fatima seems to show they might have been able to influence the weather, and other articles show how our own government is also studying weather modification and has allegedly exchanged technologies with aliens, assuming they exist.
For additional sources or related articles see the following:
Hypatia: The Last of the Neoplatonists Article by Anon., Theosophy Magazine, March, 1937
The Diegesis; Being A Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity. by Robert Taylor p.432
The Diegesis; Being A Discovery of the Origin, Evidences, and Early History of Christianity. by Robert Taylor p.1
What record is there of a canon of Scripture having been set at the First Ecumenical Council? June 2017 Robert Taylor (~1829), in The diegesis, Appendix, page 432
The Bible, Its History and Inspiration By Parker Pillsbury 1848
7 Surprising Facts About Joan of Arc 01/28/2013 2. In modern times, some doctors and scholars have “diagnosed” Joan of Arc with disorders ranging from epilepsy to schizophrenia.
Top 10 Interesting Facts About Joan of Arc 10/17/2019 2. She Has Been Diagnosed With Many Disorders by Today’s Doctors
What Really Caused the Voices in Joan of Arc's Head? 07/29/2016
When researchers listen to people who hear voices Spring 2019 As much as 8 percent of the population reports experiencing auditory hallucinations on a regular basis (13 percent hear them at least occasionally), compared to just 1 percent who are diagnosed with schizophrenia.
The propensity to hear 'voices' in Schizophrenia may be established by infancy 10/02/2019
APA 2019 Main Stage: James Garbarino on Gun Violence 08/13/2019 If you’re a clinician you know that about half of schizophrenics hear voices, it’s called auditory hallucination. Now because there are voices in people’s heads I don’t think people thought they should take them seriously. But a team of anthropologists asked the question, what are the voices telling them in the United States, in India, and in Ghana. Now Ghana is a country in northwest Africa, since we’re Americans, we don’t know much about geography so I thought I’d throw that in. I’m assuming you know where India is and this is what they found in the United States 70 percent of the voices were telling the schizophrenic to commit an act of violence against themselves or others, 70 percent in India most of the voices in people’s heads were telling them to clean their houses better, annoying, but not lethal, and in Ghana only 10 percent of the voices were telling them to commit acts of violence; in Ghana most of the voices were thought to be positive conversations with God now what’s mind-blowing about this is we think of a schizophrenic as being disconnected from reality and yet American schizophrenics are attuned enough to American culture to beginning the message of aggression and violence, it’s a very very disturbing finding. So that’s part of the context in which to look at the psychology of guns and gun use particularly among young people and of course guns in the hands of young people are the most dangerous guns there are. 5:35-7:10
Hallucinatory 'voices' shaped by local culture, Stanford anthropologist says 07/16/2014
Differences in voice-hearing experiences of people with psychosis in the USA, India and Ghana: Interview-based study 01/02/2018
Hearing Voices Network If you hear voices, see visions or have similar sensory experiences – you’re not alone. The statistics vary, but somewhere between 3 and 10% of the population have experiences like these (increasing to about 75% if you include one off experiences like hearing someone call your name out loud).
Jeanne d'Arc's religious visions "My Voices tells me that I must go against the English,"
Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc by Mark Twain 1896
Joan: The Mysterious Life of the Heretic Who Became a Saint 2008 by Donald Spoto
Sensational News: Joan of Arc was not executed. She died at 57 01/17/2004
Ancient Aliens: S 2 E 10: Alien Contacts 12/30/2010 Are holy books the word of God, or guidebooks passed down by more advanced civilizations? Who told Joan of Arc how to defeat the English Army–saints or extraterrestrials?
Why do skeptics claim Joan of Arc was mentally ill when she was actually pretty stable, sane, and smart? 09/30/2021
Joan of Arc 06/29/2008
Wikipedia: Holy Prepuce The earliest recorded sighting came on December 25, 800, when Charlemagne gave it to Pope Leo III when the latter crowned the former Emperor. Charlemagne claimed that it had been brought to him by an angel while he prayed at the Holy Sepulchre, although a more prosaic report says it was a wedding gift from the Byzantine Empress Irene. https://www.facebook.com/groups/5600643033355280/posts/69068622906235230/
Wikipedia: Dorothy Eady
The Baffling Tale of Dorothy Eady 10/28/2020
Mystics of the Catholic Church
10 Infamous Cases Of Stigmata 08/31/2018
10 Truly Bizarre Cases of Stigmata 04/30/2019
30 Most Famous Mystics in History
Where Is Boriska Kipriyanovich Now After He Claimed To Be An Alien From Mars
Genius Russian Child Claims He is From Mars, Will Save Humanity from Nuclear Destruction; Who Is Boriska Kipriyanovich? 11/08/2021
No comments:
Post a Comment