| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"me" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2005 10:54:04 PM |
| Object: |
Jesus Christ was a fictional character |
All references to Jesus Christ and Christianity in Romans were interpolated into a
pre-existing text that made no mention of Jesus the Christ or Christianity.
Jesus Christ was the product of the inventive mind of a single individual - his purpose
being to found a religious movement in opposition to the religious teachings of the text
he altered.
Think of him as the first "Pope" - the founder of the Catholic Church.
Catholicism IS Christianity.
There is a Roman play, written late in the 2nd century AD, that describes a
"movement" that, whilst its founder was alive, was perfectly acceptable to the
authorities - but when the founder died a single individual took over, altered the
"sacred texts", wrote others of his own - and made himself very wealthy.
It seems to me that this man went to extraordinary lengths to create a fictional "history"
for his new cult - the biblical details of the spread of Christianity in the 1st century AD
are, in the main, fiction. Some of this history, however, is based upon the activities of
people who did exist, who were engaged in spreading their system of belief - but they
were NOT Christians.
In 71 AD the Emperor Vespasian sent investigators to check out a man who was
"travelling through the Greek islands preaching about God". It was reported that he
was "harmless".
I think it is this man who founded the movement that was later converted into
the Christian religion.
This man was. I think, Mark of Naxos
The story of Jesus, King of the Jews (NOT Jesus Christ, Son of God) was written by him
as a vehicle for his criticisms of contemporary Judaism. A kind of "What if the King of
the Jews was a good man and tried to reform Jewish society - how would the Jewish
authorities react?" storyline.
The creator of Jesus Christ, Son of God, altered this story as well.
Early in Mark's gospel, as we have it today, Jesus heals Peter's mother-in-law - in the
original it was his OWN mother-in-law he healed. Jesus has twelve disciples - in the
original he had only two: James and John, the sons of Zebedee. The original story was
based upon Greek mythology - the altered version on Jewish mythology.
As for the crucifixion - well, in the original story it was Simon of Cyrene on the cross.
The Jews are pictured as believing it was Jesus, their supposed King who dared to
criticise the behaviour of the Jewish religious authorities.
Strip away Jesus Christ from the New Testament - and you have a collection of texts
that are saying to the contemporary Jewish religious authorities: "You are WRONG!
You are OPPRESSORS of the poor and the weak!" ... and so on.
"That is what the New Testament says as we have it today?" you might say.
Ah - but the original story was proposing an abandonment of the Jewish religious
system in favour of a Greek system of thought. Jesus Christ, Son of God, brought the
story's message back into line with the "Jews are the chosen people" ideology.
When one looks deeper into the ideology of Mark one sees that he was a philosopher
rather than a religious man.
If he were around today he would, no doubt, identify himself as an atheist.
Mark had another name - Paul.
Scholars speak of the "Paulinian" and the "Petrine" influences in the Gospel of Mark -
the two can be separated by close study of the text.
.
|
|
| User: "Dr. Newto Joseph" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Christ was a fictional character |
11 Jun 2005 04:01:55 AM |
|
|
"me" <here@now.com> wrote in message
news:42aa1a2f$0$1575$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
All references to Jesus Christ and Christianity in Romans were
interpolated into a
pre-existing text that made no mention of Jesus the Christ or
Christianity.
JESUS CHRIST
By New10
Part 1
The Jesus who was called Christos,"Anointed," took his title from
Middle-Eastern savior-gods like Adonis and Tammuz, born of the Virgin
Sea-goddess Aphrodite-Maria (Myrrha), or Ishhtar-Mari (Hebrew Mariamne0.
Earlier biblical versions of the same hero were Joshua son of Nun (Exodus
33:11), Jehu son of Nimshi, who Elijahanointed as a sacred king (1 Kings
19:16 and Yeshua son of Marah. The book of Enoch said in the 2nd century
B.C. that Yeshua or Jesus was the secret name given by God to the Son of Man
(a Persian title). And that it meant "Yahweh saves."1
In northern Israel the name was written Ieu.2 It was the same as
Leud or Jeud, the "only-begotten son" dressed in royal robes and sacrificed
by the god-king Isra-El.3 Greek versions of the name were Iasion, Jason, or
Iasus-the name of one of Demeter's sacrificed consorts, killed by father
Zeus after the fertility rite that coupled him with his Mother.4 Iasus
signified a healer or Therapeuta, as the Greeks called the Essenes, whose
cult groups always included a man with the title of Christos.5 The literal
meaning of the name was "healing moon-man," fitting the Hebrew version of
Jesus as the son of Mary, the almah or moon-maiden.(see Virgin Birth)
It seems Jesus was not one person but a composite of many. He
played the role of the sacred king of the Jews who periodically died in an
atonement ceremony as a surrogate for the real king. "The Semitic religions
practiced human immolations longer than any other religion, sacrificing
children and grown men in order to please sanguinary gods. In spite of
Hadrian's prohibition of those murderous offerings, they were maintained in
certain clandestine rites."9 The priesthood of the Jewish God insisted that
"one man should die for the people.that the whole nation perish not" (John
11:22)
Middle-Eastern traditions presented a long line of slain and
cannibalized Saviors extending back to prehistory. At first kings, they
became king-surrogates or "sacred" kings as the power of the real monarchies
developed. The Gospels' Jesus was certainly not the first of them, though he
may have been one of the last. One passage hints at a holy man's
understandable fear of such brief, doomed eminence:" When Jesus therefore
perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him king, he
departed again into the mountain himself alone") John 6:15)
This Jesus seems to have made little or no impression on his
contemporaries. No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any
known writing. The Gospels were not were not written in his own time, nor
were they written by anyone who ever saw him in the flesh. The names of the
apostles attached to these books were fraudulent. The books were composed
after the establishment of the church, some as late as the 2nd century A.D.
or later, according to the church's requirements for the manufactured
tradition.10 Most scholars believe the earliest book of the new Testament
was 1 Thessalonians, written perhaps 51 A.D. by Paul, who never saw Jesus
and knew no details of his life story.11
The details were accumulated through the later adoption of the
myths attached to every savior-god throughout the Roman Empire. Like Adonis,
Jesus was born of a consecrated temple maiden in the sacred cave of
Bethlehem. " The House of Bread."12 He was eaten in the form of bread, as
were Adonis, Osiris, Dionysus, and others: he called himself the bread of
the God (John 6:330). Like worshipers of Osiris, those of Jesus made him
part of themselves by eating him, so as to participate in his resurrection:
"he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in
him' (John 6;56).
Like Attis, Jesus was sacrificed at the spring equinox and rose
again from the dead on the third day, when he became God and ascended to
heaven. Like Orpheus and Heracles, he Harrowed hell" and brought a secret of
eternal life, promising to draw all men with him up to glory (John12:32).
Like Mithra and all the other gods, he celebrated a birthday nine months
later at the winter solstice, because the day of his death was also the day
of his cyclic re-conception. See Attis
JESUS CHRIST
By New10
Part 2.
From the elder gods, Jesus acquired not only his title Christos but all his
other title as well. Osiris and Tammuz were called Good Shepard. Sarapis was
Lord of Death and King of Glory, Mithra and Heracles were Light of the
World, Sun of Righteousness, Helios the Rising Sun. Dionysus was Kings, God
of Gods. Hermes was the Enlightened One and the Logos. Vishnu and Mithra
were Son of man and Messiah. Adonis was the Lord and Bridegroom. Mot-Aleyin
was the Lamb of God. "Savior" (Soter) was applied to all of them.
Mystery cults every where taught that ordinary men could be
possessed by spirits of such gods, and identified with them as "sons" or
alter egos, as Jesus was. It was the commonly accepted way to acquire
supernatural powers, as shown by some of the charms used my magicians:
"whatever I say must happen.For I have taken to myself the power of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob and of the grate god-demon Iao Ablanathanalba.for I am the
son of, I surpass the limit.I am he who is in the seven heavens, who
standeth in the in the seven sanctuaries: for I am the son of the living
God..I have been united with the sacred form. I have been empowered by the
sacred name. I have received the effluence of the goodness, Lord, God of the
gods, King, Demon.having attained that nature equal to the God's' 13
The skeptic Celsus noted that beggars and vagabonds throughout the
Empire were pretending to work miracles and become gods, throwing fits, and
prophesying the end of the world, and aspiring to the status of saviors.
Each has his convenient customary spiel, "I am god," or "a son of
God," or a divine spirit," and " I have come. For the world is about is
about to be destroyed, and you ,men,,because of your injustice, will go
(with it). But I wish to save, and you will see me again coming back with
heavenly power. Blessed is he who worships me now! On all others, both
cities and countryside's, shall cast eternal fire. And men who (now) ignore
their punishments shall repent in vain and groan, but those who believed in
me I shall preserve immortal".14
Of course this "conspicuously false" doctrine was the
central message of the Gospels too. Persian eschatology a Jewish-Essenic
filter predicted "the Son of Man coming in a cloud with the power and great
glory" (Luke 9:27,21;27). Jesus promised the end of the world in his own
generation. The rest of the Gospel material was largely devoted to the
miracles supposed to demonstrate his power, since religions generally "
adduce revelations, apparitions, prophecies, miracles and sacred mysteries
that they may get themselves valued and accepted."15 Even these mircles
were derivative. Turning water into wine at Cana was copied from a Dionysian
ritual practiced at Sidon and other places. 16
In Alexandria the same Dionysian miracle was regularly shown before crowds
of the faithful, assisted by an ingenious system of vessels and siphons,
invented by a clever engineer named Heron.17 Many centuries earlier,
priestesses at Nineveh cured the blind with spittle, and the story was
repeated of many different gods and their incanations.18 Demeter of Eleusis
multiplied loaves and fishes in her role of Mistress of Earth and Sea.
Healing the sick, raising the dead, casting out devils, handling poisonous
serpents (Mark 16:18). etc., were so common place that Celsus scorned these
"Christian"miracles as "nothing more than the common works of those
enchanters who, for a few oboli, will perform greater deeds in the mist of
the forum...The magicians of Egypt cast out evil spirits, cure disease by a
breath, and so influence some uncultured men, that they produce in them
whatever sights and sounds they please. But because they do such things
shall we consider them the sons of God?19
Magicians often claimed that their prayers could bring flocks of
supernatural beings to their assistance.20 Thus Jesus declared that his
prayer could summon twelve legions (72,000) of guardian angels (Mathew
26:53). Magicians also communed with their followers by the standard
mystery-cult sacrament of bread-flesh and wine-blood. In texts on magic," a
magician-god gives his own body and blood to a recipient who, by eating it,
will be united with him in love."21
The ability to walk on water was claimed by Far-Eastern holy men
ever since Buddhist monks praised it as the mark of the true ascetic.22
The Magic Papyri said almost anyone could walk on water with the help of "a
powerful demon."23 Impossibilities have always been the props of religious
credulity, as Tertullian admitted: It is believable because it is absurd: it
is certain because it is impossible."24
However, repetitive miracles were not to be believable as original
ones. Therefore early Christians insisted that all older deities and their
miracle-tales were invented by the devil, out of his foreknowledge of the
true religion, so the faithful would be confused by past 'imitations."25
Pagan thinkers countered with the observation that" The Christian religion
contains nothing but what Christians hold in common with heathens; nothing
new, nor truly great." Even
St. Augustine, finding the hypothesis of the devil's invention hard to
swallow, admitted that "the true religion" was known to the ancients, and
had existed from the beginning of time, but it began to be called Christian
after "Christ came in the flesh."26
Nevertheless, adherents of the true religion violently disagreed
as to the circumstances of its foundation. In the first few centuries A.D.
there were many mutually hostile Christian sects, and many mutually
contradictory Gospels. As late as 450, Bishop Theodore of Cyrrhus said there
were at least 200 different Gospels revered by the churches of his own
diocese, until he destroyed all but the canonical four.27 The other Gospels
were lost as stronger sects overwhelmed the weaker, wrecked their churches,
and burned their books.28
One scripture, later thrown out of the canon, said that Jesus was
not crucified. Simon of Cyrene suffered on the cross in his place, while
Jesus stood by laughing at the executioners, saying, "it was another.who
drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I ..it was another, Simon who
bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the
crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height.And I was laughing at
their ignorance"29 Believers in this scripture were persecuted and forced
to sign an abjuration reading: "I anathematize those that say Our Lord
suffered only in appearance, and that there was a man on the cross and
another at a distance who laughed. "30
JESUS CHRIST
By New10
Part 3.
X
Some Christians interpreted Jesus noli me tangere ("Touch me not')
to mean he came back from death as an incorporeal spirit, after the manner
of other apotheosized heroes, such as the Irish hero Laegaire, who also told
his people not to touch him.31 Later, an unknown Gospel writer inserted the
story of doubting Thomas, who insisted on touching Jesus. This was to combat
the heretical idea that there was no resurrection of the flesh, and also to
subordinate Jerusalem's god Tammuz (Thomas) to the new savior. Actually, the
most likely source of primary Christian mythology was the Tammuz cult in
Jerusalem. Like Tammuz, Jesus was the bridegroom of the daughter of Zion
(John 12:150. Therefore his bride was Anath, "Virgin Wisdom Dwelling in
Zion, "who was also the Mother of God. 32 Her dove descended on him at his
baptism, signifying (in the old religion) that she chose him for the
love-death. Anath broke her bridegrooms read scepter, scourged him and
pierced him for fructifying blood. She pronounced his death curse,
Mara-natha (1 Corinthians 16;22. As the Gospel said of Jesus, Anath's
bridegroom was "forsaken" by El, his heavenly father.33 Jesus's cry to El,
"my God , why hast thou forsaken me?" seems to have been a line written for
the second act of the sacred drama, the pathos or Passion(Mark 15:34).
Of course this passion was originally a sexually one. Jesus's last
words 'It is consummated" (consummatum est) were interpreted as a sign that
his work was finished, but could equally apply to his marriage (John 19;30).
As a cross or pillar represented the divine phallus, so a temple represented
the body of the Goddess, whose"viel" (hymen) was "rent in the mist" as Jesus
was passed onto death (Luke 23:45). As usual when the god disappeared into
the underworld, the sun eclipsed(Luke 23:440. In their ignorance of the
astronomical phenomena, Christians claimed that the moon was full at the
same time-Easter is still a full moon festival-though an eclipse of the sun
can only occur at the dark of the moon.34 The full moon really meant
impregnation of the Goddess.
The parting of Jesus's garment recalls the unwrapping of Osiris
when he emerged from the tomb as the ithyphallic Min, "Husband of his
Mother." If Jesus was one with the heavenly father, then he also married his
mother and begot himself. A 4th- century scripture said in the underworld he
confronted his mother as Death, Mu.35 She was also the Bride disguised as
Venus, the evening star, presiding over the death of the sun. Jews still
recall her in the ritual greeting to the evening star, "Come, O friend, let
us welcome the Bride."36
Like pagans, early Christians identified the Bride with the
Mother. They said Jesus" consummated on the cross" his union with
Mary-Ecclesia, his bride the church. Augustine wrote: Like a bridegroom
Christ went forth from his chamber, he went out with a presage of his
nuptials..He came to the marriage bed of the cross, and there, in mounting
it, he consummated his marriage..he lovingly gave himself up to the torment
in place of his bride, and he joined himself to the women for ever. 37 John
19:14 says, "In the place where he was crucified there was a garden: and in
the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man laid." A garden was the
conventional symbol for the body of the mother/bride: and a new tomb was the
was the virgin womb, whence the god would be born again. On the third day,
Jesus rose from the tomb/womb like Attis, whose resurrection was the
Hilaria, or day of Joy.38 Jesus's resurrection day was named after Eostre,
the same Goddess as Astarte, whom the Syrians called Mother Mari.39
Three incarnations of Mari, or Mary, stood at the foot of Jesus's
cross, like the Moerea of Greece. One was his virgin mother. The second was
his "dearly beloved" (see Mary Magdalene) The third Mary must represent the
Crone (the fatal Moera), so the tableau resembled that of the three Norms at
the foot of Odin's sacrificial tree. The Fates were present at the
sacrifices decreed by Heavenly Fathers, whose victims hung on a tree or
pillars "between heaven and earth." Up to Hadrian's time, victims offered to
Zeus at Salamis were anointed with sacred ointments-thus becoming "Anointed
Ones" or "Christ's"-then hung up and stabbed through the side with a spear.
40 Nothing in Jesus's myth occurred at random: every detail was part of a
formal sacrificial tradition, even to the 'procession of the palms" which
glorified sacred kings in ancient Babylon.41
Far-Eastern traditions were utilized too. The Roman empire was
well aware of the teachings and myths of Buddhism, Buddha images in classic
Greek style were made in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the first century
A.D.42 Buddhist ideas like the 'footprints of Buddha" appeared among
Christians. Bishop Sulpicius of Jerusalem reported that, as in India, "In
the dust where Christ trod the marks of His step can still be seen, and the
earth still bears the print of His feet."43 Buddhist metaphors and phrasing
also appeared in the Gospels. Jesus's formula, "Dearly Beloved," was the
conventional way for Tantic deities to address their teaching to Devi, their
Goddess.44
Scholars' efforts to eliminate paganism from the Gospels in order
to find the historical Jesus have proved as hopeless as searching for a core
of an onion.45 Like a mirage, the Jesus figure looks clear at a distance but
laks approachable solidity. "His" sayings and parables came from elsewhere;
"His" miracles were old twice-told tales. Even the Lord's Prayer was a
collections of sayings from the Talmud, many derived from earlier Egyptian
prayers to Osiris.46 The Sermon on the Mount, sometimes said to contain the
essence of Christianity, had no original material; it was made up of
fragments from Psalms, Ecclesiastes ,Isaiah, Secrets of Enoch, and the
Shemone Esreh. 47 Morover, it was unknown to the author of the oldest
Gospel, pseudo-mark.48
The discovery that the Gospel were forged, centuries later than
the events they described, is still not widely known even though the
Catholic Encyclopedia admits, "The idea of a complete and clear-cut
foundation of history." No extant manuscript can be dated earlier than the
4th century A.D.; most were written even later.49 The oldest manuscript
contradicts one another, as also do even the present cannon of the synoptic
Gospels
The church owed its canon to the Gnostic teacher Marcion, who
first collected Pauline epistles about the middle of the 2nd century. Later
he was excommunicated as a heretic because he denied that the scriptures
were mystical allegories full of magic words of power. The epistles he
collected were already over a century old, if indeed they were written by
Paul; much of their material was made up of forged interpretations.50
The most "historical" figure in the Gospels was Pontius Pilate, to
whom Jesus was presented as 'king" of the Jews and simultaneously as a
criminal deserving the death penalty for "blasphemy" because he called
himself Christ, Son of the Blessed (Luke 23:3; mark 14:61-64) This alleged
crime was no real crime. Eastern provinces swarmed with self-styled Christ's
and Messiahs, calling themselves Sons of God and announcing the end of the
world. None of them was executed for "blasphemy."51 The beginning of the
story probably lay in the tradition of sacred-king sacrifice in Jerusalem
long before Pilate's administration when Rome was trying to discourage such
barbarisms
From 103 70 76 B.C., Jerusalem was governed by Alexander Janneaus,
called the Aeon, who defended his throne by fighting challengers. One year,
on the day of atonement, his people attacked him at the altar, waving palm
branches to signify that he should die for the earth's fertility. Alexander
declined him the honor and instituted a persecution of his own subjects.
Another king of Jerusalem took the name of Menelaus, "moon-king." And
practiced the rite of sacred marriage in the temple.52 Herod also made a
sacred marriage, and had John the Baptist slain as a surrogate for himself.
If there was a Jesus cult in Jerusalem after 30 A.D., it
completely disappeared forty years later when Titus conquered the city and
outlawed many local customs, including human sacrifice. Jerusalem was wholly
Romanized under Hadrian. It was newly named Aelia Capitolina and rededicated
to the Goddess. The temple became a shrine of Venus.53 Tacitus described the
siege of Jerusalem, but his writings is abruptly cut off at the moment when
the Roman forces entered the city-as if the final chapters were deliberately
destroyed-so no one knows what the Romans found there. However, Romans did
express disapproval of the Jews' or Christians 'cannibalistic sacraments.
Porphyry called it "absurd beyond all absurdity, and bestial beyond every
sort of bestiality, that a man should taste human flesh and drink the blood
of men of his own genus and species, and by doing should have eternal life.'54
From the Christian's viewpoint, a real historical Jesus was
essential to the basic premise of the faith; the possibility of immortality
through identification with his own death and resurrection. Wellhausen
rightly said Jesus would have no place in history unless he died and
returned exactly as the Gospels said.55 "If Christ hath not been raised,
your faith is in vain" (Corinthians) 15:170. Still, despite centuries of
research, nom historical Jesus has come to light. It seems his story was not
merely overlaid with myth; it was mythic to the core.
Like all myths, it revealed much about the collective psychology
that created it. In earlier pagan religions, the mother and son periodically
ousted the Father from his heavenly throne. The divine son of Christianity
no longer challenged the heavenly king, but tamely submitted to his fatal
command: "Not my will, but thine, be done"(Luke 22;42). Some early sects
said the Father who demanded his son's blood was cruel, even demonic.56
Those were suppressed, but scholars have discerned in Christianity " an
original attitude of hostility toward the father figure, which was changed
in the first two Christian centuries into an attitude of passive masochistic
docility.'57
If orthodox Christianity demanded subordination of the Son, it was
even more determined to subordinate the Mother. The Gospels' Jesus showed
little respect for his mother, which troubled the church in its Renaissance
efforts to attract women to the cult of Mary. "Any hero who speaks to his
mother only twice, and on both occasions address her as 'woman,' is a
difficult figure for the sentimental biographers."58 Together with Jesus's
avowed opposition to marriage and the family ( Mathew 22;30; Luke 14;56),
women's primary concerns, New Testament sexism tended to disgust educated
women of the pagan world.
But the Jesus who emulates Buddha in advocating poverty and
humility eventually became the mythic figurehead for on of the world's
pre-eminent money-making originations. The cynical Pope Leo X exclaimed,
"What profit has not that the fable of Christ brought us!" 59
Modern theologians tend to sidestep the question of whether Jesus
was in fact a fable or a real person. In view of the complete dearth of hard
evidence, and the dubious nature of the soft evidence, it seems Christianity
is based on the ubiquitous social phenomena of credulity.
An idea is able to gain and retain the aura of essential truth
through telling and retelling. This process endows a cherished notion with
more veracity than a library of facts.documentation plays only a small role
in contrast to the act of re-confirmation by each generation of scholars. In
addition, the further removed one gets from the period in question, the
greater is the strength of the conviction. Initial incredulousness is soon
converted into belief in a probability and eventually smug assurance.
1. H. Smith,193. 2. Albright, 262. 3. Frazer, G.B.,341 . 4. Graves,
G.M..1, 89.
5. Rose, 111. 6. Graves, G.M. 2, 396 7. Albright, 262 8. Knight,
D.W.P.,113
9. Cumont, O.R.R.P., 119 10. H. Smith, 179-80 11. Enslin, L.C.M., 233-38.
12. Frazer, C.B., 402; Briffault 3, 97. 13. H. Smith, 102-4 14. M.Smith,
117.
18. Gifford, 63. 19. Doane, 409-11. 27. M Smith, 2 28. H. Smith, 189
22. Bardo Thodol, 158; Tatz & Kent, 167. 23.M.Smith, 2. 28 H.Smith,189
25. Robertson, 112. 26 Doane, 409-11. 27 M.Smith, 2 28 H.Smith 189
29. Pagels, 72-73 30. Reinach, 245. 31 Joyce1. 298. 32 Ashe, 31
33. Larouse, 77-73. 30 Agrippa,71. 35 Brandon, 45. 36. WEilkins, 143.
37. Cavendish, P.E., 54; T., 75. 38 Frazer, G.B., 407. 39 H.Smith 201
40. H. Smith, 135. 41 Pritchard, A.N.E., 204 42. Ross, 100
43. de Voragine, 287. 44 Mahanirvanatantra, 173. 45. M. Smith, 4
46. Budge, E.M. 116. 44 Mahanirvanatana, 173. 45. M.Smith, 4
50. Reinach, 256,277. 51. Bradon, 248. 52. Pfeifer, 72-74, 120
53. Encye. Brit., " Jerusalem." 54. M. Smith,66. 55. Guignebert, 47.
56. Legge 2, 239. 57.Augstein, 309. 58. M.Smith,25. 59. de Camp. A.E.,399
60 Arens, 89.
From The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets by Barbara G. Walker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Christ was a fictional character |
11 Jun 2005 02:44:13 PM |
|
|
Dr. Newto Joseph wrote:
The Jesus who was called Christos,"Anointed," took his title from
Middle-Eastern savior-gods like Adonis and Tammuz, born of the Virgin
Sea-goddess Aphrodite-Maria (Myrrha), or Ishhtar-Mari (Hebrew Mariamne0. ...
Silly nonsense.
Modern theologians tend to sidestep the question of whether Jesus
was in fact a fable or a real person.
Very elderly, silly, nonsense.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Christ was a fictional character |
12 Jun 2005 12:48:15 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Dr. Newto Joseph wrote:
The Jesus who was called Christos,"Anointed," took his title from
Middle-Eastern savior-gods like Adonis and Tammuz, born of the Virgin
Sea-goddess Aphrodite-Maria (Myrrha), or Ishhtar-Mari (Hebrew Mariamne0.
...
Silly nonsense.
Modern theologians tend to sidestep the question of whether
Jesus
was in fact a fable or a real person.
Very elderly, silly, nonsense.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Almost as silly as the gospel claims Jesus would preside over
the end of the world and judgment day 1930 years ago.
People will believe just anything, won't they?
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Christ was a fictional character |
12 Jun 2005 09:42:37 AM |
|
|
Whatever keeps you from deeling with reality
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Christ was a fictional character |
13 Jun 2005 10:20:55 AM |
|
|
Niels van der Linden wrote:
Whatever keeps you from deeling with reality
Every sentence should have a main clause, young man.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Christ was a fictional character |
11 Jun 2005 12:11:58 AM |
|
|
Talk to the jesusneverexisted.com guy and see if your stories match or if
one might be up for change.
.
|
|
|
| User: "me" |
|
| Title: Re: Jesus Christ was a fictional character |
11 Jun 2005 01:26:42 AM |
|
|
"Niels van der Linden" <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
Talk to the jesusneverexisted.com guy and see if your stories match or if
one might be up for change.
Thanks for the link - very interesting!
In order to protect their work 1st century Romano-Greek authors were in the habit of
incorporating into their texts a variety of mathematical "security codes". If someone
produced altered copies the alterations could be identified. For instance, an author
might write about the Emperor, saying: 'The Emperor is a wise man', a rival could put
out texts reading: 'The Emperor thinks he is a wise man'.
Whoever wrote the original version of the Gospel of Mark wrote it in sections of 51
words.
Mark 1, verses 9-11 contains 52 words - the word that was added?
'Nazareth'.
Mark 1, verse 35 and verses 40-42 form another 51 word section, verses 36-39 and
43-45 were added later. Verses 43-45 were added by a different person to the one who
added verses 36-39.
Mark 6, verses 1-3, describing Jesus' visit to his home town, end with 'And they were
offended at him'. Why should they be offended at him?
The answer is to be found at Mark 3, verses 31-35, which originally came before 'And
they were offended at him'. 'And they were offended at him' was followed by Mark 3,
verse 30, 'Because they said he has an unclean spirit'.
The question one must ask about this reconstruction is: Why was it split up? Well, why
were Jesus' mother and brothers outside whilst his sisters were inside? The answer is
because they weren't allowed in - because Jesus' father wasn't a Jew! It was the
custom in some places for the sons of a woman who married a non-Jew to be excluded
but the daughters were not.
The bit where a Greek woman asks Jesus to heal her daughter and he at first refuses is
interesting. She refers to dogs eating the crumbs thrown under the table. It was the
custom for people to wipe their hands on bread crumbs from the centre of the loaf
(which were slightly damp) and throw them under the table. The Greek word for these
crumbs was 'Magdalen'.
And as for the crucifixion ....
And they impress into service as a messenger a certain passer by named Simon, a
Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus. And they brought him to Golgotha, the
place of the skull, and they gave him wine spiced with Myrrh (a soporific). Now it was
the third hour (after dusk) and they crucified him. And they put a sign on him King of the
Jews.
Fast foward to the next morning:
Now they that were passing by blasphemed him .... (they thought the broken and
bloody body on the cross was Jesus)
Earlier, when Jesus was taken into ("out of sight" into) Pilate's palace the soldiers put
a purple robe on him and acknowledged his kingship "Hail, King of the Jews"
Remember - the whole story is a work of fiction. The original story reads remarkably like
a modern "political" novel.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "me" |
|
| Title: The Origin of Christianity |
12 Jun 2005 10:08:05 PM |
|
|
One day, thirty five years ago, I decided to sit down and read the New Testament. My then girlfriend was, so it seemed to me,
"oppressed" by her Christian upbringing. I needed to get some idea of what Christianity "was all about". As a child and young
man I'd had absolutely no interest in Christianity, or any religion. So I spent an afternoon reading the New Testament through from
beginning to end.
My conclusion was that the Gospel of Mark was obviously the source of everything else in the book. It was also obvious to me
that the author of Mark did not intend his readers to believe that what they were reading was a true story. Also obvious was that
the story was not in its original form. Someone had "doctored" it.
Since that time I have come to realise that 99% + of people who are influenced by Christianity, whether they be believers or
profess to be atheists, are totally unable to "see" what is obvious to me.
Maybe you are one of the "less than 1%" who has a "clear" mind uninfluenced by preconceived notions of what the New
Testament really is?
If so, read on. If not, don't bother - you'll only disagree with me.
A few "honest" biblical scholars have commented on Mark 1, verses 4- 5, which reads:
'Came John the one baptising in the desert proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And went out to him
ALL the Judaean country and the Jerusalemites ALL, and were baptised by him in the Jordan river confessing the sins of them.'
They note that the literal meaning of this is a description of a HUGE gathering of at least a couple of million people - who are
"converted" by John. Obviously, they conclude, the author didn't really mean "all", we are supposed to understand this
"historical event" as merely a "large gathering".
But the author DID really mean ALL the population of the Judaean State.
In order to understand what the author was up to one must realise that his work was not targetted at "common people" - it was
for limited circulation only - it was meant to be read by "intellectuals". It was an "attack" on contemporary Judaism. It was a
"political tract".
Jesus then comes from Galilee and is "converted" by John. Historically Judaea and Galilee were, for considerable periods of time,
two separate, independent states (Galilee was 'Israel'). After his conversion Jesus has an "experience" in which his deceased
father speaks to him from the sky, telling him he HAD loved him (to avoid confusing people translators have traditionally
converted the Greek, which reads "was well-pleased", to "am well pleased" - rather "dishonest" I think). Here is an obvious clue
as to who Jesus was supposed to be. He was DEFINITELY not supposed to be 'The Son of God' - as most people are led to believe.
If someone were to write a book today which began:
Came Fred Bloggs baptising by the River Thames. And ALL the people of London and ALL the people of the English countryside
went out to him and were baptised by Fred confessing the sins of them. Then came Hamish from Scotland ....
Only fools would believe they were reading a true story.
The original author of Mark did not think of his readers as fools.
The rest of his work (less than 50% of what we have today is original - a lot of FRAUDULENT alterations were made to his text by
one or more later authors, their intention being to radically alter the storyline) makes frequent reference to people, events,
practices and beliefs that would require a "scholarly" knowledge of contemporary Jewish society. Very few people would have
been capable of following the details of his storyline. I doubt if there were more than a handful of copies of the original version of
the Gospel of Mark ever written.
The process by which Christianity evolved from this "political tract", the original 'Gospel of Mark', will probably never be discerned
- by one CAN "see" how it all began.
It's obvious to ME.
How about you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origin of Christianity |
12 Jun 2005 11:03:02 PM |
|
|
It's obvious to ME.
How about you?
Jep, seems in line with the verses' maths (51 words etc..) from your other
post.
Also with:
"There are actually some 200 gospels, epistles and other books concerning
the life of Jesus Christ.
Writing such material was a popular literary form, particularly in the 2nd
century. The pious fantasies competed with Greek romantic fiction.
Political considerations in the late 2nd century led to the selection of
just four approved gospels and the rejection of others.
After three centuries of wrangling 23 other books were accepted by the
Church as divinely inspired. The rest were declared 'pious frauds'.
In truth, the whole lot belongs to a genre of literary FICTION."
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/mark.htm also says draws this picture about
whom these texts where initially for (I have yet to read it in more detail).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origin of Christianity |
13 Jun 2005 10:18:46 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:08:05 +0000, "me" <here@now.com> wrote:
Since that time I have come to realise that 99% + of people who are influenced by Christianity, whether they be believers or
profess to be atheists, are totally unable to "see" what is obvious to me.
Take your blinders off.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "me" |
|
| Title: Atheism and Grief |
12 Jun 2005 02:29:56 AM |
|
|
When people die they cease to exist.
The active consciousness that we knew totally and utterly vanishes.
However, one cannot simply shrug one's shoulders and get on with one's life if one was
"close" to the person who died.
Grief can be an "intense" experience.
It was my experience that many Christians cannot curb their desire to "put the boot in"
when confronted by a grieving atheist.
One even told me that my refusal to believe in an afterlife was preventing my deceased
wife's soul from "passing over" - that I was being "cruel to her soul".
The only people who really knew what was going on were fellow atheists who had
experienced a similar level of grief. With one or two exceptions Christians were no
comfort to me. Their intolerance of people who do not believe in an afterlife was
awesome. They just couldn't keep their mouths shut about what THEY believed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and Grief |
12 Jun 2005 02:49:44 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 02:29:56 +0000, "me" <here@now.com> wrote:
When people die they cease to exist.
The active consciousness that we knew totally and utterly vanishes.
However, one cannot simply shrug one's shoulders and get on with one's life if one was
"close" to the person who died.
Grief can be an "intense" experience.
It was my experience that many Christians cannot curb their desire to "put the boot in"
when confronted by a grieving atheist.
It is disgusting behaviour on their part.
And they don't seem to understand why.
One even told me that my refusal to believe in an afterlife was preventing my deceased
wife's soul from "passing over" - that I was being "cruel to her soul".
Which is both stupid and remarkably insensitive.
The only people who really knew what was going on were fellow atheists who had
experienced a similar level of grief. With one or two exceptions Christians were no
comfort to me. Their intolerance of people who do not believe in an afterlife was
awesome. They just couldn't keep their mouths shut about what THEY believed.
What they believe is utterly irrelevant. It is a time when one forgets
one's own beliefs (or lack) in order to support the bereaved.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
