The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Kevin MacDonald Archive
Review of David Skrbina’s The Jesus Hoax: How St. Paul’s Cabal Fooled the World for Two Thousand Years
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Something Here
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Jesus Hoax: How St. Paul’s Cabal Fooled the World for Two Thousand Year
David Skrbina
Creative Fire Press, 2019

ORDER IT NOW

David Skrbina is a professional philosopher who was a senior lecturer at the University of Michigan from 2003–2018. In addition to the book under review, he has written and edited a number of books, including The Metaphysics of Technology (Routledge, 2014), Panpsychism in the West (MIT Press, 2017), and the anthology Confronting Technology (Creative Fire Press, 2020).

The Jesus Hoax attempts to convince the reader that there is no rational basis for Christianity and that the motivation for its main originator, St. Paul, was antagonism toward the Roman Empire. Within this framework, Paul was a Jewish nationalist whose goal was to recruit non-Jews to oppose the Roman imperium: “Since the biblical Jesus story is false, it was evidently constructed by Paul and his fellow Jews in order to sway the gullible Gentile masses to their side and away from Rome” (43). Indeed, Skrbina claims that Paul may have been a Zealot, i.e., a member of a Jewish sect dedicated to violent resistance against the Romans, concluding “it seems clear that he was an ardent Jewish nationalist opposed to Roman rule, as was the case with most elite Jews of the time” (37).

Skrbina argues that there is no convincing evidence for the truth of the Jesus story, either within the canonical New Testament or from non-Christian sources. The earliest reference from a non-Christian source is a paragraph from the Jewish writer Josephus dated to 93 recounting the basic story, that Jesus was crucified “upon the accusation of the principal men among us”—i.e., the elite Jews of the period. Here Skrbina raises a general issue: the earliest source for the passage from Josephus is from the Christian apologist Eusebius in the fourth century, and the oldest sources for the gospels themselves are dated much later than they were supposedly written (70–95), leaving open the possibility of redactions and interpolations. For example, the oldest copy of the complete Gospel of Matthew, which, as noted below, contains the most inflammatory anti-Jewish passage of all, dates from the mid-fourth century, well after Constantine had legalized Christianity in the Empire and anti-Jewish attitudes were rife among intellectuals like Eusebius and the Church fathers such as St. John Chrysostom.”[1]Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (AuthorHouse, 2003; originally published: Praeger, 1998), Ch. 3. The extent of redaction and interpolation remains unknown and presents obvious problems of interpretation.

The first Romans to comment on Christianity were Tacitus and Pliny (~115), both of whom disliked Christianity. As Skrbina notes, “the Romans were generally tolerant of other religions, and thus we must conclude that there was something uniquely problematic about this group” (60).

And Skrbina is well aware that an analysis of the entire early Christian movement must be aware of Jewish issues, quoting Nietzsche: “The first thing to be remembered, if we do not wish to lose the scent here, is that we are among Jews” (34). He is quite accurate in his assessment of Jewish ethnocentrism: Jews “saw themselves as special, different, ‘select,’ and thus they put these ideas into the mouth of their God. Certainly, no one would deny a people pride in themselves. But these extreme statements go far beyond normal bounds. They indicate a kind of self-absorption, a self-glorification, perhaps a narcissism, perhaps a conceit. To be chosen by the creator of the universe, and to be granted the right to rule, ruthlessly, over all other nations, bespeaks a kind of megalomania that is unprecedented in history” (63).

Not surprisingly, such a people have often been hated by others, and Skrbina recounts the many examples of anti-Jewish attitudes and actions in the ancient world: “where the Jews settled amongst other peoples, they seem to have made enemies” (65), noting particularly the recurrent theme—a theme that continued long past the ancient world—of Jews allying themselves with ruling elites against the native population. I was particularly struck by a passage Skrbina quotes from recent scholarship referring to advice given in 134 BC to King Antiochus VII, the Greek ruler of the Seleucid Empire, to exterminate the Jews: “for they alone among all the peoples refused all relations with other races, and saw everyone as their enemy; their forebears, impious and cursed by the gods, had been driven out of Egypt. The counselors [cited] the Jews’ hatred of all mankind, sanctioned by their very laws, which forbade them to share their table with a Gentile or give any sign of benevolence.”[2]Quoted in Emilio Gabba, “The Growth of Anti-Judaism or the Greek Attitude toward the Jews.” In W. D. Davies & Louis Finkelstein (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge University Press, 1989), 614–656, 645).

Skrbina concludes that there is a “deeply-embedded misanthropic streak” in Jews that continues into the contemporary era, quoting the famous passage from Rabbi Yosef who, in 2010 stated, “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world—only to serve the people of Israel. They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi [a man of high social standing] and eat” (Jerusalem Post, October 18, 2010). Skrbina: “There is something about Jewish culture that inspires disgust and hatred” (79).

Based on the extensive citations to the Old Testament, Skrbina concludes that the Gospels, commonly dated well after Paul’s writing, were also likely written by Jews. Skrbina notes that the latest-dated gospel, John, is addressed to “intra-Jewish squabbling” (41) over the issue of Jesus being the Messiah—obviously a view rejected by Orthodox Jews. In other words, John identifies as a Jew but as a Jew battling the Orthodox Jewish establishment. Importantly, John contains anti-Jewish passages that would echo down the centuries: Jews “sought to kill Jesus,” and the gospel represents Jesus as saying, “You [Jews] are of your father the devil… He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44) (41). Many contemporary scholars accept the view that anti-Jewish statements in the Gospels are intramural disputes about whether Jews or Christians were the chosen people of God.

Of course, there are many other anti-Jewish statements:

  • John 5:18: For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill [Jesus], because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.
  • John 7:1: After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
  • John 7:12–13: And there was considerable complaining about him among the crowds. While some were saying, “He is a good man,” others were saying, “No, he is deceiving the crowd.” Yet no one would speak openly about him for fear of the Jews.
  • John 8:37: I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you look for an opportunity to kill me, because there is no place in you for my word.

And the most influential of all:

  • Matthew 27:25–26: When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but thatrather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Such sentiments are not only found in the Gospels. St. Paul:

  • 1Thess 2:14–15: For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they haveof the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men.

Skrbina, discussing the Gospel of Mark, notes that Paul et al. had two enemies, the Romans and non-believing Jews like the Pharisees who “wanted to kill Jesus” (95). Mark therefore blamed both, and Skrbina concludes that “Mark’s anger against his fellow Jews … got the better of him; for centuries afterward, Christians would blame the Jews for killing Christ, not realizing that the whole tale was a Jewish construction in the first place” (95).

Later in Matthew and Luke, “the anti-Jewish rhetoric heats up a bit; the Jews are called ‘a brood of vipers’ (Mat 3:7, 12:34, 23:33) and ‘lovers of money’ (Lu 16:14). And there are repetitions of the message of revolution, including armed confrontation (“I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” [Mat. 10:34]) and it depicts that the coming confrontation would split families.

Skrbina’s reconstruction of the trajectory of Christianity is presented as tentative (“I’ll not claim certainty here”[81]). For example, he imagines a soliloquy by Jewish patriot Paul asking, “What message could our ‘Jesus’ take to the masses,” answering “we need them to be pro-Jewish, not make them Jews–no, that would never work. We need something new, a ‘third way’ between Judaism and paganism. Maybe for a start, we could get them to worship our God Jehovah, and not that absurd Roman pantheon” (84; emphasis in text). And the whole point was to encourage revolt: “Throughout [Paul’s] letters we find numerous references to enslavement, revolution, insurrection, war, the importance of the disempowered masses, and so on. In the early Galatians we read of the need for Jesus to ‘deliver us from the present evil age’ ([Galatians] 1:4)” (90). Skrbina considers the following passage, from 1Corinthians 1:4 “decisive” (92):

For consider your call, brethren, not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are. (Skrbina’s emphasis)

Militancy increases in Luke and Matthew, both dated to 85. Matthew (10:34): “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

If one agrees with Skrbina on all this, then he suggests that you “go to your local church leaders and confront them with the evidence (or lack thereof). Their response will confirm everything you need to know. Then, make it clear to them that you have been swindled” (112). And: “Christians need to own up the fact that they have been swindled, and then see if anything can be salvaged of their religion. Keep the social club, do charity work, help the poor—just dump the bogus metaphysics” (116).

Discussion

Since I am not a believer and since I am quite cognizant of Jewish efforts to manipulate the beliefs and attitudes of non-Jews—the thesis, after all, of The Culture of Critique—I am quite open to Skrbina’s interpretation. However, there are a few things that bother me.

Liars? In Skrbina’s view, the entire project was based on lies, lies made possible by Jewish contempt for non-Jews. In a section titled “Paul, Liar Supreme,” we find “The Gentiles were always treated by the Jews with contempt. … They could be manipulated, harassed, assaulted, beaten, even killed if it served Jewish interests” (99). The gospel writers were also likely liars: “Even in ancient times, people were not idiots. How could Mark accept without any apparent evidence or confirmation, such fantastic tales? And accept them so completely that he would write them down as factual truth, as real and actual events? And then how could the same thing happen three more times, to three different individuals?” (106). And Paul is even more unlikely to have actually believed what he was writing because he was so close to the events he wrote about, and because he was a “clever man. How could he possibly have fallen so completely for a bogus Jewish messiah that he would dedicate his life to spreading the story?” (106).

This is presented as an issue of cleverness, and it is certainly true that there is a small but consistent negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity.[3]Miron Zuckerman, et al., “The Negative Intelligence–Religiosity Relation: New and Confirming Evidence,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 46, no. 6(2020): 856–868. But the weakness of the association—explaining around four percent of the variance—indicates that there are plenty of intelligent people who are quite religious. This would have been even more likely in the ancient world—a context in which religion was taken very seriously, where miraculous events were taken for granted by many, and where there wasn’t already a long history of philosophical skepticism about religion, as there is in the contemporary West. Or consider the medieval period in the West that produced highly intelligent believers, such as St. Thomas Aquinas or William of Occam. Or the ultra-religious but very intelligent Puritans who settled New England and quickly founded Harvard University and the other elite Ivy League universities. We live in an age where science has become the height of respectability—hence the attempts to manipulate what can pass as scientific to serve other interests and have a dramatic impact on contemporary culture. However, the cultural context has been much different in the past, and I suspect that correlations between intelligence and religiosity would have been approximately zero in many historical periods.

Another issue related to lying is martyrdom. The proposal that Paul and the gospel writers were liars must deal with the issue of “Who would die for a lie? … as Jews, they were all, already, under persecution from the Romans. As extremist, fanatical Jews they were willing to do anything and suffer any punishment, in order to help ‘Israel’” (110). It’s certainly true that Jews died and were enslaved in droves when the Romans put down the Jewish uprisings, and this was presumably on the minds of the putative gospel writers (the first Roman-Jewish war was in 70), so the extreme altruism of martyrdom for the benefit of the group seems possible, particularly among Jews—there is a long tradition of Jewish martyrdom that continues to be an important aspect of Jewish identity. However, stories of martyrdom in both the Christian and Jewish traditions may well be at least exaggerated if not entirely apocryphal (e.g., here) because of their usefulness in creating a strong sense of ingroup identity.

Again, there are the questions of who wrote the New Testament and when was it written, including possible redactions and interpolations. I am not at all a scholar on the New Testament, but I note that a recent scholar, Robert Price, dates the first collection of St. Paul’s letters from Marcion in the second century, with the authorship of some letters highly contested, and a strong possibility of interpolations by later collectors:

The question of authorship would have little bearing here one way or the other. In this process, interpolations were made and then gradually permeated the text tradition of each letter until final canonization of the Pastoral edition (and concurrent burning of its rivals) put a stop to all that. … But the first collector of the Pauline Epistles had been Marcion. No one else we know of would be a good candidate, certainly not the essentially fictive Luke, Timothy, and Onesimus. And Marcion, as Burkitt and Bauer show, fills the bill perfectly. Of the epistles themselves, he is probably the original author of Laodiceans (the Vorlage [i.e., original version] of Ephesians) and perhaps of Galatians, too. Like Muhammad in the Koran, he would have read his own struggles back into the careers of his biblical predecessors.

But there are other scholars who continue to uphold the view that the New Testament is a reliable account, or at least reliable enough (see, e.g., Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs). I am certainly not in any position to evaluate what continues to be a very contentious area which has been covered in minute deal for at least 200 years, often by highly motivated scholars. At this late stage of scholarship, it seems unlikely that a consensus will ever be reached, especially because a great deal of the scholarship may well be motivated by a desire to defend deeply held religious beliefs—or dispute them; e.g., Blomberg describes himself as “a Christian believer of an evangelical persuasion” (xxv), which doesn’t mean that he is incorrect, but indicates that he would be motivated to defend his beliefs.

Given all this complexity I take that path of humility in trying to assess these issues, resulting in my being an agnostic about the historicity of the New Testament, whether whoever wrote it were liars, and what their real agendas were. I am persuaded that there is no consensus on what was actually written in the first century, and I accept the possibility that the writings that survive as the canonical writings of Christianity may well include later redactions and interpolations that reflect very different perceptions and interests from those of the putative first-century writers .

The Anti-Jewish Statements in the New Testament. I noted above that there are quite a few anti-Jewish passages in the New Testament, including from St. Paul himself. Skrbina claims that “The scattered anti-Jewish statements in all the Gospels—especially John—more reflect an internal Jewish battle over ideology than an external, Gentile attack” (107–108). This is a common scholarly view, but if you are trying to recruit Gentiles to your movement to serve Jewish interests, would you really want to litter your writing with anti-Jewish statements? In fact, these statements, particularly the claim that Jews committed deicide, have been used by Christians against Jews throughout the succeeding centuries, most notably “His blood be on us, and on our children.” Although the major outbreaks of anti-Semitism have always involved far more than Christian religious beliefs—they have typically occurred during periods of resource competition of various sorts (MacDonald, 1998)—I have no doubt that Christian beliefs about Jews fed into and exacerbated anti-Jewish attitudes, especially in the past when vast sections of the European population were deeply religious—e.g., during the Middle Ages when religious beliefs motivated the Crusades and long, arduous pilgrimages to sites where miracles were said to have occurred. It was a period when, e.g., Notre Dame de Paris, the symbol of traditional France, was adorned with anti-Jewish imagery.

Ecclesia (right) and Synagoga, illustrating Jewish blindness in rejecting Christianity
Ecclesia (right) and Synagoga, illustrating Jewish blindness in rejecting Christianity

Indeed, Jewish perceptions of the anti-Jewish nature of Christian theology have resulted in Jewish activism to essentially rewrite or reinterpret the New Testament in their interests. Antonius J. Patrick summarizes this strand of Jewish activism in his review of Vicomte Léon de Poncins’ Judaism and the Vatican: An Attempt at Spiritual Subversion:

The pronouncements on non-Christian religions and the declaration Nostra aetate passed in the Fourth Session of the Council (1965) accomplished almost all that the Modernists had hoped for. In effect, these pronouncements repudiated nearly two thousand years of Catholic teaching on the Jews. Ever since, the Church has continually bowed to Jewish pressure in regard to its liturgy, the naming of saints, and in the political realm—its most infamous decision in the latter being the recognition of the state of Israel in 1994.

Poncins, who closely covered the Vatican II proceedings, wrote of the declaration:

. . . a number of Jewish organizations and personalities are behind the reforms which were proposed at the Council with a view to modifying the Church’s attitude and time-honored teaching about Judaism: Jules Isaac, Label Katz, President of the B’nai B’rith, Nahum Goldman, President of the World Jewish Congress, etc. . . . These reforms are very important because they suggest that for two thousand years the Church had been mistaken and that she must make amends and completely reconsider her attitude to the Jews.

The leading figure in the years prior to the Council was the virulent anti-Catholic writer Jules Isaac, and he played an active role during the Counsel. “Isaac,” Poncins describes, “turned the Council to advantage, having found there considerable support among progressive bishops. In fact, he became the principal theorist and promoter of the campaign being waged against the traditional teaching of the Church.”

Isaac had long before begun his hostile campaign to overturn Catholic teaching on the Jews with his two most important books on the subject: Jésus et Israel (1946) and Genése de l’Antisémitisme (1948). Poncins accurately summarizes the main thrust of these works:

In these books Jules Isaac fiercely censures Christian teaching, which he says has been the source of modern anti-Semitism, and preaches, though it would be more correct to say he demands, the ‘purification’ and ‘amendment’ of doctrines two thousand years old.

Moreover, whatever the beliefs and motives of St. Paul and the Gospel writers, the Church had essentially become an anti-Jewish movement by the fourth century when Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire:

The proposal here is that in this period of enhanced group conflict, anti-Jewish leaders such as [St. John] Chrysostom [who retains a chapel named after him at St. Peter’s basilica in Rome] attempted to convey a very negative view of Jews. Jews were to be conceptualized not as harmless practitioners of exotic, entertaining religious practices, or as magicians, fortune tellers, or healers [as had been the case previously], but as the very embodiment of evil. The entire thrust of the legislation that emerged during this period was to erect walls of separation between Jews and gentiles, to solidify the gentile group, and to make all gentiles aware of who the “enemy” was. Whereas these walls had been established and maintained previously only by Jews, in this new period of intergroup conflict the gentiles were raising walls between themselves and Jews….

The interpretation proposed here is that group conflict between Jews and gentiles entered a new stage in the 4th century. It is of considerable interest that it was during this period that accusations of Jewish greed, wealth, love of luxury and of the pleasures of the table became common (Simon 1986, 213). Such accusations did not occur during earlier periods, when anti-Jewish writings concentrated instead on Jewish separatism. These new charges suggest that Jews had increasingly developed a reputation as wealthy, and they in turn suggest that anti-Semitism had entered a new phase in the ancient world, one centered around resource competition and concerns regarding Jewish economic success, domination of gentiles [especially enslaving gentiles], and relative reproductive success. …

Jews were increasingly entering the imperial and municipal service in the 4th century until being excluded from these occupations in the 5th century—an aspect of the wide range of economic, social, and legal prohibitions on Jews dating from this period [particularly prohibitions on Jews owning Christian slaves—itself an indication of the superior wealth of Jews]. These factors, in combination with traditional gentile hostility to Judaism (because of its separatist practices and perceptions of Jewish misanthropy and perhaps of Jewish wealth), set the stage for a major anti-Semitic movement. The proposal here is that this anti-Semitic movement crystallized in the Christian Church. (Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 3, 96, 98, 99)

It is quite possible that the anti-Jewish statements in the New Testament are interpolations made much later by anti-Jewish writers motivated by resource competition and Jews enslaving Christians. If so, the liars were not Paul and the Gospel writers, but Christians concerned about Jews in the third and fourth centuries. J. G. Gager suggests that the extant literature from the early Church was deliberately selected to emphasize anti-Jewish themes and exclude other voices, much as the priestly redaction of the Pentateuch retained from earlier writings only what was compatible with Judaism as a diaspora ideology (J. G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (Oxford, 1983), 7; N. deLange, “The origins of anti-Semitism: Ancient evidence and modern interpretation,” In Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis, S. L. Gilman & S. T. Katz (NYU Press, 1991, 30–31). It’s quite conceivable that, rather than reflecting real intra-Jewish squabbles in the first century, as suggested by Skrbina, these early works were deliberately embellished in order to emphasize anti-Jewish themes in the originals—or they were completely fabricated—at a time when these writers had become strongly anti-Jewish for reasons that would not have been salient in the first century. In any case, this possibility is highly compatible with the view that there was a qualitative shift toward the conscious construction of a fundamentally anti-Jewish version of history during the formative period of the Catholic Church.

Consequences of the Lies. Skrbina ends by claiming that Paul’s lies were successful: “It took a few hundred years, but when enough people fell for the hoax, it helped to bring down the Roman Empire” (122). And he describes the lies as a “mortal threat”: “eventually drawing in 2 billion people, becoming an enemy of truth and reason, and causing deaths of millions of human beings via inquisitions, witch burnings, crusades, and other religious atrocities” (101).

I have never seen a scholarly argument that the institutionalization of the Catholic Church contributed importantly to the fall of the Empire. The Eastern Empire, although losing substantial territory to the Muslims, was only overthrown in 1453 after centuries of battling them. However, it’s certainly a reasonable idea given that Christian religious ideology was the polar opposite of thoroughly militarized Indo-European culture upon which Rome was built. Ancient Greco-Roman culture was fundamentally aristocratic and based on ideas of natural inequality and natural hierarchy. Thus, Plato’s “just society” as depicted in The Republic was to be ruled by philosophers because they were truly rational, and he assumes there are natural differences in the capacity for rationality—a modern would phrase it in terms of the behavior genetics of IQ and personality. Aristotle believed that some people were slaves “by nature” (Larry Siedentop, Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 52), i.e., that the hierarchy between masters and slaves was natural. Reflecting themes common in Indo-European culture emphasized by Ricardo Duchesne (The Uniqueness of Western Civilization), the ancients prized fame and glory (positive esteem from others) resulting from genuine virtue and military and political accomplishments—but not labor, because laborers were often slaves and the rightful booty of conquest.

So the Christian ethic of prizing meekness, humility, and labor was quite a change. Within Christian ideology the individual replaced the ancient Indo-European family as the seat of moral legitimacy. Christian ideology was intended for all humans, resulting in a sense of moral egalitarianism, at least within the Christian community, rather than seeing society as based on natural hierarchy. Individual souls were seen as having moral agency and equal value in the eyes of God—a theology that has had very negative effects in the contemporary world.

However, universalism and the Christian virtues of meekness and humility are not the only story and indeed, as Skrbina notes, the sword also makes an appearance in the New Testament. In the Middle Ages Christianity was Germanized (James Russell, The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, Oxford, 1996), making it much more compatible with an aristocratic warrior ethnic. And in the medieval period and beyond, Christianity facilitated Western individualism and essentially ushered in the modern age of science, technological progress, and territorial expansion (Joseph Henrich, The Weirdest People in the World, 2020; MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, 2019).

As a direct result, Christians who had a firm conviction about their beliefs eventually conquered the world and have been responsible for essentially all of the scientific and technological progress that created the modern world. Indeed, in his The WEIRDest People in the World, Joseph Henrich argues that the medieval Church invented Western individualism by insisting on monogamous marriage and by “demolishing” extended kinship relations, presented by Henrich as an attempt to understand, as phrased in his subtitle, How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous (Harvard, 2020). I have quite a few objections to his approach (see here), but he is certainly correct that the Church was influential in opposing the power of extended kinship groups and preventing concubinage and polygyny among elites, thereby facilitating a relatively egalitarian marriage regime. Essentially Henrich ignores the ethnic basis of Western individualism that reaches back into pre-historic Western Europe and is certainly reflected in the classical Western civilizations of Greece and Rome. Henrich also ignores genetic influences on IQ and personality. But I agree with a much weaker version—that the Church facilitated Western individualism and so helped give rise to the modern world (Chapter 5 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, 2019 ).

So it’s not entirely a story of “causing deaths of millions of human beings via inquisitions, witch burnings, crusades, and other religious atrocities.” But the sad reality is that contemporary Christianity, or at least the vast majority of it, is utterly opposed to the interests of the people who have historically made it their religion. For example, Prof. Andrew Fraser has interpreted fundamental Christian texts in a manner consistent with an ethnic form of Christianity (e.g., “Global Jesus versus National Jesus”, and in The Sword of Christ (2020; this book seems to have been banned by Amazon), Giles Corey attempts to rescue an ethnically viable Christianity from the ruins of contemporary, leftist-dominated Christian theology. As I note in my preface:

Religious thinking is by its nature unbounded—it is infinitely malleable [so that, for example, redactions and interpolations on the New Testament could easily have been adapted to create a fundamentally new theology]. It is a dangerous sword that can be used to further legitimate interests of believers, or it can become a lethal weapon whereby believers adopt attitudes that are obviously maladaptive. One need only think of religiously based suicide cults, such as People’s Temple (Jonestown), Solar Temple and Heaven’s Gate. Mainstream Christianity from traditional Catholicism to mainstream Protestantism was fundamentally adaptive in terms of creating a healthy family life. It was compatible with a culture characterized by extraordinary scientific and technological creativity, [territorial expansion], and standards of living that have been much envied by the rest of the world. …

Corey is well aware that contemporary Christianity has been massively corrupted. Mainline Protestant and Catholic Churches have become little more than appendages for the various social justice movements of the left, avidly promoting the colonization of the West by other races and cultures, even as religious fervor and attendance dwindle and Christianity itself becomes ever more irrelevant to the national dialogue. [Guillaume Durocher notes that only 6–12 percent of the French population are practicing Catholics, indicating that Catholicism cannot be blamed for France’s current malaise.] On the other hand, [American] Evangelicals, a group that remains vigorously Christian, have been massively duped by the theology of Christian Zionism, their main focus being to promote Israel. [In general, they have rejected an explicit White identity or a sense of White interests.]

Until the twentieth century, Christianity served the West well. One need only think of the long history of Christians battling to prevent Muslims from establishing a caliphate throughout the West—Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, the Spanish Reconquista, the defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna. The era of Western expansion was accomplished by Christian explorers and colonists. Until quite recently, the flourishing of science, technology, and art occurred entirely within a Christian context.

Corey advocates a revitalization of Medieval Germanic Christianity based on, in the words of Samuel Francis, “social hierarchy, loyalty to tribe and place (blood and soil), world-acceptance rather than world-rejection, and an ethic that values heroism and military sacrifice.” This medieval Christianity preserved the aristocratic, fundamentally Indo-European culture of the Germanic tribes. This was an adaptive Christianity, a Christianity that was compatible with Western expansion, to the point that by the end of the nineteenth century, the West dominated the planet. Christianity per se is certainly not the problem.

The decline of adaptive Christianity coincides with the post-Enlightenment rise of the Jews throughout the West as an anti-Christian elite, and Corey has a great deal of very interesting material on traditional Christian views of Judaism. Traditional Christian theology viewed the Church as having superseded the Old Testament and that, by rejecting the Church, the Jews had not only rejected God, they were responsible for murdering Christ. …

In fact, intellectual movements of the left—disseminated throughout the educational system and by the elite media—have exploited the Western liberal tradition. The intellectuals who came to dominate American intellectual discourse and the media were quite aware of the need to appeal to Western proclivities toward individualism, egalitarianism, and moral universalism by essentially creating a moral community that appealed to these traits but also served their interests. A theme of The Culture of Critique is that moral indictments of their opponents have been prominent in the writings of the activist intellectuals reviewed there, including political radicals and those opposing biological perspectives on individual and group differences in IQ. A sense of moral superiority was also prevalent in the psychoanalytic movement, and the Frankfurt School developed the view that social science was to be judged by moral criteria.

The triumph of the cultural left to the point of substantial consensus in the West has created a moral community where people who do not subscribe to their beliefs are seen as not only intellectually deficient but as morally evil. Moral communities rather than kinship are the social glue of Western societies. Westerners, being individualists and relatively unconcerned about the prospects of their kin beyond their immediate family, willingly punish other Whites who oppose their moral community, even at cost to themselves (altruistic punishment). Their main concern is to have a good reputation in their moral community which is now defined by the media and the educational system—a moral community that was created by hostile elites out of fear and loathing of the traditional White American majority (see Culture of Critique, Ch. 7).

Finally, Skrbina asks, “Can it really be beneficial to accept a myth as truth? Can one really live a happy, successful, and meaningful life dedicated to a false story or a lie?” (16). I think that the answer is that yes it can. As an evolutionist, my working hypothesis is that when it comes to the realm of ideas, evolution does not aim for truth but rather for success in continuing one’s family and increasing the prospects of one’s tribe. Certainly the religious beliefs of other groups, say Muslims, Jews, or Mormons, may well be false and based on inventions. But the people believing in these lies have often done very well in evolutionary terms and are continuing to do so. Ashkenazi Jewish eugenics proceeded for centuries in a religious context, resulting in a highly intelligent elite able to wield vast influence throughout the West. Islam expanded over hundreds of years, controlling vast territories, with leaders rewarded by large harems and many descendants; Islam is now rapidly expanding in Europe and has higher fertility than native Europeans. It’s well known that seriously religious, fundamentalist Christians in the West have more children on average than non-Christian Europeans, which is certainly adaptive. But they are also more likely to swear fealty to the interests of Israel and in general they are entirely resistant to being informed about the negative effects of multiculturalism or about Jewish cultural influence (whose effects they despise) or even Jewish traditional hostility toward Christianity.

And it can scarcely be doubted that Catholicism and mainline Protestantism have been completely corrupted and actively subverted so that millions of White Americans have been swept up by the multiculturalism and replacement-level immigration as moral imperatives. Jewish activism has certainly been part of this, but traditional Christian universalism and moral egalitarianism are also part of the equation. One might say that Christianity, despite periods when it was highly adaptive, carried the seeds of its own destruction—a chink in its armor that made it relatively easy to subvert once the culture of the West had been subverted by our new hostile elite.

So, in my view, it’s a complex story, and one that is far from finished.

Notes

[1] Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (AuthorHouse, 2003; originally published: Praeger, 1998), Ch. 3.

[2] Quoted in Emilio Gabba, “The Growth of Anti-Judaism or the Greek Attitude toward the Jews.” In W. D. Davies & Louis Finkelstein (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge University Press, 1989), 614–656, 645).

[3] Miron Zuckerman, et al., “The Negative Intelligence–Religiosity Relation: New and Confirming Evidence,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 46, no. 6(2020): 856–868.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Catholic Church, Christianity, Jews 
Hide 502 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. storxian says: • Website

    As an Eastern Orthodox Christian with strong Miaphysite sympathies, this whole thing is just silly, and predicated on a western understanding of Christianity that we see as clearly divergent.

    1) The core message of the religion isn’t the mythology, virgin birth etc. or the positing of a rational, intellectual argument for Christianity vs other rationalized positions. That’s not what got people’s attention at the time. It was:
    a) the idea that the Logos (Christ as the word of God; Logos/word is a Greek philosophical concept roughly like Dao or Dharma), i.e., the was experientally accessible to everyone at an introspective level beyond rational thought (and that we can all embark on a journey toward embodying it).
    b) that this Logos can be embodied in the most humble and humiliated, like one who suffered not just the most painful, but most humiliating of deaths, crucifixion. And that this embodiment, however awash in humiliation, is what is worthy of devotion, rather than the temporal power of the Emperor.
    c) most importantly, the core of the message is and was i) the beatitudes ii) the woes of the Pharisees, and iii) the great commandment (not to be confused with the great commission). You don’t just make up revolutionary stuff like that as part of a pro-Jewish conspiracy. Tell me how the woes of the Pharisees win hearts and minds for the jews.

    2) If you read Greek rather than some cockamamie translation, Paul argues, and is followed by early Church fathers like Gregory of Nyssa, that the old testament is true in an allegorical, not a literal sense. The book of James is all about how Jewish converts to Christianity have to become. There is no question in James that there is a new covenant for the Jewish Christians and gentile ones alike.

    3) The Catholic church didn’t appear in the 5th century and is not the most original source on these issues. If it isn’t the Greek Orthodox (against which the Catholics constitute a power grab), it’s the Syriac Orthodox (against which the Greeks constitute a power grab circa Chalcedon 451, but at least read the NT in the original). Unlike stated here, Aquinas is a moron along with Augustine and Jerome compared to the eastern fathers like Ephraim the Syrian, the Cappadocian fathers, Maxim the confessor, etc.

    The argument about the church facilitating western individualism and undermining extended kinship ties ignores all of eastern Christianity. We are generally considered antithetical to individualists and eminently tribal; all our churches are almost theoretically phyletist, especially the miaphysites. Let me underline here, that catholicism and western Christianity are based on bare-faced mistranslations from the greek, like the idea of inherited original sin and the idea that scripture rather than christ is the word of god.

    Finally, we all accept myths as truth, it’s the human condition. Through Jung, Neitzsche, Derrida, take your pick, it’s hard to argue that humans have access to objective truth rather than interpretations based on our innate-to-human-nature ‘hero(es) with a thousand faces’. Best to go with one that has had thousands of years to develop and take heed of the fuller spectrum of the human condition than whatever post WWI or post- American revolution (whatever) babble you choose.

    Anyway the later part of the article veers toward some misguided argument about the apostolic period’s affect on contemporary western Christianity, which is so ungrounded that there is nothing more that can be said about it if one is outside the myth that there is meaningful continuity between the two.

  2. El Dato says:

    From Philip K. Dick’s story “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep”:

    [MORE]

    “Listen to this,” Roy Baty said. Irmgard gazed fixedly at the TV screen and Pris had ceased her mutilation of the spider.

    “We located, by means of thousands upon thousands of photographs, a very old man now, named Al Jarry, who played a number of bit parts in pre-war films. From our lab we sent a team to Jarry’s home in East Harmony, Indiana. I’ll let one of the members of that team describe what he found.” Silence, then a new voice, equally pedestrian. “The house on Lark Avenue in East Harmony is tottering and shabby and at the edge of town, where no one, except Al Jarry, still lives. Invited amiably in, and seated in the stale-smelling, moldering, kipple-filled living room, I scanned by telepathic means the blurred, debris-cluttered, and hazy mind of Al Jarry seated across from me.”

    “Listen,” Roy Baty said, on the edge of his seat, poised as if to pounce.

    “I found,” the technician continued, “that the old man did in actuality make a series of short fifteen minute video films, for an employer whom he never met. And, as we had theorized, the ‘rocks’ did consist of rubber-like plastic. The ‘blood’ shed was catsup, and ” the technician chuckled the only suffering Mr. Jarry underwent was having to go an entire day without a shot of whisky.”

    “Al Jarry,” Buster Friendly said, his face returning to the screen. “Well, well. An old man who even in his prime never amounted to anything which either he or ourselves could respect. Al Jarry made a repetitious and dull film, a series of hem in fact, for whom he knew not— and does not to this day. It has often been said by adherents of the experience of Mercerism that Wilbur Mercer is not a human being, that he is in fact an archetypal superior entity perhaps from another star. Well, in a sense this contention has proven correct. Wilbur Mercer is not human, does not in fact exist. The world in which he climbs is a cheap, Hollywood, commonplace sound stage which vanished into kipple years ago. And who, then, has spawned this hoax on the Sol System? Think about that for a time, folks.”

    Regarding Isidore with easy amusement, Roy Baty said, “It’s all over now, Iz. For Mercerism, I mean.” With his nails he managed to lift the corpse of the spider from the sink. “Maybe this was the last spider,” he said. “The last living spider on Earth.” He reflected. “In that case it’s all over for spiders, too.”

    “I don’t feel well,” Isidore said. From the kitchen cupboard he got a cup; he stood holding it for an interval he did not know exactly how long. And then he said to Roy Baty, “Is the sky behind Mercer just painted? Not real?”

    “You saw the enlargements on the TV screen,” Roy Baty said. “The brushstrokes.”

    “Mercerism isn’t finished,” Isidore said. Something ailed the three androids, something terrible. The spider, he thought. Maybe it had been the last spider on Earth, as Roy Baty said. And the spider is gone; Mercer is gone; he saw the dust and the ruin of the apartment as it lay spreading out everywhere — he heard the kipple coming, the final disorder of all forms, the absence which would win out. It grew around him as he stood holding the empty ceramic cup; the cupboards of the kitchen creaked and split and he felt the floor beneath his feet give.

    The wind blew, cracking and splintering the remaining bones, but he sensed the presence of Mercer. Come here, he said to Mercer. Crawl across my foot or find some other way of reaching me. Okay? Mercer, he thought. Aloud he said,
    “Mercer!”

    Across the landscape weeds advanced; weeds corkscrewed their way into the walls around him and worked the walls until they the weeds became their own spore. The spore expanded, split, and burst within the corrupted steel and shards of
    concrete that had formerly been walls. But the desolation remained after the walls had gone; the desolation followed after everything else. Except the frail, dim figure of Mercer; the old man faced him, a placid expression on his face.

    “Is the sky painted?” Isidore asked. “Are there really brushstrokes that show up under magnification?”

    “Yes,” Mercer said.

    “I can’t see them.”

    “You’re too close,” Mercer said. “You have to be a long way off, the way the androids are. They have better perspective.”

    “Is that why they claim you’re a fraud?”

    “I am a fraud,” Mercer said. “They’re sincere; their research is sincere. From their standpoint I am an elderly retired bit player named Al Jarry. All of it, their disclosure, is true. They interviewed me at my home, as they claim; I told them whatever they wanted to know, which was everything.”

    “Including about the whisky?”

    Mercer smiled. “It was true. They did a good job and from their standpoint Buster Friendly’s disclosure was convincing. They will have trouble understanding why nothing has changed. Because you’re still here and I’m still here.” Mercer indicated with a sweep of his hand the barren, rising hillside, the familiar place. “I lifted you from the tomb world just now and I will continue to lift you until you lose interest and want to quit. But you will have to stop searching for me because I will never stop searching for you.”

    “I didn’t like that about the whisky,” Isidore said. “That’s lowering.”

    “That’s because you’re a highly moral person. I’m not. I don’t judge, not even myself.” Mercer held out a closed hand, palm up. “Before I forget it, I have something of yours here.” He opened his fingers. On his hand rested the mutilated spider, but with its snipped-off legs restored.

    “Thanks.” Isidore accepted the spider. He started to say something further…

    An alarm bell clanged.

    Roy Baty snarled, “There’s a bounty hunter in the building! Get all the lights off. Get him away from that empathy box; he has to be ready at the door. Go on move him!”

    • Replies: @Apex Predator
  3. G. Poulin says:

    He’s got it backwards. We should dump the social club, dump the charities, dump the poor— but keep the metaphysics, which is the only unique and valuable thing in Christianity. Skrbina shows himself to be a poser by his consistent mishandling of the New Testament passages he quotes. For instance, he imagines that “not peace but a sword” is a call to political violence. Wrong. The sword in this verse is obviously a metaphor for division or separation from the world and its affairs (including the mania for “world peace”). I could cite other examples, but why bother? The man clearly hasn’t done his homework, and is simply consulting his assumptions and prejudices. Not worth engaging.

  4. g8way says:

    What I find ironic is that Skrbina’s approach to the Bible uses the thoroughly Jewish practice of deconstructionism through soundbites to portray the Bible and Paul and the Israelites of the Old Testament the same way as Jewish and Judaistic “scholars” of the first half of the 20th century did, which didn’t make a serious effort to understand what Jesus and the Apostles were explaining about what God was saying in the Old Testament (through prophets) or New Testament (through Jesus and the Apostles and Luke (who wasn’t a Jew)).

    I like MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique” model, but it’s not easy to find until well after the period described in the Bible, which does show the presence of what E Michael Jones calls the “Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” as early as the patriarch Jacob/Israel, but the prophets in the Old Testament as well as the books of the New Testament made diatribes against that very Revolutionary Spirit. I think MacDonald’s efforts would have been better spent showing how Skrbina has acted like modern Jews more than Paul did.

    And of course Skrbina’s premise that Paul invented Christianity evinces as much ignorance of the content of the Bible as Joe Atwill’s Caesar’s Messiah which says something similar about Josephus.

    • Agree: Arthur MacBride
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Jake
  5. Sparkon says:
    @storxian

    Finally, we all accept myths as truth,

    No we don’t.

    But I do agree with Kevin McDonald’s conclusion that belief in myths may have evolutionary advantages. There is some safety in crowds, or the “mob,” when the mob starts pointing fingers, and burning “witches” and “warlocks.”

    So it’s not entirely a story of “causing deaths of millions of human beings via inquisitions, witch burnings, crusades, and other religious atrocities.” But the sad reality is that contemporary Christianity, or at least the vast majority of it, is utterly opposed to the interests of the people who have historically made it their religion.

    No doubt the Catholic church played a signficant role in the “progress” of Western civilization, but we cannot know what Western civilization would have done without the Church.

    In general, I subscribe to the views of the late Dorothy M. (“D.M.”) Murdock – “Acharya S”

    …supporting the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed as a historical person, but was rather a mingling of various pre-Christian myths, Sun deities and dying-and-rising deities

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharya_S

    My view is that mankind will never advance under the millstone of the ancient fairy tales.

  6. The rabidly anti-Jewish tone that characterizes John’s gospel was created to distance the growing Jesus movement from its embarrassing origin among what loyal Romans dismissed as contemptible provincial barbarians. John wrote after the Judean rebellion of 66 – 70 CE, which abruptly ended traditional Roman tolerance of Judaism. This came about because the rebels treacherously slaughtered the men of the Jerusalem garrison after tricking them into laying down their arms on a false promise of safe conduct out of the country. John concocted the utterly implausible scene of the all-powerful Roman Prefect Pilate as virtually helpless before a vicious Jewish mob baying for Jesus’ blood for its great narrative power. John’s intended audience would have been very deeply touched by his composition, as they remembered with grief and fury the Jews of Jerusalem howling for the murders of their fathers and brothers in the uprising.

    John rewrote the central fact of Jesus’ life, his execution by Roman authorities for sedition, as the result of demonic Jewish hatred. It is evident that Jesus imagined himself the perfect “lamb of god”, whose blood sacrifice, on a Roman cross instead of a Jewish altar, would be so pleasing to Yahweh that he would return in power to save him at the last minute, just as he’d saved Isaac, and so usher in the kingdom. Accordingly Jesus, alone, contrived to violate a Roman law that carried the death penalty. If he had been the leader of an actual rebellion, dozens if not hundreds of followers would have been crucified alongside him. Jesus’ agonized last words, “father, why have you forsaken me?” are as moving a testimony as you will find anywhere in literature to the catastrophic result of religious fanaticism.

    Years later, another mentally unstable man has a visit from the long dead would-be savior, and we are off and running. I find it fascinating that nineteen hundred years later there was another man who was, like Paul, afflicted with hysterical blindness for two weeks after receiving his vision from god. In his case the message was that he was chosen to restore his nation to greatness. His name was A. Hitler, and today he inhabits quite the opposite end of the pantheon of western gods and demons – largely for following Paul’s and John’s advice on how to deal with Jews.

  7. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:
    @G. Poulin

    “Wrong. The sword in this verse is obviously a metaphor for division or separation from the world and its affairs ”
    Why does Jesus had to engage in abstract and esoteric polemic when the intended audience compsoed of uneducated strata ?

    Anyway NT of Greek or Latin Vulgate or James springs out of Roscharch picture to let mind read what mind wants to read .

    • Thanks: Ian Smith
  8. storxian says:
    @Sparkon

    Beg to differ

    https://whattherussia.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/when-worlds-collide/

    Saying that we don’t all buy into myths is just another of the myths that we all buy into, and one that inhibits progress that would take place if we took better account of the irrational constraints of human nature. As Hume said, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” To say nothing of Heidegger or the rest of the vast intellectual tradition expanding this idea.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  9. anon[230] • Disclaimer says:

    St. Wiesel is in town ,is in town!

    “HE IS A 20TH-CENTURY EXAMPLE FOR OUR COUNTRY’
    Elie Wiesel to be first modern Jew honored with bust in US National Cathedral
    Nobel laureate and Holocaust memoirist joins fellow members-of-the-tribe Jesus and some apostles, along with humanitarians Mother Teresa, Rosa Parks, and Oscar Romero in DC shrine

    By RON KAMPEAS
    Today, 3:55 pm
    Times of Israel

    • Replies: @Druid55
    , @Alden
  10. Anon[301] • Disclaimer says:

    Catholicism and mainline Protestantism have been completely corrupted? Not so much. The modern Church is merely following the Jewish-authored Bible more faithfully. The Rabbi Jesus character did plainly state that, “Salvation is from the Jews.” Christianity could be adapted to European Tradition only when reading the Jew-centric Bible was banned.

    “Wouldn’t Church officials also want to conceal that the disciples, led by James, the brother of Jesus, and Peter, continued to maintain their Jewish identities but made Rabbi Jesus the centerpiece of their Jewish practices (Acts of the Apostles).”

    Why Christians Were Denied Access to Their Bible for 1,000 Years
    Bernard Starr, College Professor (Emeritus, City University of N.Y),psychologist, journalist.
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-christians-were-denied-access-to-their-bible-for-1000-years_b_3303545

    Now that the Bible is freely available to all, and its Jewish evil cannot effectively banned, Christianity itself must be abandoned, or it will continue its original purpose to feed off Traditional European culture like a blood sucking parasite. Romans 15:27–pre-saging Christian America’s foreign policy’s—greedily implores, “The Goyim [Gentiles] owe it [material wealth $$$] to the Jews!”

  11. GeeBee says:

    Skrbina claims that “The scattered anti-Jewish statements in all the Gospels—especially John—more reflect an internal Jewish battle over ideology than an external, Gentile attack” (107–108). This is a common scholarly view, but if you are trying to recruit Gentiles to your movement to serve Jewish interests, would you really want to litter your writing with anti-Jewish statements?

    This is careless to say the least. Having correctly noted that the (canonical) gospels were written long after Saul of Tarsus disappeared from the scene, and that it was Saul who sought (according to Skrbinas) to recruit gentiles in aid of Jews*, MacDonald in the quoted paragraph seeks to cast doubt upon any such motive regarding Saul, by pointing to anti-Jewish sentiments that were written long after he was seeking to attract gentiles to his new version of the Jewish faith. A logical non-sequitor and indeed a howler of sorts.

    MacDonald then proceeds to compound his illogical offerings by admitting, only a few paragraphs later, that “whatever the beliefs and motives of St. Paul and the Gospel writers, the Church had essentially become an anti-Jewish movement by the fourth century when Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire”. Precisely: the gospels were not written by Saul or his ‘team’, but by gentiles and much later, at a time when it was politic to distance oneself from any taint of Jew-sympathy. MacDonald even points to the fourth gospel’s bashing of the Jews as being a sop to Roman sensibilities in the aftermath of the first Jewish War (which began in CE66, and not as MacDonald states in CE70, but I merely quibble here).

    I admire Professor MacDonald immensely, and it is precisely because of this that his shoddy treatment in this part of his review was so striking. Otherwise, many thanks for an interesting review.

    * Nor is Skrbinas’ thesis in any way novel: Jewish writer Marcus Ravage made exactly the same point – that Saul sought to co-opt gentiles into serving Jewish ambitions (essentially to weaponise the goyim against the hated ‘Kittim’) almost a hundred years ago in his Commissary to the Gentiles (Century magazine. February 1928, volume 115, number 4, pages 476–483.)

  12. Sparkon says:
    @storxian

    That’s pretty much a circular argument.

    Human beings have evolved enough cognitive abilities to find food and reproduce, not enough to grasp objective absolute truth. We are stuck in our reductionistic, dichotomizing, comforting narratives

    Broad sweeping generalizations. In any event, grasping “objective absolute truth” about the universe or even Earth is a fairly lofty goal, and how would you even know when you got there?

    There are many mysteries of the universe, and much remains unknown even about our own planet, or the workings of our brains, and of course there are popular “myths” about health and nutrition, but I am talking primarily about religious myths, and popular myths, as in either sense of its dictionary definition:

    myth noun

    1) a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

    2) a widely held but false belief or idea.

    But go ahead, if you like, and trot out some myths you think I or others might believe in. I’m not much impressed by long-winded sophistry. That’s why I always ask for real-world examples, although I’m not even from Missouri.

    • Replies: @storxian
  13. Marcion was right. Jews are possessed by the evil demiurge. We need to rid all Christianity of the Jewish Spirit through a return to Marcionism.


    • Agree: Robin Hood
  14. Unless I missed it, Mr. MacDonald didn’t mention that David Skrbina’s book is available on Amazon. (Kindle $4, and the print edition $20). The print edition is only 138 pages, so it wouldn’t take days and days to read it. I might go for the Kindle.

    Another book on the lies underlying Christianity is “Christ’s Ventriloquists,” by Eric Zeuss. Per Zuess, Christianity, as a separate distinct religion, was Paul’s (Saul’s) invention. His breakaway sect of Christian Jews was at odds the sect who followed Christ’s brother James, which remained more traditional. Paul wasn’t making much traction in converting the pagans until he split from James’ sect (which died), and abandoned circumcision as a requirement for entry into Christianity. Once Paul became an outspoken enemy of the Jewish requirement, Christianity took off. In doing so, Zeuss labels Paul the Greatest Salesman of all Time. Sadly, those millions of US Evangelical Christians, who continue to practice circumcision, have no idea that opposition to the barbaric rite is, (or used to be), central to their religion.

    But the best article I’ve recently read on the subject to date is by Thomas Dalton, “Christianity: The Great Jewish Hoax,” (National Vanguard, 9 Aug. 2020). Dalton often appears on the pages of TUR. I highly recommend his essay.

  15. Anonymous[249] • Disclaimer says:

    For consider your call, brethren, not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are. (Skrbina’s emphasis)

    Am I the only one who is reminded of Orwell’s 1984?

  16. Skrbina ends by claiming that Paul’s lies were successful: “It took a few hundred years, but when enough people fell for the hoax, it helped to bring down the Roman Empire” (122). And he describes the lies as a “mortal threat”: “eventually drawing in 2 billion people, becoming an enemy of truth and reason, and causing deaths of millions of human beings via inquisitions, witch burnings, crusades, and other religious atrocities”

    There is a central truth to Christian doctrine, in my view, in that – if a God wished to gain absolutely and unchallenged global fidelity, he could do so effortlessly. All he would need to do is to make a momentary appearance once in a generation or so.. (less given the advent of technology).

    That no God makes such orchestrated personal appearances indicates that either none exists, or that this is a God who acts generally in the Macro-scope of the natural system that he himself deliberately created, meaning these appearances are actually omni-present, but we are simply too mentally deficient to recognize them in most cases.

    The natural systems of our world operate in a particular way – Significant, as well as seemingly insignificant sacrifices, create a 360 degree ripple effect in human societies, and in this manner work the will of God in accordance with the systems that he himself instituted.

    The Christian self-sacrifice by the Son of God operates in compliance with these natural rules – The Christian system in particular does not ask for burnt offerings or elaborate temple complexes, nor specially ordained hereditary priestly classes. It asks for just treatment of those around you, courtesy toward the least, in particular, instead of glorification of the most exalted.

    All other religions that I am aware of share the same communal sacrificial architecture from man to the deity, that was intended largely to profit a priestly class and institute a submission to the state through its god or gods –
    Whereas in Christianity the God sacrifices his own son to the benefit of his lesser creations, releasing them from the otherwise overdue judgement of the natural systems that he himself had instituted.

    My personal opinion, based on everything from Archeological discovery to population genetics, leads me to the conclusion that the Abrahamic religion that went into Egypt is not the same as the religion that later came out, and the indicative misdirection’s are numerous – there is no indication for instance that the precursor to Pharisaic Judaism even knew what the ‘Hebrew’ / Habiru were.

    So, while I agree to a certain extent that what you see in certain passages in the New Testament are probably best accounted for as often Hellenic Jews outraged at their treatment my Pharisaic Judaism, we know without question that major components of the Hebrew Bible, up to and including its main population component are not as presented in its literature, and that the compact denoted is impossible to be the same as the OT literature were written to support.

    This is not to attack or deny anyone’s personnel religious beliefs, but only to remark that if such an intervention for devout, just supplicants had been offered at one point and then corrupted to resemble to course practices of worshipping pagan storm / sun / moon gods, there would be a sound basis to correct such notions for the benefit of the general population, which is the basis for the story of Jesus.

    We are not told to simply accept proclamations of temple priests or fables like most religious systems originating out of early peoples of the Fertile Crescent, but instead –
    “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you”

    • Thanks: TKK
  17. I’ve been reading Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus, which contains good critiques of the Epistles and the Gospels, against the background of the religious and other cultural events of antiquity. I recommend it even if you don’t agree with Carrier’s conclusion that Jesus likely originated as a Jewish myth, based on a fusion of Near Eastern mystery cults and the Jewish desire for a Messiah to free Jews spiritually from both the Romans and the collaborationist Temple Cult. The apparent historicity of the Gospels, identifying Jesus as a God-Man occurred much later, and resulted from the victory of the historicists and the advantage it gave the church administration, who could point to alleged historical events and sayings, rather than rely on revelations and secret messages in the Old Testament..

    One point he makes that struck me particularly was the identification of Pontius Pilate in the Apostle’s Creed, the only fully human, and historically definitely identifiable character in the Creed (none of the disciples are named, nor is Jesus’s father Joseph). Why is it so important that Jesus “suffered under Pontius Pilate?” Carrier’s answer is that by requiring converts to affirm that creed, they were acknowledging the historicity of Jesus and could not claim that his sacrifice occurred somewhere between heaven and earth, which may have been the case in the original myth.

    But no man has ever been talked out of his religion!

  18. storxian says:
    @Sparkon

    Yeah there are dozens of overlapping widely held but false beliefs that are also traditional stories that we all believe. they don’t have to explain ‘it all’. That America is a democracy or its economy is capitalistic, that any one country has a monopoly on or disproportionate share of progress, morality, victimhood, honour, progress, etc etc. One week we all believe butter is unhealthy, the next week we’re making bullet-proof coffee. It’s one or the other, or there’s a bit of myth in both. This article buys into the myth that there is continuity from the apostolic time to Catholicism as the authoritative inheritor of that tradition, that’s a myth. the myth of progress is probably a myth. definitely from a Chinese, cyclical perspective. that the conflict in Ukraine is a result of Russian aggression, that the US/UK wanted the nazis to lose on the eastern front, that national identity is older than the french revolution, especially among the peasantry, that the USSR was a natural outgrowth from marxism rather than a self-asserted deviation into a highly innovative martial version thereof, with a permanent war cabinet and martial law unenvisioned by, and opposed by, the dogmatic Marxists in Germany…. that Buddhism is always peaceful, that the American revolution was a success given that it was originally based on a taxation grievance, but after it taxes rose by about 7 times. That homosexuality is in-born and sexuality is a social construct at the same time, or one or the other, or neither… that every human trait that we once explained with things like phrenology is now ‘objectively’ explained with the still too nascent field of genetics. Shall we get into Covid myths?

    I mean, much of what happens on this site is disputing myths, no side of any such dispute can ultimately prove objectivity on matters of race, etc etc etc. Sorry, myth is the human condition.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  19. Sparkon says:
    @storxian

    dozens of overlapping widely held but false beliefs that are also traditional stories that we all believe.

    Your mistake is believing that everyone thinks alike about everything and we all have those shared myths you enumerated. We don’t, but I suppose it depends on your education, circle of acquaintances, and experiences in life.

    For example, many people practice some organized or disorganized religion, but about 4% are atheists and 5% agnostic. Atheists don’t believe in any god. Agnostics don’t know if there is a god or not because there is no way to know. You virtually never hear any agnostic point of view in the MSM, because they do try to promote all the popular myths, but many of us realize that anything on the boob tube is likely to be phony.

    As noted, my view is that all of man’s religions were made up by men. They are glorified fairy tales. TV came into my life about the same the OT did, so it was like I was seeing the same kind of Jewish script writing in both media, although I didn’t know who was behind it all then.

    One week we all believe butter is unhealthy, the next week we’re making bullet-proof coffee.

    I’ve never believed that butter is unhealthy. Those kinds of “beliefs” are fads pursued by some, but certainly not by everyone. Fads and crazes come and go over time, often depending on what some celebrity wrote in a book, said on the boob tube or in the press, now on Twitter and the other social media, where I do not participate.

    I’ve never been overweight, or even close, and so diet, lo-fat, and lite products don’t interest me.

    One taste of diet soda back in the ’50s convinced me never to drink that nasty crap again, but every so often, they have tried to slip me a diet soda in the drive-thru, sneaky klutzes, and of course the horrid taste is immediately unpleasant, all the more so if you’ve already pulled away, so it’s worthwhile to try to remember to take a sip before driving off, which requires concentration and focus to unsheathe the straw, poke it through the lid into the container, take a sip, dispose of the sheath, and so on, while the hired help hands out first your change, then the drink, then your food, then the receipt.

    Similarly, at Star Bucks, when I order Iced Tea, they try to give me their pre-made concoction with an artificial sweetener already in there, so it’s a dangerous world, and that’s no myth, depending of course on how you define danger.

    conflict in Ukraine is a result of Russian aggression, that the US/UK wanted the nazis to lose on the eastern front, that national identity is older than the french revolution, especially among the peasantry, that the USSR was a natural outgrowth from marxism rather than a self-asserted deviation into a highly innovative martial version

    Well, that’s quite a hodge podge of special pleading, especially where you try to define both sides of the argument vis a vis the USSR, and fail, simply because Stalin and his Bolshevik cohorts were little more than a gang of murderous thugs. You must be Russian.

    We’ve had any number of discussions at UR about the “Eastern Front,” and as I recall, nobody here sees the question the same way I do, i.e. that Stalin and his Bolshevik co-conspirators set up the Germans, and lured them into attacking a much stronger foe, one that had been preparing for war for almost 20 years, even before the Bolsheviks had consolidated power.

    The foundation for the ultimate overwhelming power of the Red Army in WWII, their Great Patriotic War, was laid down in the 1920s with Western help, primarily from Americans like Taylor and Ford, and financed by all the gold, jewels, and other wealth the Communists could steal from the murdered Tsar, Russian banks, the Church, and the Russian people and the other Soviet nationalities, with Western financiers making up the rest.

    “The myth of progress is a myth.”

    So, progress is no myth?

    When it comes to automotive engineering, I’d say it’s no myth. There’s been quite a bit of progress over the last 50 or more years in that field, not that it is the only field where there has been a lot of progress. Certainly I see that automotive engineering progress when I compare my first car to the one I drive now, which is 20 years old but going strong and seeming to be bulletproof.

    By contrast, my first car was a nine-year-old ’54 Pontiac that needed a 1/2-quart of oil with every tank of gas, but even that ol’ Poncho left a pretty small blue exhaust cloud compared to some of the really spectacular thundercloud smokers I’ve seen in the past, but of course virtually all of those super polluters are off the road now, thanks to emission tests.

    Sorry, myth is the human condition.

    For you maybe, but not for me.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @storxian
  20. Thomasina says:
    @GeeBee

    “…that Saul sought to co-opt gentiles into serving Jewish ambitions (essentially to weaponise the goyim against the hated ‘Kittim’)…”

    The gentiles would be the equivalent of Black Lives Matter today?

    The Kittim would be the equivalent of Whites today?

    Using another group in order to further your own tribe?

    MacDonald says: “As an evolutionist, my working hypothesis is that when it comes to the realm of ideas, evolution does not aim for truth but rather for success in continuing one’s family and increasing the prospects of one’s tribe.”

    Look at the untruths being told today, outright lies. History is being retold, statues toppled. Even kinship is being ripped apart over politics, ideology, right down to Covid. Life is chaotic and confusing. Divide and conquer. Today’s color revolution is rainbow-colored: black, brown, yellow, red, gay, lesbian, trans. It’s the Rainbow Revolution.

    All to ensure the advancement of one particular tribe’s way of life, their future, and get rid of the Romans. If it is being done now, I’m quite certain it was done in the past. Narcissists don’t evolve. They stay the same and make you adapt to them.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  21. Kevin MacDonald: “Since I am not a believer …”

    This is surely a strange admission for Kevin MacDonald to make, since in the preface to Giles Corey’s book, he endorsed Christianity as the way forward for whites, writing “I agree entirely with Corey’s conclusions and recommendations for a revival centered around the adaptive aspects of Christianity— …”

    Is he dissembling here in an attempt to preserve the illusion of his scholarly objectivity, or does he really mean being a believing Christian is only for other whites, of lower IQ perhaps, a case of do as I say, not as I do? Also, he doesn’t appear to have thought very carefully about the conclusion of that sentence in the preface I just quoted, which continues “the aspects that produced Western expansion, innovation, discovery, individual freedom, economic prosperity, and strong family bonds. ” The West was Christian, yes. But how did Christianity make any contribution at all to expansion, innovation, and discovery? Where does Jesus recommend his followers go conquer the world? Where does it say in the Bible that Christianity has anything to do with innovation or discovery? Nowhere, afaik. Further, Christianity’s track record with such endeavors isn’t very good, to put it mildly. It destroyed all the beginnings of science in the ancient world, and those texts that survived only survived by accident, having been proscribed after the Christian takeover of the Roman Empire. Christianity has typically opposed scientific innovation, from Bruno and Galileo right up to Darwin, whose theory of evolution, ironically enough for an evolutionist such as MacDonald, it continues to oppose.

    He concludes:

    And it can scarcely be doubted that Catholicism and mainline Protestantism have been completely corrupted and actively subverted so that millions of White Americans have been swept up by the multiculturalism and replacement-level immigration as moral imperatives. Jewish activism has certainly been part of this, but traditional Christian universalism and moral egalitarianism are also part of the equation. One might say that Christianity, despite periods when it was highly adaptive, carried the seeds of its own destruction—a chink in its armor that made it relatively easy to subvert once the culture of the West had been subverted by our new hostile elite.

    But what can he mean when he both affirms that traditional Christianity’s universalism and egalitarianism were “seeds of its own destruction”, and that it was at the same time “subverted”? One online dictionary defines the word subvert thusly:

    verb (used with object)
    to overthrow (something established or existing).
    to cause the downfall, ruin, or destruction of.
    to undermine the principles of; corrupt.

    Christianity’s principles of universalism and egalitarianism in this case are being implemented, not overthrown. Far from being “subverted”, that Christianity has been faithful to its principles is precisely what he’s complaining about! Insofar as I can make any sense at all of what he’s saying, it seems he advocates a revival of the old corrupt Christianity that, not always successfully, tried to ignore these principles. Seems like a losing proposition all around.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
    , @Adûnâi
    , @Johan
  22. GeeBee says:
    @Thomasina

    Exactly. In truth, dear lady, you have gauged my meaning!

  23. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

    And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

    As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

    Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

    – 2 Peter 3:14–17
    King James Version

    • Thanks: GomezAdddams
  24. Anonymous[162] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sparkon

    What kind of idiot buys iced tea at Starbucks? That’s why I don’t care about anything you might say.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  25. Sparkon says:
    @Anonymous

    What kind of idiot buys iced tea at Starbucks?

    The kind of “idiot” who is on a long-distance car journey to see his dying mother might pause briefly in his desperate journey to grab a cold drink, or the kind of “idiot” who needs some high-speed bandwidth might spend an hour or two at Starbucks, or even the kind of “idiot” who is just thirsty for some iced tea while running errands – just to mention three kinds of people you in your ignorance might classify as “idiots.”

    Do you judge all people by such trivial matters without even thinking it through?

    I recommend you put me on ‘ignore’ so you won’t get confused by what I write.

    It’s too much for you, and your brain might explode.

  26. Anon[159] • Disclaimer says:

    Truth is what matters.

    Truth.

    The Jews and their Lies only serve to obscure the Truth.

    Why?

    Because they Hate the Truth, and all those that reverence it.

    Truth.

    Jesus of Nazareth, Who came to bear witness to…

    The Truth.

    • Thanks: omegabooks
  27. @G. Poulin

    The American Philosopher of Myth, Joseph Campbell, argued that “myth” is essential to the very wellbeing of human beings. I agree with your attitude towards Skrbina.

    • Agree: Thomasina
  28. storxian says:
    @Sparkon

    Didn’t say everyone all believes the same things, bud. We believe in different myths. Growing up is a in large part a process of realizing how little we know, how little access to objective ‘fact’ we have. that’s what Socrates and others called wisdom.

  29. The problem I see with attacking Christianity is that Whites have a hard time without it. Christianity has always had flaws but the most baseless belief is that removing religion and especially Christianity will somehow improve the West politically. What we call Christianity certainly has Jewish origins but history has shown that it can bend to the will of the natural hierarchy which the left of course has suppressed. Constantine was well aware its utility and helped forge a religion for his empire that Jews have long considered blasphemous as it goes against their belief that the messiah has not returned. So it is certainly more complicated than depicting it as a Jewish religion or created by Jews as an anti-Roman force.

    I know the Unz Evangelical Atheist Men’s Choir would like to believe otherwise but the data is very clear and consistent in that when Whites leave Christianity most go to the competing religion which is liberalism. This has happened in both the US and Europe where the most secular areas are also the most leftist.

    Anyone that thinks atheists are not religious is free to go to a secular humanist meet up and politely ask how all races would end up with the same traits even though they were separated for over 50k years. You will be asked to never return and they will never look at you the same even though they won’t have an answer to that question. You will also find that they are deeply uncomfortable with criticizing Islam and Judaism but have an unexplained free license to bash Christianity to no end. Is it by mere chance that secularism so quickly rallies around attacks on Christianity but defends Islam? Something stinks about this contradiction.

    Detractors will point out that in theory it does not have to be this way. But that is the world we live in and as I said the data is very consistent. Very few Whites can think outside liberalism once they have decided to leave Christianity. Without Evangelicals Trump would not have won and Hillary would be entering her second term.

    In college I could not believe how many intelligent Whites believed liberalism was “the science” and yet would get hysterical if you even hinted that something might not be adding up with race. Liberalism is very effective in trapping intelligent Whites so one should tread carefully here.

    I would also add that Christian tithe is voluntary while we are forced to fund liberalism by threat of imprisonment.

    • Replies: @Rogue
    , @Anon
    , @Adûnâi
    , @Levtraro
  30. Dutch Boy says:

    Paul was a proud, even boastful citizen of Rome while he considered the Jews (meaning, in his time, those Jews who followed the Scribes and Pharisees and opposed the early Christians) as enemies of the human race.

  31. Toza says:

    When someone tries to explain spiritual things with deficient logic, it just turns out very superficial. You have to be very arrogant to think that if you haven’t experienced or understood or felt something, it doesn’t exist.

    • Agree: ivegotrythm
  32. Alden says:
    @Observator

    What was the Roman law Jesus violated?

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Replies: @Alfred
    , @Jonathan Mason
  33. Excal says:
    @Sparkon

    No doubt the Catholic church played a signficant role in the “progress” of Western civilization, but we cannot know what Western civilization would have done without the Church.

    Of course we can’t know that positively, but the ancient world provides a quite decent control for the study: it went a long way, then began a long, slow decline into chaos.

    Once the West was in the hands of the Church, it was able to survive the asteroids of Islam, then the Plague, then the Reformation, coming out stronger each time. It is now battling Modernism, and I believe the outcome will be analogous.

    The last 150-200 years do give another indication: without the Church, the West (or East, for that matter) slides toward terror and chaos.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  34. Avianthro says:

    Please read Holger Kersten’s “Jesus lived In India” and “The Jesus Conspiracy: The Turin Shroud and the Truth About the Resurrection” to get more perspective.

    As Kersten’s historical-archaeological research and Nietzsche’s analysis shows: Jesus was a Buddhist who was born as a Jew. Paul had no clue about Buddhism but was an extraordinarily enthusiastic Jew who was highly impressed by Jesus and made a story that sought to harmonize Jesus with Judaism…a Jewish Buddhism, like trying to mix oil and water, and this crazy, illogical concoction which championed the lower classes, turned them into the neo-Jews under the neo-Pharoah, then helped bring about the final fall of a kingdom already in decline. Are today’s “leftists” the neo-Christians of the declining neo-Rome?

  35. anon[307] • Disclaimer says:

    1. Individual souls were seen as having moral agency and equal value in the eyes of God—a theology that has had very negative effects in the contemporary world.

    what? please elaborate.

    2. orthodox jews today are pharisees. the jewish elite of jesus’s time were sadducees who later became karaites. the mishnah wasn’t completed until 100 years after the NT was completed.

    3. skrbina is a professor of “philosophy” in the english speaking world and therefore a ridiculous person who wouldn’t know metaphysics if it sodomized him.

    4. how could a u mich prof get away with what skrbina says about jews? are things not as horrible on campus as i’ve heard?

  36. This author as the ultimate liberal strives at 6000 words of virtue signalling to
    establish himself as a self-made man who saves God a lot of embarassment.

  37. @El Dato

    What the fuck are you on about mate? You quote a wall of text which only in the most tangential way could be connected to the article with no explanation as if it’s so axiomatically obvious everyone should immediately understand. Hubris and assumption are a bad combo, just FYI…

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
  38. John Johnson: “The problem I see with attacking Christianity is that Whites have a hard time without it. ”

    That’s a statement of titanic idiocy considering that it was precisely during the nineteenth century, when America was almost 100% white and fanatically Christian, it chose to fight a bloody civil war over the negro question, and afterwards made these ape-men citizens and gave them the vote. It was during this period of fanatic “traditional” Christianity that the USA was, if anything, even more committed to racial equality than today. Of course, now there will inevitably arise a chorus from the peanut gallery exclaiming that American Christianity of that time wasn’t “real” Christianity, spiraling this whole thread down to an even deeper level of stupid. Thanks a lot, Johnson!

  39. Seraphim says:

    You know that a major Christian Feast is approaching when the atheist cohorts of the ‘cancel (Christian) culture’ open fire (not rarely physical) against ”The Great Jewish Hoax” as they are wont to call Christianity, spewing they hatred of it. Every Christmas or Easter there is a sudden flurry of articles, talk shows, documentaries, ‘challenging’ the ‘traditional views’ held by the IQ challenged ‘believers’ (there is a ”consistent negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity”, isn’t it?) with the same stale platitudes (rehashes of Celsus anti-Christian diatribes) presented like ‘fresh discoveries’, no matter that they have been discredited for long (like the new wave of popularity of Marcion’s ‘canon’). But there are new generations that have to be ‘enlightened’. The blind leading the blind towards the same pit.
    But it is hard to see how that can possibly advance the ‘White’ agenda, when they alienate even the ‘White’ Christians.

  40. Alfred says:

    People need myths. Maybe the Jesus story is 50% truth. I have no idea.

    Currently, many people believe in the virus myth. That is their choice. I have no problem with their belief. I only object when they try to impose their belief on others and pretend that science is on their side.

    The Jews have spread many false beliefs – that they were enslaved in Egypt is a typical one. But there are many more. Many people in the West even believe that the Jews built the pyramids. 🙂

    It is our duty to point out these obvious lies when we come across them.

    Here is an unusually honest article in Haaretz. This obviously renders null the story that the Jews settled at that time in Palestine – something Haaretz would be somewhat reluctant to put in print. 🙂

    The reality is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. Yes, there’s the story contained within the bible itself, but that’s not a remotely historically admissible source. I’m talking about real proof; archeological evidence, state records and primary sources. Of these, nothing exists.

    Were Jews Ever Really Slaves in Egypt, or Is Passover a Myth?

    Where is the real proof – archaeological evidence, state records and primary sources?

    • Agree: Lucy Lipinska
  41. Druid55 says:
    @anon

    Absolutely insane! We live in a zio-asylum!

  42. Franz says:

    European people saved themselves from the worst that monotheism offers by being essentially polytheist in their thinking. Christ has metamorphed many times in the West. As whether he was a mercy-god, a war-god, a close-the-borders god or a scientific god, he always rose to the challenge of the times. Lately he’s the Israeli rapture god, which is unsettling.

    So it isn’t Christ we must question, but the very idea of “monotheism” as a rudimentary system of thought. Yahweh tells his people he’s “the only god” then directly after tells them he does good, evil and whatever else he wants. This makes for a mental disorder, because he’s only one entity but you never know which aspect of this entity you are dealing with.

    Polytheism, with clarity and wit, takes what Plotinus calls The One and like a prism with light, gives us each a slice of color that represents our place in the divine spectrum. Apart from making sense and keeping all of us where we belong, it is also a great deal more elegant.

    Jewish theologians always called Christians “pagans”.

    Christians just can’t see what a compliment that is.

    • Agree: Unpersoned by fb
    • Replies: @anonymous
  43. “…when Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire”

    I stopped reading there. Mr McDonald, at least get the basics right.

  44. Rogue says:
    @John Johnson

    Great comment.

    Your comment way better than McDonald’s article (though I do generally like his stuff).

    Christianity is not about hating Jews – and it is abundantly clear that God has not given up on them; indeed, has good plans for them.

    However, scripture tells us (Christians) to be as gentle as doves, but also to be as wise as serpents. In other words, don’t be a sap or taken for a fool.

    I used to be a Christian Zionist for most of my life. I’m still a Christian, but have discarded the Zionist stuff.

    However, I don’t hate Jews or Israel. And Israel has a right to exist.

    I just wish Jewish supremacists (not that I’m labelling all Jews this way) would extend the same sentiments to Western countries as well.

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  45. Anon[362] • Disclaimer says:
    @g8way

    The thoroughly Jewish practice, say you? How thoroughly Jewish practice is celebrating the Jewish child-sacrifice holiday called Passover? “Christ our Passover lamb is sacrificed!”

    It’s amazing how some Unz commenters can detect anything Jewish is the most innocuous things, but can’t quite figure out that Passover is Jewish. Yet the Vicar of Christ himself proclaims, “Inside every Christian is a Jew.” He’s right, who else celebrates Passover but Jews? Some Unz commenters say Jews hate when you “name the Jew.” That is certainly true when naming the Jews—especially the Christian sect of Jews who follow Rabbi Jewsus—here at Unz. It’s like shining light on cockroaches under a musty cardboard box. They go a scurrying, with excuse after excuse why “Christ our Passover lamb” is somehow not a thoroughly Jewish practice. Christians are Jews. They squabble with other sects of Jews over who is the Real Jew, which is yet another thoroughly Jewish practice. I’m naming the Jew. Watch them wail.

  46. FatR says:

    Anyone with an ounce of education would have simply dismissed Skrbina right away as:

    (a)Yet another self-flagellating ethno-cuck, who not only believes that his people are stupid cattle, who could be deceived for thousands of years, but also believes total confidence in its own superiority over other peoples is not only something special for a successful nation, but is something negative. Jews are only notable in holding such beliefs despite being in subjection throughout most of their history.

    (b)Yet another charlatan who suddenly starts using the completely different standards of evidence when it comes to Christianity.

    (c)Yet another dimwit who tries to say that someone could have deliberately invented a story that was utterly absurd and laughable from the viewpoint of a 1st century AD pagan – starting from the core premise and down to the smallest details, like women being the first witnesses to its core miracle – to bamboozle 1st century AD pagans. The only question is whether he is a malicious dimwit or an idiotic dimwit, who honestly believes his own bullshit.

  47. dimples says:
    @Observator

    Bollocks. Jesus got himself executed because he made what is in the Torah a mortal sin. He had made false prophecies concerning the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus went about prophesying the ‘Good News’ that the Kingdom was at hand. After a period of time, possibly a year (of our Lord), he realized that he Kingdom wasn’t coming after all. Thus he had made a false prophecy which under the Law of Moses was punishable by death.

    It’s all there in the story of the fig tree in the garden, and the fig tree Jesus zapped on the way to doing the act which would get himself executed, the cleansing of the Temple of the money changers. On the way back from this affair, it was noted the fig tree was dead. Like the fig tree, Jesus had not borne fruit, and was thus liable to be rooted out. As well, he was now being followed around by a crowd who thought he was the Messiah, when he himself realized (since the Kingdom had not come) that he wasn’t. His only choice was to do the honorable thing and commit himself to execution.

  48. dimples says:
    @Observator

    In fact, Jesus got himself executed because he made what is in the Torah a mortal sin. He had made false prophecies concerning the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus had gone about prophesying the ‘Good News’ that the Kingdom was at hand. After a period of time, possibly the proverbial year of our Lord, he realized that the Kingdom wasn’t coming after all. Thus he had made a false prophecy to the people, which under the Law of Moses was punishable by death.

    It’s all there in the story of the fig tree in the garden, and the fig tree Jesus zapped on the way to the Temple to do the act which would get himself executed, ie cleansing it of the money changers. On the way back from turfing out the money changers, it was noted the fig tree was dead. Like the fig tree, Jesus was saying that he himself had not borne fruit, the Kingdom had not come, and was thus himself liable to be rooted out. As well, he was now being followed around by a crowd who thought he was the Messiah, when he himself had realized (since the Kingdom had not come) that he wasn’t. His only choice was to do the honorable thing and commit himself to execution.

    It’s the Gospel Truth!

    • Replies: @dimples
  49. edofkent says:

    Paul was NOT a Jew but an Israelite. Jews are NOT Israelites. Roman Catholicism is a shambles and Paul does not figure in it’s pagan canon, which sells itself as ‘Christianity’ and sells rubbish re-packaged pagan festivals Christmas, Easter and of course sells the bogus Trinity, which does not exist.

    This author has NO idea what he is talking about. Garbage in = garbage out.

    https://holybibletruthseekers.wordpress.com/2020/08/29/all-the-jews-fit-to-print-part-1-the-salary-men-of-fake-jews/

  50. Anon[362] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Johnson

    It’s a common Christian lie to say anybody who isn’t Christian is somehow an atheist. You’re doing exactly what the Jew Paul did in Romans 3:7, “For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?” Lying to advance the Jewish Rabbi Jesus cult is still lying. Stop behaving like the lying Jew Paul.

    You were born right the first time, it’s ok to be white.

    • Replies: @FedUp
  51. dimples says:
    @dimples

    References:

    Luke 13:6-9 Fig tree in garden

    Mark 11:12-20 Fig tree cursed on way to Temple

  52. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    > “…or does he really mean being a believing Christian is only for other whites, of lower IQ perhaps, a case of do as I say, not as I do?”

    This is such a fascinating question! For isn’t it correct that most folks are incredibly stupid, uninquisitive and conformist? Even more, certain rules that might be constraining and arbitrary to a free thinker are in actuality wholesome and guiding to the populace at large? The rule of the mob ends swiftly – and only a hypothetical culling of the normies so famously feared by Christian conspirologists could prevent a reestablishment of a hierarchic morality.

    > “Christianity’s principles of universalism and egalitarianism in this case are being implemented, not overthrown.”

    As Chechar once said, Christianity is the ultimate conclusion of Judaism.

    > “Far from being “subverted”, that Christianity has been faithful to its principles is precisely what he’s complaining about!”

    A question might be asked as to what changed the traditionalist strain of the Christian mental virus. Protestantism? Literacy? North American colonisation? The Industrial Age? A witch’s brew in the America’s happiness-pursuing melting pot? The First Amendment which prohibited censorship? Or simply the geographic position of America guarded by the oceans which incubated this most hideous cultural monstrosity?

    > “…it seems he advocates a revival of the old corrupt Christianity that, not always successfully, tried to ignore these principles. Seems like a losing proposition all around.”

    © Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 61

    Luther saw only the depravity of the papacy at the very moment when the opposite was becoming apparent: the old corruption, the peccatum originale, Christianity itself, no longer occupied the papal chair! Instead there was life! Instead there was the triumph of life! Instead there was a great yea to all lofty, beautiful and daring things!… And Luther restored the church: he attacked it….

    • Replies: @Realist
  53. Leaving aside the mythic ornaments (the miracles, the resurrection), which are peripheral and inessential, the four canonical Gospels and the apocryphal texts (notably the Gospel of Thomas) present a consistent account of a coherent philosophy. The thought and preaching of Jesus originate as and constitute a profound and fundamental critique of Jewish ethics and contemporary practice. Foremost, it opposes the Hebrew “ethics” of retribution (“an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”) with an ethics based on forgiveness, healing, compassion, mutual understanding, consensus, and it opposes the Hebrew emphasis on exclusivity and formalized rectitude with a humanitarian sense of the equality of all souls. In Jesus’s view humanity is not divided into Chosen and Goyim. He ministers to Samarians as well as Jews. Jesus’s preaching particularly targets the predatory social and economic arrangements by which the Jewish elite of his day oppressed and exploited the great mass of Jews in violation of the dictates of the Torah law. (A key explication of this aspect of his preaching is William R. Herzog, Parables as Subversive Speech.) Much of his preaching amounts to what, today, would be called “political economy.” Notably, the only time Jesus displays anger and acts on it is in scourging the money-changers out of the Temple — on the first day of Holy Week, according to the frame story, this is the act that precipitated his execution at the instigation of the Rabbinate — closely allied, then and for centuries before and ever after, with the “money-changers.”

    Jesus’s preaching was twisted, subverted and betrayed, in the first place evidently by Paul, from a concern with life as lived among men to a “religious” concern with extra-worldly concerns. The course of patristic discourse elaborated this curse, notably in the work of Augustine, who re-imported the Jewish obsession with retribution under the guise of “sin.” (The concept of “sin” is entirely missing from the Gospels; the Greek word mis-translated as “sin,” hamartia, means ‘missing the mark,’ ‘making a mistake’). Thus Christianity as a whole came to represent a perversion, a betrayal, and a reversal of Jesus’s teaching. This continued into the mainstream “protestant” tradition basically unaltered — Luther was schooled in an Augustinian seminary — although some “radical,” marginalized sects have tried — some still try — to practice Jesus’s preaching uncontaminated by the “Old Testament” poison Jesus tried to counter. And God bless them for it.

    • Agree: Unpersoned by fb
    • Replies: @Levtraro
    , @Thomasina
  54. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @John Johnson

    > “…the most baseless belief is that removing religion and especially Christianity will somehow improve the West politically.”

    A religion as a framework of society cannot be removed by definition. A political movement necessarily presupposes a leap of faith in the correctness of a certain solution. Being anti-religious is merely a shorthand for something else – Soviet anti-clericalism, or mere liberal hubris and exceptionalism. Don’t Christians without a shadow of a joke proclaim their ideology as not man-made? Even though we clearly have no aliens around? The same chosenite nonsense.

    > “What we call Christianity certainly has Jewish origins but history has shown that it can bend to the will of the natural hierarchy which the left of course has suppressed.”

    All the left countries – the USSR, China, DPR Korea – have had rigid Party hierarchy, omnipresent military, universal education. Anarchy and chaos are the fate of America – the most Christian and right-wing capitalist nation on the planet.

    > “Constantine was well aware its utility and helped forge a religion for his empire that Jews have long considered blasphemous…”

    Christianity: 1) catapulted the Jews into the central ethnos of the world; 2) created Islam (otherwise, Abraham’s kinship would have been of no note to the Arabs).

    > “…the data is very clear and consistent in that when Whites leave Christianity most go to the competing religion which is liberalism.”

    This is not atheism’s problem that their apostasy is not complete. Liberalism is literally distilled Christian love minus Jesus. Yes, the bubble is large, far larger than the superstitious nonsense of the rigid Church. It only means that liberals are more dishonest and zealous Christians in effect. Liberals are a next step in the Christian cultural evolution. Not a different genus, which an atheistic religion would be – such as Juche in Korea or Hitlerism in Germany.

    > “Detractors will point out that in theory it does not have to be this way. But that is the world we live in and as I said the data is very consistent. Very few Whites can think outside liberalism once they have decided to leave Christianity.”

    That’s the entire issue with the Aryan race – it’s dying. You cannot omit the central problem of the matter. A solution would look like “How do we make Aryans leave Jew-based idealism?”, not “How do we bring back the less idealist Judaism?” An implementation would range from an insurrection, separation to founding a cult akin to Mormonism and marching through the institutions.

    > “I would also add that Christian tithe is voluntary while we are forced to fund liberalism by threat of imprisonment.”

    Because the Church lost its power.

    • Replies: @FatR
    , @Theone
    , @Incitatus
  55. Very timely. Cancel Jesus. This crackpot will make a lot of money.

  56. Who does the writer think he is kidding? The article purports to be serious, but is obviously just a thin excuse to selectively quote from a period of over two thousand years out of context hateful quotes about Jews. This type of anti-social behaviour is more commonly seen in playground bullies. Ordinary people are repulsed by it. A fact that the writer will no doubt also blame on those terrible Jews.

  57. gotmituns says:

    I’m of Northern European stock. Something about Catholicism never sat well with me. Maybe it’s the fact my ancestors had to be tricked and forced into accepting the Jewish god. Finally, I know that the spirit of God walks with and resides in every man just as my ancestors knew.

    • Agree: Lucy Lipinska
    • Replies: @Jake
  58. Thank you for your review of Skrbina’s book, Dr MacDonald.

    Among the many points raised by him, you and commentators I agreed with no. 4 “g8way” above. Skrbina might almost be Jewish … Frankfurt School ? …
    A similar “cheap shot” method is used against Islam and can be used to deconstruct anything; Jewish “corporate raiders” used it to break up and sell off US industry piecemeal with the full approval of their Wall St peers and the US govt …

    “We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers … ” (Maurice Samuels).

    In Christian Identity (among others) there is certainty that today’s so-called churches are not Christian. “Churchianity” is basically a judaic heresy and abomination, a multiracial “whited sepulcher” that worships antichrist misnamed “Israel”.
    Orthodox (= “correct belief”) has resisted the gross corruption of the west, after directly experiencing Jewish hatred of Christianity.

    The gross moral corruption of the west correlates with the almost extinction of Christianity. The main vehicle for this has been “christian” America.

    The idea that Christianity is Jewish is not true, as western history up to ~ 1900 shows.

  59. FYI recent interpretations of The Gospel According to Marks predict that Jesus will return to earth, in the mid-1800s, in the form of a bearded German philosopher – establishing the world’s first true religion – Leninism.

    According to this latest scholarship we should now pray to the Progressive Holy Trinity; Marx (the Father), Lenin (the Son), and the Communist Party (the Holy Ghost) that one day soon we will be re-educated enough to bear the title ‘new humans’, having conquered our degenerate capitalistic instincts and be found worthy enough to live in a perfect futuristic communist society, possibly in downtown Baltimore, or Venezuela.

    “For Marx so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Manifesto, that whosoever believeth in it should not perish, but be purged at the end of his usefulness.”

    Bravo !!

  60. FatR says:
    @Adûnâi

    That’s the entire issue with the Aryan race – it’s dying. You cannot omit the central problem of the matter. A solution would look like “How do we make Aryans leave Jew-based idealism?”, not “How do we bring back the less idealist Judaism?”

    The only solution to your issue is Christianity. The only social groups of Aryan race with fertility rate above replacement are hardcore Christian or heretical Christian sects. Or at least that goes for people you would likely recognize as Aryan (Persians, Pushtuns and a number of other Islamic groups are quite literally whiter than you). Everything proposed to stave off racial extinction of Aryans that is not Christianity is either another branch of Leftist social experimentation (that will totally work this time!) or pure, undistilled daydreaming.

    Also, the same goes for combatting Jewish power. The entire reason Jews dominate the Western intellectual, economic and political life for the last century or so is that they remain staunchly religious, even when that seemingly only creates problems (like maintenance of “unproductive” ultra-orthodox communities) while Christianity, outside of the above-mentioned fundamentalist groups, got reduced to a shell, with no impact on political life. Simple as. And this conclusion does not even require believing in YHWH. You have to only observe basic patterns of human history to see what wealth of advantages the cohesion created by faith provides.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
    , @FvS
  61. Jewish God is Nazi, Christian God is democrat.

    • LOL: Levtraro
  62. Levtraro says:
    @John Johnson

    Anyone that thinks atheists are not religious is free to go to a secular humanist meet up and politely ask how all races would end up with the same traits even though they were separated for over 50k years […] Is it by mere chance that secularism so quickly rallies around attacks on Christianity but defends Islam? Something stinks about this contradiction.

    Bollocks! I don’t know what seminars you’ve attended by in my circle of atheists we despise all religions almost equally and we consider that the most laughable are Judaism and Islam. We actually like Christianity a bit more because it is so very tame and inconsequential, although we don’t like that christians want us to accept all the blacks and browns that get washed up on our shores.

  63. Our masters should worship Mama Nature and Fungi for gifting them with the Word.
    Without the Word it would’ve been more challenging, perhaps?

    Optics are fantastic, Pelosi’s Oscar deserving performance is unforgettable communicating with Mr. Floyd’s soul supposedly, comforting, warm und fuzzy. She appeared sincere to many of the indoctrinated.
    Thankfully they own ALL the major weapons, tools and instruments of subjugation, enslavement, intimidation and DOMINATION, for NOW.

    Humanity ALWAYS prevails, Jesus trusted the Universe.
    Monstrosities didn’t manage to erase that gene, it still exists in Humans.

  64. Realist says:

    The Jesus Hoax attempts to convince the reader that there is no rational basis for Christianity and that the motivation for its main originator, St. Paul, was antagonism toward the Roman Empire.

    There is no rational basis for any religion.

    • Replies: @europeasant
  65. Blissex says:

    «a thin excuse to selectively quote from a period of over two thousand years out of context hateful quotes about Jews.»

    It is rather worse than that, because it conflates some jews and some variants of judaism with “the jews”, which is like conflating the Khmer Rouge with “the asians” or the Hutus with “the africans”.
    Some jews have been awful people, and some fanatical variants of judaism, in particular of talmudic judaism and of contemporary Likud etc. far-right politics, are based on hateful ideologies, but that has happened countless times before in history to all sorts of cultures and faiths. Yeshua ben Yussuf was a learned jew theologian, and his early followers covered a wide spectrum of jews, from nearly illiterate Simon to rich and sophisticated Joseph.

    Any talk about “the jews” as a single category or cabal is not just radically wrong, whether done by some jews (people like Netanyahu) or by some others, it is also disgustingly wrong.

    As to the pauline vs. original christianity, that is not a new idea, and many authors have pointed out the many detaiol differences between the original christian community of Jerusalem and that of Paul, even if there were still many shared points. There is even an interesting thesis by an Oxford historian that both were still typical jewish style sect, of which there were many, and it changed character when it was endorsed and adopted by the upper classes, becoming an organized cult.

    The really enormous impact of christianity, and the difference from most other variants of judaism and other “ancient” religions, is that it involved a switch from sacrificing others to bribe deities, that is scapegoatism, to sacrificing oneself to gain the deity’s forgiveness, plus the concept of a deity that is benevolent and wishes for the improvement of human beings (and in these aspects it is somewhat similar to buddhism and very few other religions). Forgiveness and redemption, and the faith in the slow perfectibility of humans, are the core and most revolutionary concepts of christianity.

    My impression is that religions evolved be first attributing metaphysical impersonations to natural phenomena, than generalized them in to the one with the most impact, the weather/the sky, and finally abstracted even that into turning the idea of time/eternity into the supreme deity, and taken to its logical conclusion that becomes the theology that across time and eternity human being can improve themselves by purity, rather than trying to bribe the metaphysical impersonations of natural phenomena to give them unfair advantages. So for example the very christian notion of grace seems to me the abstraction of the idea that time/eternity gives the opportunity for forgiveness, redemption, and to remove other impurities from oneself,

    • Replies: @Unpersoned by fb
  66. Levtraro says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Foremost, [Christianity] opposes the Hebrew “ethics” of retribution (“an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”) with an ethics based on forgiveness, healing, compassion, mutual understanding, consensus, and it opposes the Hebrew emphasis on exclusivity and formalized rectitude with a humanitarian sense of the equality of all souls. In Jesus’s view humanity is not divided into Chosen and Goyim.

    Right, that’s why Christianity in all her forgiveness and compassion wants us to accept all those blacks and browns, mostly muslims, coming to our secular white societies. The jews want to keep their land clean while the christians, a movement created by jews, want us to take all those black and browns in our secular white societies. Mmh.

    • Agree: TKK
    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  67. @Rogue

    You’ve misread Romans.

    A remnant of jews have already been saved.

    Israel does not have the right to exist. The jews are in rebellion against God. God divorced them.

    It’s not like they accepted Christ and got their promised land. That’s not what happened.

    Both Steve Anderson and Chuck Baldwin have excellent teachings on this topic. Anderson teaching on Romans is brilliant, and he takes it line by line, totally gutting Christian Zionism.

    • Replies: @Rogue
    , @anonymous
  68. Jake says:
    @g8way

    “Skrbina’s premise that Paul invented Christianity” has been a standard Jewish canard from no later than the early 2nd century AD.

    Even after the 2nd Jewish Revolt against Rome, Jews were able to wriggle into inner circles of Roman power, especially inn the provinces where large numbers of Jews lived. And they always revealed that they were acting to harm Christianity and Christians. Jews not only do not fear Mohammedanism in any sense, but they have easily manipulated it and its rulers since the desert pirate Mohammed turned his raiding and pillaging toward the service of Allah. Jews backed the Reformation from its first days. Jews always back atheists and their movements, even atheist Jews. Jews can religiously become Mohammedan or pagan or Buddhist or Sikh or Unitarian-Universalist or Scientologist, etc. and still be accounted Jews by the Rabbis.

    The only thing that makes Jews fearful is the possibility that historic Christianity and Christendom can be revived fully.

    Until Kevin McDonald gets on board, all he does is just pissing in the wind.

    • Agree: Seraphim
    • Replies: @anonymous
  69. Fenrir says:

    Christ was crucified at Constantinople, and not 2.000 years ago, but much more recently in time.

    The new radical chronology of history:

    https://stolenhistory.net/threads/new-radical-chronology-of-history.3767/

    https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.720

    Great Britain’s greatest historian, Edwin Johnson proves that no one in Europe or England knew anything about the pauline epistles or about the gospels, before 1.500 AD:

    http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm

    New chronology of history (Fomenko’s timeline): nothing is known prior to 800 AD, history starts in 1000 AD.

    New radical chronology of history (my timeline): history begins with the total solar eclipse of 1643 AD (march 20, 1643), the great flood occurs some 60 years later, California becomes part of the continent in 1769 AD, Christ is cruficied/resurrected in the period 1760-1765 AD, the falsification of history and science starts in 1780 AD.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  70. Realist says:
    @Adûnâi

    For isn’t it correct that most folks are incredibly stupid, uninquisitive and conformist?

    Yes, religion is a crutch for believers and a tool of sovereignty for the protagonist.

  71. Jake says:
    @gotmituns

    Jews love Germanic atheists and pagans almost as if they were half Jews either knowingly or ignorantly serving Jewish interests.

    • Replies: @Alexandros
    , @Anon
  72. “As an Eastern Orthodox Christian with strong Miaphysite sympathies, this whole thing is just silly, and predicated on a western understanding of Christianity that we see as clearly divergent.”

    I have no idea where you got your understanding of christian faith and practice, but your comments are not reflective of any christian ethic I am familiar with east or west. but these contentions are not new, or at least most of them are not new, despite being configured in various rhetorical garb.

    Here’s the most glaring problem, the New Testament is not authored by the Apostle Paul, alone. In fact, Paul s a late comer to the faith and he never makes war on Roman Authority. In fact, when arrested he lays claim to his rights as a roman citizen, sheltering his faith by calling on Roman law guarantees. What else does Paul say, that christians should live at peace with nonbelivers, and obey the authorities established by God, except when the same calls one to disobey Christ. There’s no call to make war on Jews, in fact, Paul’s admonition is to extend aid to the Jews in need.

    ——

    You make reference to the severe critique of Christ, but extend that critique to Jews in general, when in fact the most severe is leveled at the responsible jewish leadership, not Jews in general, except when it comes to the fault of christ’s prosecution.

    ——

    As for the usual hopscotching about scripture ignoring context and dissecting bits and pieces from every conceivable reference — and making claims about lies, without ever demonstrating the lie is old hat.

    The global perspective of faith is spiritual, not national or political.

    You mistake christian failures as a failure of scripture itself. A fallacy of categorical distinction on multiple levels. But the contentions here are akin to saying, laws are a lie because, people break the law. That is very peculiar logic or lack thereof. As though unjust conduct renders the proscription and goal of justice itself lie.

    Laugh.

    Good grief.

    Having obliterated so many foundational frames upon which you build the case — it’s safe o say the case fails.

    • Replies: @Proud_Srbin
  73. Alfred says:
    @Alden

    What was the Roman law Jesus violated?

    Jesus was judged guilty by the Jewish priests. The Romans just carried out the appropriate punishment.

  74. Within this framework, Paul was a Jewish nationalist whose goal was to recruit non-Jews to oppose the Roman imperium….

    Well, that would indeed explain why the polytheistic and relatively religion-tolerant Romans would persecute the early Christians.

    Jews were increasingly entering the imperial and municipal service in the 4th century ….

    Coincidentally the time the Empire was being hollowed out by debasement of the currency and the mass importation of foreign labour to do the work Romans weren’t doing.

  75. @Jake

    I feel my hatred for Catholics reaching almost the level I reserve for Jews when I read claims about “paganism”. Almost like I wish there was a Hell, so you could burn in it.

    • Replies: @FedUp
  76. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @FatR

    > “The only social groups of Aryan race with fertility rate above replacement are hardcore Christian or heretical Christian sects.” – False.

    1. The Amish forbid the ownership of weapons, thus are completely parasitical and dependent on the Jewish system.

    2. The Mormons literally have a passage that calls race-mixers to be killed on the spot – since the 1990s, they have been giving out their best Nordic women to the Negroes.

    3. The Catholic Irish and Catholic Argentinians have sodomite marriage and abortion legalised, Catholic Poland does not.

    > “(Persians, Pushtuns and a number of other Islamic groups are quite literally whiter than you)”

    I’m Little Russian.

    > “…is either another branch of Leftist social experimentation (that will totally work this time!)”

    The Juche Koreans apparently did not get the memo – their brand of leftism has survived for 75 years, defeating the largest Christian superpower twice – in the 1950s and the 1990s. Leftism works. Just as our race once worked. In Russia, it was not Socialism that faltered – it was the weak, pathetic Christian Russian race. The same collective suicide as among Aryan Americans!

    > “The entire reason Jews dominate the Western intellectual, economic and political life for the last century or so is that they remain staunchly religious…”

    You’ve got to be kidding me. The Jews dominate the West because the stupid Christians had let them in! You Americans have even translated the Hebrew “goyim” into English – “Gentile”! And multiple times on this website has my nickname been called Jewish – apparently, you Protestant Americans hate school, but learn Hebrew with the milk of your mother.

    > “You have to only observe basic patterns of human history to see what wealth of advantages the cohesion created by faith provides.”

    I have specifically stated I support “religion” with the meaning of “political ideology”. Strong state propaganda. A unity of memes and genes. What I oppose is Aryans’ worshipping the god of the Jews and his message of universal love and Jewish exceptionalism.

    • Replies: @FatR
  77. TKK says:
    @Trial by Wombat

    All other religions that I am aware of share the same communal sacrificial architecture from man to the deity, that was intended largely to profit a priestly class and institute a submission to the state through its god or gods

    It fascinates and repulses me how the Western MSM so efficiently hides from the American public the sacrifice of cows and goats during Eid in present day, allowing them to hold onto their Sesame Street version of Islam.

    Seeing machismo Turkish men will dull blades and no butchering skills saw the necks of goats and cows and sheep, as the poor beasts actually scream, shake and convulse in agony will convince anyone with 3 synapses firing that Islam is as frightening as it is dumb.

    Desert dumb.

    And speaking of desert 9th Century dumb, as I have stated often, the supposed brilliance of the Jewish, those demonic world shakers, still escapes me:

    They indicate a kind of self-absorption, a self-glorification, perhaps a narcissism, perhaps a conceit. To be chosen by the creator of the universe, and to be granted the right to rule, ruthlessly, over all other nations, bespeaks a kind of megalomania that is unprecedented in history”

    So, about those genius rumors……

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/30/dozens-of-dead-in-israel-pilgrimage-stampede-rescue-services

    • Replies: @anonymous
  78. @Sparkon

    If you are convinced you don’t believe in myths … then there is the myth you believe in.

    You’re not what you think of yourself.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  79. Rogue says:
    @Robert Dolan

    I quite like Chuck Baldwin, but I think Anderson is a peculiar character.

    The latter says homosexuals should all go kill themselves, and that God has no interest in saving them. Along those lines anyway.

    Now, of course, homosexual behavior is clearly listed as sinful in both the OT and NT – but to single out homosexuals as being beyond redemption, as Anderson does – is absolutely not scriptural or Christian.

    With regard to Israel, I don’t wear rose-colored goggles as I used to do. The founding of the modern Zionist state was achieved with a considerable amount of violence – but the same could be said for so many other countries.

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  80. Mefobills says:
    @GeeBee

    Having correctly noted that the (canonical) gospels were written long after Saul of Tarsus disappeared from the scene,

    Islam can be criticized as its events are not in chronological order. Only the “elect” (Imams) are privy to the inner workings of Islam.

    The foundational doctrine of supersession in Christianity is abrogated if the bible is not in chronological order.

    In other words, the edifice falls apart. The edifice is already under severe pressure from the Harvard study, popularized in Hudson’s book:

    https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/search?q=Forgive+us+our+debts&updated-max=2020-02-04T09:58:00-08:00&max-results=20&by-date=false

    To say that Michael Hudson’s new book And Forgive Them Their Debts: Lending, Foreclosure, and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year (ISLET 2018) is profound is an understatement on the order of saying that the Mariana Trench is deep. To grasp his central argument is so alien to our modern way of thinking about civilization and barbarism that Hudson quite matter-of-factly agreed with me that the book is, to the extent that it will be understood, “earth-shattering” in both intent and effect. Over the past three decades, gleaned (under the auspices of Harvard’s Peabody Museum) and then synthesized the scholarship of American and British and French and German and Soviet assyriologists (spelled with a lower-case ato denote collectively all who study the various civilizations of ancient Mesopotamia, which include Sumer, the Akkadian Empire, Ebla, Babylonia, et al., as well as Assyria with a capital A). Hudson demonstrates that we, twenty-first century globalists, have been morally blinded by a dark legacy of some twenty-eight centuries of decontextualized history. This has left us, for all practical purposes, utterly ignorant of the corrective civilizational model that is needed to save ourselves from tottering into bleak neo-feudal barbarism.

    Christianity is due some serious revision, and is under pressure. Christian scholars should take heed, and begin the reform process now.

    Seen in the context of the Peabody study, Jesus’ mission is very relevant to today, while modern Christianity has morphed and been made irrelevant.

    • Agree: GeeBee
  81. @EliteCommInc.

    Madeleine Jana Korbel Albright loudly and clearly defined/justified western values by rationalizing extermination of 500K children from unapproved religion.
    Confessions are great tool for justifiably committing atrocities, they may even help returning war criminals deal with PTSD?
    Other religious enterprises may consider implementing similar tool harvesting and retaining souls?

  82. Smith says:

    Arguing about this religious nonsense pretty much makes as much as sense as talking about football.

    Religion is worthless if you don’t have state power.

  83. Sparkon says:
    @Frank frank

    That’s another circular argument.

    You and anyone else here may try again to submit a myth in which you think I have belief, so go ahead on, but be prepared to have your suggestion shot down in flames.

    I do not subscribe to, believe in, or promote any myths, especially religion.

    You’re not what you think of yourself.

    First, know thyself, but don’t expect to know me.

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  84. Leo Den says:

    The word Jew is not in the bible. It’s the word JUDAHITE, from the tribe of Judah. Hence the confusion of always equating converted Jews of today, who are comprised of different races, with the Judahites of the bible.

    https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/the-word-jew-is-not-in-the-bible/

    True, converted of Jews of today follow PHARISAISM, the same religion as the Pharisees of old, but they’re not Judahites like them.

    https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/judaica/judaism-or-pharisaism/

  85. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Incorrect, I’m afraid. The abolitionists were predominantly Unitarians (like the Unitarian “minister” to whom Burke wrote his Reflections on the Revolution in France). Lincoln was an atheist, and invaded the South primarily to secure tariff revenues for his railroad and banking clients in NYC. I guess your doctorate is not in history.

  86. The word “Jew” is a recent abbreviation of the word Judean. Many Judeans became Talmudists which both Jesus and Paul condemned. The Talmudist faction wanted to kill both Paul and Jesus. The Talmudists faction are both Zionists and non Zionists. The abbreviation “Jew” should no longer be used as “Judea” is not a country and most “Jews” were not born there. The better identification is Talmudist. Jesus was and is not God, but the SON of God. Jesus was and is a MAN as scripture clearly indicates. It was the pagan emperor Theodosius who forced the trinity heresy on the world by law and force.

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  87. Anon[362] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake

    I’m going to name the Jew; that’s you, Jake. Christians officially identify as The Circumcision. “We are the circumcision,” states Philippians 3:3. Who else calls themselves The Circumcision but Jews?

    Revelation 7 states the Christian heaven will be occupied exclusively by “The Tribe.” Who is The Tribe, Jake? Again, I’ll name the Jew.

    Luke states that Rabbi Jesus is the Kang of Zion. John states that he’s the Kang of Israel. Who else is fervently loyal to the Kang of the foreign capital city Zion in the foreign country Israel but a outright Jew, Jake?

    Jake, you’ve taken the ticket, accepting a “hundredfold” bribe offered by Rabbi Jewsus in Matthew 19:29 to betray and “forsake” your own hearth and kin. Thus, you brazenly display your contempt for folks of your own country, pagans. That’s all pagan means is “country folk,” look it up; it’s synonymous with the pejorative term Goyim/Gentile. It’s not surprising to see your contempt for native Whites, since your a Jew through and through.

  88. @Sparkon

    I can clear it up for you. Here it is: You are moron.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  89. Alden says:
    @Alfred

    My question; what was the law? The law he violated?

    • Replies: @Alfred
  90. @Dennis Gannon

    But you cannot be certain. Maybe Jesus was role playing. (That is actually my opinion.)

  91. @Rogue

    Anderson might seem to be harsh…but only because our society has become so permissive.

    We tolerate that which should not be tolerated.

    I think gay marriage is crazy. I think that gay adoption is wicked.

    The slippery slope is real. Our people have been conditioned to accept ANYTHING at this point…..wear the mask…..take the jab…..stay home…..ruin your business…..BLM is peaceful….keep your mouth shut…..white people are evil…..vote for the tranny for governor…..

    It’s bizarre…..ridiculous…..insane.

  92. Agent76 says:

    Aug 19, 2016 A Militant Atheist… Converted to Christianity

    Having to prove the existence of God to an atheist is like having to prove the existence of the sun, at noon on a clear day. Yet millions are embracing the foolishness of atheism. “The Atheist Delusion” pulls back the curtain and reveals what is going on in the mind of those who deny the obvious. It introduces you to a number of atheists who you will follow as they go where the evidence leads, find a roadblock, and enter into a place of honesty that is rarely seen on film.

    “When Christ died, He died for you individually just as much as if you’d been the only man in the world.” C. S. Lewis

  93. FatR says:
    @Adûnâi

    > “The only social groups of Aryan race with fertility rate above replacement are hardcore Christian or heretical Christian sects.” – False.

    Judging by the fact that you’ve immediately went on a bullshit tangent, you know that it is true.

    I’m Little Russian.

    You will never be Aryan. Oh, don’t worry, genetically you are probably more Aryan than an average Yank, it is just that no one concerned with fighting for the Aryan race in the Anglosphere will ever see you as a fellow white. They only grudgingly under the direst pressure of circumstances accepted that Irish and Poles are white, and you are a step beneath them.

    The Juche Koreans apparently did not get the memo – their brand of leftism has survived for 75 years, defeating the largest Christian superpower twice – in the 1950s and the 1990s. Leftism works.

    The Juche Koreans are not reproducing. Even if you believe their official statistics – and to do that you must be completely retarded – they at best are failing to reproduce somewhat less hard than South Koreans. By your own criteria, leftism doesn’t work.

    As about “defeating the largest Christian superpower twice”, fist take your meds, so you rambling will be a little less insane.

    I’d ask you to abstain from the dumbest possible rhetorical angles (nobody actually wants to live in the Best Korea, and among Americans who are the main audience of our discussion only useless cucks can side with a foreigner shitting on their own country) too, but I’m afraid that will be useless.

    it was the weak, pathetic Christian Russian race.

    And for the Russians you, for the foreseeable future, will be a worthless Turkish mutt (and the platinum standard of shabbos goy). I’m afraid that your crusade for the Aryan race is going to be a rather lonely one.

    You’ve got to be kidding me. The Jews dominate the West because the stupid Christians had let them in!

    How could they “let in” people who already constituted a substantial percentage of population across all provinces by the time of Roman Empire’s conversion to Christianity? (Thanks to the fact that Jews reproduced far more actively that pagan/secularized Romans, which faced demographic problems starting from as far back as the times of Octavian).

    I have specifically stated I support “religion” with the meaning of “political ideology”.

    Then you are coming to a firefight with bare hands, while lacking intelligence to realize what the guns that other side is about to use can actually do.

    • Replies: @FvS
    , @commandor
  94. Alden says:
    @anon

    Isn’t drug dealer criminal Matthew Shepherd killed by other drug dealers because he cheated them in a business deal also enshrined in the national cathedral?

    I can see Rosa Parks because DC is a black city and majority religion is black Protestants, but a criminal drug dealer killed by other criminal drug dealers?

  95. @follyofwar

    I find Thomas Dalton’s article (published on National Vanguard.org) the most convincing one – as to the origin of Christianity – I have read since I came of age in 1968. (I was born and raised Catholic.)

    • Replies: @Siegfriedson
    , @Anon
  96. anonymous[251] • Disclaimer says:

    Yes, I agree with this argument that St. Paul, the former Jewish Pharisee Rabbi Saul of Tarsus was the deliberate founder of the religious cult of Judeo Christianity, which served to undermine the White Roman Gentile world. St. Paul’s cult is virtually identical to the cults of Karl Marx, Trotsky and all the other International Jewish Communists and surprisingly Jewish financiers like Jacob Schiff and now George Soros.

    All proclaim to be working for a utopian world order of universal equality, peace and harmony where as St. Paul said:

    “Where there are no divisions between Greeks (Gentiles) and Jews, men and women, free and slave – just those who have accepted Jesus as the true savior and Judeo Christianity as the one true religion of peace and justice”.

    Nietzsche noticed this and stated as fact that the ethnic Jew St. Paul/Rabbi Saul of Tarsus was lying and telling this nonsense to White Gentile Greeks and Romans and underneath the Talmudic Judaism that Jews were the Chosen People of God was always there.

    The best source of the best minds “noticing” bad actions about various forms of Jews is Grimstad’s Anti Zion – it’s online at something called the The Colchester Collection

  97. Wagner’sViola: “The abolitionists were predominantly Unitarians …”

    And Unitarians aren’t “real” Christians, right? LOL.

    People who use this type of argument are typically imbeciles, and I can see you’re no exception.

    Further, fighting the war and granting negroes US citizenship and vote was done by white, Christian America at large, not just by Unitarians.

    Wagner’sViola: “Lincoln was an atheist …”

    Your empty assertion is contradicted by his many references to the Christian God.

    • Replies: @Wagner’sViola
  98. @Alfred

    It had to be done that way because there scepter (authority) had left Juda just as Jacob predicted.

    That Juda (Jews) would lose authority owing to their sins can be read in Num 1, 27; 16:27 in Deut 33;7, in Josue 15, and in Judges 1, 1.

    The Jews had to trick The Romans (Pilate) into acting on their behalf because they did not have the authority to do as they desired- to kill Jesus Christ

    • Replies: @Alden
  99. @GeeBee

    “Having correctly noted that the (canonical) gospels were written long after Saul of Tarsus disappeared from the scene ”

    Weird. You say the Gospels were written long after Titus destroyed Jerusalem but the evangelists just ignored that fact and kept writing as though Jerusalem still existed and Saul/Paul did the same.

    Yes, quite convincing these novel histories. There is no CE.

    There is Anno Domini 2021 and BC, Before Christ. The BCE and CE is an affectation you derived from atheists and other lunatics

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  100. Jesus at Twelve

    And when he was twelve years old, they went up as usual for the festival [of Passover]….After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.

    Josephus at Fourteen

    I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning, and appeared to have both a great memory and understanding. Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law.

    [MORE]

    JESUS is an anagram for JOSEPHUS

    The central thesis of Caesar’s Messiah is that the Gospels of the Bible were written — and the character of Jesus Christ was created — by Roman intellectuals under the direction of Caesar Titus Flavius primarily with the intention of domesticating the Messianic Jewish movements which were resisting Roman occupation of Judea in the First Century, and secondarily with the intention of subverting the Jewish faith such that observants would be unknowingly worshipping Titus Flavius as a god …

    http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/

  101. @Alfred

    Yes.
    Specifically the Jewish priests accused Jesus of making himself a King.
    In the biblical narrative —
    They said to Pontius Pilate, then Roman Governor of Judaea,

    ” The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” (John 19 v 7 KJV)

    Subsequently ” And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.” (v 12)

    And ” Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.” (v 15)

    “We have no king but Caesar” was a (somewhat hypocritical) show of loyalty to Caesar by Jewish leaders, while v 12 was a veiled threat to Pilate who, as Governor, had the power of life or death to carry out their wishes to execute Jesus by crucifixion.

    https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-Chapter-19/

    • Thanks: Agent76
  102. Corvinus says:

    “The Jesus Hoax attempts to convince the reader that there is no rational basis for Christianity”

    It’s a theory, that’s all.

    “And it can scarcely be doubted that Catholicism and mainline Protestantism have been completely corrupted and actively subverted so that millions of White Americans have been swept up by the multiculturalism and replacement-level immigration as moral imperative”

    It can assuredly be doubted.

    “It is the sacred and religious duty of every Mohammedan here to be a good citizen of America and to learn the language of the country, without which we cannot understand each other rightly,” Dr. Mufti Mohammad Sadiq, the first imam of the area’s first mosque, told the Detroit News in 1921.

    Proverbs 6:16-19

    There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

    People look down on others for different reasons; it might be related to their education, their accomplishments, their obedience…OR THEIR BACKGROUND! Pride has many different faces: some people are “holier than thou” while others are “worldlier than thou”; one person is proud of being so well-read while another person say, “I’m not book smart; I’m street smart”; one person is proud of being fashionable while another person is proud of being oblivious to fashion. Pride is an insidious, pervasive thing, especially if it is related to one’s whiteness, blackness, or redness.

    John 4:1-42

    Jesus broke with societal and religious customs to honor the dignity of the Samaritan woman. He associated with a woman of mixed origins, a moral and social outsider, in public and asked her for a drink of water. He demonstrated dignity of the most highest degree-every person is precious.

    God has commanded his disciples to love all of humanity. When God communicates Himself, when He fills us with Himself, He fills us with His Divine Life, with His infinite Love, for He is Love. He confirms that we must share in this Divine nature for God to attract us to Himself because sharing His Grace is His nature.

    All men are equal in their natural dignity; human beings are NOT superior or inferior in this regard. Moreover, God created us in His likeness. As the children of God, we are redeemed by Christ, and bear witness to His divine calling and destiny, regardless of one’s group identity and locality on this Earth. To deny these truths is to deny the authority of God. God has identified His people as those who adhere to His ways, the brotherhood of humankind. God unifies humanity under His banner.

    From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God’s gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church’s members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church’s unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

    The Bible teaches us us that God created every race equally in his image, and he loves every race equally. That is, there is a CHRISTIAN identity, one that trumps race. The Bible says, “From one man he made all the nations. We are God’s offspring” (Acts 17:26, 29).

    Perhaps one of the fine posters on this opinion webzine would indulge in dialectic conversation.

    1) Do you agree or disagree with those Christians consider Europeans to be a “chosen people and Jews to be the cursed offspring of Cain, the ‘serpent hybrid’ (a belief which is known as the two-seedline doctrine)”? Why?

    2) What are your thoughts regarding Wesley A. Swift’s doctrine (he was founder of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian) that non-Caucasian peoples have no souls and therefore can never earn God’s favor or be saved?

    3) How is “race realism” justified from a religious position considering that Christianity’s drive is towards universalism? Just to make it clear, Christian universalism refers to “a school of Christian theology focused around the doctrine of universal reconciliation – the view that all human beings will ultimately be saved and restored to a right relationship with God”.

  103. rgl says:

    Here we are, still fighting religious wars, and remain separated by religion. Religions are cults.

    21st century much?

    • Agree: CelestiaQuesta
  104. Von Rho says:

    The world of American scholars is limited to the Anglosphere. In continental culture, more people know about what was written in this article. Even Comte, who devoted a month of his calendar to Paul (the epithet “Saint” in the title of this article shows Irish-American bigotism), knowing that he was the true founder of the religion, with Crist being a myth.

  105. Sparkon says:
    @Zarathustra

    The pot calls the teacup black.

  106. Alfred says:
    @Alden

    Blasphemy, I believe. I am sure there are different versions.

    • Replies: @Old Brown Fool
  107. Papa says:
    @Sparkon

    My view is that mankind will never advance under the millstone of the ancient fairy tales.

    Advance in to what? Further nihilism?
    The Faustian West is so infected with rationalism that it’s “rationalized” itself to a soulless husk of biomachinery unable to even abstract anything transcendent.

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  108. @Papa

    When I look around I do not see anything rational at all. Back when we were rational we led the world in scientific achievement.

    I agree that the west has lost its’ spiritual moorings, but the flight isn’t to rationalism but to marxist fantasy and delusion.

    Cultural marxism/ political correctness promotes a totally irrational world devoid of logic and reason and common sense.

    There is nothing rational about a child claiming that he identifies as a girl so they give him female hormones and chop his dick off.

    We are now in the realm of off the charts jewing, levels of jewing never seen before. They are obviously testing the white race to see just how much shit we are willing to take.

    • Replies: @Papa
  109. Z-man says:

    One non believer MacDonald putting holes in the thesis of another non believer Skrbina. Good, but nothing much to see here.

    • Agree: Crescent Moon
  110. anon[148] • Disclaimer says:

    Why waste time on stuff like this? You either believe in a higher being or not.
    We are a little speck on the universe, and the truth is we don’t know.
    I believe, but I also believe our creator made it impossible for us to know; this is why the only challenge that humanity has is to choose between good and evil, and if you can’t figure that out,
    that’s too bad.

  111. I don’t attend churches I feel there is something wrong in the ones I have been to.
    I do home church by myself.
    But I choose to believe and I feel that I am right.
    Ever notice that believers seem to exude light and joy?
    Yup…they sure do.
    I am also an astrologer for the past 50 plus yrs so I know what time it is.
    I predicted world war and my target date was Jan 12, 2020 3 decades ago.
    I also predicted Trump in 2011 for 16 and the great American eclipse Aug 2017 as Christian Nationalism. And Brexit leave.
    People laughed at that, I was right again.
    Uh we are in that “time” you know with Neptune home in the God box Pisces.

  112. Dumbo says:

    What kind of name is Skirbina anyway? Sounds non-white. What a tool.

    Is this the same guy that was on these pages anonymously denying the existence of the “First Millenium” and the “Roman Empire”?

    Give me moon-landing conspiracies any time.

    • Replies: @Proud_Srbin
  113. DinoN says:

    The Christian GOD is lucky that He is not an American, because He would have been executed or received a life sentence for killing his Son!

  114. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    What exactly is your doctorate in? And where is it from, Phoenix U? Because it’s not history, and it definitely didn’t teach you to think. You’re as idiotic as any shrieking teenage girl at a BLM hate-in, and know less about the 19th century history than any of those harridans.

  115. She asked you the specific authority held by the imposter “jews” for executing “Jesus”

    You said blasphemy. Quoted for purposes of secular analysis from National Geographic Story on Why the High Priest held no authority for doing it:

    “At that moment, Caiaphas had served some 12 years in office, having succeeded his brother-in-law Eleazar ben Ananus, one of Annas’s five sons to become high priest. Caiaphas was facing a difficult situation. Without the full backing of the Sanhedrin, a high priest did not have the power to single-handedly order a man’s death. His only other option was to refer the whole matter to the local Roman government. This would be a very controversial move, because over preceding decades, the Sanhedrin had fought hard to retain its autonomy in domestic matters, without any interference from the Roman authorities. The other and even more fundamental problem was that Jesus was only guilty of disturbing the peace, and perhaps of blasphemy, in the Temple forecourt, but neither of these warranted Roman intervention, let alone a sentence of death.”

    [MORE]

    So Pilate examined Jesus, was intrigued but not offended by Him, and bolstered by his wife having been told in a dream to “Leave that man alone”, Pilate next told the joo-joo assembly I won’t kill Him. To which the joo-joos exclaimed, “If you don’t kill Him, then you are no friend of Caesar”. So when Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but that instead a riot was breaking out, he took water and washed his hands before the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “You bear the responsibility.” And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!”

    What does this mean? Are the imposter joo-joos cursed for causing the death of Christ? … Pilate believed Jesus was innocent and had not committed a crime deserving crucifixion. And if these joo-joos are imposters, who then are the people from the original nation of Israel who had been ‘lost’ to history and scattered by God five-hundred years before Jesus entered Jerusalem and told these joos, You are the sons of satan, of his lusts you will do.”

    Is this why He told his disciples, “Go to the lost sheep of Israel” ? Is this why these impostors to this day want to kill the real heirs to the nation of Israel, whose compassion, intelligence, curiousity and beauty were preferrred by God above all others?

    Is this why the Son of God told his disciples, “Finally, having one beloved son, he sent him to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said. But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours. ’ So they seized the son, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.”

    “Jews” are not Hebrews, but merely imposters who hold both the intelligence and cunning of their father satan, and who inhabited the territory of Israel and subsumed its identity following the capture and dispersal of the real Hebrew tribes. The counterfeit at hand involves a struggle which is not about flesh and blood, but about principals and powers of spiritual wickedness in high heavenly places. Wake up Unzmen, it really is way bigger than your collective intelligence.

    • Agree: Spender_CGB
  116. Theone says:
    @Adûnâi

    “Murrka…Right Wing” HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

  117. Paul was a Roman by birth; he was thrown out of the Jerusalem church run by Jesus’ cousins; he had never seen Jesus in person; and he taught about Christ, not Jesus – these are well known; but does it make him anti- Roman? He was a Hellenized Jew – and there are people still debating it is good or bad, so I will leave it alone – but he did not insist on circumcision for converting to his sect (was it already named Christianity? I don’t recall), which was very popular with Greeks, because without anesthesia and antibiotics, circumcision is the way to hell. He had no love lost with the Jerusalem church run by James the Just, and he was beaten up by Jews inside their temple. He had reasons to hate the Jewish followers of Jesus Christ (who have already divided into two – those who followed the cousins of Jesus, and those who followed the disciples of Jesus; there was just a superficial unity) – because they did not admit him to the inner councils, did not like his concept of Christ, and did not support his practice of converting Greeks and others without circumcision. He shows this in his epistles; but he was anti – Roman? It shows nowhere. It could be argued he hid so well because of the real threat it represented to his life – he was a Hebrew after all. BTW, I don’t think Paul ever called himself Jew.

    I read a theory somewhere that Paul was actually the Trojan horse of the Roman aristocracy to undermine the new millennial movement of followers of Jesus Christ, but I discounted it because, when Paul lived, Christians were (they were not yet called Christians) a fringe group of eccentric Jews, not worth the trouble of undermining it. Rather the Roman establishment had a good portion of the Jewish ruling class firmly in grip, Tetrarchs and all. They would have loved to undermine those groups which were preaching war against them; but the followers of Jesus were not so big as to undermine them.

    Jesus inspired two types of followers, apparently – Essenes and Nazarenes, who kept away from politics and violence, and Sicarii and others who were expecting the Kingdom of Heaven to appear shortly; the first group is represented by most of the Apostles, and the second group by the Church of Jerusalem and its leaders – James the Just and his successors. The second group was ready to rise in arms against Romans. But Paul was from neither side; he removed the elements of millennialism and Jesus’ inheritance of David’s crown; he added generous doses of Greek concepts – a god who sacrifices himself to save the world, the concept of Jesus’ sufferings absolved the followers of original sin, etc. The Jewish messiah was neither – he was supposed to lead armies against occupiers and win and rule, not expected to sacrifice himself or die. And Jewish idea of getting rid of sins is sacrificing lives at the altar, not death of a messiah. And the concept of Son of God is alien to the Jews. No wonder the preachings of Jerusalem church was popular only among the Jews and those of Paul were popular among Greeks and other non-Jews.

    Paul does not look like anti -Rome; he did not even criticize the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus to a painful death. As for the historicity of Jesus, it is a very long story.

  118. Stogumber says:

    In my young years I was deeply impressed by the book about Jesus writen by one Joel Carmichael. He proved with a lot of quotations that Jesus had been a Jewish revolutionary (a Zealot) and only Paul had falsified the narrative in order to create a new, Rome-friendly religion. (I was not convinced, but understood that the contradicting sources were unreliable, too, so I lost my faith completely.)
    Carmichael’s theory was at least clear and simple and not as unnecessarily complicated as Skribina’s. –

    Many years later I detected that Carmichael (born Joel Lipsky) was one of those Jews who adopted a fake British name which made them sound like members of the Anglo-Norman or Scottish highlander gentry.

    • Replies: @Wagner’sViola
    , @Z-man
  119. Hockamaw says:
    @storxian

    Excellent comment, thanks.

  120. anonymous[312] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robert Dolan

    The Bible disagrees that Yahweh divorced the Jews, saying that Christians are instead “grafted” onto the rootstock of the Jewish tree or vine as another “branch” of Judaism. But stipulating your coping analogy as true, you’re still settling for sloppy seconds. Who would even consider accepting Jewish leftovers, except an Other worshiping cuckold? That’s just nasty.

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  121. @Dumbo

    What kind of name is Skirbina anyway? Sounds non-white.

    Highly likely, some sort of savage or God forbid SubHuman/Untermensch?

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  122. @Alfred

    The blasphemy was the statement of Jesus about the Jewish second temple – he said that a time will come when not a stone would remain, and he can rebuild it in three days. It was never about his divinity. Pilate asked him if the charge is true – what charge? not the blasphemy charges but – the charge of crowning himself as the King of Judea. So, when the Sanhedrin tried to implicate him on charges of blasphemy, and failed, it turned to the Roman governor, and charged Jesus with treason against the Roman emperor (by crowning himself as King of Judea); this time the charge stuck because Jesus did not deny it. And instead of being killed by stoning, the Jewish punishment for blasphemy, he was condemned to die on cross, the Roman punishment for treason.

    • Replies: @The Soft Parade
  123. @Apex Predator

    The work of Phillip K Dick usually entails determining what is or is not real. The above article reviews a book that states Christianity was and is a golem religion used to further the aims of fanatical Jews. In other words, Christ’s divinity was never real.

  124. @Stogumber

    I read that book. Came out in the 1970s? I thought at the time it was just hippie bullshit (I was a teenager then). And I was right.

  125. Z-man says:
    @Stogumber

    You got scammed by a Jew.
    I always try to find out who people are, to know where they’re coming from.
    It’s not too late, Jesus saves.

  126. Dumbo says:
    @Proud_Srbin

    What? Serbian? I thought all Serbian names finished in “ic”?

    But there’s also Tesla, so I guess maybe not.

    Anyway, I sympathize somewhat with Serbians, contrary to the bad press they usually get, but they are as pozzed as anyone these days. Like the creators of “A Serbian movie”, one of the most disgusting things ever conceived, and I haven’t even watched it.

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  127. I have never seen a scholarly argument that the institutionalization of the Catholic Church contributed importantly to the fall of the Empire.

    I can think of one famous attempt to argue just that: Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. However, I doubt most contemporary historian’s take his argument very seriously.

  128. @Trial by Wombat

    My personal opinion, based on everything from Archeological discovery to population genetics, leads me to the conclusion that the Abrahamic religion that went into Egypt is not the same as the religion that later came out, and the indicative misdirection’s are numerous – there is no indication for instance that the precursor to Pharisaic Judaism even knew what the ‘Hebrew’ / Habiru were.

    By “population genetics” are you referring to studies showing the preponderance of European men having DNA of certain Egyptian dynasties? For this question look to the timeline of the Hyksos pharoah dynasty, as was driven out of Egypt by Ahmose I, namely the king who arose following Josesph’s death, and “Who did not know Joseph” (Exodus 1:8) and thereupon reduced Joseph’s people to slavery.

    The Pharaoh was a temporal thing, meaning a Pharaoh was either genetically descended, or created by conquest. Note, the bible says that Joseph as the youngest son of the patriarch Jacob was sold into slavery by his brothers, and ultimately become the second in command under the pharaoh and who gave to Joseph a wife, namely Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, the High Priest of the Temple of On. (Gen 41:45). Asenath bore Joseph two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, whom were added to the names of the tribes by Joseph’s father, Jacob before dying.

    There is a central truth to Christian doctrine, in my view, in that – if a God wished to gain absolutely and unchallenged global fidelity, he could do so effortlessly.

    Very true how God does cover His own tracks. The fools of this world say He should provide empirical evidence necessary to convincing the fools of this world. For this reason I am glad He does not.

    • Replies: @Gapeseed
  129. GeeBee says:
    @Mick Jagger gathers no mosque

    atheists and other lunatics

    You’ve lost any argument you might wish to enter the moment you reveal your impoverished hand by resorting to argumentum ad hominem. Like most Christians, you are incapable of existing without your Jewish teddy bear in the sky, and you resort to the most vicious (and un-Christian) hissing and spitting at anything and anyone that threatens it. Your mind is closed, unlike my own, and yet you malign me as ‘a lunatic’ purely for not buying into your rigid religious mindset. How about Muslims? Jainists? Hindus? They are all all, in your closed mindset, ‘other lunatics’.

    You are sad and pathetic and I shan’t be rushing to read and absorb your comment history .

  130. In a world where (((Big))) control the vast majority of wealth, power and thought, the time has come to unveil a new messiah, one that embodies our connection to every star in the universe, every matter/anti matter particle in infinite space/time, every neuron of our imagination.
    Ancient messiah cults have failed humanity, they have disgraced the very essence of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Humanity has suffered enough and now it is time for a new proclamation that enshrines our rightful place in the universe and beyond.

  131. @Alfred

    There is evidence (inscriptions) that people writing an early form of Hebrew fought as mercenaries in Egypt around 1200 BC. This meshes with suggestions that Hebrew tribes were nomadic brigands in that era.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  132. @Lucy Lipinska

    Lucy, are you referring to the “Christianity: The Great Jewish Hoax” essay?

  133. I am a former Christian who believes that God exists; I suppose that makes me a deist. I also believed that Jesus existed and there were several admirable and noble characteristics about him. However, the religion that sprung up after his death needs to be consigned to the dust bin of history. Both William Luther Pierce and William Gayley Simpson were anti-Christian, and that fact coupled with my own doubts and observations was enough to ‘seal the deal’ and turn me into a deist.

  134. Anonymous[310] • Disclaimer says:

    Was there ANTIsemitism before the rise of Christianity? Is Christianity (Catholic) responsible for Antisemitism in non/Christian countries/areas/empires??? How can you be antisemetic and accept a religion that teaches you to wordship Jesus/jew since your birth? mind/spiritua/brain/ control?? Wasnt Paul opposed, antagonized, persecuted by the Rabbis (circumsicion?).? Paul was onto something much bigger than Jewish Nationalism…he saw the great oportunioty to judaize the Roman Empire and hence the wordl …he succeded ? Had jews embraced Christianity they would had ruled the world since Constantine times?…ALL religions are MYTHS..I dont buy that book were written by divine. inspiration??? prove it Rationally? IF there were a Religion based on Nature/reason…that would be my religion…Natura(reason)alization??? Uh may I could start a New religion…like Paul??? away from race, nationality, sexual ids, etc.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  135. @Levtraro

    You prefer a creed of hate over a creed of love.

    But the jews of Israel are not intent on keeping “their land” (as you write). They are intent on keeping Palestinian land, seized by force, connivance, deceit, and terror. Which fits a creed of hate and vice versa.

  136. @Old Brown Fool

    Here, you exceed the revisionary fallacies of your former post by claiming that the jews

    ” charged Jesus with treason against the Roman emperor (by crowning himself as King of Judea); this time the charge stuck because Jesus did not deny it.”

    Rather, He told Pilate “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But my Kingdom is not of this world.”
    https://biblehub.com/john/18-36.htm

    He did deny it. And for making such claims, He promises to deny you.

  137. @Yukon Jack

    There’s a fine line between clever and stupid.

  138. Adûnâi: “For isn’t it correct that most folks are incredibly stupid, uninquisitive and conformist?”

    You left out greedy and hypocritical.

    Adûnâi: “Even more, certain rules that might be constraining and arbitrary to a free thinker are in actuality wholesome and guiding to the populace at large?”

    Is a society built on lies worth living in? That’s one of the major questions posed by Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Are the people are like sheep, a flock that needs tending (the view of Plato, and William Pierce and Hitler), or are they straw dogs, something first to be accorded reverence, and then trampled underfoot, as in the Taoist metaphor? How a man answers these questions tells a lot about him.

    My view is that Christianity is a cancer that ought to be cut out; excised from the body politic. You don’t replace it with anything. You just let Nature take its course. Healthy tissue may grow back eventually.

    • Agree: Robin Hood
    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  139. @Dumbo

    ic or ec or ik or ek in Slavic languages signifies little one. Usually child.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  140. @GeeBee

    My Creator, Redeemer, Lord and Saviour is no teddy bear and as for those who worship false gods, the bible teaches they are worshiping Satan.

    Religion mens Bond with God and there can e no religion without a mediator – Jesus Christ.

    Run oft to your vain pursuits but know that one day you will stand before the Judgement Seat of Jesus, not a Teddy Bear, and then you cset Him right about all of His wrongs.

  141. @Yukon Jack

    Titus got to be God and Josephus go to be Jesus.

    The Roman way was to conquer then incorporate the gods of otber peoples into their Pantheon. Artemis, Isis, Yahweh.
    Because Jews were monotheistic they were harder to deal with. Tbey had weird food laws. They circumcized.
    The Flavians had to find a way to weaken Judaism. Christianity was the wedge to drive Judaism apart, to scoop up converts like the ‘Godfearers’ who hung out at synagogues but weren’t full jews due to an intact foreskin. This became even more relevant after the second Jewish war. The Romans desperately needed to control judaism or they would be swallowed up by higher fertility and conversion.

    For the modern world, the idea that Christ will save us from the Jews is a wish for the Messiah to return. How can the Messiah return if he was never here? If a man had fed 5,000 from one basket of fish I think that story would have spread like wildfire. The same applies to the rest of the ‘miracles’. Everywhere we look for confirmation we find silence.
    Somehow, the only source for the first Jewish war (66-70ad) is Josephus. Why? Because the Flavian Emperors (Vespasian, Titus, Domitian) killed off competing histories with tight narrative control. That is power. The power to write 4 Gospels and create a new Imperial religion: Roman Catholicism.
    I admire what Eastern Christianity did. Nevertheless, Catholicism has always been Rome imposing a religion on the masses. It is currently an arm of the NWO-Marxist-Judaists. I have no use for a universalist religion telling me to accept Nigerian savages. That is modern day Empire building: putting primitive savages in high trust societies then calling us racist if we don’t like it when our sisters are raped.
    [email protected] the Black Pope.
    [email protected] the Christian Zionist heretic cucks.
    [email protected] Titus and Josephus the Jew.
    E.Michael Jones would have us all abide by a 400 year old agreement that Jews have broken. Jews have a homeland-ghetto; they need to go there and never return. If they refuse to leave they need to be removed. By force if needed.
    We are at a point where jews are now our governmnent and control our money and finance so that they can steal us blind. This farce needs to end.
    Il Papa Nero Francis is not going to lead us out of this mess. He is too busy kissing jewish feet and serving Satan-Baal-Moloch

    • Agree: Based Lad
  142. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    I’ll take the Civil War, the First World War, the great depression all in one over what we have today. Sorry old man, but your modern, liberal society means absolutely nothing to me. There’s nothing about modern day U-S-A I’m willing to fight for. As far as you saying whites in the 19th century were more committed to racial equality now than before you must have been out of your mind, both Lincoln AND Andrew Johnson never wanted anything of the sort.

  143. @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    >I have no use for a universalist religion telling me to accept Nigerian savages.

    Who says that, other than the voices in your head?

    Sorry to say but atheism is universal. A black man can be an atheist. The liberal white atheist alliance with atheist jews or non white atheists is the most common thing there is, many examples, current and in history. When whites are around 10% of the world’s population and only 3% of the world’s children, all ideas will be majority non white, since all ideas are universal. Philosophy, math, biology, chess are all majority practiced by non whites.

    Your revisional history is flawed beginning to end, read a book next time.

  144. Art says:

    Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, writes to David Skrbina from prison

    Two haters!

    One murders people – the other Western culture.

    • Replies: @Art
  145. @GeeBee

    He’s absolutely right and you are wrong. No atheist ever died for anything, and atheism is nothing but a product of atheism, so is equality btw. Equality is a liberal social construct not religious one.

    The atheist believes nothing created everything or the universe created itself before it existed. 2 prepositions that are logically impossible. But the atheist also believes he doesn’t have to explain anything to anyone or never answer questions, while he can ask whatever he wants.

    The atheist gets offended when he gets called a monkey that can talk, he starts talking about all the human rights he has and you can’t be skeptical about. “If god exists why do I wanna take dicks up my ass”, “if god exists why I can’t lose weight”, “if god exists why does my penis smell so bad”, asks the atheist.

    The atheist also makes it pretty clear he’s selfish, he will stand for nothing and noone and he’s only in it for “muh dick” reasons. But the atheist hypocrisy also tells him other people must stand with him, even though he’s not obliged to return the favor, he only cares about himself.

    Don’t ask people to do something for you that you won’t do for them. I owe liberal democracy NOTHING. Have your gay marriage, your cocaine and your antidepressant addiction. Leave me out of it.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
  146. Lets see how brave this “Professional Philosopher” is to come out with a similar book saying that the Muslim religion is a 1400 year old hoax. He knows nothing will happen to him if he comes out with a book that attempts to debunk Christianity because the only people that would read such a book are other ivory tower academics that want to bolster their own doubts about Christianity and a few religious and philosophical scholars. All he’ll get are a few intellectual challenges from same intellectuals and theologists. Had he written a book debunking the Muslim religion as fraud, he’d create an instant demand for his book and calls for his life to be taken in the name of Allah.

  147. @anonymous

    The jew were broken off….those who come to Christ can be grafted in.

    Romans 11 is actually very clear.

    In any case, most debates regarding religion are just stupid…..I can’t even make it through these comments.

  148. anonymous[161] • Disclaimer says:
    @Excal

    There is no saving Christianity from the insidious plague within. The fact that many of you spiritual paupers are rejecting this pagan abomination, what I like to call, Hinduism-lite (based on the shared fallacy of triple deities), is perhaps credit to your self-professed higher IQs. You all can take some, if relatively brief (measured in human life-years), pride in that.

    In stark contrast, just look at the faeces-for-brains in Hindu-stan, and what they have wrought on themselves, as they dig themselves deeper into their extremist pagan hellhole.

    Christians have never truly comprehended the paganisms on which your accursed faith is predicated on, e.g. trinity, 100%man-100%god aka mangods, 3 persons in 1, etc., except with the pathetic refrain, “we simply take it on faith, because God is incomprehensible.”

    And then, there is always the unrelenting assault of Islam’s true monotheism on your pagan godless evilisation. As long as you continue your assault on muslims, may the Almighty One spiritually suffocate you all, and also manifest a small taste of the unimaginable horror which awaits your godless souls. God willing.

    It is now battling Modernism, and I believe the outcome will be analogous.

    You mean, come out stronger? Lol! You wish!

    With the advent of the Internet (an invention of the Christian world… oh, the irony! lol!), the spread of Islam’s true monotheism is reaching right into your homes. Do you still think the current situation is the same?

    That doesn’t mean that you pagan godless vermin will come flocking to Islam. That would require a renunciation of your racially supremacist ideals (hence why you reject a non-white prophet who advocated absolute true monotheism).

    I truly don’t see that happening anytime in the foreseeable future. So, an overwhelming number of you, and your children, and their children, are destined for a rather unpleasant Hereafter.

    • Replies: @WJ
    , @Excal
  149. Anonymous[301] • Disclaimer says:
    @Agent76

    O.M.F.G. The depths of insanity the True Believer goes to, never ceases to amaze..

    • Troll: Agent76
    • Replies: @Agent76
  150. Fr. John says:
    @storxian

    “Since the biblical Jesus story is false, it was evidently constructed by Paul and his fellow Jews in order to sway the gullible Gentile masses to their side and away from Rome…”.

    And there the BULLSH*T begins.

    Anathema sit. Come the restoration, these types would be the first to the stoning fields, as heretics and blasphemers.

    there are more written records attesting to Christ’s existence, and the rise of the Church in the midst of an apostate and Christophobic Jewry, that the first sentence of this screed is as lying as it is duplicitous.

    May God damn the bastards. I’m done with putting up with sodomites, Jews, Christophobes and other detritus of the so-called “intelligentsia,” who are all fools. Ps. 14:1

    Athanasios (4th century) said that Orthodoxy is the faith “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”

    “Anyone who is capable of speaking the truth but remains silent, will be heavily judged by God, especially in this case, where the faith and the very foundation of the entire church of the Orthodox is in danger. To remain silent under these circumstances is to betray these, and the appropriate witness belongs to those that reproach (stand up for the faith).”
    — St. Basil the Great

    • Agree: Seraphim, Mevashir
    • Replies: @JamesinNM
  151. Agent76 says:
    @Anonymous

    How old are you child that you do not spell words? “I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.” Socrates

    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  152. Art says:
    @Art

    Here is what David Skrbina believes in.

    Panpsychism – wiki — In philosophy of mind, panpsychism is the view that mind or a mindlike aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. It is also described as a theory that “the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe.”[2] It is one of the oldest philosophical theories.

    Here is Jesus’ philosophy — “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”

    Hmm — which philosophical belief has made the world a better place to live?

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    , @Seraphim
  153. vinteuil says:

    So how does all this fit in with Gunnar Heinsohn’s work, according to which there are only about three centuries worth of physical remains from the first millenium?

    Is Skrbina even aware of Heinsohn? Does he address his arguments?

  154. WJ says:
    @G. Poulin

    Christian churches should definitely dump the SJW social programs since they just enable dependency. A lot of churches are big on importing more vibrants. They should just stop.

    Skrbina apparently has some weird beliefs himself. Never heard of panpsycism.

    Something tells me that Skrbina would have a really tough time changing a tire.

  155. JamesinNM says:

    Read C. S. Lewis’ book “Mere Christianity.”

  156. WJ says:
    @anonymous

    Islam is several hundred years behind Christianity, but some time in the next century, maybe sooner that moronic goat ffing religion will mellow and find itself compatible with standard norms. The goat ffers just need time to become enlightened. It will happen.

    • Agree: Levtraro
  157. JamesinNM says:
    @Fr. John

    Read Romans 2:28-29 describing real Jews, born again Christians with changed hearts regardless of ethnic background, and compare with Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 that describe false Jews as the synagogue of Satan.

  158. @storxian

    Again thanks for the comment that does deserve the first place, and not only in the queue!

    Great blog by the way ….some of the most refreshing essays that I have read in a long time!

  159. Voltara says:

    Paul (who never met Jesus) was a marketing man and politician who corrupted the true teaching of Jesus and promoted the idea of a bodily resurrection to make his version of Christianity more appealing. At the same time he was fighting with the Gnostics (Gospel of Thomas) for control (hence the addition of “doubting Thomas” in John).

    Once you read past the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all you get is judgement, speculation and politics, none of which Jesus would have endorsed.

  160. FvS says:
    @FatR

    1.) Abrahamic religion is not necessary to achieve high birth rates for a population. This can be achieved with state policy.
    2.) Jews dominate for a variety of reasons but arguably the most important is that their religion preaches Jewish supremacism while Christianity is universalist. Not all religions are created equal.
    3.) I often see this type of consequentialist argument for religion “Birth rates!” “Anti-degeneracy!”, but what’s lost in the discussion is whether the religion itself is true or not. Santa Claus makes children good, yet Santa Claus does not exist.
    4.) White means European caucasoid. The modern usage of Aryan by white nationalists mostly refers to Europeans as well. The Aryan blood of Persians, Pushtuns, and a number of other Islamic groups is said to have been virtually eliminated through race-mixing with Semites, Dravidians, etc.

    • Replies: @Alden
  161. Nobody gives his life for a myth.
    Christianity began with a multitude of witnesses willing to die for Christ.
    Please, unz.com, don’t disappoint me with articles like this.

  162. IronForge says:

    Not bad; but Off Target.

    No One Wrote about Jesus, his Disciples, or his Followers in 1-2 Centuries CE.

    Christianity was Fabricated in Nicea under the Sponsorship of Constantine as a favor for his “Chrestus” Cult Supporters.

    Jesus-never-existed-dot-com

    4th Century CE.

    The Gospels and NT were First Published as parts of First Christian Bibles which Rolled Out – After Nicea.

    IIRC, Paul was a “Chrestus” Cult Figure.

  163. Incitatus says:
    @Adûnâi

    “All the left countries – the USSR [sic], China, DPR Korea – have had rigid Party hierarchy, omnipresent military, universal education.”

    For the mantra of saintly state order listen to (failed bank-clerk and failed-author) Joseph Göbbels:

    “The revolution that we have made is a total revolution. It encompasses every aspect of public life from the bottom up…it has completely altered relationships between the individual and the state…[the goal is to] replace individuality with collective racial consciousness and the individual with the community…[there will] no longer [be] any free realms in which the individual belongs to himself…the time for personal happiness is over”
    – Joseph Göbbels [Helmut Heiber ‘The Early Göbbels Diaries’ London 1962; Childers ‘The Third Reich’ p.331]

    “Individualism will be conquered and in place of the individual and its deification, the Volk will emerge. The Volk stands in the center of all things. The revolution is conquering the Volk and public life, imprinting its stamp on culture, economy, politics and private life. It would be naïve to believe that art could remain exempt from this…[Art can no longer] claim to be apolitical or nonpartisan. It [can] not claim to have loftier goals than politics…[in earlier times artists] might claim the right to ignore politics, but not at this historic moment…[the goal of the régime and Germany’s artists must be nothing less than to] conquer the soul of the nation.”
    – Joseph Göbbels speech to German Theatre Representatives Mar 1933 [Childers ‘The Third Reich’ p.297]

    “[The press should ensure people] think uniformly, react uniformly, and place themselves body and soul at the disposal of the government.”
    – Joseph Göbbels, Press Conference 16 Mar 1933 (two days after being sworn Reichsminister) [Burleigh ‘The Third Reich’ p.209]

    Forced conformity in a terror régime (aside from impressive parades) didn’t work too well for Göbbels.

    Your mention of the long-departed USSR as current (it fell apart 1991) is telling. How are you doing on Alexei Navalny? Is he dead yet?

    “Anarchy and chaos are the fate of America – the most Christian and right-wing capitalist nation on the planet.”

    “Anarchy and chaos” Golly! Mad Max comes to America? Is that what you wish?

    No matter. Don’t worry about us. We’ll figure it out. We always have.

  164. Anon[146] • Disclaimer says:
    @Observator

    Are you talking about the Haavara Agreement where Hitler agreed to send Jews to Palestine? or are you talking about fictitious debunked events?

  165. FvS says:
    @FatR

    You will never be Aryan. Oh, don’t worry, genetically you are probably more Aryan than an average Yank, it is just that no one concerned with fighting for the Aryan race in the Anglosphere will ever see you as a fellow white. They only grudgingly under the direst pressure of circumstances accepted that Irish and Poles are white, and you are a step beneath them.

    Not true. White has always meant European caucasoid, and essentially all major pro-white organizations today agree with that view, even ones with a reputation for Nordicism like the National Alliance. Historically speaking, Irish, Italians, Poles, etc. could become citizens in the U.S. right from its founding when citizenship was limited to whites only. Two signers of the Declaration of Independence were Italian and three were Irish. However, this does not necessarily mean that all white ethnic groups are thought be equal. And then, if we look at who was Aryan according to the German national socialists, we find that it includes all Europeans.

  166. vinteuil says:
    @Art

    Do you see some conflict between pansychism & the golden rule?

    • Replies: @Art
  167. Moktezuma says:

    “and it is certainly true that there is a small but consistent negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity.[3] But the weakness of the association—explaining around four percent of the variance—indicates that there are plenty of intelligent people who are quite religious”

    4%! fortunately !
    I don’t know how people with intelligence can believe these ramblings!
    But … let’s say that this “crazy” argument is true, the Jews also enter the religious circle, so how did they fool other religious people?

  168. @storxian

    …mistranslations from the (G)reek, like…the idea that scripture rather than (C)hrist is the word of (G)od.

    Invaluable point. Eternal thanks.

    Instinctively have always focused on God Incarnate Jesus to the exclusion of the Old Testament anyway.

  169. Thomasina says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    “Notably, the only time Jesus displays anger and acts on it is in scourging the money-changers out of the Temple — on the first day of Holy Week, according to the frame story, this is the act that precipitated his execution at the instigation of the Rabbinate — closely allied, then and for centuries before and ever after, with the ‘money-changers.’”

    Yes, Jesus recognized the Predators and threw them out. They murdered him, and have been murdering us ever since.

    Predator:
    noun
    1. an animal that naturally preys on others. “Wolves are major predators of rodents.”

    2. a person or group that ruthlessly exploits others. “A website frequented by sexual predators.”

    There is a great difference between a “predator” and someone who is ignorant, weak or hungry. The latter you can forgive, have compassion for, heal, but a Predator seldom changes his ways. If given the chance, he’s liable to crucify you.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  170. iffen says:

    David Skrbina is a professional philosopher

    LOL

    Nobody can make up shit like this.

  171. Art says:
    @vinteuil

    Do you see some conflict between pansychism & the golden rule?

    I do not have a clue as to what pansychism really means or what it has produced.

    Whereas “loving your neighbor as you love yourself” I understand – and it starts and begins a whole set of Christian philosophical ideals that have been the engine of Western progress.

    The Christian philosophical ideals propagated by Jesus are live with hope, life is sacred, love, seek truth, forgive, and grace.

    Jesus verbalized those ideals and put them on the map of human consciousness.

  172. “So, in my view, it’s a complex story, and one that is far from finished.”

    Sorry, professor! The enemy has been identified and thus the question is what to about it. It isn’t as complex as it’s made out to be. But whatever the solution, time is short and running out rather rapidly. Carpe diem!

  173. commandor says:
    @Incitatus

    Those quotes of Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda Joseph Goebbels are absolutely amazing. If those are not music to your ears, I am sorry, but you are Christtard.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
    , @R2b
  174. @Observator

    You’re swallowing a lot of pablum there from Mein Kampf. Once Hitler began propagating an image of himself he retconned his own past to claim that he had been seized with inspiration at a time when he was blind and learning of the German military defeat. There’s no evidence of that. Hitler learned his core ideology from George Schoenerer and Karl Lueger, the 2 leading figures on the Austrian Right at the turn of century from 19th to 20th. Schoenerer was the leader of the Austrian Pan-German League and Lueger of the Christian Social Movement. Schoenerer provided Hitler with his core philosophy, while Lueger showed how communications works.

    Schoenerer was always antagonistic to Christianity, and this was what fundamentally destroyed his political career. Lueger had started his career by joining an atheist society, but then realized that it would pay better if he posed as a Christian. From these 2 Hitler learned both the racial ideology which rejected Christianity, along with the need to play up to Christian superstitions where the audience embraced such. Up until 1918 the monarchical order in Germany and Austria meant that there wasn’t any serious political prospect open to Hitler. He learned all of his core ideology and political gamesmanship from Schoenerer and Lueger before 1914, but had no avenue for acting on it.

    When the monarchies fell Hitler began looking around for new opportunities. Ernst Roehm then played the principal role in showing Hitler the possibilities for real world action. By the time Hitler was writing Mein Kampf he was ready to rewrite his past and tell people how he had a quasi-religious vision early on which showed him the way. A lot of con-artistry was involved. That’s not to imply that Hitler didn’t fervently hold to an ideology. His ideological outlook was that of Schoenerer, but translated into practical politics using what he had learned from Lueger and Roehm.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  175. @Alden

    What was the Roman law Jesus violated?

    If Rome was anything like Florida, the the public demonstration and overthrowing of the tables of the money changers shortly before his arrest would have violated some kind of public order statute.

    Or perhaps he was blocking the passage of EMT camels.

    In an updated version of Christianity Jesus would have suffered under Ron DeSantis, been given a lethal injection, died and been buried, and then risen on the third day, ascended into heaven, and taken his seat on the Supreme Court at the right hand of God the Father Almighty and continued to judge the quick and the dead in a suitably nonjudgmental fashion.

    • LOL: Alden
  176. @follyofwar

    James’s sect did not “die.” It followed its own advice and retreated to the wilderness. And when it came back out of the wilderness, the Syrian Christians of the time (not the Church ecclesiastical hierarchy, which had something to lose) recognized it as the return of its long lost brother. It had become Islam. Cf: “Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.” (Epistle of James 4:7). Submit=Islam. James’ sect were the Ebionites, “the Poor Ones.” Koran: “You are the Poor Ones. God is the Rich.” James’ sect did not abandon circumcision. James is the “brother” to Jesus “not biologically” but because his sect did not recognize Jesus as God but instead as “one of the brothers.” Three Gospels have Jesus say: “And looking about at those who sat around him, he said,`Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.’” A bissel sekhil.

    • Agree: Mevashir
    • Replies: @Mevashir
  177. commandor says:
    @FatR

    Like an Anti-Christian once wrote about an idiot who mocked a DPRK propaganda picture depicting Murikans killing Koreans.

    “That picture is part of Korean culture, intended for internal consumption, in order to produce hatred, which will satiate the roots of the racial tree with vigour. Who is an American compared to this? A quirky, ephemeral creature.”

    Thankfully, the world will be a much better place when Christianity will reach its ultimate conclusion: death for all those who subscribe to its morality; no more Christians.

  178. Jared Taylorstein: “As far as you saying whites in the 19th century were more committed to racial equality now than before you must have been out of your mind, both Lincoln AND Andrew Johnson never wanted anything of the sort. ”

    The result of the war, citizenship and the vote given to negroes, speaks for itself. Since it came from an America almost 100% white and fanatically Christian, this was clearly the result of Christian insanity with regard to race.

    With regard to the strength of their commitment to this insane ideal, consider the casualties. It was America’s bloodiest war, with ca. 700,000 dead placing it light years beyond anything else.

    With regard to Lincoln, you’re simply wrong. In his last public address before being assassinated, he called for citizenship and the vote to be given to negroes. The patriot John Wilkes Booth was in attendance at this speech, and vowed to kill him because of it. Here are the words that earned him a bullet in the brain:

    “The amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all, if it contained fifty, thirty, or even twenty thousand, instead of only about twelve thousand, as it does. It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. … The colored man too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it, than by running backward over them?”
    – Abraham Lincoln, last public address, Washington, D.C., April 11, 1865

  179. Alden says:
    @Alfred

    “Jesus was judged guilty by the Jewish priests”

    So what law was Jesus guilty of violating? What was the law?

  180. “There is something about Jewish culture that inspires disgust and hatred” (79).”

    Fortunately, the hasbara trolls on this site use their horse manure to fertilize such sentiments beyond believe belief…

  181. anon[203] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sparkon

    My view is that mankind will never advance under the millstone of the ancient fairy tales.

    Advance in what way? You’re complaining in a comment box on the Interwebs, a communcations system that barely came into existence about 40 years ago. Your complaint was approved and can be read anywhere on the planet that has some sort of communications.

    Advance to what?

  182. Alden says:
    @Mick Jagger gathers no mosque

    What was the law Jesus violated?

    Law—Violation——Investigation——Arrest——-
    Trial——-Conviction——-Sentence

    What was the law what was the violation?

    • Replies: @Franz
  183. Alden says:
    @FvS

    If anything could ever turn me against White Nationalism, it’s people like you.

    • Replies: @FvS
  184. Thomasina says:
    @Incitatus

    Those quotes smell like the Biden government, surrounded by barbed wire, dictating from above what everyone is to think and feel. Statues destroyed, artwork gone, history rewritten, speech stifled. Walking six feet apart, masked up.

    EXCEPT in Biden’s case, unlike in Germany, they are attempting to replace the people who built the country with foreigners. If the Democrats (and it’s really the Republicans too – all elites) were trying to get rid of the foreigners and keep the volk, then that would be closer to what Germany was trying to do, trying to retain their cultural way of life.

    Biden is proclaiming that the volk are “White Supremacists”. Quite the opposite of Germany.

    Mad Max has arrived.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  185. HBM says:

    After a couple decades of pondering– and less reading, I’ve come to the conclusion that the history of early Christianity is too convoluted, for a whole host of reasons, to ever be brought to any real clarity, especially with respect to the particulars. None of the texts can be dated with certainty; none of the authorship, literally from line to line, is certain; every bit of it might be fiction; everything was edited and redacted over and over again for decades, centuries. The texts can be read from virtually any angle. My personal 30-thousand-foot view, however, is that Christianity undoubtedly began as Jewish Messianism, as tales of resistance to Roman (and perhaps Greek) rule, and which may have been in response to a particular Jesus– or many, or none; it was a counter-discourse, spun by Hellenized Jewish intellectuals (read: Jewish ethnic propagandists), who turned bloodthirsty Jewish, anti-Gentile eschatological fantasies into something falsely “Greek”; Gentile-friendly; White. This disinformation spread happily amongst nonwhite North African Romans and in the Roman gutter and finally among Roman matrons, which sealed the fate of the Empire. As for Paul, although I find what Robert Eisenman has to say about him and the Dead Sea Scrolls compelling, I suspect Paul has as much chance of being a harmonizing late fiction who never actually existed about as likely as anything else. Also, I do follow the conventional wisdom that most of the explicitly anti-Jewish sentiment comes at the hands of later Gentile authors and redactors, after it became untenable to worship a Jewish savior without some qualifications because of the century of wars in Judea and because of Jewish behavior in Rome itself.

  186. @Anonymous

    Cicero predates Christianity and criticizes the behaviors and civic bullying of the Roman Jewish population. If “anti-Semitism” is by definition criticism of Jews, then Cicero is an “anti-Semite” by definition. If, on the other hand, this definition amounts to pseudo-logical bullying, then he isn’t. In around 80 BC when the Romans took Rhodes in the course of their war against Mithradates they found a vast sum of silver stashed in a temple there by Jewish tax farmers (of Roman taxes) whose depredations on the population of the area had precipitated the war. Who’s the “anti-Semite” there? In the third century BC a Jewish regime seized power in Libya and slaughtered tens if not hundreds of thousands of Libyans. Presumably this made the Libyans feel fairly “anti-Semitic.”

    Is an aversion to Nazis “anti-Germanic” or is it an aversion to Nazis?

  187. @Thomasina

    Wolves don’t predate on wolves, regarding each other as members of the same species.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  188. @Agent76

    Sorry but that is misquote of Socrates.
    Precise quote is this: I know that I do not know. This could be interpreted more on the line of Clint Eastwood’s ” I do know my limitations.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Agent76
  189. The questions and arguments about Jesus, Jews and Christianity can go on forever … just back and forth all the time. Who benefited most once the printing press came into being and Bibles were printed in book like form? It wasn’t the Christians because their Book was so confusing and so long with many contradictions making it impossible to have a sound faith. Add to it the Son of God was Jewish and so were nearly all of the stars of the Bible. This must’ve shocked Christians when this came out. And just about this time was when Jews ceased to be thrown out of nations and territories because now Christians feared expelling them, frightened to death of harming “God’s Chosen Ones.”

    So who has benefitted from the printed (and it’s probably been altered) Bible ? It sure wasn’t the Christians or atheists. In fact these 2 groups are controlled and ruled by these “Chosen Ones.”
    Your God is Jewish, worship Him, worship His Jewish mother Mary also.
    Is it any wonder Christians mind’s are so screwed up? Mine sure is.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  190. Seraphim says:
    @Art

    The philosophy of Jesus is:

    ”Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the FIRST AND GREAT commandment. And the SECOND is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:37-38)
    ”And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The FIRST of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength’*: this is the FIRST commandment. 31 And the SECOND is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. 32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: 33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question” (Mark 12:28-34).

    *Deuteronomy 6:4-9: ”Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord. 5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy mind, and with all thy soul, and all thy strength. 6 And these words, all that I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart and in thy soul. 7 And thou shalt teach them to thy children, and thou shalt speak of them sitting in the house, and walking by the way, and lying down, and rising up. 8 And thou shalt fasten them for a sign upon thy hand, and it shall be immoveable before thine eyes”.

    You should not put the cart before the horse. Christianity is not about making a better place to live: ”I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. 10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them” (John 17:9-10). This is the Law that Christ came to fulfill and that the Jews forgot.

  191. Papa says:
    @Robert Dolan

    I disagree. What you see is end result of philosophy without theology. Reason, empiricism, and even epistemology on its own cannot justify itself; it requires a transcendent presupposition: Logos. As man was in awe over their seaming mastery over nature, they saw themselves as material gods rather than discoverers of truths. Who needs God when we are now gods? Ultimately this hubris in “reason” has lead to present times where man thinks he can craft values out of nothing and they will become “truth” with enough will to power (applied sophisticated nihilism). In the end, this Faustian exercise of rejecting Logos in the pursuit of man’s apotheosis will lead to degenerative catabolic collapse.

    The East has a future. They understand that theology precedes philosophy. They learned quick and hard in a century what rejection of the Logos has lead to; while their brothers in the West have taking the slow innocuous poison over centuries.
    There is no serious philosophy without even the basic answer to the God Question, else all your knowledge, worldview, and “wisdom” is built on thin air and subject to change.

    • LOL: Levtraro
    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    , @Sean
  192. anon[838] • Disclaimer says:

    It is wonderful in some represented respects that various religions or variously political shits can be completely controlled by digital ‘science’ -whatever the fuck that may be. So we may decide what you wish to be depending on whom you wished to be according to A B and Maybe C depending on how much you decided to pay to stay alive. Looks a lot like India right now.
    Things are going right to shit.
    Be honest with you, look after your own country and if India don’t make it that is just too damn bad. Do you think India would protect you if they had the advantage? Be honest with you sweetheart, if they had the advantage they would suck you dry.
    Welcome to tomorrow.
    tr

  193. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    That’s a statement of titanic idiocy considering that it was precisely during the nineteenth century, when America was almost 100% white and fanatically Christian

    With Christianity: Civil war but with borders and immigration only for Whites

    Without Christianity: We need to bring more third worlders to stop Whites from oppressing everyone.

    Sweden is far more secular than the US so is that the model we should aspire to? You do realize that posting here can be constituted as being “racially divisive” and a judge can send you to jail for merely taking the position that the country has enough Muslims.

    55% of Swedes report as non-religious
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Sweden

    Swedish authorities tracking down seniors for thought crime
    https://sputniknews.com/europe/201803021062161593-sweden-thought-crime/

    The data simply doesn’t support the anti-Christian position. Try all you may but you can’t escape the consistent correlation which is less Christianity = more liberalism. I can easily list a dozen countries where this has been the case. You are the one trying to adopt a completely unsupported belief which is that abandoning Christianity will somehow turn Whites against liberalism and globalism. It just doesn’t happen. The fact that you react so emotionally when I post such clear and well supported data tells me that you most likely suffer from cognitive dissonance on this issue.

    • Agree: Robjil, Rogue
    • Replies: @Robjil
    , @John Q Duped
  194. Thomasina says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    And he huffed and he puffed…..

    “Predator: a person or group that ruthlessly exploits others. ”

    This particular type of predator is another type of being altogether – psychopathic, manipulative, cunning.

    Will the U.S. be nailed to the cross this time, or will the predator?

  195. @Papa

    I don’t think you have a handle on what is happening right under your nose….your focus on the abstract has virtually nothing to do with the Bolshevik takeover of the west.

    E. Michael Jones has a clear understanding of what has happened to Christianity and Catholicism….I suggest you look into his work as he is quite knowledgeable.

  196. St Paul has always been something of an enigma in New Testament studies, not least because of his “advanced” theology from such an apparently early date. Though contemporaneous, supposedly, with the godman Paul never meets a human Jesus and yet he becomes the most important apostle of the new religion. Then again, the man and his seminal epistles, by convention placed in the mid-years of the 1st century, are actually unheard of until late in the 2nd century. Could our hero from Tarsus be a pious fabrication – just like Jesus and the rest of the gang? https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm

  197. Seraphim says:
    @Zarathustra

    Apparently people are mislead by Twitter. What Socrates really said is somewhat longer (you’ll have to go through all the ‘Apology of Socrates’ and the Plato’s Dialogues):

    ”Now please, men of Athens, do not make a disturbance, not even if I seem to you to be boasting somewhat. For “not mine is the story” that I will tell; rather, I will refer it to a speaker trustworthy to you. Of my wisdom, if indeed it is wisdom of any kind, and what sort of thing it is, I will offer for you as witness the god in Delphi. Now you know Chaerephon, no doubt. He was my comrade from youth as well as a comrade of your multitude, and he shared in your recent exile and returned with you. You do know what sort of man Chaerephon was, how vehement he was in whatever he would set out to do. And in particular he once even went to Delphi and dared to consult the oracle about this—now as I say, do not make disturbances, men—and he asked whether there was anyone wiser than I. The Pythia replied that no one was wiser. And concerning these things his brother here will be a witness for you, since he himself has met his end. Now consider why I say these things: I am going to teach you where the slander against me has come from. When I heard these hings, I pondered them like this: “What ever is the god saying, and what riddle is he posing? For I am conscious that I am not at all wise, either much or little. So what ever is he saying when he claims that I am wisest? Surely he is not saying something false, at least; for that is not sanctioned for him.”

    • Agree: Zarathustra
  198. Franz says:
    @Alden

    What was the law Jesus violated?

    Someone with a similar name (“Crestus”) is alleged by the Talmud and elsewhere to have been executed for sorcery.

    Illegal and potential sources for execution under Roman Law for sorcery includes: Any prophecy concerning death of a monarch or high ranking personage; divulging the Sibylline Books; making known the outcome of any war before information comes from the top; any form of human sacrifice whether actually carried out or planned.

    The emperor’s title Pontifex Maximus was real. Violations are known to have been punished. One gentleman mocked and made public a Sibylline prophecy and got dead real fast. Dionysian preachers and Druids were often banned or executed for allegations of human sacrifice. Christ DID say Jerusalem would get knocked over; this can be a violation of war-prophecy statute.

    All hypothetical in the current context. But it would be fun to quiz a Talmudic scholar and see if there is any evidence or even further information. Good luck with that.

    • Thanks: Alden
  199. Seraphim says:
    @John Q Duped

    The printing of the ‘Bible’ was the exact equivalent of ”Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you”. For ”Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”.
    Now, for sure your mind is screwed up.

  200. @Incitatus

    As anglo-american propaganda is as its best when slandering thoroughly unsympathetic persons, please do not view the following small corrections as attempts to defend the bad Dr. Goebbels.

    He was not a failed author, even though his first attempts in his early twenties did not meet with success. He also was not a failed bank clerk, even though he tried his hand at this for a few months despite his misgivings. Look at his age when he became a career politician.

    Interestingly, none of his siblings survived the nineteenforties, so you are right, losing a war against the Bolsheviks did not work out too well for him.

    Why the need to make him worse than he was?

    Was the bad Dr. not bad enough?

    Is it conceivable that quite a few of Usistan’s present troubles stem from a firm beliefon its own propagandistic lies?

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  201. @J. Alfred Powell

    The former.
    Nobody ever bothers to make the same example about Bolsheviks and Russians, and not because the Bolsheviks were sooooo much less murderous than the Nazis.

  202. @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    For the modern world, the idea that Christ will save us from the Jews is a wish for the Messiah to return. How can the Messiah return if he was never here?

    Exactly, Jesus can not return when he never existed, so all this waiting was not only a monumental waste of time, it was instrumental in the Christian power structure allowing the Jews to role their society. Belief in Jesus return has made all of Christiandumb impotent and inactive in their own takeover, the parasite took over the host because of belief in a Jewish savior. Jesus was the greatest Jewish coup of all time.

    I’ve made the point over and over that European tribes lost the battle for their souls when Rome forced them to believe in Yahweh via acceptance of Christ. Christ became the poison that did Europe in and now with Jews in full control, they are eliminating the host with the vaccine program. It’s already over, we are already dead and don’t know it yet. We lost when we got converted. The spell of the Gospels (means God Spell) is so strong even with our full conscious awareness of what is going on it is near impossible to break the spell the believers hold.

    John Hagee and Christians United for Israel are going to be singing praises and hallelujahs for Israel while the last white Christian is wiped out.

    The situation is so tragic it is laughable. Whoever listens to the television (Jewish 24/7 electronic propaganda) is going to be eliminated from the gene pool. It will be interesting to see the lethality of vax long term.

    • Agree: Robin Hood
  203. GeeBee says:
    @Jared Taylorstein

    I am no Liberal, as any brief perusal of my commenting history will quickly attest. I despise it, and I recognise it for what it is: Protestant Christian axiology shorn of its ‘mysterious’ elements, as Revilo P Oliver and many others have noted. Oscar Levy did so a hundred years ago, when he said that “There is a direct line of succession from Savonarola to Luther, and from Luther to Robespierre and from Robespierre to Lenin”. Revilo P Oliver wrote extensively on the origins of both Christianity and its foul spawn Liberalism, for example when he said:

    “Liberalism” is a succedaneous religion that was devised late in the Eighteenth Century and it originally included a vague deism. Like the Christianity from which it sprang, it split into various sects and heresies, such as Jacobinism, Fourierism, Owenism, Fabian Socialism, Marxism, and the like. The doctrine of the “Liberal” cults is essentially Christianity divested of its belief in supernatural beings, but retaining its social superstitions, which were originally derived from, and necessarily depend on, the supposed wishes of a god. This “Liberalism,” the residue of Christianity, is, despite the fervor with which its votaries hold their faith, merely a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied.

    The dependence of the “Liberal” cults on a blind and irrational faith was long obscured or concealed by their professed esteem for objective science, which they used as a polemic weapon against orthodox Christianity, much as the Protestants took up the Copernican restoration of heliocentric astronomy as a weapon against the Catholics, who had imprudently decided that the earth could be stopped from revolving about the sun in defiance of Holy Writ by burning intelligent men at the stake or torturing them until they recanted. Pious Protestants would naturally have preferred a cozy little earth, such as their god described in their holy book, but they saw the advantage of appealing to our racial respect for observed reality to enlist support, while simultaneously stigmatizing their rivals as ignorant obscurantists and ridiculous ranters.

    Or, as Adolf Hitler put it:

    The Jew who fraudulently introduced Christianity into the ancient world — in order to ruin it — re-opened the same breach in modern times, this time taking as his pretext the social question. It’s the same sleight-of-hand as before. Just as Saul was changed into St. Paul, Mardochai became Karl Marx. The religion fabricated by Saul of Tarsus, which was later called Christianity, is nothing but the Communism of to-day. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.

    Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.

    And then think of the history of nationalism. It started in our time as a reaction against Napoleon; Napoleon was the antagonist of the French Revolution; the French Revolution was the consequence of the German Reformation; the German Reformation was based upon a crude Christianity; this kind of Christianity was invented, preached and propagated by the Jews: therefore the Jews have made this war! Please do not think this a joke: it only seems a joke, and behind it there lurks a gigantic truth, and it is this, that all latter-day ideas and movements have originally sprung from a Jewish source, for the simple reason, that the Semitic idea has finally conquered and entirely subdued this only apparently irreligious universe of ours. It has conquered it through Christianity, which of course, is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and it’s the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic invention, has thrown him back fifteen centuries. The only thing that would be still worse would be victory for the Jew through Bolshevism.

    As for your ‘The atheist believes nothing created everything or the universe created itself before it existed – two prepositions that are logically impossible’ you are desperate, just like all Christians, to believe the impossibility of a universe existing outside of it being ‘created’ by your evidence-free YHWH. In doing so, you sneer at all the other religious explanations for creation: only your loathsome and psychopathic Jewish YHWH is allowed to claim for itself such abilities (unsurprising, bearing in mind it was itself ‘created’ by Jews, in order to serve their own ends).

    No-one is arguing that ‘nothing created everything’: the very idea of ‘creation’ is itself an entirely human foible, bounded as it is by our experience, and thus confined within a narrow ability to conceptualise such enormities as the universe, to say nothing of time. One might as well ask who or what is supposed to have created your god? If the universe had to be ‘created’ then surely the same applies to the god that you aver did so. If you can get your head around the idea of a pre-existent god, then you’re well on your way to understanding the universe!

    • Thanks: RVBlake
    • Replies: @Olivier1973
  204. Dumbo says:
    @Zarathustra

    In practice, I think it means “son of”, so that’s why it’s so common in surnames.

    But, it doesn’t seem to be the rule always. Tesla and a few others. Maybe it depends on the region.

    For instance, Italian surnames can vary a lot depending on the region, some types of names are more common in some regions than others.

    • Agree: Zarathustra
  205. FvS says:
    @Alden

    Do you have a specific complaint?

    • Replies: @Alden
  206. The Jesus Hoax: How St. Paul’s Cabal Fooled the World for Two Thousand Years

    This is funny and pathetic at the same time. So… The author believes in the Paulus hoax! For except for the xian scriptures there is not even one mention of this phantom character in any text from the antiquity (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Dion Cassius, etc.). The letters were brought all of a sudden around 150 by Marcion, quite likely himself the author of these letters.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  207. mcohen says:

    a problem

    Jews consider statues of jesus forbidden as stated in the ten commandments.it is idolatry.

    there is absolutely no chance that Judaism would be connected in any way to this pagan practice.incidently a jew may pray in a mosque but not in a church.

    interesting isn’t it.

    • Agree: Maowasayali
    • Replies: @Maowasayali
  208. Sean says:
    @Papa

    It’s well known that seriously religious, fundamentalist Christians in the West have more children on average than non-Christian Europeans, which is certainly adaptive. But they are also more likely to swear fealty to the interests of Israel and in general they are entirely resistant to being informed about the negative effects of multiculturalism or about Jewish cultural influence (whose effects they despise) or even Jewish traditional hostility toward Christianity.

    Maybe those Christian fundamentalists believe that because it too is adaptive. In other words they implicitly understand the Jews are an opponent best avoided.

  209. Robjil says:
    @John Johnson

    Sweden is the best example that anti-Christian thinking is not going to save humanity from totalitarian Jewish rule.

    Without Christianity or any faith that believes in good behavior for an afterlife, our Jewish rulers become more more rigid and more ruthless. It creates no barriers for Barbara Spectre and her ilk for their endless anti- European agenda.

    A religion that believes in good behavior for afterlife, is needed to the save the west. All good religions believe such a thing. Many Jewish rulers only believe in this this life so they do not fear any afterlife punishment for their worldwide terrorism.

    The “liberals” fall for our Jewish rulers’s thinking, “might makes right” for any cause that the Jewish “free” press says is a “good liberal” cause. All the bombing, invading, and coups for Jewish liberal causes are “OK”. No matter, how much misery it creates for millions of lives. It is a Jewish liberal cause so the “misery” is OK. No afterlife punishment is thought about, so no fears for all the tears it creates with these “causes”.

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  210. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    > “Are the people are like sheep, a flock that needs tending (the view of Plato, and William Pierce and Hitler), or are they straw dogs, something first to be accorded reverence, and then trampled underfoot, as in the Taoist metaphor?”

    It’s too metaphysical. What I see is that a society needs its castes, both its stupid and its smart. Is it called organicism? The smart alone cannot create a society, and even if they did, the stupid would be derived from their mass anyway.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organicism

    Thanks for the straw dogs metaphor. It actually reminds me of economist capitalism – when humans are sacrificed for the sake of civilisational efficiency. Racist eugenics appear to me different – when the toys are so precious, you discard an outdated design for a better one – better at destroying other toys.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_dog
    https://www.centertao.org/essays/tao-te-ching/dc-lau/chapter-5-commentary/

    It’s nice to see you quote Lincoln again. But I would also draw attention to Henry L. Benning whom you mentioned on 2020-07-14.
    http://civilwarcauses.org/benningva.htm
    https://www.unz.com/ldinh/who-should-be-shot/#comment-4033790

    And as to that question, it’s ironic, but I will use the words of the original AntiFa, Judaeophiliac and anarcho-monarchist Catholic.

    © J.R.R. Tolkien – LotR, The Council of Elrond.

    ‘And yet less thanks have we than you. Travellers scowl at us, and countrymen give us scornful names. ‘‘Strider’’ I am to one fat man who lives within a day’s march of foes that would freeze his heart, or lay his little town in ruin, if he were not guarded ceaselessly. Yet we would not have it otherwise. If simple folk are free from care and fear, simple they will be, and we must be secret to keep them so. That has been the task of my kindred, while the years have lengthened and the grass has grown.

  211. Seraphim says:
    @Olivier1973

    Listening to you one realizes how hard is to swim out of the swamp of the ‘gnostic’ BS that engulfed the sophomoric indecent ‘judges’ of Christianity for whom ‘ignorance is strength’. You don’t realize that there are people who know what they are talking about. You don’t. But why should one wonder, you are a product of the American ‘education’ system. Pathetic chutzpah* indeed.

    *Chutzpah=”gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, incredible ‘guts’, presumption plus arrogance such as no other word and no other language can do justice to”, ”Chutzpah amounts to a total denial of personal responsibility, which renders others speechless and incredulous … one cannot quite believe that another person totally lacks common human traits like remorse, regret, guilt, sympathy and insight. The implication is at least some degree of psychopathy in the subject, as well as the awestruck amazement of the observer at the display”.

    The whole article, plus the majority of attendant comments are a display of chutzpah.

  212. I enjoy the intellectual level of the content of the comments in this article, but I personally believe that most of it is hair splitting. This is my own interpretation of why people have come to dislike the people who identify as Jews. It is simple and straightforward.

    Civilization sprang out of the fertile crescent. The Mediterranean sea divides the north of the civilized world from the south with a coastline that is conducive to the growth of empires, small as they were at that time. The Levant is that area located at the bight of the Med, which from a geographical standpoint is the nexus of all the competing empires. In other words, there was a continuous flow of commerce and armies passing through it throughout history. This meant that the people located in that area were forced to negotiate for their lives and fortunes on a daily basis. From these negotiations came the use of money and understanding of psychology and diplomacy.

    While all of the inhabitance developed these skills to some degree, one tribe made another discovery, and that is that breeding matters. If you breed intelligent people with intelligent people, you get more intelligent people. This requires exclusiveness. Many other tribes understood this too but used it for different reasons. The Royals to forge alliances, the Amish to breed fertile women and hard working farmer men. The Jews did it to master the art of negotiation and expand their imagination. All of these groups suffer from the downside of interbreeding and none more than the Jews. It is no coincidence that Einstein’s wife was his first cousin on one side of his family and his second cousin on the other or that Jews suffer from some terrible genetic disorders. This easily accounts for the unusually high IQ of people who embrace Jewish culture. If my understanding is correct, the Rabbi’s of the Talmudic era of Judaism controlled marriages for the most part, facilitating the program to match like people for the purpose of elevating their levels of intelligence when possible. They clearly were successful and a disproportionate portion of the Jews are the undisputed world masters of money, diplomacy and negotiation.

    Define “intelligence.” I mean the ability to recognize patterns and relationships and to understand the outcomes of the interaction of those patterns and relationships, AND have the wisdom to position oneself such as to take advantage of the benefits and avoid the hazards of those outcomes.
    Assuming that I am correct so far, if a group of people recognize that they are intellectually superior to the other people around them, (how could they not?) it is only natural that they would assume they are special and they would naturally condescend to those around them just as you would dealing with a child. This could easily translate to dishonesty in dealing with them just to save time. If you believe they are not capable of understanding what you are saying, you don’t want to dedicate a lot of effort to what is probably a time consuming, lost cause. Basically, you want them to just do what you tell them to do, or you use psychology to get them to do what you want them to do. People who identify as Jews do this so much that they long ago lost their sense of awareness with the rest of humanity. Be they atheist’s, fundamentalists, whatever brand, they are clearly ethnocentric, and ethnocentrism breeds ethnocentrism. They often act as if no one is listening to them or they simply believe it doesn’t matter. Their internecine personal wars in the mainstream media are something to behold.

    They also observed something that would facilitate their success using psychology, and that is the fact that it is better to have the king’s ear than be the king. Self-serving psychology can be more effective if you hide the fact that there may be some motive afoot other than just helping the person seeking your counsel. And being the king’s counsel usually means you get the news first that he is about to lose his head and you can make the necessary adaptations to your loyalties.

    It would also account for why Jews argue so much among themselves. As you go through life you learn that every answer raises two or more questions. Truth is, in fact, a fool’s errand. That is why Jews joke about irony and how they will parse any question into infinity. It is the root of much of their comedy, effectively making self-deprecating fun of the ultimate uselessness of their intelligence. But the gods have a sense of humor. They have nefariously fitted most humans with a “bullshit detector”. That is to say, people may not understand how they are being taken advantage of but they sense the fact that they are being taken advantage of. This makes the game more interesting for the gods but creates an ongoing problem for the Jews. And that is why, I believe, that throughout history the Jews have struggled with the rest of humanity that they must deal with.

    The nuts and bolts of how it all come into place is very interesting but I believe the final outcome is a result of the above mentioned.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  213. @Seraphim

    Sorry, when all what you have to say are fallacies (ad hominem and strawman) you lost the argument.

    In fact I am not sorry. You are judging yourself.

  214. @GeeBee

    The Jew who fraudulently introduced Christianity into the ancient world

    Of course he was wrong. Greeks introduced xian ideology in the ancient world. As everyone knows, xians fighted against judaism and paganism once in power.

  215. @John Johnson

    Christianity is and has been for many years nothing but enablers and whores for the Talmudic Jews. Even the Divinity schools, churches and Christian TV and radio are in their hands. History has been rewritten by and for them. Jews are taught at an early age that someday they will rule this world. Christian churches have become little more than lecture halls and pep rallies for Jesus who said “ask me for ANYTHING” and I will give it to you.
    I know millions of Christians suffer incredibly, some for a lifetime, no answer has ever come to them. So very many are themselves or do have severely autistic troubled children. A “gift of God”? Hardly. More like a “gift” from the Jewish Pharmaceutical Corporations and their very harmful vaccines which began to be administered in schools going back 60 years. And all things “Christian” are putty in their hands because it’s financially prudent for them to do so. Christianity has been reshaped to support them at all costs including dying for them. But they won’t die for Christians.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  216. This is the first in a series of posts arguing that “Paul” is a development of the second century. Here is the presentation of a new chronology, one with consequences for the history of Christianity far more devastating than the mere nonexistence of the Apostle. For if the Pauline epistles are mid-second century writings (as is increasingly suspected), then the canonical gospels—which are later—become later second century texts! We can be quite confident of this because scholars (the latest being Tom Dykstra in his 2012 book Mark, Canonizer of Paul) have shown that the earliest canonical gospel puts Pauline theology in a (contrived) historical setting. All of a sudden, then, Christianity as we know it transforms from a historical development of the first century into an invented literary development of the second century.

    Before successfully moving Paul into the second century, however, it is first necessary to cut his ties, as it were, to the first Christian generation. The argument begins with one question: What in fact do we have that dates Paul securely to the mid-first century CE? Reviewing the information from Acts and the epistles, as noted above, the short answer is: We have nothing at all. The first-century Paul is a phantom, an improbable figure entirely invisible to history. With that admission, a new profile of Christian origins first appears, looming like a barely detectable hulk through thick fog: the New Testament belongs not in the first century at all. The texts we have all been venerating for two millennia had their incipience one hundred years later.

  217. @Seraphim

    *Chutzpah=”gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, incredible ‘guts’, presumption plus arrogance such as no other word and no other language can do justice to”, ”Chutzpah amounts to a total denial of personal responsibility, which renders others speechless and incredulous … one cannot quite believe that another person totally lacks common human traits like remorse, regret, guilt, sympathy and insight. The implication is at least some degree of psychopathy in the subject, as well as the awestruck amazement of the observer at the display”.

    Thanks for this wide-ranging definition, Seraphim.
    Just wishing to complement/illustrate it with the urban legend (perhaps) account of the young Jewish man who killed both his parents, arrested, guilty.
    At sentencing, he asks the Judge for mercy on the grounds he is an orphan.

    I was told this as being an example of Jewish humour …
    As Chutzpah being something clever & admirable …

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  218. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Joe Wazzzz

    > “This meant that the people located in that area were forced to negotiate for their lives and fortunes on a daily basis.”

    Quite a beautifully written comment, but I have a few objections – do we have issues with the Syrians or Anatolians? Conversely, the Armenians too formed a relatively strong diaspora community, but mostly in Eastern Europe, and without being blessed by Jesus, so nobody cares about them.

    > “While all of the inhabitance developed these skills to some degree, one tribe made another discovery, and that is that breeding matters.”

    You are giving the Jews too much credit. The Greeks recognised the importance of eugenics, too – and unlike the Semites, they invented philosophy in their passionate arguments.
    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2017/10/27/what-race-were-the-greeks/

    Theognis, a noble poet from the Dorian city of Megara wrote in the sixth century BC: “The noblest man will marry the lowest daughter of a base family, if only she brings in money. And a lady will share her bed with a foul rich man, preferring gold to pedigree. Money is all. Good breeds with bad and race is lost.”

    > “…it is only natural that they would assume they are special and they would naturally condescend to those around them just as you would dealing with a child.”

    The Jews could only afford being condescending because the Christians accorded to them immense stature in society.

    > “Be they atheist’s, fundamentalists, whatever brand, they are clearly ethnocentric, and ethnocentrism breeds ethnocentrism.”

    Listen to the Jew Lawrence Krauss. He openly bemoans those passages from the Jewish Bible where Jews kill, rob and rape non-Jewish goyim/Gentiles. What is this but a mental disease symmetrical to Christianity?

    > “They often act as if no one is listening to them or they simply believe it doesn’t matter.”

    Because the Aryans are disarmed by the religion of universal love. Meanwhile, in real politics, there are whole disciplines of knowledge dedicated to researching the slightest moves of one’s enemy! The American anti-Communist Christians thoroughly studied every letter of Soviet press releases, every handshake. It was done, it can be done – it is not done.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology

    > “Their internecine personal wars in the mainstream media are something to behold.”

    This is correct. The Jews are quite a far cry from constituting a hive-mind. And they don’t seem particularly intelligent – they could have taken Madagascar for themselves, or settled in Birobijan; instead, they chose to be surrounded by hundreds of millions of hostile Arabs – out of hubris and superstition.
    https://aduunaai.wordpress.com/2021/04/01/on-jews/

  219. @Levtraro

    His/her point is that liberals have their articles of faith too, regarding which they will suffer no contrary evidence, one of them being that all the human ‘races’ (insofar as they will admit the legitimacy of such categories) are equal in their behavioral potential, e.g. in their cognitive aptitude.

  220. ChristoM says:

    Today is Holy Paskha – Christ is Risen!

    Χριστός ἀνέστη!
    Хрїстóсъ воскрéсе!
    المسيح قام! حقا قام!‎

  221. Corvinus says:
    @John Q Duped

    Your response has to be a parody, especially when you spout off that Christians are “severely autistic troubled children”.

  222. Alden says:

    What specifically was the Roman or Jewish law Jesus violates that led to Jesus’ execution?

    No one has answered my question.

  223. John Johnson: “With Christianity: Civil war but with borders and immigration only for Whites”

    I guess you mean naturalization and are obliquely referring to the Naturalization Act of 1790, since properly speaking, immigration also included forcible immigration, as in the importation of negro slaves. In any case, naturalization was only one way the USA acquired new citizens. As everyone knows, after the war, white Christians made the negroes citizens by Constitutional amendment. Many non-whites also became citizens when their states entered the Union, as in the case of Florida and Texas.

    Why was this permitted? A major part of the reason is because Christianity is a raceless religion, and the liberalism that is its political face is an expression of its raceless worldview.

    John Johnson: “The data simply doesn’t support the anti-Christian position. Try all you may but you can’t escape the consistent correlation which is less Christianity = more liberalism.”

    As usual, you’ve missed the point. Christianity inevitably generates liberalism. The two are inseparable. That’s why the liberalism you pretend to be fighting only exists in the West. If you were sincere, and if you were honest, you’d admit that. It follows that anyone truly opposed to liberalism must also oppose Christianity. Your false characterization of liberalism as a competing religion (a favorite tactic of Christians) and your desperate refusal to acknowledge this reveals you to be a crypto-Christian yourself.

  224. Alden says:
    @FvS

    if American Whites are saved from their negro loving and Jewish brain washing. It won’t be by blue eyed descendants of British German and Scandinavians, race traitors all.

    It will be by black haired Italians Armenians and Persians.

    • Agree: Not Raul
    • Replies: @FvS
  225. Agent76 says:
    @Zarathustra

    Sorry, your wrong. Be blessed and have a great day!

  226. >I have never seen a scholarly argument that the institutionalization of the Catholic Church contributed importantly to the fall of the Empire.

    *cough* Gibbon

    • Agree: James Forrestal
    • Replies: @James Forrestal
    , @Not Raul
  227. Thim says:

    Skrbina. Read a couple short biographies, couldn’t find much. No mention of any family, nothing about a wife or any children.

    So we have, apparently, just one more sodomite that objects to Christian law and doctrine, which bans sodomy and assigns these people to hell.

    But this sodomite went further than most. He invented his own religion, pan something or other.

    Good luck with that one.

    The problem with the Christian Canon stems from the Councils, which were called and dominated by the Emperors and their huge apparatus. The assertion that the bishops were free to do what they wanted is obtuse. Many of them had experienced prison and torture. In the end, they did what they were told.

  228. @Robjil

    You hit the nail on the head.

    The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.

    Those who do not fear God, and the threat of eternal punishment, act without reins or restraint, as you observed.

    That’s why I think that belief in God is a necessary component for a smooth running society.

    The problem is that Christianity has been cucked by the small hats to further their nation wrecking agenda.

    I don’t recall anything in the Bible that dictates that we must allow others to harm us and ruin our nations.

    • Thanks: Robjil
  229. FedUp says:
    @Alexandros

    @Alexandros, agreed. Being indoctrinated from birth into a (((cult from Judea))) is akin to having suffered a lobotomy of the mind, emotions, & soul. It is a helluva mindf**^. Ask me how i know.

    We need Aryan children spared being tortured from the moment s/he is born and who are shielded from these sick masochistic bastards. We especially need Aryan males taught from birth to be fighters.

  230. @Jared Taylorstein

    Every globalist pope and cbristian leader of the last 50 years. I guess you failed to pay attention.
    Have you ever even read the New Testament? That is a book you might want to take a look at.

  231. @dr. rosenpenis

    “If one carefully thinks through with Paul and Marcion the contrast between ‘the righteousness that is by faith’ and ‘the righteousness that is by works’ and is persuaded also of the inadequacy of the means by which Paul thought that he could maintain the canonical recognition of the Old Testament, consistent thinking will not be able to tolerate the validity of the Old Testament as canonical documents in the Christian church.” (30) So says Harnack in the final chapter of his book, and he is right. “Consistent thinking” can only reach the conclusion that Marcion did — that the gospel, with its message of love and mercy taught by Christ, is and must be regarded as a thing separate entirely from the Old Testament. Harnack adds: “If Marcion had reappeared in the time of the Huguenots and Cromwell, he would once again have encountered the warlike God of Israel whom he abhorred, right in the very middle of Christendom.”

    And so it is today, with Christian Zionists applauding every Israeli aggression in the Middle East, only with one very major difference: with a Nile-to-Euphrates agenda spelled out in the book of Genesis, and in a world with a nuclear-armed Jewish state, and with AIPAC-like lobbies reaching into virtually every Western country, the problem has truly reached crisis proportions — not only for Christians, but for all peoples on the planet.

    Israel the Monster

    [MORE]

    Earlier I offered a critique of Ehrman’s analysis of “what might have been” had the Marcionite church prevailed, coming to the conclusion that in all likelihood the modern-day state of Israel would never have been born. One can of course carry the conjecture further: without the establishment of the state of Israel, there would have been no Nakba, no Deir Yassin massacre, no 1967 war, no 1973 war, and no pro-Israel lobby in America today. Without the pro-Israel lobby, the wars in Iraq would possibly have been averted. The half a million Iraqi children, whose deaths the Jewish Madelaine Albright felt were “worth it,” could well still be alive. The Palestinians would have a state of their own, would therefore not be subject to having their homes bulldozed or destroyed by bombs, conceivably there would be no blockade of Gaza, no checkpoints in the West Bank or mothers giving birth at them, and no apartheid wall. The Palestinians who were killed in the first Intifada, the second Intifada, those who perished in various Israeli missile attacks on Gaza, including Operation Cast Lead, would either still be alive today or else possibly have died of natural causes.

    Who else would have been spared besides Palestinians and Iraqis? Without a state of Israel, would there ever have been a 9/11 attack? And without 9/11 would thousands of Americans, Afghans, British, Pakistanis, Libyans, and people of other nationalities have died in the ongoing wars that have been fought since then? Moreover, without Israel, and without, by extension, a pro-Israel lobby, would we have leaders pushing even now to take us into new wars? These are questions which legitimately should be asked. Also — was Jesus correct in saying that it’s possible to judge a tree by the fruit it produces, and if so, was Marcion right in zeroing in on this statement and making of it what he did? This, too, is a legitimate question.

    “Marcion’s heretical tradition is flooding the entire world” — so lamented the ancient writer Tertullian in approximately the early third century. But maybe at last it is time for Christianity to give Marcion his due, to finally come to recognize that Jesus was indeed something “new” entirely, that his teachings were an “antithesis” if you will, a complete, total, outright departure from the Old Testament, and that in separating the two Marcion may well have had the right idea. “If one carefully thinks through with Paul and Marcion the contrast between ‘the righteousness that is by faith’ and ‘the righteousness that is by works’ and is persuaded also of the inadequacy of the means by which Paul thought that he could maintain the canonical recognition of the Old Testament, consistent thinking will not be able to tolerate the validity of the Old Testament as canonical documents in the Christian church.” (30) So says Harnack in the final chapter of his book, and he is right. “Consistent thinking” can only reach the conclusion that Marcion did — that the gospel, with its message of love and mercy taught by Christ, is and must be regarded as a thing separate entirely from the Old Testament. Harnack adds: “If Marcion had reappeared in the time of the Huguenots and Cromwell, he would once again have encountered the warlike God of Israel whom he abhorred, right in the very middle of Christendom.”

    And so it is today, with Christian Zionists applauding every Israeli aggression in the Middle East, only with one very major difference: with a Nile-to-Euphrates agenda spelled out in the book of Genesis, and in a world with a nuclear-armed Jewish state, and with AIPAC-like lobbies reaching into virtually every Western country, the problem has truly reached crisis proportions — not only for Christians, but for all peoples on the planet.

    Israel the Monster

    Earlier I offered a critique of Ehrman’s analysis of “what might have been” had the Marcionite church prevailed, coming to the conclusion that in all likelihood the modern-day state of Israel would never have been born. One can of course carry the conjecture further: without the establishment of the state of Israel, there would have been no Nakba, no Deir Yassin massacre, no 1967 war, no 1973 war, and no pro-Israel lobby in America today. Without the pro-Israel lobby, the wars in Iraq would possibly have been averted. The half a million Iraqi children, whose deaths the Jewish Madelaine Albright felt were “worth it,” could well still be alive. The Palestinians would have a state of their own, would therefore not be subject to having their homes bulldozed or destroyed by bombs, conceivably there would be no blockade of Gaza, no checkpoints in the West Bank or mothers giving birth at them, and no apartheid wall. The Palestinians who were killed in the first Intifada, the second Intifada, those who perished in various Israeli missile attacks on Gaza, including Operation Cast Lead, would either still be alive today or else possibly have died of natural causes.

    Who else would have been spared besides Palestinians and Iraqis? Without a state of Israel, would there ever have been a 9/11 attack? And without 9/11 would thousands of Americans, Afghans, British, Pakistanis, Libyans, and people of other nationalities have died in the ongoing wars that have been fought since then? Moreover, without Israel, and without, by extension, a pro-Israel lobby, would we have leaders pushing even now to take us into new wars? These are questions which legitimately should be asked. Also — was Jesus correct in saying that it’s possible to judge a tree by the fruit it produces, and if so, was Marcion right in zeroing in on this statement and making of it what he did? This, too, is a legitimate question.

    “Marcion’s heretical tradition is flooding the entire world” — so lamented the ancient writer Tertullian in approximately the early third century. But maybe at last it is time for Christianity to give Marcion his due, to finally come to recognize that Jesus was indeed something “new” entirely, that his teachings were an “antithesis” if you will, a complete, total, outright departure from the Old Testament, and that in separating the two Marcion may well have had the right idea. “If one carefully thinks through with Paul and Marcion the contrast between ‘the righteousness that is by faith’ and ‘the righteousness that is by works’ and is persuaded also of the inadequacy of the means by which Paul thought that he could maintain the canonical recognition of the Old Testament, consistent thinking will not be able to tolerate the validity of the Old Testament as canonical documents in the Christian church.” (30) So says Harnack in the final chapter of his book, and he is right. “Consistent thinking” can only reach the conclusion that Marcion did — that the gospel, with its message of love and mercy taught by Christ, is and must be regarded as a thing separate entirely from the Old Testament. Harnack adds: “If Marcion had reappeared in the time of the Huguenots and Cromwell, he would once again have encountered the warlike God of Israel whom he abhorred, right in the very middle of Christendom.”

    And so it is today, with Christian Zionists applauding every Israeli aggression in the Middle East, only with one very major difference: with a Nile-to-Euphrates agenda spelled out in the book of Genesis, and in a world with a nuclear-armed Jewish state, and with AIPAC-like lobbies reaching into virtually every Western country, the problem has truly reached crisis proportions — not only for Christians, but for all peoples on the planet.

    Israel the Monster

    Earlier I offered a critique of Ehrman’s analysis of “what might have been” had the Marcionite church prevailed, coming to the conclusion that in all likelihood the modern-day state of Israel would never have been born. One can of course carry the conjecture further: without the establishment of the state of Israel, there would have been no Nakba, no Deir Yassin massacre, no 1967 war, no 1973 war, and no pro-Israel lobby in America today. Without the pro-Israel lobby, the wars in Iraq would possibly have been averted. The half a million Iraqi children, whose deaths the Jewish Madelaine Albright felt were “worth it,” could well still be alive. The Palestinians would have a state of their own, would therefore not be subject to having their homes bulldozed or destroyed by bombs, conceivably there would be no blockade of Gaza, no checkpoints in the West Bank or mothers giving birth at them, and no apartheid wall. The Palestinians who were killed in the first Intifada, the second Intifada, those who perished in various Israeli missile attacks on Gaza, including Operation Cast Lead, would either still be alive today or else possibly have died of natural causes.

    Who else would have been spared besides Palestinians and Iraqis? Without a state of Israel, would there ever have been a 9/11 attack? And without 9/11 would thousands of Americans, Afghans, British, Pakistanis, Libyans, and people of other nationalities have died in the ongoing wars that have been fought since then? Moreover, without Israel, and without, by extension, a pro-Israel lobby, would we have leaders pushing even now to take us into new wars? These are questions which legitimately should be asked. Also — was Jesus correct in saying that it’s possible to judge a tree by the fruit it produces, and if so, was Marcion right in zeroing in on this statement and making of it what he did? This, too, is a legitimate question.

    “Marcion’s heretical tradition is flooding the entire world” — so lamented the ancient writer Tertullian in approximately the early third century. But maybe at last it is time for Christianity to give Marcion his due, to finally come to recognize that Jesus was indeed something “new” entirely, that his teachings were an “antithesis” if you will, a complete, total, outright departure from the Old Testament, and that in separating the two Marcion may well have had the right idea. https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/04/chuck-the-old-testament-an-early-christian-who-may-have-had-a-good-idea/

  232. @Yukon Jack

    When conjob19 hit last year their were immediate concerns in Asia particularly, that it was a bioweapon. They had a ‘Vaccine’ waiting in the wings while they hyped the fear. Classic Helegian method. Then it turns out the ‘vaccine’is also a bioweapon that turns the injected into a disease spreading vector.
    This could only be accomplished among people who have been trained to be compliant, weak fools. Thanks to 2000 years of Abrahamic mind poisoning we have massive virtue signalling by science illiterate, common sense vacant compliant weaklings.
    Thank you Jesus.
    I am still hopeful that there are enough rational people left to fight off what is a clear attack on the human race.
    60 years of talmudvision is also to blame but to be honest who but compliant people softened up by the jesus cult believe what the liars on tv say.

  233. Amon says:
    @Sparkon

    No doubt the Catholic church played a signficant role in the “progress” of Western civilization, but we cannot know what Western civilization would have done without the Church.

    Western civilizations was trucking along just fine on their own until the criminal organisation known as the christian church came along and institutionalized theft in the form of either giving a tenth of your total earnings to the church or die for being a pagan.

    They also gifted us with a dark age that not only saw materials that did not submit to the writing of their holy book as blasphemy, but as objects meant for destruction along with the creators of it to stop them from infringing on their grip of power.

    All those 1000 upon 1000 of years of pagans learning what plants could help fight different illnesses and increase your good health even more, all gone. Instead your cure for suffering was either a drill to the head to drive out demons, or a priest would show up to shout words at you while beating you or you could try praying to a god that never answered unless you got lucky and your body fought off whatever was affecting you.

    My ancestors sailed the world to trade and wage war far and wide, they had a robust society with ancient traditions. Post christianity, the populace was made slaves to outside invaders working with a self proclaimed king and our ship building skills and knowledge was lost to holy fires as all traditions, written languages and myths were wiped out.

  234. @HBM

    The fundamental pacifism of Christianity is not the response you see from people who have been conquered, which the jews were. The jews responded to Roman rule with a desire for ethnic nationalism not love thy roman neighbour, render to caesar pacifism.

    This is why the very origins of Christianity are so suspect. It is why scholars began digging around and trying to explain where such a narrative would have come from. Who wrote the Gospels? Where were they written and by whom? Well, they weren’t written in Aramaic or Hebrew. They were written in Greek. This is the first clue of a non-indigenous explanation.

    The Flavians are strong suspects. Paul is another one. I suspect both helped to produce a religio licta for Imperial Rome.

    • Replies: @HBM
  235. @Blissex

    Thank you for an excellent, balanced, thoughtful and though-provoking comment.

  236. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    I’m sorry for posting a second reply, but this paramount point escaped my effort to incarnate it in print.

    > “But how did Christianity make any contribution at all to expansion, innovation, and discovery? Where does Jesus recommend his followers go conquer the world? Where does it say in the Bible that Christianity has anything to do with innovation or discovery?”

    Do you not think there to be a danger in evaluating a religion by its tenets, its scripture, its words – in place of its deeds? This attitude is reminiscent to me of the Christian preoccupation with “the Truth” – some ineffable nonsense. It pains me to be a Galilean’s advocate, but technically, there can exist and did exist for a time a society which consists of victorious Aryans LARPing as Jews. A queer and painful ritual such as circumcision was a factor in the success of the Hebrew race. And so on. Behaviour is more important than the “truthfulness” of the meme.

    Mind you, I am not denying the inherent internal logic of cultural dialectics, which I constantly stress, and precisely which I consider the weak point of a Jew-worshipping culture in its potential evolution.

    In your post, there could be a world where the religious tradition is to interpret the Jewish Bible in such a way as to promote science. Yes, you are correct in your interpretation of the text – but you are not an interpreting and law-giving patriarch of a community. This way, Christianity is not what is written but what is done. The same way Soviet Socialism was not multiracial or miscegenating, and American atheism is cucked and sodomitic. A living idea must be incarnated in a certain form in a definite area.

  237. anon[246] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    The problem with blaming Christianity for all forms of Cuck Behavior (which can be summed up as behavior that works against your genetic cluster which includes cuckservativism, lolbergism, primmies, etc.) is that such was around since the day of Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism from all evidence was a subversion of Indo-Euro society with its rejection of the established gods as demons, more or less inventing “the individual” with its focus on salvation, rejection of established ritual, etc. Even ignoring that, Aristotle and Plato were both subversives (Plato called for women to be eligible rulers in society rather than barred from the public sphere, Aristotle maintained that “law” was something that transcended the city), so were the Stoics. Christianity was needed for the coming, but not sufficient.

    I would chalk up all of Leftism today as more or less a combo of:

    A. An evolutionary leftover from Indo-Euro society where members of foreign lands could be assimilated within the volk if they descended from a Indo-Euro father and Indo-Euro tradition of assembly.

    B. Hostile outsiders using all means to advance their cluster at the expense of others.

    C. The collapse of all ability for Euro patriarchs to inflict terror on women and children that’s needed to keep them doing what they should courtesy of having high position males undermining other males.

    D. The metamorphosis of the revolution traceable to Zoroastrianism manifested today as ideology Leftism (rejection of societal organization rooted in the universe itself, demanding to favor the foreign over the local/genetic cluster, a disdain for life as a man in itself, degenerate sexuality be it male chastity or female promiscuity or faggotry).

    E. Plenty of men and women are not designed to function in environments where there’s plenty of food, can get fucked around rather than be under lock by patriarchs, no immediate danger of predators, etc. All are “less happy” now since they’re born into comfort and have to consciously decouple themselves from that comfort to gain into a better position.

  238. Anonymous[195] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alden

    Jesus made a point about violating the sabbath and rubbing it in the faces of the Pharisees. According to YHWH in Numbers, this is a crime punishable by execution.

  239. The greatest civilization in recorded history was founded on a hoax.

    Ok, Mr Skrbina…lol

    Thanks for stopping by.

    Jews and their bought pagan allies have been plying this shit for years.

    Some Jewess had some big “bestseller” years ago about the “Jesus myth”.

    This is old news.

    • Thanks: Alden
    • Replies: @Rocha
  240. Anonymous[195] • Disclaimer says:

    The preoccupation with racial purity by some on this website is astonishing. Did we learn nothing from Pharaohs fucking their sisters? How about the inbred haemophiliac Tsarevitch who precipitated the ascendancy of Bolshevism? There is no such thing as genetic purity and to pursue it is to bring your bloodline to ruin. Sex is precisely evolved to facilitate DIVERSITY. Diversity, in turn, enables faster evolution. It also enables resilience in case of catastrophe.

    Imagine if Neanderthals had been hell bent on preserving their phenotypical inheritance!

    This is one thing that surely discredits Hitler: his racism. No matter how astute his opinions on Judaism and Christianity, he reaches the wrong conclusion. The horrendous quotes by Goebbels earlier in this thread illustrate the folly of National Socialism. The Nazis were no less obsessed with racial identity than the Jews. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

    Let’s now remember that Christ is cognate with the Egyptian KRST (royal mummy) and Sanskrit Kristna (an incarnation of God). KRST, like Christ and Kristna, signifies the incarnation of a divine immortal who will be resurrected or reborn. KRST, as a mummy, is “anointed” not only in life but also in death as part of the embalming practice. Further proof of the parallelism of these words is the fact that Kristna has the meaning of dark or blackened, while Christian also means Negro. All this would be moot, except that in the oldest known version of the Jewish Bible, which is written in Greek, the Hebrew word Mashiach is rendered as Christ. A mashiach is not a Christ, and this choice of “translation” forever changed the meaning of the word, as if it were the property of the Jews. It is high time to reclaim the meaning of Christ; perhaps we could start calling the Christ impostor Jesus Mashiach.

    Jesus and Kristna, both incarnations of God, have a lot in common, including their beloved disciples, called John and Arjuna respectively. Yet the New Testament and the Bhagavad Gita are in some ways diametrically opposed. Jesus teaches his followers to not resist their enemies, and to treat even a foreigner as a brother. Meanwhile Kristna teaches Arjuna that he must do battle against his own cousins. Kristna teaches that there is a time to kill. Jesus teaches that it is better for oneself to die, than to kill. In my opinion Jesus takes the golden rule, which is the product of Hinduism, to its illogical extreme, by denying the right of self defense. Hinduism is the original Christian philosophy.

    And to the anonymous Muslim who loves to denigrate Christianity as pagan, please just fuck off. Hinduism will always be superior to Islam in terms of theology. What use is monotheism? If I say that Mars is the only God and he created everything does that make me enlightened? Or does it make me a foolish partisan? The Aryan Hindus invented theology and it was unitheist from the get go. Here are the cultural roots of Western civilization. It would be better for everyone to forget about skin color, and forget about the Bible, and study the Vedas, the Upanishads, and the Gita. This is the true Aryan faith and the mother of all civilization.

  241. Thomasina says:
    @Alden

    Alden – I think it had something to do with Jesus throwing the Jews out of the Temple because they were charging interest (usury). The Jews would not have liked this. I don’t think Jesus violated any law, but more wanted to change a system that was quite profitable to the Jews. He had to go. Perhaps someone could correct me if I’m wrong.

    Look what happened to Gadhafi and Hitler when they wanted to change the license-to-print-money system. Gadhafi supplied fresh water, free education, free medical and dental to his citizens. Gone! Eradicated off the face of the earth. The day after Gadhafi was murdered, the bankers were in there setting up a Libyan Central bank. Follow the money.

    • Agree: Alden
  242. @Sparkon

    Finally, we all accept myths as truth,

    No we don’t.

    You’re merely demonstrating your own near-total lack of self-awareness. People who sincerely believe that they don’t have any religion; that they don’t believe in “myths;” that they’re pure “rationalists” — are simply deluding themselves. They’re just evading the issue by labeling their faith-based beliefs with any name other than “religion.” Cuz changing the name is exactly the same as changing the thing, doncha know.

    Strong positivism was destined to fail. Postmodernism/ postpositivism is not the opposite of strong positivism — or a reaction to it — but its inevitable consequence.

    Oh, and by the way:

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017-0133-5

    The Mutant Says in His Heart, “There Is No God”: the Rejection of Collective Religiosity Centred Around the Worship of Moral Gods Is Associated with High Mutational Load

    Just sayin’

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  243. @Alden

    ” The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” (John 19 v 7 KJV)

    Please see comment no. 104 above for fuller detail.

  244. @Seraphim

    The whole article, plus the majority of attendant comments are a display of chutzpah

    ———–
    This article is part of an overall trend of subjecting Christian documents to rational scientific research. If we accepted your definition of chutzpah, we would be walking beside pack animals rather than driving trucks. Your faith is chutzpah and anti-truth; it is blind acceptance and mindless obedience and I reject it outright.
    Judaism is all about subordinating politics to priests.
    No thanks.

  245. @storxian

    ii) the woes of the Pharisees

    Incidental note: modern rabbinic judaism, dating from 400 AD or so, is (of course) not the same as the religion of the ancient Hebrews/ Israelites. But to the extent that there is continuity, their dogma is entirely derived from the Pharisees. The Essenes and the Sadducees both died out completely in the first century AD.

  246. @Anonymous

    You do realize the Aryan Invasion Theory has been examined, debunked and discarded right?

    The genetic studies indicate a mix of migrations into India with a genetic component explaining the colour diferential between north and south. They really do seem to be a fairly mixed group of people that are, ironically, homogenous with respect to being that mix.

    Language is the main divider in India after caste. Yet, 90% of the people speak 5 languages.

    It is in their best interests to stick together in a large federation and resist the onslaught of rapacious judeo-finance-capital.

  247. @spiritsplice

    >I have never seen a scholarly argument that the institutionalization of the Catholic Church contributed importantly to the fall of the Empire.

    *cough* Gibbon

    Yeah that one was kinda “lolwut?” Perhaps he meant in recent times? Or that Gibbon’s argument had to do with Christianity more generally as opposed to the “institutionalization of the Catholic Church?”

    Gibbon didn’t try to assign the sole blame to Christianity, but he certainly thought it was a significant factor. Then again, as an Brit steeped in Enlightenment ideas, he wasn’t exactly inclined to view Catholicism [or, in the case of the Eastern Empire, Orthodox Christianity] in a positive light…

  248. Incitatus says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Good comment. Thanks.

    “Once Hitler began propagating an image of himself he retconned his own past to claim that he had been seized with inspiration at a time when he was blind and learning of the German military defeat.”

    There’s evidence Hitler was treated for Shell-Shock/PTSD at Pasewalk, not for mustard gas blindness (he wasn’t housed in a medical ward) according to Thomas Weber et.al.

    He certainly took great care in fashioning his wartime myth (including weeding out any who might contradict it. Chancellor/General von Schleicher and ally Generalmajor von Bredow, rumored to have a copy of his medical files, both shot in the face in Operation Hummingbird 30 Jun 1934.

    • Troll: GeneralRipper
  249. @dr. rosenpenis

    Earlier I offered a critique of Ehrman’s analysis of “what might have been” had the Marcionite church prevailed, coming to the conclusion that in all likelihood the modern-day state of Israel would never have been born. One can of course carry the conjecture further: without the establishment of the state of Israel, there would have been no Nakba, no Deir Yassin massacre, no 1967 war, no 1973 war, and no pro-Israel lobby in America today. Without the pro-Israel lobby, the wars in Iraq would possibly have been averted. The half a million Iraqi children, whose deaths the Jewish Madelaine Albright felt were “worth it,” could well still be alive. The Palestinians would have a state of their own, would therefore not be subject to having their homes bulldozed or destroyed by bombs, conceivably there would be no blockade of Gaza, no checkpoints in the West Bank or mothers giving birth at them, and no apartheid wall. The Palestinians who were killed in the first Intifada, the second Intifada, those who perished in various Israeli missile attacks on Gaza, including Operation Cast Lead, would either still be alive today or else possibly have died of natural causes.

    Who else would have been spared besides Palestinians and Iraqis? Without a state of Israel, would there ever have been a 9/11 attack? And without 9/11 would thousands of Americans, Afghans, British, Pakistanis, Libyans, and people of other nationalities have died in the ongoing wars that have been fought since then? Moreover, without Israel, and without, by extension, a pro-Israel lobby, would we have leaders pushing even now to take us into new wars? These are questions which legitimately should be asked. Also — was Jesus correct in saying that it’s possible to judge a tree by the fruit it produces, and if so, was Marcion right in zeroing in on this statement and making of it what he did? This, too, is a legitimate question.

    “Marcion’s heretical tradition is flooding the entire world” — so lamented the ancient writer Tertullian in approximately the early third century. But maybe at last it is time for Christianity to give Marcion his due, to finally come to recognize that Jesus was indeed something “new” entirely, that his teachings were an “antithesis” if you will, a complete, total, outright departure from the Old Testament, and that in separating the two Marcion may well have had the right idea. https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/04/chuck-the-old-testament-an-early-christian-who-may-have-had-a-good-idea/

  250. Adûnâi: “Do you not think there to be a danger in evaluating a religion by its tenets, its scripture, its words – in place of its deeds?”

    But that’s just it. There’s no connection demonstrated between the two things. How do we know that the deeds wouldn’t have been done without Christianity; with some other religion, or no religion at all? Christians dishonestly want to claimcredit for things Christianity as such had nothing to do with. It wasn’t priests who explored the New World; not priests who advanced science; not priests who did the soldiering that expanded the Empire. The people who did such things may have nominally been Christians, but there’s no proof their Christianity is what motivated them. And yet, in some contexts, we are told that all of that is to Christianity’s credit, not to the men who did it; that they couldn’t have done it without Christianity. (At the same time though, in other contexts, we are told that the Enlightenment and the values it introduced were a “subversion” of Christianity; a Jewish plot. LOL. It would be nice if they made up their minds!) Claiming undue credit for things it had nothing to do with, or even opposed, while disclaiming responsibility for things that are its fault is a game that Christians are adept at playing.

    Adûnâi: “This attitude is reminiscent to me of the Christian preoccupation with “the Truth” – some ineffable nonsense.”

    According to the Bible, Jesus is the only truth. Christianity is unconcerned with truths of this world, as its gaze is focused on an imaginary next. That’s why it disdains reason and equates the quest for truth in this world with foolishness:

    Let no one deceive himself. If any of you thinks he is wise in this age, he should become a fool, so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God.
    – 1 Corinthians 3:18-19

    As for the truths of this world, there is survival value in knowing them. Hence, the quest for truth would appear to be hard-wired in us by evolution. If there is no truth, or no truth except Jesus, then there is no racial truth either. It has been hypothesized that getting people to believe that is the whole point of Christianity.

  251. Incitatus says:
    @commandor

    “Those quotes of Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda Joseph Goebbels are absolutely amazing”

    So you want to follow a party hack, a miserable failure in the private sector? Brilliant at enlisting the disaffected minority yearning to be unthinking slaves of the state and intimidating the rest? Himmler (another failure in the private sector – clerk in a fertilizer factory redundant after a year) and Heydrich (dismissed from naval service by Raeder for ‘conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman’) had a hand in the latter (eight months in a KZ for criticism of the régime).

    All served a charismatic, suicidal Austrian impresario. For all practical purposes a cult ‘savior’. Also unsuccessful in the private sector (vagabond/gas-bag rabble-rouser), no real academic accomplishments, who in four years of military service was promoted only once to gefreiter (Private First Class). At that rank he couldn’t give orders to anyone. Wonder why?

    If their lemming-like rants are “music to your ears”, caution. You might end up like Clubfoot Joe – poisoning the kids, suicide for the wife and yourself. Same with Adolf (brains on the bunker ceiling) and the new Frau. Same with ‘Sergeant Heinrich Hitzinger’ (otherwise known as Reichsführer-SS Henrich Himmler).

    What were your words? “Absolutely amazing”?

    Yes, that about covers it.

    • Agree: RVBlake
    • Troll: GeneralRipper
    • Replies: @commandor
  252. @J. Alfred Powell

    There is evidence (inscriptions) that people writing “an early form of Hebrew” fought as mercenaries in Egypt around 1200 BC.

    “An early form of Hebrew?” In 1200 BC? That’s like referring to ancient Latin as “an early form of French” [or Spanish, or Italian…]

    Why not say “an early form of Punic?” [Or Ammonite, etc.]

    1200 BC would be Proto-Sinaitic/ Proto-Canaanite/ early Phoenician. Better phrased as “people writing in a Canaanite dialect” [therefore likely to be a semitic people]. Sure, the writers could be early habiru. But if you look at the extent of the Phoenician empire shortly after that [1100 BC], it extended all the way from the Levant to Iberia.

    So they must have sailed past Egypt pretty frequently. Those inscriptions could have been written by proto-Israelites. But that’s hardly the only possibility.

    • Agree: Not Raul
  253. Sparkon says:
    @James Forrestal

    Sorry, but no.

    “First, know thyself, but don’t expect to know me.”

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  254. The judaizers have hated Paul for 2,000 years.

    Take a number.

    When you’re done scribbling propaganda try reading what millions of the Pre-Nicene Christians relied on: https://www.theveryfirstbible.org

  255. Incitatus says:
    @but an humble craftsman

    “As anglo-american propaganda is as its best when slandering thoroughly unsympathetic persons, please do not view the following small corrections as attempts to defend the bad Dr. Goebbels.”

    “Slander”? Simple question. Did Clubfoot Joe make an independent living (author or bank clerk) in private life prior to the NSDAP? Been a while since reading Longerich, but I seem to recall Joe was supported by his parents for a long, long time.

    “He was not a failed author, even though his first attempts in his early twenties did not meet with success.”

    Great oxymoron. Tell us what ‘successful’ popular works he penned/published prior to joining the NSDAP. Be specific.

    “He also was not a failed bank clerk, even though he tried his hand at this for a few months despite his misgivings. Look at his age when he became a career politician.”

    What planet are you on? Being dismissed as a bank clerk after “a few months” means he was a failure. Who cares about his “misgivings”?

    “Why the need to make him worse than he was?”

    Why the need to inflate Joe’s pre-NSDAP career? Are you playing with Unz posters to augment confusion/nihilism? Seems like it.

    “Is it conceivable that quite a few of Usistan’s present troubles stem from a firm beliefon its own propagandistic lies?”

    No idea what you’re trying to say.

    Too much vodka, comrad? Stay well, sleep it off.

  256. The triumph of the cultural left to the point of substantial consensus in the West has created a moral community where people who do not subscribe to their beliefs are seen as not only intellectually deficient but as morally evil.

    And [importantly] low status. When evaluating other Whites, the mind of the average shitlib automatically melds these three attributes into one — the unitary concept of “badwhyte” [i.e. redneck/ “white trash”/ “racist”/ etc.] A poor non-White is obviously a victim who needs/ deserves help… but a poor White , is merely demonstrating that he was never destined to be one of the “Elect,” thus “deserves” his current condition. And if he endorses any sort of heretical position, that can only be due to ignorance and evil intent.

    By heaping whatever abuse they can on the heads of these allegedly stupid/ evil/ low status badwhytes, shitlibs are attempting to “prove” that they are unconditionally predestined to make it to atheistic nonheaven.

    [Hey, Moldbuggery isn’t entirely BS; it’s always helpful to have some grain of truth when selling your ideology]

  257. @Sparkon

    lol

    See “near-total lack of self-awareness” above — a characteristic feature of ignorant, hate-filled atheistic Christophobes.

    • Replies: @Anon
  258. @G. Poulin

    Both Christianity’s social teachings and spiritual teachings are Jewish in nature and are used to attack Whites. The 666 Black Sun website has interesting information on the Jewish nature of Christianity. “Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.”-Oswald Spengler

  259. Not Raul says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    In the third century BC a Jewish regime seized power in Libya and slaughtered tens if not hundreds of thousands of Libyans.

    I wasn’t able to find anything about this online.

    Are you sure you aren’t confusing this with the Kitos War of 115-117 AD?

  260. Not Raul says:
    @spiritsplice

    >I have never seen a scholarly argument that the institutionalization of the Catholic Church contributed importantly to the fall of the Empire.

    *cough* Gibbon

    Gibbon had an axe to grind.

    He didn’t make a scholarly argument. He was a polemicist.

  261. commandor says:
    @Incitatus

    Now I am pretty sure you are a kike.

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  262. Incitatus says:
    @Thomasina

    “Those [Göbbels] quotes smell like the Biden government, surrounded by barbed wire, dictating from above what everyone is to think and feel. Statues destroyed, artwork gone, history rewritten, speech stifled. Walking six feet apart, masked up.”

    Alas, many on this site crave for a charismatic Führer, so what’s your problem? Take it up with them.

    “EXCEPT in Biden’s case, unlike in Germany, they are attempting to replace the people who built the country with foreigners.”

    Do you mean Austrian former vagabond military laggard (gefreiter PFC) Hitler?

    Hopefully you realize under Trump and Biden 65+% of illegals fly in and overstay visas. Trump’s ‘Wall’ is (always has been) bullshit – a band-aid on an arterial wound. A gesture funding faithful supporter/contractors who doubtless kick-u;p campaign contributions.

    Guess who (seasonals and illegals) Trump employs on his properties? Guess who the Chamber of Commerce champions? Guess who Democrats support? They sleep in the same bed.

    “Mad Max has arrived.”

    Don’t think so. It’s business as usual with no tax/$750/yr deadbeat billionaire Trump. That’s the lesson of the last four years.

    “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
    -George Orwell ‘Animal Farm’ 1945

  263. Blessed Pascha to all!…

    • Thanks: Not Raul
    • Replies: @Anon
  264. HBM says:
    @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    I can’t accept the Flavian thing and have pretty strong feelings against it. I can entertain the possibility that Paul might have been some sort of Roman agent sent to disrupt Jewish Messianists, and he inadvertently created a monster. I also toy with the idea that Paul is another post-hoc invention, a character meant to put a face on (and obscure) Hellenized Jewish discourses spinning the Messianic behaviors of their more rowdy co-ethnics. The enlightened “Historical Jesus” take– where the Jesus we know almost certainly existed and was a peripatetic holy man nice guy, like some sort of wandering pacifistic universalist Jewish Socrates– is nonsense. It’s propaganda, is ancient hasbara. To me Christianity almost certainly begins as a fundamentalist Jewish anti-Roman nationalist movement, and my guess is that, initially, Hellenic Jews turn out religious texts characterizing it as something unthreatening, and more Greek, which really gets the ball rolling. Gentiles, probably nonwhite “Romans” are compelled take this up and begin to tell their own holy lies in the same fashion. Some of the anti-Semitism in Christianity is probably a relic of Jewish infighting, extant in lower layers of the texts and escaping redaction, but most is indicative of later Gentile (and probably bona fide Roman citizen) authorship, and frankly par for the course– Jewish Utopian bullshit always seems to bite them back in the worst ways and they deny having had anything to do with engendering it. I don’t think there’s much chance of knowing the truth with any granular certainty. The mendacity is too thoroughgoing and complex, which is by design. It’s a giant multi-century palimpsest of falsehoods concocted by the worst kind of agenda-driven liars and charlatans, and once these folks finally took power they undoubtedly destroyed any texts that could help us know what really happened.

    • Replies: @Alden
  265. Incitatus says:
    @commandor

    “Now I am pretty sure you are a kike.”

    Moi?

    Sorry, traced my roots (so far) to 260 AD Avaricum (present day Bourges, Berry). No Hebrews, not that it matters.

    How about you? Sure you’re not Jewish somewhere along the kennel records of your family?

    You sound like a juvenile soliciting images of power (the NSDAP) to assuage pubescent failure.

  266. “Confessions are great tool for justifiably committing atrocities, they may even help returning war criminals deal with PTSD?”

    I could not in good conscience contend that christians don’t make mistakes. And I certainly have to assent to the value of confession. But I tread lightly about when and how said confessions should take place.

  267. Alden says:
    @HBM

    What do you mean by non White Romans? A few African slaves? Or do you believe that Italians; whether living today or 1500, 2,000 3.000 years ago are not White?

    What are Italians if they are not White?

  268. I offer here an interpretation of “The Jesus Hoax: How St. Paul’s Cabal Fooled the World for Two Thousand Years” that neither confirms atheists’ affirmations, or religionists’ refutations, of the book, but, nevertheless, finds Skrbina’s conspiracy theory about the origin of Christianity and a providential origin of Christianity as both plausible and not contradictory. Thus, those in both ideological camps of thought will find my review disappointing and likely triggering strong opposition, as it will be at odds with entrenched beliefs in both camps (cognitive dissonance). Hold your nose, I will borrow from agnostic historian Max Weber to explain how the supposed Roman creation of Christianity and divine providence are not necessarily antithetical.

    First, Skrbina turns Joe Atwill’s thesis on its head in his book Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. To Atwill, Christianity was invented by the Romans by conscripting the Jewish general-priest Josephus to write the Gospels as a military psychological operation (psy ops) to pacify militant Jews to not oppose Roman conquest and occupation. Conversely, to Skrbina, Christianity was an invention of the Apostle Paul to “sway the Gentile masses to their side and away from Rome”. These two opposing views prove you can find evidence in the religious scriptures for any interpretation you want.

    However, I don’t find Skibina’s evidence credible because he doesn’t try and falsify his own thesis but just cherry picks evidence to prove it. Moreover, I don’t find Skrbina’s evidence as credible or meeting the test of the preponderance of the evidence. Consider the following key verses from the Christian Gospels that overwhelmingly tend to be pro-Roman more than anti-Roman:

    [MORE]

    • Matthew: Turn the other cheek (don’t join Jewish Zealot resistance to Rome)
    • Matthew: Pay one’s taxes and other tribute to Rome (Roman citizens were tax exempt)
    • Mark: If one is rich, give away all their property and money to the poor (so that they cannot fund anti-Roman resistance)
    • Matthew: To “go the extra mile” to help strangers (to help carry a Roman soldier’s supplies)
    • Matthew: Avoid mass persuasion and hysteria which will cause those who are possessed with a demon to run to the sea and drown (allusion to Roman legions, Masada siege and mass suicide?)
    • Matthew: “Put your sword into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (by war against the Roman Empire)
    • Luke: “Love the stranger” (Roman soldier)
    • Luke: “Love your enemies” (the Romans)
    • Matthew: Understand that Jesus was sent “only to the lost sheep of Israel” to convert them (the Jewish resisters against Rome)
    • Mark: Not blame the Roman soldiers for the crucifixion (“Christ fiction” – but blame the Jewish priests)
    • John: Lose their life for Jesus (not for the Jewish Zealots)
    • Matthew: Who do you say that I am? (the son of God; contrary to Jewish law against idol worship).
    • Matthew: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Jesus forgives Roman soldiers but not Jews).
    Matthew: I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother. A man’s enemies will be members of his own household (against the Jews and towards the Romans)

    Nonetheless, Skrbina asserts that there is no rational basis for Christianity because Paul was an opponent of the Roman Empire. But neither is there any irrefutable proof that Paul ever existed. There isn’t any. Does this mean that Skrbina has attempted a Pauline Hoax? See, where Skrbina’s type of thinking leads one: in a circle.

    Skrbina encourages readers to “go to your local church leaders and confront them with the evidence (or the lack thereof)” about their religion. “Then, make it clear to them they have been swindled”. But, should readers also do the same to Skrbina’s book as well, that is based more on suppositions and selective evidence than reason? As a lay sociologist of religion, I find the world is full of crackpot and fraudulent religions, ideologies, ideologies masquerading as science, and kooky (unintelligent – McDonald) people. Are they more harmful than those who believe in astrology? Are the scientists behind the C-19 panic any more credible than, say, Christians? Or are we all living with uncertainty but each of us claim certainty and greater rationality for our beliefs? I don’t trust certaintists of any stripe: religious or non-religious.

    Taking Joe Atwill’s thesis as the more credible, nonetheless the Romans had no idea that Christianity would become the religion of its empire when they “created” it. Moreover, Christianity could not have been intentionally “weaponized” by Rome (except against Jews who rejected it) but, in fact, paradoxically ended up a weapon against Rome and its Paganism. Likewise, even if we take Skrbina’s thesis that Christianity was an attempt to rationally or irrationally persuade Jews away from Rome, how did Christianity then become the religion of Empire?

    Assuming that Skibina’s Roman conspiracy theory that Paul tried to influence Jews against Rome is flawed but it is plausible that Christianity was created by a human conspiracy, to what extent can we be certain that his theory does not leave room for divine providence in the Jesus story? Is it plausible that Christianity was an unintended consequence of fraud that pullulated (spread so as to be common) to all scattered Jewish communities and the entire world?

    Is it not possible that the Jesus story may have a theological origin anyway and that such unintended consequences might reflect the workings of God? This insight comes from agnostic historian Max Weber (following agnostic Johannes Goethe) who pointed out that humans are not capable of predicting the outcomes of their actions, no matter if people otherwise believe in a conspiracy. Conspiracy theories replace the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of world-changing events and ideologies and tend to be believed by those who are not in power. Even if Christianity was a plot to convert militant Jews, or a plot to persuade Gentiles away from Rome and back to Judaism, it later backfired and became the religion of the pagan Roman Empire. In other words, there may be room for providential coincidence in the Jesus story no matter if it was the outcome of fraud.

    It can be argued that Christianity brought about the birth of the individual from the tribe, ethnic group, family, clan, or social caste and the shift of law away from considering women and slaves as property; as well as resulting in the rise of rational Capitalism (see Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). If so, one might even say God had the last laugh (man plans, God laughs!). I warned that you would not like my review.

    Disclosure: I am a heterodox Christian who does not believe that faith requires the certainty of inerrant scriptures, historical evidence; an infallible pope; some rare, saintly mystical experience that other people never have; some secret knowledge; some therapeutic experience; some rational science, or participation in some progressive social change movement. I am equally dubious of those atheists who also seek certainty in historical relativism that would deny the human experience of religious transcendence and the mystery and awe of the unknowable (see Rudolph Otto, The Holy). For a skeptical overview of Christianity, one might read the works of Peter L. Berger: Questions of Faith: A Skeptical Affirmation of Christianity, 2003; The Heretical Imperative (1980) and A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural (1970).

  269. “White people achieved a lot, and white people were Christian, therefore Christianity deserves the credit.”

    I’m so tired of hearing this lazy ignorant fallacy. To prove that statement, you need to examine the alternate reality where Europe maintained its native spiritual beliefs. It’s more likely that whites succeeded in spite of their Jew-invented mind poison, not owing to it.

    For generations now there have been more Christians in Africa than Europe. Where are these great Negro civilizations being created with the divine inspiration of Christ?

  270. “Madeleine Jana Korbel Albright loudly and clearly defined/justified western values by rationalizing extermination of 500K children from unapproved religion.”

    Notes: Sec. Albright, if I recall was Jewish. I think she justifying US policy. Whether that policy was reflecting of US values or western values and which one is cause for debate.

    I gave been trying to comprehend your comments in relation to the issues of the article and my own position to whether Jesus and subsequently christian faith and practice was a hoax created by Paul, the Apostle.

    Nothing in the article supports the proposition.

    • Replies: @aj54
  271. @dr. rosenpenis

    According to Vinzent, the central figure of Christianity emerged into history sometime in the first half of the second century CE. Accordingly, Marcion’s presentation of the grand figure ‘Jesus the Nazarene’—completely adorned with his own written gospel (a thoroughly new genre)—shook the Roman Church, caused an immediate furore, and precipitated the hasty publication of several competing Catholic gospels, the ones today known under the names Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. While I now do not believe that Marcion brought with him any original gospel as text, his concept of redemption through the cross (inherited apparently from Paul) was the critical element and mark a watershed moment in Christian history. We are now in a position to ask: (1) What religion(s) existed before that? (2) What (in particular) was the prior understanding of ‘Jesus’? (3) Did Marcion’s redeemer figure have antecedents and, if so, what were they? http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2016/04/08/part-4-the-new-synoptic-solution/

    Evidence shows that the first century knew only a spiritual Jesus (“Savior”). It was the second century that brought the Jesus of flesh—i.e. the doctrine of incarnation. This doctrine is, at its core, anti-Marcionite. The only way to reconcile the competing views (Jesus as spirit sent from a ‘foreign’ God, vs. Jesus of flesh who is also divine) is that Marcion espoused the Stage 2 christology described here. According to that christology, ‘Jesus’ is the divine spirit indwelling a fleshly human being. It was the human who suffered and died—not “Jesus” (a spirit). This is what we call “docetist,” and it was also Marcionite. But it is a composite view: the divine Jesus (of spirit) indwells the prophet (of flesh). This Stage 2 christology lasted through the time of Marcion. But the arch-heretic’s appearance precipitated a reaction and the emergence of the Catholic Stage 3 christology: Jesus of Nazareth. That figure appears in history only towards the middle of the second century—right after the activity of Marcion.

    Reflecting this understanding of the difference between first and second century religion, on this website I have placed this series of posts (of which this is “Part 4”) in “The second century” (cf. category list and Site map). Forthcoming posts will consider the purely spiritual Jesus, the ‘shape-shifting’ Jesus, the one that united with a saint and thus could surprisingly appear in the guise of any man or woman. This purely spiritual Jesus is abundantly attested in first century texts (including the epistles of “Paul”). In this proto-Christian theology, anyone could be ‘Jesus.’”—R.S.

  272. Excal says:
    @anonymous

    The doctrine of the Trinity is really quite fascinating. You might try reading credible sources on it some time — then you could rant about it coherently.

    So, an overwhelming number of you, and your children, and their children, are destined for a rather unpleasant Hereafter.

    Yes, it will be fun to compare notes on it then.

  273. Interesting article
    Johannes Lehmann’s book supports the author of the article with amazing clarity. History Jesus fought against the power and hypocrisy of the Pharisees and was probably an Essene Zealot
    The Jesus Report
    by Johannes Lehmann
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3539941-the-jesus-report

  274. Anon[196] • Disclaimer says:
    @James Forrestal

    It’s funny how you Jew-worshiping christfags parrot to the Leftist “-phobia/-phobe” slanderous terminology used by Jews and homosexuals and transsexuals and other assorted fruitcakes. Transphobia! Homophobia! Since Jewsus was a Rabbi, how about using the term Kikeophobia?

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  275. Anon[196] • Disclaimer says:
    @SeekerofthePresence

    So you celebrate the Jewish child-sacrifice holiday Passover (Pascha.) As the Jew Testament says, “Christ our Passover lamb is sacrificed.” You’re a Jew. Only Jews hold Passover rites. That’s why the Vicar of Christ himself states, “Inside every Christian is a Jew.” There’s nothing blessed about your Jewish observance.

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  276. mcohen says:
    @Wayne Lusvardi

    no way Wayne’s world

    the only way Christianity can recover is to go back to the original teachings before the popes and before the statues and paganism.

    luckily a sort of “messiah” is on the way to spark the revival.israel is where it should be.the time has come.a seriously bright light will show the way.

  277. Whites’ with mouth-foaming eye-swivelling shrieking hatred on other whites, wacko pet theories, variants on this rather weak proposition timed for Orthodox festival …

    This comment section is kike heaven.

    Doubtless now being circulated in the Mossad’s HQ.

    To roars of laughter and approval.

    • Replies: @mcohen
  278. mcohen says:
    @Arthur MacBride

    a macbride not a macgroom

    most sad has at least got a sense of jumour.

    hehehehehoho

  279. @Wayne Lusvardi

    If you are interested, Barberio wrote a book, ‘The Society of Moses:…..’, that posits a group who worked to develop the Church in Rome. I forget the full title off-hand but it should come up in any search.
    I happen to agree that Atwill got an important part of the story correct but that their is more to it and we may never know due to willful destruction of documents.

  280. @Wayne Lusvardi

    I appreciate Wayne L’s comments — at least it deals directly with the argument, unlike many of the comments here. I’m happy he finds my claim to be “plausible and non-contradictory”. However, I have some issues with his remarks:

    * Yes, I turn Atwill on his head. No one of any expertise has accepted Atwill’s thesis, incidentally.

    * No, you can’t make “any interpretation you want,” but I agree, there is a lot of flexibility in the scriptural message, such as it is. Part of this comes from the hoax, part from the many authors involved (Paul + Gospel writers), and part from later interpolations.

    * I don’t cherry pick, but I do try to marshal the best evidence for my case. And in the book, I do look at competing theories. Since Wayne (and nearly all commenters) have not read the book, they are in no position to make assertions.

    * Wayne lists 14 allegedly “pro-Roman” passages. I am familiar with all of these, and they do not refute the hoax thesis:

    ** points 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 are the only plausible pro-Roman passages (there are a couple others he didn’t mention) — yielding perhaps 7 or 8 in total, in the entire NT.

    ** by contrast, I have documented 50 anti-Roman passages, which are elaborated in my book.

    ** his points 3 (“give away wealth”), 11 (“give your life for Jesus”), and 14 (“set son against father, etc”) are in fact ANTI-Roman, not pro-Roman.

    ** his other points are irrelevant to the argument.

    A few other short comments:

    * My argument is not circular. Yes, I assume that Paul existed, along with the vast majority of scholars. The “mythical Paul” is so fringe that it’s not worth discussing.

    * My book is fully reason-based, not merely “supposition” and “selective evidence”. Again, read the actual book before commenting!

    * The Jesus Hoax was NOT to “persuade Jews” or to “influence Jews against Rome” — it was targeted EXCLUSIVELY to Gentiles/pagans. This is why Paul is the self-proclaimed “Apostle to the Gentiles”.

    * I am open to divine providence, and even God, of some form. (See my recent essay, “God as world-mind”). Nothing in the Jesus Hoax argues against (or for) God — that is an entirely separate discussion.

    To close: Read the book! And then we can have an informed discussion.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  281. aandrews says:

    “Skrbina argues that there is no convincing evidence for the truth of the Jesus story, either within the canonical New Testament or from non-Christian sources.”

    So…if Jesus didn’t exist, where did he come from?

    Not the Impossible Faith
    by Richard Carrier
    ISBN-13: 978-0557044641

    • Replies: @Robin Hood
  282. Anonymous[195] • Disclaimer says:
    @David Skrbina

    “Paul existed” is a silly assertion. Obviously, the author of Paul existed. But this author is the only source for the life of Paul. And he tells us explicitly that he is NOT a reliable narrator; he tells us he is a confidence artist willing to say anything to gain converts. What evidence corroborates anything in Paul’s letters? Certainly not the book of Acts, which was created along with the Gospels to grease the transition from one version of Christianity to another.

    Atwill’s thesis is perhaps too focused and therefore prone to dismissal, but his analysis suffices to support a broader thesis that 1) the earliest Gospel used the writings of Josephus as source material 2) the Gospels are in fact a satire of Jewish beliefs and Jewish history. It’s like a Hollywood remake: Paul is OG Ghostbusters, and the Gospels are Tina Fey. Imagine if someone played those two movies back to back and called it a documentary.

    Of course the Gospels are pro Roman! Your examples of Jesus speaking anti Roman sentiments are actually examples of him speaking anti Mosaic sentiments. Gospel Jesus trashed the Mosaic law, despite his sweet assertions about fulfilling it. Remember that the Gospels tell us that Jesus Christ was only born in order to teach evil Jews the error of their ways. They tell us his teachings were never meant for anyone else. Thus you have to understand that Gospel Jesus is telling the Jews to give up their lives, money, families, and follow him into death.

    The heart of the satire is this: Jesus tells the Jews that unless they follow his advice (i.e. destroy themselves) then the Son of Man will return in judgment and destroy them personally. This is obviously a no win situation, yet Jesus presents it as deliverance to a heavenly kingdom. Jesus foretells the desolation of Jerusalem by Titus, revealing not that he is psychic, but that the Gospels were written with historical knowledge of those events. The events of the gospels are set forty years before the triumph of Titus for a reason. They justify and deify his triumph.

    The synoptics stress that Christian teachings are parables meant to be understood by the very few. The literal-historical level of the Gospels is meant to be understood by the masses. The literary-satirical level is meant to be understood by the elect. Then you will see that it is funny that this secret son of Zeus, who is mistaken by his contemporaries for the King of the Jews, should tell the Jews to forsake their beliefs and worship him and his father instead. You will see that Gospel Jesus is consistently tongue in cheek.

    Paul sold reformed Judaism to Gentiles, with no apparent knowledge of the destruction of the Temple. Then after the destruction of the Temple, someone reformed Paul and his vision of Jesus Christ, to justify Imperial rule over Judea. The Gospels take Paul’s teachings about sin and love and the legal fanaticism of the Temple dwellers and put them directly in Jesus’ mouth. Paul says Christianity offers no wisdom or miracles; Gospel Jesus deals freely in both. Any future discussion should hinge on the fact that Paul and the Gospels are really two different religions.

    • Replies: @David Skrbina
  283. Mevashir says: • Website


    An excellent documentary on the historicity of Christianity.

  284. FvS says:
    @Alden

    Out of those groups, only Italians are white. It might argued that Southern and Central/Eastern European whites are going to save us. However, Armenians and Persians are irrelevant where white salvation is concerned.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
  285. @Anonymous

    Sure, technically, “someone” wrote the letters of Paul, and for sake of discussion, we generally agree that he was Paul of Tarsus. The forged NT letters show that someone else out there was also writing under his name, but that doesn’t materially change the argument. If Paul’s letters were written anywhere close to the standard dates (50-70AD), then it was by a Jew, promoting an early version of Christianity, prior to knowledge of the Gospels (since they aren’t mentioned). If “Paul” was one, or two, or more Jewish hoaxers, it doesn’t change my argument.

    And fyi, even the skeptic Richard Carrier accepts the historicity of Paul. And Paul was mentioned in Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, circa mid-90s AD.

    Yes, the later Gospel writers had a different brand of Christianity, but it was basically “more of the same, with details”. The “two different religions” are just variations on the same theme, with the same intent and the same goal — undermining Roman rule and restoring the Jews to a position of power in Palestine, like they had prior to 63 BC, when the Romans came marching in.

    The “earliest Gospel” (i.e. Mark) used Josephus? Any evidence of that?

    Yes, all the NT writings are “satire” in the sense that (a) they are largely fictitious, (b) they were targeted at the gullible Gentile masses (“Apostle to the Gentiles”), and (c) they ridiculed and demeaned Roman rule, albeit in indirect ways. Again, I have documented 50 anti-Roman passages in my book. “Jesus” also was opposed to the Jewish pharisees who, in turn, opposed the “Jesus” myth because it was inconsistent with their own religious views. The elite Jews hated Paul, which is why he was abused and attacked by his own people.

    The true purpose of the letters and the Gospels was, of course, to save “Israel”, i.e. the Jews. In this sense, it was “meant” for them. But the target believers were the Gentile masses.

    The back-dated “prediction” of the destruction of the Temple was not to “justify and deify” Rome, but give credence to the hoax. “Jesus” made a prediction and, behold, it came true! Helps make the case for his divinity. (In reality, of course, it is easy to make predictions when the story is written after the fact.)

    It definitely helps your hoax to set events 40+ years before you write it. The Gospel forgers could write virtually anything, knowing that no one would be in a position (especially back then) to confirm or refute anything.

    Nothing about the NT justifies Roman rule, apart from a literal handful of passages (“Render to Caesar”, …). The 50 anti-Roman passages, and the general Christian worldview (God, heaven, hell, humility, pity, meekness, etc) are all profoundly anti-Roman.

    Bottom line: Read the book! And get the full case. Then make your critique.

  286. aj54 says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    it actually does not matter extremely much what one believes of Paul, only Yeshua/ Jesus’s existence and sacrifice matters

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  287. aj54 says:
    @David Skrbina

    Jesus/Yeshua said he came only to the lost sheep of Israel. Israel was the northern kingdom where the 10 lost tribes had resided. They were scattered into the Gentile nations. The Apostle to the Gentiles was on a mission to find the remnant of the lost tribes, as well as to bring to salvation, all the Father called. Jesus spent 2 days in Samaria, with the people of the woman at the well, and they were tribal remnants, they worshipped a deity in a way that the tribes had done, and Rabbi Yeshua instructed them in the correct way- which was still maintained in the southern kingdom of Judea; Yeshua was an observant Jew, which meant something different then. Yeshua fulfilled more than 200 prophecies in the Torah. Jesus is not defined by those who do not know Him or the Father. They are only defined by the members of the ecclesia, who were all called by YHVH, and are instructed by the Spirit.

  288. anonymous[589] • Disclaimer says:
    @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    Huh…The Catholic Priests pedo scandals died down ever since Benedict II Stepped down. and Francis I becmae Pope..Catholic churches, as all churches obendiently locked down…still today..Francis..embracing gay marriage, LGBT agenda, abortions, and REwriting the Catholic/Christian Bible. It is risky the maybe another Luther out there willing to start a Reformation II, …BUT how can christian ever be freed IF they dont accept understand that the ORIGINAL BIBLE never said “chosen people” “greater Israel”,,,never..by the way how can you scape mental slavery if you believe, accept, follow Books written, edited, published, REwritten, altered by JEWS..divien inspiration BS..

  289. @aandrews

    The New Apologists – R. Joseph Hoffmann and friends on a rescue mission for the “Jesus of history” – Giving Carrier a good kicking – http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/newapologists.html

    The blogosphere has been enlivened by a potpourri of ego wars, withering sarcasm, aspersions about competence, intellect, comprehension, and honesty. The mythicist who has drawn most of the ire is Richard Carrier, a scholar whose scholarly prowess is matched by an equally impressive opinion of himself. …

    But what of the “historical Jesus”? Has the posse that has rushed to Ehrman’s side got a leg to stand on? For what it is worth, Hoffmann posted online three essays in what he called “The Jesus Process” on his blog, The New Oxonian.

    Richard Carrier, erstwhile editor of Internet Infidels, is a activist for atheism (he prefers the word “naturalism”). He’s also a blogger, historian and writer: Sense and Goodness without God (2005); Not the Impossible Faith (2009) – and most recently, Proving History (2012). At one time unconvinced by the arguments for mythicism, in July 2005 Carrier announced:

    “I have come to realize that mythicism is significantly more probably true than historicity. This I consider as radical a departure from my previous agnosticism as my agnosticism was from my previous historicism.”

    In recent times, Richard Carrier has argued for the use of Bayes’ Theorem as a way out of the befuddled mess that besets Jesus studies (Proving History: Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus). If Carrier could pull off this master stroke it would be as revolutionary as he claims.

    The Fisher (Hoffmann) retort to Carrier is to denounce the use of Bayes’s theorem as useless in deciding questions of historical probability. Any attempt to apply a simplistic mathematical formula like Bayes to composite historical texts is hopelessly flawed methodology, “one that fails to differentiate between primary and secondary traditions”. The literary record is way too complex for that sort of resolution, says Fisher.

    We will have to wait until Carrier reveals his promised detailed treatment of Jesus in an intended second volume and then judge whether he has fed plausible assumptions into his probability engine.

    The odds of Carrier making an historical breakthrough? Not very probable and we can be quite sure that a mathematical solution is unlikely to enjoy mass appeal.

    • Replies: @Kapyong
  290. Anonymous[195] • Disclaimer says:
    @David Skrbina

    Many Gospel passages reflect tacit or explicit approval of Roman authority. To quote my friend gay troll:

    It becomes evident that Christ’s message, directed to the generation of evil Jews, is not one of love and mercy, but one of self-negation. The Jesus Christ of the Gospels came to destroy the Jews. He promised to return and physically do so. Jesus tells the Jews quite clearly “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth fruits thereof” (Matthew 21:43) and “Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24). The nation he refers to is Rome. Titus fulfilled all of Christ’s prophecies one generation after Christ’s death. He encircled Jerusalem, beseiged and destroyed the Jews, left the temple with not one stone set upon another (see Mark 13:2). Jesus speaks approvingly of the Romans, saying “they which are accounted to rule over Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority.” (Mark 10:42). The Jews worry that if people believe in Jesus, “the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation” (John 11:48).

    Again, the Gospels do not claim to be addressed to gentiles. Gospel Jesus says gentiles are like dogs who may get a lucky scrap from his table. He says his teachings are only for Jews. So it’s not that his teachings are designed to deceive or denigrate Roman culture. His teachings may be contrary to Roman culture; but insofar as his teachings praise privation, suffering, and death, they are contrary to *all* culture. The fact that Gospel Christianity overran Rome is certainly important. But to claim that is was designed to do so is bollocks. Gospel Christianity states its intentions explicitly. It is an instruction manual for evil Jews. And since it was written after Jews had been defeated by Rome, it is not really an earnest set of advice, it is merely insult added to injury. Gospel Jesus approvingly describes the Son of Man as a thief of the Jewish covenant.

    As for whether Mark used Josephus as a source, who besides Josephus described the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple? How else would Mark know about it?

  291. GeoPol says: • Website

    Without Christianity, human rights would not be possible as Judaism was an elitist-pharisee cult that manipulated its people because it was afraid of the Hellenic civilization that was threatening its moral doctrine. Christianity was easily carried out because of the Epicurus-Plato-neoPlatonic philosophies that contained similar virtues that were spread in the known world.

    • Replies: @Anon
  292. Not Raul says:
    @FvS

    Out of those groups, only Italians are white. It might argued that Southern and Central/Eastern European whites are going to save us. However, Armenians and Persians are irrelevant where white salvation is concerned.

    Come to Fresno and say that. I dare you.

  293. @Anon

    “You’re a Jew.”

    Unlike much of today’s politics, traditional Christianity is not identity-based.

    “There’s nothing blessed….”

    Look and listen again. Open up your heart.

    And pray to know the freedom and love of Christ.

    Christ is Risen—
    Indeed He is Risen!

  294. @Alfred

    Pharaonic religion fashions Jewish sacred ritual – Egypt and the Jewish Patriarchs – palpable nonsense! http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/egypt.htm

    The two primary books of the Old Testament – Genesis and Exodus – refer to ‘Pharaoh’ 155 times. Curiously, not once in either book is Pharaoh identified by name – and yet, in fact, the references are to many different pharaohs, across many centuries. The anomaly is all the more telling in that the holy books are not lacking in naming numerous sundry and incidental characters. For example, the grandmother, of the grandmother, of King Asa of Judah was Abishalom, should you be interested! (1 Kings 15.10). But this style of literature should be familiar to us all: “Once upon a time, in a land far away, was a bad king. And in the forest, David played … ”

    It’s called a Fairy Tale.

    • Replies: @Anon
  295. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Incitatus

    Anarchy and chaos are freedom of speech. The freedom for subversive ideologies to grow and fester. The reply by Thomasina is a spot-on example – the right to tell people not to wear masks, to form anti-mask and anti-vaccination movements. This is what America is – contrary to all Eurasian régimes, aside from England (even France is strict, see the Académie Française). Totally agree with the commenter commandor here – and don’t know what’s so bewildering to you about the USSR, it was precisely the American Christian call for individual freedom that subverted the Union and brought doom to Russia (Russia first, Soviet second, as with all things ideological – even Lysenko was a Russian product).

    As to the quotes – they are welcome, although it’s unfortunate that I cannot find the original available for free. I heard, Goebbels was among the more leftist folks in the NSDAP (and more open to friendship with Red Russia). Ironic, isn’t it? Or are you happy that that last great war took place?

    • Replies: @Thomasina
    , @Incitatus
  296. Anon[633] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robin Hood

    A foundation myth?

  297. Anon[847] • Disclaimer says:
    @GeoPol

    Christians have been telling the exact same lie as yours for hundreds of years; however, Thomas Jefferson thoroughly destroys it, as follows:

    If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons, to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians; and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are able to find among them no such act of adoption; we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.

    The Works of Thomas Jefferson (Autobiography, Anas, 1760-1770)
    https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/jefferson-the-works-vol-1-autobiography-anas-1760-1770#lf0054-01_head_028

  298. Anon[264] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lucy Lipinska

    Do you have a direct link to that article? I’d like to read it, but your URL links to a private school in Waco.

    • Replies: @Anon
  299. Anon[264] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Do you have a direct link to that article? I’d like to read it, but your URL links to a private school in Waco.

    Disregard, Lucy, I found the article, thanx.

  300. Mevashir says: • Website
    @aj54

    Paul created all of the formal doctrines of Christianity. Paul fashioned the message of Jesus into a global religion. So it matters a great deal whether you trust him or not.

  301. Mevashir says: • Website
    @anon

    The most comprehensive website about the Shroud of Turin is maintained by Barrie Schwortz, who is a Jew who practices Buddhism yet believes in the Shroud’s authenticity:

    http://www.shroud.com

    • Thanks: SeekerofthePresence
  302. Mevashir says: • Website
    @storxian

    all our churches are almost theoretically phyletist, especially the miaphysites.

    Can you please explain these terms? Thank you!

    I think your comment is very insightful but I would not call Aquinas a moron even facetiously. It simply undermines your credibility.

  303. Thomasina says:
    @Adûnâi

    “Anarchy and chaos are freedom of speech. The freedom for subversive ideologies to grow and fester. The reply by Thomasina is a spot-on example – the right to tell people not to wear masks, to form anti-mask and anti-vaccination movements. This is what America is.”

    No, lying, dictatorial governments, in league with corporations, bring forth anarchy and chaos. By refusing to consider the learned opinions of scores of frontline doctors and experts in order to reach a consensus, by stifling and censoring speech, by ruining careers, THEY unleash chaos. Unnecessary chaos.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  304. Mevashir says: • Website
    @ivegotrythm

    Very interesting comment. You omit the important fact that Augustine branded James-Yaqub’s approach as heresy and subjected his followers to severe persecution. Perhaps this explains how they might have morphed into Islam.

  305. Mevashir says: • Website

    Whatever else you think of him, Skrbina has been targeted by a Jewish supremacist organization that censors academics critical of Israel:
    https://canarymission.org/professor/David_Skrbina

    • Replies: @R2b
  306. Gapeseed says:
    @The Soft Parade

    Very true how God does cover His own tracks. The fools of this world say He should provide empirical evidence necessary to convincing the fools of this world. For this reason I am glad He does not.

    A God who appeared at intervals in all His majesty would completely blot out free will, a necessary component of love, and make us more subservient dogs than men.

  307. Seraphim says:
    @Arthur MacBride

    Well, as you are aware, this is not my definition (it was taken from Wikipedia, of course) but of a Jew, Leo Rosten. The example of the ‘orphan’ is apposite in the discussion here. The Jews who killed Jesus are the victims!

  308. Kapyong says:
    @Robin Hood

    and most recently, Proving History (2012).

    We will have to wait until Carrier reveals his promised detailed treatment of Jesus in an intended second volume and then judge whether he has fed plausible assumptions into his probability engine.

    Presumably this was written years ago.

    Dr Carrier published his main work back in 2014 :

    With a smaller summary more recently :

    Believers rejected them, mythicists applauded, scholars argue.

  309. Gapeseed says:

    As a Catholic who has listened to and read Saint Paul’s letters for fifty years, I don’t really understand how one could doubt his sincerity. The overwhelming totality of his epistles are spiritual in nature and far too sublime to be some form of crypto-propaganda in favor of Rome or a Jewish sect. Indeed, his musings were the unfolding of the miraculous understanding of God’s new covenant whereby salvation was open for all and that God loves us as individuals.

    Also, Paul wrote mostly to Hellenized Jews because they proved to be the most easily converted due to common roots in monotheism, and acted as an administrator to keep sects in various (and mostly port) cities on the same page. That said, Paul understood that breaking with Jewish law was the way to convert Gentiles and the fulfillment of Jesus’s original command to preach to all nations. Christianity has common roots with Judaism but is starkly different, and no fair reading of Paul could conclude otherwise.

    • Agree: Mevashir
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @Robin Hood
  310. Jesus from Outer Space! The Price Review
    by Richard Carrier on September 27, 2020
    https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/17174

    Of course, Price loved the book enough to offer a promotional blurb, which you might see in future ad copy:

    “It helps if you are omniscient, and Richard Carrier appears to be! The arguments and data supplied on behalf of Jesus Mythicism in his new book are astonishing—even if you thought you knew the debate pretty well! And if, like me, you are too stupid to understand Bayesian Probability, you will be relieved to see that the author has skipped it this time!”…

    I’m grateful that Price praises and approves of Jesus from Outer Space and found most of it edifying and useful and highly recommends it. And our disagreements are few, and you have what you need now to decide for yourselves which of us you should be siding with in each case. But you should certainly read the book for yourself, and see what you get out of it, and how you can benefit from using its arguments going forward, to understand the mythical Jesus hypothesis better, and to better defend it against those who balk.

    Others have concurred:

    “Carrier’s best, most engaging, and readable work yet. Don’t let the hilarious title fool you; this book is all business. Putting all the historical evidence for Jesus in the crucible, he burns away every apologetic argument and cuts through centuries of special pleading and pious fraud to demonstrate that the ‘Real Jesus’ is an unreal one.”

    —David Fitzgerald, author of Nailed and Jesus: Mything in Action

    And:

    “Jesus From Outer Space distills and simplifies, yet at the same time strengthens, core arguments in Carrier’s earlier work, On the Historicity of Jesus. Some, like me, will find the colloquial style jarring and some will find details to quibble over, but there is no gainsaying that the logic on every page is tight and the supporting evidence abounds. Carrier also addresses with forceful cogency some criticisms of his earlier arguments. Especially of note is the unrelenting demonstration of the circular reasoning and factual ignorance of several prominent critics of the Christ Myth hypothesis.”

    Neil Godfrey, author & editor at Vridar

    New material includes a clear explanation, right out of the gate, of why this book’s “shocking” title is actually not anachronistic or contentious, but in fact entirely, contextually accurate—even if Jesus existed. That’s right. Even historicists must concede the first Christians believed Jesus was what they would then call an extraterrestrial. He did not come from “heaven” as an alternative dimension, in the way modern Christians believe. He literally came from outer space. As “heaven” then meant exactly that. As a preexistent being, Jesus lived among the stars, just beyond the orbit of Saturn. Until he descended—either to enter Mary’s womb (as historicists maintain the first Christians believed), or to enter a sublunar body-suit in the realm of Satan and his Legion (as the most defensible alternative maintains)—and then to be killed and rise from the dead, and return, literally, to the farthest reaches of outer space, to communicate with earthlings below in their dreams and visions.

    This is actually a mainstream consensus view. The only thing I’ve changed is that I’ve put it in plain English, rather than hiding it behind esoteric vocabulary and prolix phrasing. The rest of the book takes the same approach. It’s intended to shock you into realizing you have been importing anachronistic modern assumptions into the ancient evidence, so you can start to see things instead the way ancient audiences would have. As only then can you really understand how to interpret and draw inferences from the evidence.

    • Replies: @C.T.
  311. anonymous[161] • Disclaimer says:
    @TKK

    It fascinates and repulses me how the Western MSM so efficiently hides from the American public the sacrifice of cows and goats during Eid in present day, allowing them to hold onto their Sesame Street version of Islam.

    Lol! You scum of the earth are all vegans?!

    Your accursed kind only enjoys the genocidal sacrifice of humans, you pagan godless evil indulge in regularly. The western MSM hides that quite efficiently too.

    You worry about the agony of animals?! You should worry more about your own kind of rabid pagan godless human vermin.

    It fascinates and repulses me how the pagan godless (Christian, Hindu…) mind agonises about the utter spiritual garbage they believe in… triple deities, mangods – womangods – animalgods, the cannibalistic Eucharist, reincarnation of deities (father into son), the convoluted nonsense of the Trinity …

    Animals will not face Hell, but your kind of humanimals will. It will be an eternal agony. So, screw the animals, worry about yourselves.

    • Disagree: Mevashir
    • Replies: @Mevashir
    , @Mevashir
  312. anonymous[161] • Disclaimer says:
    @Trial by Wombat

    The Christian self-sacrifice by the Son of God operates in compliance with these natural rules

    Son of God? You are applying human characteristics to an Infinite Power. You are so full of pagan garbage!!

    – The Christian system in particular does not ask for burnt offerings or elaborate temple complexes, nor specially ordained hereditary priestly classes.

    So much perfidy embedded in all your sentences I have quoted here. It is breathtaking.

    “Burnt offerings”? How about the pagan cannibalistic Eucharist? You pagan godless vermin don’t have “elaborate temple complexes”? No “specially ordained priestly classes”? Lol!

    It asks for just treatment of those around you, courtesy toward the least, in particular, instead of glorification of the most exalted.

    Whitevil supremacy? Glorification of your accursed godmen, clergy, popes, “saints”?

    You are talking of a religion which no one seems to be practising.

    All other religions that I am aware of share the same communal sacrificial architecture from man to the deity,

    You aren’t aware of the stink in your own backyard, and you are aware of “all other religions”? You entire accursed faith is based on a the “sacrifice” of a man, the purported “Son of God,” and you have the gall to wax eloquent about, “sacrificial architecture from man to the deity”?

    that was intended largely to profit a priestly class and institute a submission to the state through its god or gods –

    Don’t your godmen and “priestly class” profit by much? One of your Christian lowlife godmen even begged for a private airplane! Which parallel universe do you live in? Lol!

    Whereas in Christianity the God sacrifices his own son to the benefit of his lesser creations, releasing them from the otherwise overdue judgement of the natural systems that he himself had instituted.

    Yes, “lesser creations” who are very much “in-his-image.”

    Once again… all of it, PAGAN GARBAGE!!!

    • Replies: @Gapeseed
    , @Mevashir
  313. Wielgus says:
    @Yukon Jack

    I very much doubt this. The Romans, relatively tolerant of religions, disliked Judaism and disliked Christianity even more, although their persecution of Christians was intermittent and often local when it happened.

  314. Gapeseed says:
    @anonymous

    Be careful there when speaking about Jesus, a prophet of Islam.

  315. Mevashir says: • Website
    @anonymous

    Dear zealous Muslim friend,

    Please check out the following link. It is an online 800-page commentary discussing the many deviations and discrepancies between the Quran and the Bible. If you email me I can send you a PDF copy Inshallah:
    https://mevashir.home.blog/2019/12/19/korn-quran-crown-קרן-קוראן-קורן/
    http://yahuwallah.blogspot.com/2016/11/blog-post.html?m=1

    The true hell is awaiting those who willfully have altered God’s Divine text for ulterior motives. In fact their hell is already here on Earth. That’s why so many Muslims stream out of the Middle East coming to the Christian West seeking better lives safety and salvation. You’re voting with your feet my friend!

    While you are here I hope you will truthfully investigate our faith. You can join that as well as you join with our material blessings we have to offer.

    Salaam

  316. Mevashir says: • Website
    @anonymous

    Consider this Habibi. The Quran calls God Rahman waRahim: Gracious and Merciful. But the mass Muslim Exodus from corrupt Middle Eastern countries proves that these qualities of grace and mercy are not found among Muslim people. These qualities you know are better found in the Christian West. That’s because while your religion understands the qualities of God it does not know how to translate them into its human subjects. Only Christianity has been able to succeed in this process due to the powerful example of the God-Man Jesus Christ! As the saying goes, he became human to teach us how to become Divine.

    Ask yourself why the 99 name-qualities of God mentioned in this beautiful Nasheed cannot be found among Muslims but you have to search for them in the inhabitants of the Christian West!

  317. Seraphim says:
    @Gapeseed

    One couldn’t agree more with what you say about Saint Paul. But one couldn’t emphasize enough that his ‘miraculous understanding of God’s new covenant’ was the direct result of his miraculous encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, when the Christ Himself appointed him ‘Apostle to the Gentiles’ for ‘he was a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake’. He was the man ‘caught up to the third heaven (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth)’ the man ‘caught up into paradise, where he heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter’.
    His were not ‘musings’, but proclamations of the Good News to the whole world. And this is why he is slandered with such passion by the people who hate the Christ.

    • Agree: Mevashir, Katrinka, R2b
    • Thanks: Gapeseed
  318. Anon[307] • Disclaimer says:
    @G. Poulin

    How silly to claim that words don’t mean what they say and that “clearly” they are mere metaphors meaning something else, and then to insult and dismiss anyone who might disagree as prejudiced and presumptuous. These are the rhetorical tools of those who are good at wrecking debates rather than debating honestly.

  319. David Skrbina: “If “Paul” was one, or two, or more Jewish hoaxers, it doesn’t change my argument. And fyi, even the skeptic Richard Carrier accepts the historicity of Paul.”

    There is also an argument made that Paul and Jesus were the same man. Evidently many early sources indicate that both were of similar appearance — hunchbacked, balding, dwarfish, and ugly, much like the cartoon Jew of caricature. If that argument is correct, it would explain a lot. What do you think of it?

    https://www.riaanbooysen.com/barbelo/physical-appearances-jesus-and-paul

    • Replies: @David Skrbina
    , @Seraphim
  320. C.T. says: • Website
    @Robin Hood

    See my summary of Carrier’s extremely important work here:

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/category/on-the-historicity-of-jesus-book/

    Certainly, the most important book about that fictional character, Jesus.

    • Replies: @Robin Hood
  321. @Gapeseed

    The New Testament letters – 1. Bold, Catholic and Fake epistles! A compendium of fraud! https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/epistles1.htm

    Many scholars attempt “chronologies” of the life of Paul, yet Acts of the Apostles is a naive fantasy and the Pauline letters of themselves provide few clues in time or place. Bringing Paul’s epistles seamlessly into the story of the church proves to be an impossible task, for collectively the letters offer no continuous narrative and no one has any real idea of the sequence of their composition. Hence the enduring “uncertainty” in the origin of the letters and their stark incompatibility with the “authorised” early history of the faith.

    Pious reflection and wishful thinking assemble the epistles into the “life” of the apostle, delicately extracting a few perceived “facts” from the embarrassing mythology of Acts, as pegs on which to hang the garments. Yet the epistles are themselves full of hyperbole, the inane and the wondrous. Paul, no less than Peter, struts across a stage that exists only in the dreams of those who would speak in his name and rule with his authority. Myth is not truth. …

    Several of the New Testament epistles are known as “Catholic” because there is no pretense that they are correspondence to an individual or even an individual church. They are addressed to the “whole church”. Many authorities regard these seven works as “pseudepigraphical” (in plain English, fake). Put aside the distorting lens of Christian faith and it becomes obvious why: they belong in that period of fractious debate that characterised Christianity of the 2nd not the 1st century.

    Setting aside the seven dubious “Catholic” items, the fourteen remaining letters are said to be the work of Paul. Surely, we have something genuine here?

    Well, we better make that thirteen. Nobody with any knowledge at all about the anonymous “Hebrews” subscribes to the ungrounded “tradition” that Hebrews is Paul’s handiwork.

    In fact, even Evangelicals welcome the reassignment of Hebrews to another hand. In their impoverished logic it gives them “another witness” to Jesus! …

    What, then, of the half-dozen “core” Pauline letters? Surely they at least are “authentic”?

    Well actually …

    • Disagree: Gapeseed
  322. @C.T.

    Nice work. Thank you.

  323. New Testament letters – 2. The bogus “authentic” Pauline epistles. A compendium of fraud! https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/epistles2.htm

    The Six “Authentic” Pauline epistles?

    With 15 letters demonstrably fake and with the practice of pseudepigraphy clearly at the heart of the entire corpus of the New Testament, caution is advised before accepting the remainder of the epistles as genuine.

    But it is possible that half a dozen authentic letters keep company with a collection of fakes. But are they authentic? …

    But WHY?

    Why on earth would the true writer (or writers) want to falsely attribute authorship? And if “pseudepigraphical” like the rest of the epistles, who was the phantom-like figure “Paul”? And why was his name reverentially attached to a body of theological writings so crucial to the canon and to making sense of the mythical life and death of Jesus Christ?

    Without the “field correspondence”, the Jesus saga might be an entertaining tale but it would have floated free of the priesthood, a class of deceivers and deluded fools who necessarily made special claim to the legacy of the dying/resurrected godman. Their self-chosen mission was to officiate the awesome power of the Lord in this world and to stand as gatekeepers on the next, dispensing promises of life eternal or curses of everlasting torment.

    In the fierce competition of 2nd century Christ-cults, historicizing of the godman precipitated a scramble for Christ bestowed succession. If Jesus of Nazareth had lived, to whom indeed had his mantle of earthly authority fallen? The Jewish-Christians, or Ebionites, of Jerusalem made claim to kinship: they were nothing less than the descendents of the Lord (and had not Jesus indeed had brothers and sisters?).

    The Catholics in Rome staked their claim on Peter, designated “rock” upon which the saviour would build his church.

    But another Gentile church contended with the Catholics: the Marcionites, a sect of Jesus enthusiasts far less accommodating of “Jewish ways” than their rivals. Marcion’s authority, as he himself claimed, rested on an apostle even greater than Rome’s St. Peter, on an apostle who had received his remit directly from the risen Christ. Miraculously, it was Marcion himself who had first “found” the epistles of Paul, letters that it seems had remained curiously forgotten for a century. Marcion, the heretic, assembled a canon even earlier than the Muratori, with ten epistles attributed to Paul and a simple Jesus tale that had a kinship to Luke’s gospel. It was the first “New Testament”. The Catholics responded and in the second half of the 2nd century, “epistles” – some under the name of Paul, others under the names “Ignatius”, “Peter” etc. – proliferated.

    We know, of course, that the Catholics prevailed over their opponents. In the formulation of a single, universal, Catholic dogma, Paul, the erstwhile hero of the heretics, was written into the yarn called Acts of the Apostles, shorn of much of his self-proclaimed superiority and now with the Holy Spirit guiding his hand. When an approved canon was finally determined, the Pauline letters, assembled for lack of any known chronology by length, were tucked in behind Acts, implying an historical sequence utterly unsupported by any reality.

    In short, the claims for a 1st century superstar of missionary tours and Christological discourse, are fraudulent – or are, as they say, “inauthentic”. Paul, like his divine guide and mentor Jesus, never existed.

    • Replies: @Gapeseed
  324. Incitatus says:
    @Adûnâi

    “Anarchy and chaos are freedom of speech.”

    Respectfully disagree.

    Freedom of speech is the right to express one’s views, to enlist support or peacefully address dissent, to attempt conversion or compromise. It’s not threatening or coercive, not a license to broadcast calumny or falsehood.

    Anarchy is tossing a spanner in the works to see what happens, ‘speech’ (and civic order) be dammed. Usually by disaffected drop-outs (‘hooligans’ in Russia?) that contribute little or nothing to society, who want to destroy society.

    ‘Freedom of speech’ doesn’t compel truthful expression.

    Consider subpoenaed Hindenburg’s self-serving testimony 18 Nov 1919 before a Reichstag Commission seeking to establish causes of WW1 defeat. He refused to answer questions and read a prepared statement (approved by Ludendorff) blaming defeat on a treasonous home front. Thus was the self-serving Dolchstoßlegende born, absolving blockhead Wilhelm II and his equally incompetent General Staff of any/all blame for a war they launched, holding them harmless for killing millions (including their countrymen). Thus were Germans (and the rest of the world) condemned to WW2.

    The obvious current parallel is Deadbeat Loser Donald J. Trump’s poisonous “Big Lie” on his failed 2020 election. He’s the new Hindenburg. Does pal Vlad Putin approve?

    ‘Free speech’ brings an obligation to confront lies, to keep the forum (discourse) honest. Doesn’t always happen. Lies oft spread like cancer, mutate into the unassailable platitudes and phony advocacy masking criminality. Witness:

    “the right to tell people not to wear masks, to form anti-mask and anti-vaccination movements. This is what America is – contrary to all Eurasian régimes, aside from England (even France is strict, see the Académie Française).”

    And what would you prefer? Be specific. Spare no details.

    “Totally agree with the commenter commandor”

    Are you referring to his:

    “Those quotes of Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda Joseph Goebbels are absolutely amazing”?

    Good luck with cheap baiting.

    “are you happy that that last great war took place?”

    Indeed no. Several relatives had the misfortune to fight in it. None were enthusiastic. Kind of like having cancer surgery. Best get through it. Like grandparents and uncles who served WW1, 1860, 1812, 1775 etc. From 1620.

    Questions remain. Why should the US have bailed-out the USSR? Wasn’t Stalin Hitler’s bosom ally in 1939? Helping Germany conquer most of Europe”? So what if it was bitten by the viper it nursed? Why should America care?

    Stalin’s brave decision to declare war on Japan 8 August 1945 (2 days after Hiroshima) is pretty revealing. Tell us how many Soviets were killed defeating Imperial Japan.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
    , @Anonymous
  325. Gapeseed says:
    @Robin Hood

    Your blather is unimpressive.

    I will sum up my response by noting the cliche that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

    In a world of fragile papyrus shipped largely via the Mediterranean Sea, the lack of “source” documents is utterly unsurprising. As I noted, Paul acted largely as an administrator, writing to the port cities through which Christianity spread. Each port city contained a community of Christians, who would take his communications and then immediately copy them, producing other copies to be shared with other communities. Considering the slow speeds by which such communiques could be made and news could be spread, the missives were long, expounding on theology and addressing specific concerns unique to his recipients but also universal in nature. That copies may have been found with the Acts is hot air shedding no light.

    If you took the time to actually read Paul’s missives, you would note the lack of anything within that could be used for political advantage, as you seem to imply. These were theological expositions from a man touched by God.

    But let’s approach this from another angle. Ask yourself, how did these disparate Churches share a common faith largely without splintering? How did they maintain a common theology? It would have taken an exceptionally gifted man, a man with profound insights and skill, and perhaps more importantly, a man of unimpeachable credentials and gravitas to sway the Churches of various cities to stay disciplined and keep the common Faith. Paul was that man and was known to be that man. Not only did Saint Paul exist, he had to exist.

    • Thanks: SeekerofthePresence
    • Replies: @Rocha
    , @Robin Hood
    , @Robin Hood
  326. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Never heard a serious claim that Paul was Jesus. Not even sure what that means. Was Paul writing about himself? Or were others treating the same man as two different people? Doesn’t make sense.

    But of course, if both were historical men (Jews), then naturally they would share common Jewish physiology: short, homely, big nose, etc. The modern “beautiful Jesus” image is yet another layer of the hoax; if he existed, he certainly didn’t look like that!

    Bear in mind: I am formally neutral if an historical Jesus existed or not. I suspect he did, because a hoax works much better if based on a real individual — one who really got crucified (but never ‘rose’) — rather than on a nonexistent fiction. Thus it is likely that Jesus the man lived, and died. But if not, nothing much changes in my hoax theory. All the “important” stuff was still a lie, and still passed off as truth.

    @Robin Hood (and others) insist that Paul never existed, and was a mid-2nd century invention of Marcion. But the First Epistle of Clement mentions Paul, and was likely written in the 90s AD. Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans also mentions Paul, and probably dates to ca. 105 AD. Marcion could not have constructed a Paul myth at those early dates. Hence it is likely that Paul was an historical person.

    All my commenter-critics overlook that facts that Paul’s letters were written (by consensus) between 20 and 40 years after the crucifixion, and the 4 Gospels were written (by consensus) between 40 and 70 years after. And they overlook that NOTHING on “Jesus” was written (as far as we know) before, during, or immediately after, or for two decades after, the crucifixion. This is virtually impossible, if the Biblical Jesus story were true.

    Hence the most logical conclusion is that the Jesus events did NOT happen — which is obvious anyway, considering the crazy miracle stories. But we know that several later individuals (Jews) wrote documents as if they were true, and passed them off to the masses as truth. I’m sorry, this is the definition of a hoax. And they did it for personal gain — hence, a malicious hoax.

    To argue otherwise would be to completely rewrite acknowledged history, with little or no evidence in your favor. Thus: a hoax it is.

  327. Anonymous[195] • Disclaimer says:
    @David Skrbina

    All my commenter-critics overlook that facts that Paul’s letters were written (by consensus) between 20 and 40 years after the crucifixion, and the 4 Gospels were written (by consensus) between 40 and 70 years after.

    There was no crucifixion. If Paul was writing after such an event, why does he not offer any historical detail? He plainly says that Jesus lowered himself from heaven and died on a stake at the hands of “archons”. That’s the most explicit history that Paul can offer. As Richard Carrier notes, lowered from heaven does not necessarily mean all the way to Earth, as ancient astronomers imagined the universe to consist of concentric celestial spheres. Paul even includes a reference to the “third heaven”.

    One cannot overemphasize the fact that Paul openly declares himself to be a confidence artist. It makes no sense to think that Paul stripped a historical event of all historical detail and used that as a basis for his new creed. Instead we must accept that Paul *gave birth to Jesus Christ*. Again, Paul openly articulates this, saying that he is in the pains of childbirth. He also declares that he has laid the very foundation of Christianity and no other foundation may be laid beside it. He says anyone who builds on his foundation will have their work tested by fire.

    It may be silly to argue that Paul and Jesus were the same person, unless you consider that Paul projected Jesus Christ out of his own tortured psyche (and his copy of the Septuagint), which is an easy thesis to support. Note that Paul uses the body as a metaphor for the Christian church; conversely he may be using the church as a metaphor for his own body. Paul suffers as much as Christ, he kvetches about how his body is an abortion or miscarriage, with a constant thorn in his flesh to keep him “humble”. Christ’s suffering on the stake is an obvious projection of Paul’s own agony; it is a way to find meaning and redemption in suffering.

    Your “consensual” dates conveniently allow Paul and Mark to exist back to back, as if Paul wrote in the year 69 and Mark in the year 71. Obviously the consensus is that Paul was written before the destruction of the Temple in the year 70, and Mark was written after. But your thesis that there is continuity between the motives of Paul and the motives of Mark is utterly contradicted by these texts. Mark is a kind of inversion of Paul. Actually, it’s an extroversion of Paul. It puts Paul’s philosophy in Jesus’s mouth. So while it is wrong to say that these two were the same person, it is not inaccurate to say they are the same persona.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  328. Seraphim says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    This ‘argument’ is not correct. Jesus did not look like Paul. We know how Jesus looked like from the image on the Shroud of Turin (1.70-1.88 m, i.e. a tall and muscular man) and on the Acheropita icon (the Edessa image, the Mandylion) from icons in the catacombs of Rome. We know also how Paul looked like from his oldest image in the catacomb of Tecla (together with the images of Peter, Andrew and John) all dated at the latest in the IVth century. In any case they did not look like the caricatures of Jews of ‘Der Sturmer’!
    There is no Josephus Flavius’ book called ‘Halosis’. The reference is probably to the ‘Jewish War’/’Bellum Judaicum’/Φλαυίου Ἰωσήπου ἱστορία Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου πρὸς Ῥωμαίους βιβλία.
    But the only references of Josephus to Jesus are in another book ‘Antiquities of the Jews’: (Book 18.3.3 – (the Testimonium Flavianum) and Book 20.9.1 – (‘ the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James’) and he does not speak a word about his physical appearance.
    ‘Arguments’ based on shoddy scholarship and defective ‘logic’ have no value whatsoever

    • Agree: Gapeseed
    • Thanks: SeekerofthePresence
  329. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Incitatus

    > “It’s not threatening or coercive, not a license to broadcast calumny or falsehood.”

    Who determines the falsehood? It’s like with democracy – Socialists do not recognise as such those régimes where the dictatorship of the proletariat under the guiding party is not established.

    > “Usually by disaffected drop-outs (‘hooligans’ in Russia?)…”

    Russian anarchy mostly stems from the traitorous liberals. The homophobes are usually employed, tired and apolitical. See the Anti-Maidan in Ukraine – it’s the hysterical pro-Western Christians who are full of vigour, whereas normal people merely want to be left alone. The same with gamers in America. The losing right.

    > “Lies oft spread like cancer, mutate into the unassailable platitudes and phony advocacy masking criminality.”

    There are no true ideas – only the victorious and the vanquished. The existence of Christianity proves it – it allowed no forum for debate, and it did not win a debate. It simply demolished the opposition. So much so that the European man still fear to question it like a dog branded with hot iron.

    > “And what would you prefer? Be specific. Spare no details.”

    I would prefer AOC to be President of the USA and the remaining and diminishing Whites disarmed. Freedom of speech is a disgusting illusion of the clearly Christian system, and I eagerly await its final form.

    > “None were enthusiastic. Kind of like having cancer surgery. Best get through it.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Village_(Dugway_Proving_Ground)

    For the sake of improving USAAF firebombing capabilities, a mock-up German Village was built up and repeatedly burned down. It contained full-scale replicas of German residential homes.

    There were plenty of people on the ground who liked it up close. Enthusiasm is exactly what it’s called, religious fervour.

    > “Why should the US have bailed-out the USSR? Wasn’t Stalin Hitler’s bosom ally in 1939? Helping Germany conquer most of Europe”? So what if it was bitten by the viper it nursed? Why should America care?”

    Now this is surprising to me, Incitatus. I thought you wouldn’t stoop so low. Everyone knows that both sides had been courting Hitler. And still quite many in the East know that it was Stalin who was cucked out of helping Prague when the Westerners sold the Czechs in Munich. The Red Army gave a guarantee to aid Czechoslovakia – but neither Romania nor Poland granted access, and the Anglo-French were happy to betray their ally – and now you have the gall to blame the USSR?

    America should have helped Germany, their racial brethren, of course. And even from a geopolitical standpoint, a Eurasia divided among Germany, England and Italy might have been better than a single Soviet Empire (Christian clown culture which led to its farcical downfall aside).

    • Replies: @Yoska Ruslo
    , @Incitatus
  330. @Incitatus

    √ “No matter. Don’t worry about us. We’ll figure it out. We always have.”

    Americans started yesterday, half of their brief history being ruled by Jewes, you delusional monkey

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  331. @Adûnâi

    are you autistic? Wasting time with anglos the irredeemable liberals.
    Apart from very small loud highly xenophobic powerless Right Wing sections this people are liberals to the core, always have been.
    Not all Westerners, Christians or not, are the same, there are huge differences in mentality even in a single country like Italy for example. A Greek is not a Swede. an anglo is not a German..

    Germany is currently very liberal yes. but they had to kill 8 million of them, bomb the country into a pile of rubble and relentless brainwashing ever since to transform them in democrats and liberals.

    Anglos are different from everyone in Europe, they only expelled the Jews under the guidance of Rome in 1290 and as soon as they severed the ties with Rome the Jews not to only came back but returned as the elite, and have been the elite ever since.
    By far the most famous warrior in the British Islands in the antiquity was the General Boudicca, a dumb female, just to give an idea of how liberal they were, are, and will be til extinction
    And the British people are genetically basically the same from 2 millenna ago til the 1950s when a real replacement started led by their (((betters))).

    You don’t take this liberal biotrash seriously you just troll them

    • Agree: commandor
    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  332. @David Skrbina

    Witness creation programme. “Ignatius and Polycarp” – Twin stars in the Christian dreamscape. https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ignatius.html

    “There is nothing more abominable than that trash which is circulated under the name of Ignatius.”
    – John Calvin, Institutes of the Reformer of Geneva.

    Like the twin stars Castor and Pollux, two martyred saints shine brightly in the firmament of the early Christian dreamscape – Ignatius Theophorus (“God bearer”) and Polycarp (“Many fruits”).

    Purportedly, one was bishop of Antioch, the centre of Christianity in Roman Syria. The other bishop of Smyrna, the centre of Christianity in Roman Asia. Together they span the void that exists between a Palestinian pageant set in the mid-years of the 1st century and the reality of a Church fabricating a noble history a century and a half later.

    Each luminary lived to a great age after a forty-year episcopate characterized by absolutely nothing worthy of a comment in any religious or secular history. At the close of their purported lives each made a highly symbolic journey to Rome, the prelude to a glorious and theatrical martyrdom that would echo down the ages.

    Neither was an original mind, able to expatiate on “Christology” or the Divine Will. On the contrary, both were – surprisingly – dogmatic “Catholics” in an age when the future orthodoxy was indiscernible within a panoply of contending sun-god cults. These heroes of the faith exist solely through fake “letters” and bogus martyrologies, the former prosaic and devoid of any memorable sentiment, the latter utterly fantastic and unworldly. …

    The “life” of Ignatius presents us with a remarkable paradox: the eminence of an unknown bishop. Only an alleged martyrdom and a collection of letters purportedly written on his final journey lifts “Ignatius” from the void. Even his martyrdom, in fact, is never detailed but only anticipated.

    The letters of Ignatius, however, were faithfully preserved – an oddity in itself if they really belong to a time of apocalyptic anticipation and the world “passing away”. From them the early church constructed the martyr’s “final journey” and added a glorious finale in the Colosseum at Rome. More importantly, the epistles of Ignatius stand as crucial witness to the claims of the Catholic Church to an apostolic foundation and a purity of its faith.

    After apparently some forty years of pastoral service, with not a whisper of episcopal preeminence, Ignatius blazed into glory, casting his radiance across the eastern Roman empire. Remarkably, in the interlude between condemnation and execution, Ignatius was able to set down for posterity all the essential dogmas of Catholicism. Indeed, at a time when the epistles of Paul were “unknown” it seems a collection of Ignatian letters was a prized possession (Polycarp to the Philippians, 13), even before the bishop “won” his cherished martyr’s crown.

    Curiously, the “persecution” that sealed Ignatius’ fate elicits scarcely a word from the martyr-elect. Ad nauseam he speaks of his impending execution as a “reward”, a “prize” a “great joy”. He says nothing of other members of his Antiochian church (did no one else suffer?) or of the circumstances of his trial. The primary target in every letter (with the exception of Romans) is heresy – which clearly suggests composition at a time, not of persecution, but of fierce doctrinal challenge. …

    4th century Eusebius was the first to write explicitly of the “martyrdom of Ignatius” and in the 5th century, four centuries after the supposed martyrdom, a set of bones, purported to be those of Ignatius, were installed in the Temple of Fortune, in Rome, by emperor Theodosius II. But it was not until the 10th century that the Martyrium Ignatii appeared, as an addendum to the Codex Colbertinus, a Latin manuscript of the Bible. Martyrium Ignatii masquerades as an eyewitness account written by Ignatius’ travelling companions, Philo of Cilicia and Rheus Agathopous, a Syrian. It is in this document that we find the colourful detail, including the dialogue with Trajan and the gathering of the remains of Ignatius and their honorary transport back to Antioch – recorded almost a thousand years after the supposed events.

    All part of the fun …

    • Disagree: Gapeseed
  333. @David Skrbina

    “Consensual dates” ? The Jesus Parade is Always in Town – Christian ‘Apologetics’ – Fundamentally Flawed. Logical fallacies and semantic trickery are the very essence of Christian apologetics, exploiting a general ignorance of science and responding to the desire for quick-fix salvation and something easy on the brain cells. https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/circus.html

    2. The “Belief of Others is Evidence” Argument

    Having marshalled cut-out characters from the story itself as “witnesses”, the suspect logic continues by bringing on as additional “witnesses” the massed ranks of the brethren – well, a few isolated individuals actually.

    Early Christians are themselves presented as “evidence.” Thus the recorded beliefs of Church Fathers such as Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (50-115?), become the lynchpin of Roman Catholicism’s claim for world mastery. In an impressively entertaining tale of martyrdom and celebrity tour, the episcopal superstar gets sentenced to wild beasts by the dastardly Emperor Trajan (in truth, a famously benign ruler).

    We are asked to believe that, at a time when all of Rome’s resources were being assembled for a war against Parthia, the emperor eschewed the perfectly serviceable local arena for Ignatius’s execution and instead, assigned a troop of guards to traipse their captive the long way round the eastern empire and back to Rome. The protracted journey afforded Ignatius the opportunity to meet and greet Christian worthies every step of the way. Along the journey, Ignatius (who is quite insistent upon his own martyrdom) writes 15 letters of a truly miraculous nature. They are addressed to such diverse notaries as the Virgin Mary and a bishop not even born at the time of Ignatius’s death!

    The importance of the letters is not historical veracity but Catholic dogma. Ignatius is turned into the mouthpiece of 4th century Orthodoxy, back-dated into a 2nd century proselytising fantasy. The obliging bishop warns the brethren of all-manner of “heresies” and urges rigid obedience of their bishops.

    In the fable in which he is made bishop by the apostles themselves and then himself instructs bishop Polycarp of Smyrna (died 166?), Ignatius is made the “missing link” between the Palestinian pageant and the reality of Catholic episcopal authority. The first Roman cleric to identify himself as bishop – Anicetus (156-166) – did so in correspondence with Polycarp.

    Similarly, Flavius Clements (?150-216) bishop of Alexandria, Justin (such a meritorious “martyr” it becomes part of his name), and Gallic bishop Irenaeus are selectively quoted, as if their beliefs had some special quality in proving the life and death of someone a century or more before their own time.

    Simply put, evidence of belief is not evidence of reality – and if that line of argument had any validity it would better validate the 3000 plus years of Egyptian and Indian deities, and the almost as long-lived Gods of Greece and northern Europe!

    The deceit is continued into the present day, with testimony from “expert believers” showcased as evidence for a godman whose existence was questioned even in the 2nd century. Testimony from equally expert non-believers, of course, is not forthcoming. …

    Deceiving the Unsophisticated by Trickery

    The Apologists have no store of unknown Jesus artifacts, no cache of Jesus’s secret memoirs– though they do have shrewd allies in the relic-fabrication industry, so this may change! Rather, their circus tent is filled with nothing more substantial than subterfuge and suspect logic. What holds it all together is that universal super glue – Faith.

    The parade of flimflam and clownish knockabout would be a cause for merriment and laughter were it not for the sobering thought that this is as ‘rational’ as some Christians get. Heaven help us if they were ever to take over the government.

    In the prelude to the Dark Ages the original Christian Apologists engaged in a similar pseudo-rational debate with the Greek philosophers, who at first ignored the Christians and subsequently lampooned them as fools. But within three generations the fanatics of Christ had taken over the Roman Empire and the laughing stopped.

  334. @David Skrbina

    The Assortment of Early Christian Belief – Primitive Christianity never knew a human Jesus! https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/beginnings.html#clementrome

    Tellingly, the handful of late 1st century / early 2nd century writers (Paul, Clement, Barnabas, Papias) did not quote Jesus at all. They say nothing, or next to nothing, of humanoid “Jesus actions” or miracles. The virgin-born, miracle-working, godman of later legend was unknown to them. When their fantasy required the endorsement of higher authority they turned instead to Jewish scripture, to the patriarchs, the prophets and the supposed utterances of the Jewish God himself. …

    Clement of Rome” – Nothing is known of the life or death of “Saint” Clement (often grandly, if anachronistically, styled either first, second, third or fourth ‘pope’!).

    5th century fantasy invented a colourful martyrdom for the guy, involving drowning in the Black Sea with an anchor round his neck and a sub-marine shrine built by angels. The fable probably owed much to a confusion with his namesake, Titus Flavius Clemens, a consul executed by Emperor Domitian. The confusion is further compounded by the common assumption that Clement’s reference to the “recent misfortunes” of the Roman Church relates to a supposed persecution instigated by Domitian. But this “persecution” is bogus and Clement actually makes no mention of martyrdom even when it refers to the deaths of Peter and Paul.

    Whoever he really was, Clement is credited with the most important Christian text outside the New Testament – his First Epistle, a document which is primarily concerned with remonstrating with the brethren in Corinth who had deposed their presbyters. (Perhaps too readily they had seen through the priestly fraud!)

    Examined closely, the epistle is clearly less of a genuine letter and more a tract on maintaining communal discipline and priestly authority. It attributes to the Apostles themselves foreknowledge of career rivalry among Christians – who consequently institute “Apostolic succession” to maintain the peace of the Church (Clement 44). This alone suggests a 2nd century date.

    The epistle, important as it is in the gathering up of papal authority, says nothing of an historical Jesus. Its fancies include reference to the “500-year-old phoenix bird”.

    “Clement” (or, rather, the coterie of pseudonymous fraudsters) authored further nonsense throughout the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries, notably the Clementine Recognitions.

    Clement: Proof of the Resurrection – rebirth of the Phoenix!

    There are only two extant Greek texts of 1 Clement. The oldest is in Codex Alexandrinus, which dates to the 5th century.

    “Let us understand, dearly beloved, how the Master continually showeth unto us the resurrection that shall be hereafter …

    Let us consider the marvellous sign which is seen in the regions of the east, that is, in the parts about Arabia.

    There is a bird, which is named the phoenix. This, being the only one of its kind, liveth for five hundred years; and when it hath now reached the time of its dissolution that it should die, it maketh for itself a coffin of frankincense and myrrh and the other spices, into the which in the fulness of time it entereth, and so it dieth.

    But, as the flesh rotteth, a certain worm is engendered, which is nurtured from the moisture of the dead creature and putteth forth wings. Then, when it is grown lusty, it taketh up that coffin where are the bones of its parent, and carrying them journeyeth from the country of Arabia even unto Egypt, to the place called the City of the Sun; and in the day time in the sight of all, flying to the altar of the Sun, it layeth them thereupon; and this done, it setteth forth to return. So the priests examine the registers of the times, and they find that it hath come when the five hundredth year is completed.

    Do we then think it to be a great and marvellous thing, if the Creator of the universe shall bring about the resurrection of them that have served Him with holiness in the assurance of a good faith, seeing that He showeth to us even by a bird the magnificence of His promise?”

    – The Epistle of St Clement to the Corinthians

  335. @mcohen

    “Thou shalt not engage in idol worship” is the first and foremost of the 7 Talmudic Noahide Laws and violators will be punished by decapitation.

    FYI, the Noahide Laws were enacted as U.S. law by President George H. Bush (Yale Skull & Bones, as was his son President George ‘Dubya’ Bush) on March 20, 1991.

    Most Americans don’t have a clue because it is innocuously and officially known as “A Joint Resolution To Designate March 26, 1991, As Education Day, USA.”

  336. Off Topic ? Not really …
    Early C20 promotion of “non-judgmental tolerance” — sounds christian, eh ? all that supposed cheek turning, support of “minorities”, “gay” marriage etc …

    György Lukács (thankfully now dead) is still a prominent shaper of so-called morality, was almost a hero figure to my University profs for his “vanguard” leninist theory. They initiated discussions as to how this might be used to deconstruct society.

    If you think this is just old hat that no longer applies, you haven’t been paying attention to events post WW2 in the West particularly …

    In practice during 1919, he immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary with a program of “non-judgmental tolerance.” He reasoned that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the church would be dealt a crippling blow.

    https://www.winterwatch.net/2021/05/gyorgy-lukacs-practitioner-of-vanguardism-and-cultural-nihilism/

    Personally my main disappointment is that once the Red Terror had been crushed in Hungary he escaped with his life.

  337. @Anonymous

    In order to find some independent support to the “Christ myth” theory (Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier, Robert Price…), I recently ordered Gilles Quispel, Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica, Brill, 2008 and a few other recent works on early Gnosticism. Quispel makes a convincing case the gnosticism was a Jewish (not hellenistic) trend predating Christianity. p. 369: “there can be no doubt that both the ‘Gnostics’ and the ‘Sethians’ are Jewish in origin and only superficially Christianized at a later date.” The same case in made by Attilio Mastrocinque in From Jewish Magic to Gnosticism, Mohr Siebeck, 2005. I think it adds a strong argument to the thesis that Christ was a Jewish-Gnostic Eon before 70, later turned into a historical figure. From that perspective, Paul was a Gnostic, therefore a heterodox, heretical Jew.
    The case of the Sethians and Ophites, Serpent worshippers, is most interesting. It is generally assumed that they turned the deceiving Serpent of Genesis into a positive Eon (identical to Christ), but I think it is the other way round, because it is quite obvious that Genesis contains a polemical attack against those who claim that the Serpent gives the “Knowledge (Gnosis)” that makes one immortal like a god. That would mean that Jewish Gnosticism is older than the redaction of Genesis (probably the Hasmonean period).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  338. @David Skrbina

    Hello David, in response to your comment on TOO (for some reason, I was unable to comment again there), I did order your book and will read it very soon.
    I understand you are not convinced by Atwill. Neither am I, although it is full of very good points, and I think there is really something about Josephus’s part in the plot. Barbiero’s perspective (symetrical to Atwill, in some way) seems to me more plausible.
    It is really hard to connect all the dots. Regarding Paul, as I just wrote (#344), I think we have to take into account the internal strife within pre-Christian Judaism between mainstream (Sadducean) Yahwism, which is thouroughly materialistic (denial of the afterlife), and Gnostic Judaism, which may be understood as a reaction to the other extreme: rejection of the material world as demonic (and rejection of Yahweh as an evil demiurge, with, in some case worship of the serpent). Paul cannot perhaps be considered a full Gnostic in the sense that he doesn’t attack Yahweh as evil, but he does seem much influenced by it. In any case, it seems to me that intense, internal wars within Judaism have to be taken into account. We cannot consider first-century Judaism as one block.
    By the way, I am also positively intrigued by your book on panpsychism and will also read it. As you can read in my https://www.unz.com/article/blood-and-soul/ article “Blood and soul”, I do think in this line. Do you mention Sheldrake? Best wishes.

    • Replies: @David Skrbina
  339. R2b says:
    @commandor

    Thank you.
    It’s becomming clearer.
    Goebbles is very similar to Klaus Schwab, and if not more to Jacques Attali.

  340. @Agent76

    Nice video for the first half. And then it gets weird. As one interviewee correctly says at this point (24:50): “Arguing for Intelligent Design is one thing : to use it as evidence of the truth of Christianity is another.”
    The interviewer’s failure to convince people out of atheism, despite his correct arguments on DNA, illustrates wonderfully that Christianity is what prevents people for moving out of atheism. People don’t want to be led into a belief system that says there is a Hell, created by God, and such insane ideas. Which proves my point: Christianity begot atheism. If I had the choice only between Christianity and atheism, I would also chose atheism. Christians are guilty of tricking people (as in this video) into believing there are only two choices. Maybe this is what Jesus meant by a “sin against the Spirit” (if he said it).

    • Replies: @anon
  341. @Robin Hood

    In the prelude to the Dark Ages the original Christian Apologists engaged in a similar pseudo-rational debate with the Greek philosophers, who at first ignored the Christians and subsequently lampooned them as fools. But within three generations the fanatics of Christ had taken over the Roman Empire and the laughing stopped.
    ————————-

    We need to accept that the better argument did not win. What happened was that a more useful argument won.
    1/3 or more of the people you rule are slaves. You can either give them a religion fit for a slave or a philosophy fit for a free man who wishes to take reason as far as it can take him and then figure it out from their on his own.
    It is simply a matter of utility.
    In my opinion it was a horrible decision for human freedom and led to over a 1000 years in which humans devolved into NOT having running water or proper waste disposal. The concept of cleanliness was abandoned for ‘godliness’ (natural stench is doubleplusgood) and we all had to ‘shut up and do what I/God said’. The decision to choose Christianity as a social model was clearly done by Roman emperors and was based on fear as opposed to reason.
    Even modern Christians prefer toilets over filth.

    • Agree: Robin Hood
    • Replies: @Robin Hood
  342. red rose says:

    I have come to the conclusion that ALL religions are controlled by the same people, especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

    We know the Jews wrote the Old Testament.

    We know the Jews wrote the New Testament.

    We know the Jews wrote the Koran.

    (Mohammad was married to a Jew, Khadijah, his first wife and he was living in a town controlled and owned by the Jews.)

    We know the Jews started communism in Russia and China.

    (They were the Bolsheviks with financing from rich NYC Jews and the Rothschilds in UK).

  343. @Maowasayali

    I am no expert on the Noahide Laws.
    I do however believe that they may infringe on the Constitution.
    I’m guessing that Shrub et al are happy with eviscerating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights so as to serve their Master.

  344. Seraphim: “This ‘argument’ is not correct. Jesus did not look like Paul.”

    Booysen makes his case on the page I linked above. You’re free to disagree. But if you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you abandon trying to “prove” your point about what the probably fictional character Jesus looked like by referring to the Turin Shroud or the legend of the Acheiropoieta. You’d also need to explain why early Christians such as Tertullian and Irenaeus thought that Jesus was hideous and deformed-looking (see the quotes on Booysen’s page), and saw this as in accord with the description of Jesus given in Isaiah 53:

    He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

    Of course, they may not have known any more than you do, but it seems to me that if anyone was in a position to know, their authority is better than yours. They were much closer to the time in question, and may have had access to documents since lost.

    Seraphim: “There is no Josephus Flavius’ book called ‘Halosis’.”

    As you would have known if you’d done any research on the topic, the reference is to a translation of a Slavonic copy of Josephus that only surfaced in the early twentieth century. This copy contains passages not found in other copies. Cf. Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist: According to Flavius Josephus’ recently rediscovered ‘Capture of Jerusalem’ and the other Jewish and Christian sources (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1931)

    Seraphim: ” ‘Arguments’ based on shoddy scholarship and defective ‘logic’ have no value whatsoever”

    If that’s the case, neither is your argument of any value.

    • Agree: Robin Hood
    • Replies: @C.T.
    , @Seraphim
  345. @Gapeseed

    “Our Christianity doesn’t come from Jesus and a big bang. It comes from the accumulation of legends and theologies by people who believed in Jesus. The origin of those ideas wasn’t Jesus. The origin was the myths, legends, philosophies, prejudices, literature, superstitions, and primitive cosmology of ancient western culture. Christianity is a product of its time and place.

    Let’s start thinking about Christian origins by asking a simple question: By what criteria can we decide what ancient godman stories were new and original, and what ancient godman stories were myths built up from the religious ideas of their day?

    Here’s what I mean…

    <>

    << In fact, when ancient writers tell us that in general ancient people believed in eternal life, with the good going to the Elysian Fields and the not so good going to Hades, we understand that as a myth.

    <>

    <>

    <>

    <>

    << When Scipio Africanus (Scipio Africanus, for Christ's sake) is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

    Jesus in the 3d century, healing the sick by touching them with a magic wand! So how come when Jesus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, according to prophecy, turning water into wine, raising girls from the dead, and healing blind men with his spittle, and setting it up so His believers got eternal life in Heaven contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, and off to Hades—er, I mean Hell—for the bad folks… how come that's not a myth?

    And how come, in a culture with all those Sons of God, where miracles were science, where Heaven and Hell and God and eternal life and salvation were in the temples, in the philosophies, in the books, were dancing and howling in street festivals, how come we imagine Jesus and the stories about him developed all on their own, all by themselves, without picking up any of their stuff from the culture they sprang from, the culture full of the same sort of stuff? …

    Since the idea of Christian-Pagan similarities is probably new to you, most of POCM is set up to help you discover the simple facts for yourself. Read the ancient sources and decide for yourself. …

    Then later on, we'll talk about what those facts mean. I'll review the modern scholarship for you, then we'll talk about the reasoning behind the claim that Christianity borrowed ideas from the Pagan culture around it. We'll also analyze the various believer's attacks on the idea of Christian – Pagan borrowing.

    You'll discover: there is no consistent, reasoned analysis of the evidence that can pick out Christianity as fundamentally different from other ancient Pagan religions. Christianity is an ancient Pagan religion."

    Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth – Getting Started
    https://pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html

    • Disagree: Gapeseed
    • Replies: @Gapeseed
  346. @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    The Rise of Christian Tyranny – Ruin of Public Health
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ruin.html

    “The triumph of ecclesiastic terrorism (see Death on the Nile) signalled the end of Alexandria as an intellectual centre. From the early 5th century onward this greatest metropolis of the Hellenic world dwindled into a Christianised backwater.

    With Christian dominion in Egypt came the burial of the dead and the loss of a practical knowledge which, for millennia, had been gained from the mummification of corpses. The victory of religious fanatics signalled the impending closure of the academies of secular study and with it, an end to the formal training of doctors. Any residual knowledge of ancient medical wisdom, passed on by practitioners, was condemned as ‘sorcery’ and this censure extended to attacks upon herbal remedies.

    With the victory of Christ, cleanliness and hygiene were themselves suspect. The Church condemned public bathing (as immoral and sinful) as energetically as it did the theatre, and encouraged the closure of the baths which had done so much to preserve public health in the great cities of the Roman world.

    ‘A clean body and clean clothes betoken an unclean mind.’ (C. Freeman, p238)

    Thus spoke the ‘ascetic Paula’, a Roman aristocrat and Christian zealot, to the nuns she had gathered around her. St Jerome, Church luminary and author of the Vulgate Bible, echoed her sentiments: ‘He who has bathed in Christ does not need a second bath.’

    Church Father Tertullian found even shaving offensive to God. It was:

    ‘… a lie against our own faces, and an impious attempt to improve the works of the creator.’ (Gibbon, ch. 15)

    But the Roman habit of daily bathing, such a quintessential feature of their culture, took centuries to die. During the 6th century reign of another Christian hero – Justinian – Constantinople’s public baths still functioned. But the numerous baths dated from an earlier age and they had never matched the spectacular structures of pagan Rome.

    In the largesse of Justinian’s early years the Bath of Zeuxippus was embellished and another built in the district of Hebdomon. But throughout his reign the Christian monarch’s preoccupation (and the empire’s wealth) was taken up with the construction of a plethora of costly churches, monasteries and convents.

    There were no ‘Baths of Justinian’ – Godliness came before cleanliness.

    Wars and civil turmoil interrupted urban water supply (and not only to the baths) throughout the Roman world. Starved of funds and with no new engineers being trained sophisticated maintenance of the baths became impossible. During the 7th and 8th centuries, all the grand baths went out of use completely, their fabric pillaged for Christian churches.

    Church prudishness, which viewed the human body not as a thing of beauty but rather as a temptation, had no regrets about the loss.

    Skin diseases – the notorious ‘boils’ and ‘leprosy’ of the Middle Ages – became the norm rather than the exception. Until modern times, almost any disfiguring skin complaint was classed as ‘leprosy.’ Untreated, permanent damage would spread from skin to nerves, limbs and eyes.

    Lepers themselves were total outcasts. Once a charge of leprosy was made the hapless soul was banned from towns, markets, even churches. Forced to live outside the main settlements, the leper had to carry a clapper or a bell to warn passers-by of his coming.

    Christian ‘charity’ occasionally established a lazar house, not to effect any treatment to the sick but to confine the victims away from other folk. Condemned to this living hell (lepers were known as the ‘dead among the living’) these desperate souls still had their uses. For a certain breed of pious Christian ‘caring’ became an end in itself, the means by which the carer earned his own salvation in the world yet to come.

    But at least the sufferers were close to God. ….”

  347. @Gapeseed

    “Ask yourself, how did these disparate Churches share a common faith largely without splintering? How did they maintain a common theology?” Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

    The Many Colours of Christianity
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/peter.htm#juliusII

    “The Christ legend, as it existed in the mid-years of the second century, was still in the process of forming. The churches of the Mediterranean world were functioning as a number of autonomous entities, with only a minimal degree of doctrinal agreement. Centuries later it would be held that there had been some sort of ‘orthodoxy’ from the very beginning and everything else was a marginal heresy, ultimately falling by the wayside as ‘orthodoxy’ triumphed. Yet this is very much, the history of the victors. In truth, nothing was so clear cut.

    All of the ‘Church Fathers’ were heretics judged by the standards of later centuries. In their own day, they clashed violently with each other on central issues, such as: was Christ God, an emanation of God or a creation of God? If Christ was a creation, yet was himself a god, was Christianity a two god faith? Jewish theologians certainly attacked the Christians for such an apostasy. Again, if Christ was a creation, had there been a time when he had not existed? Was the creation less than the creator? If less than the creator, could his death atone for the sins of the world? After all, would it not require the sacrifice of at least a god to redeem the whole of humanity? Yet if Christ was more than a normal man, could his death and resurrection be an example for normal men to follow? Perhaps Jesus was a human upon whom the holy spirit had descended or was he God taking on the appearance of human form? If wholly or even partly God could he have suffered an agonizing death or did it just appear so? The questions were endless and the answers just as numerous.

    Doctrine, of course, went hand-in-hand with secular authority; and with secular authority went earthly rewards. Resolving doctrinal issues by their own lights, the churches in Asia Minor, Palestine, Egypt, Armenia and Syria spun off in their own direction, establishing idiosyncratic versions of Christianity. To proselytize their particular ‘variation on a theme,’ they wrote gospels which confirmed the correctness of their own beliefs, attributing authorship to their adopted apostle. Each Christianity sent out missionaries, some east, into Persia; several of them to Rome, the great pagan city. …

    Though initially junior, and rent by sectarian divisions, by the close of the third century the Roman Church had brought discipline into its own ranks and was asserting Roman imperium in a new guise. It had built a claim to command the ‘one true faith’ on the fabrication of an apostolic commander-in-chief, fused from Jewish scripture and re-worked pagan motifs, particularly Mithras and Janus.

    With re-written gospel as its justifying doctrine, a fraudulent apostolic succession to give credence, and obsequious toadying to superstitious emperors to win imperial endorsement, Roman Catholicism set about the task of re-conquering the world.”

  348. Johan says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Christianity’s principles of universalism and egalitarianism in this case are being implemented, not overthrown.

    Social egalitarianism is not a gnostic principle, it is what socialist scoundrels of the earliest movement smuggled into it, and what scoundrels of later centuries have promoted once again. It is based on envy, which is exactly what gnosticism would reject. The egalitarianism of democracy and socialism and their uniformity is all based on envy, it is an abomination. Egalitarianism, social and democratic, and universalism, when pushed out of its defined limits leads to decline and total annihilation of culture, as we see today.

    Equal rights before the law, and equal rights in term of the freedom to move upwards in the societal hierarchy based up on competence is the only equality which gnosticism and later on, gnosticism based humanism stood for.

  349. Johan: “Equal rights before the law, and equal rights in term of the freedom to move upwards in the societal hierarchy based up on competence is the only equality which gnosticism and later on, gnosticism based humanism stood for.”

    Christianity says that all “souls” are equal regardless of race or sex.

    28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
    – Galatians 3:28

    Social egalitarianism or equality of outcome is a logical consequence of positing an equality of “souls”, for if people are understood to be inherently equal, as Christianity claims they are, then inequality of outcome can only be explained by some having an unfair advantage over others. This is why Christianity inevitably must give rise to modern liberalism; why it carries “the seeds of its own destruction”, as MacDonald puts it in his review above. Therefore, anyone who opposes modern liberalism must also oppose Christianity, since the one gives rise to the other, just as nits give rise to lice.

  350. R2b says:
    @Mevashir

    Wasnt the Una-bomber a CIA psyop?
    In order to discredit rightful skepsis concerning technocracy.

  351. A Fabricated Apostle? Two Different Pauls in Epistles and Acts – plus an Extra, Saul ! https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/saul-paul.htm

    Saul of Tarsus – a witness for Jesus?

    One is informed by Acts that St Paul’s early day stance was as “Saul, the Christian persecutor”. Yet if Saul really was a vigilante for orthodox Judaism at the time of Stephen’s stoning (Acts 7.58-8.3), becoming the chief persecutor of Christians, no less – one wonders just where was Saul, not long before, when a supposed radical rabbi called Jesus was stirring up whole towns and villages?

    [MORE]

    Paul’s role as religious policeman seems not to have awakened until shortly after the godman’s death. But in itself this suggests Jesus of Nazareth had no great impact. After all, Saul was a contemporary of Jesus in time and place, raised in Jerusalem (“at the feet of Gamaliel” – Acts 22.3) at precisely the time the godman was overturning moneychangers in the Temple and generally provoking Pharisees and Sadducees.

    Would not Saul, a young religious hothead (“exceedingly zealous of the traditions” – Galatians 1.14) have waded into those multitudes to heckle and attack the Nazarene himself? Would he not have been an enthusiastic witness to JC’s blasphemy before the Sanhedrin? And where was Saul during “passion week”, surely in Jerusalem with the other zealots celebrating the holiest of festivals? And yet he reports not a word of the crucifixion?

    Paul, another “witness for Jesus”, saw and heard nothing!

    Two Pauls – One Illusion

    The trail-blazing Christian missionary and apostle, St Paul, appears nowhere in the secular histories of his age (not in Tacitus, not in Pliny, not in Josephus, etc.) Though Paul, we are told, mingled in the company of provincial governors and had audiences before kings and emperors, no scribe thought it worthwhile to record these events. The popular image of the saint is selectively crafted from two sources: the Book of Acts and the Epistles which bear his name. Yet the two sources actually present two radically different individuals and two wildly divergent stories. Biblical scholars are only too familiar with the conundrum that chunks of Paul’s own story, gleaned from the epistles, are incompatible with the tale recorded in Acts but live with the “divine mystery” of it all. Perish the thought that they might recognize the whole saga is a work of pious fiction. …

    Saul of Tarsus – a witness for Jesus?

    One is informed by Acts that St Paul’s early day stance was as “Saul, the Christian persecutor”. Yet if Saul really was a vigilante for orthodox Judaism at the time of Stephen’s stoning (Acts 7.58-8.3), becoming the chief persecutor of Christians, no less – one wonders just where was Saul, not long before, when a supposed radical rabbi called Jesus was stirring up whole towns and villages?

    Paul’s role as religious policeman seems not to have awakened until shortly after the godman’s death. But in itself this suggests Jesus of Nazareth had no great impact. After all, Saul was a contemporary of Jesus in time and place, raised in Jerusalem (“at the feet of Gamaliel” – Acts 22.3) at precisely the time the godman was overturning moneychangers in the Temple and generally provoking Pharisees and Sadducees.

    Would not Saul, a young religious hothead (“exceedingly zealous of the traditions” – Galatians 1.14) have waded into those multitudes to heckle and attack the Nazarene himself? Would he not have been an enthusiastic witness to JC’s blasphemy before the Sanhedrin? And where was Saul during “passion week”, surely in Jerusalem with the other zealots celebrating the holiest of festivals? And yet he reports not a word of the crucifixion?

    Paul, another “witness for Jesus”, saw and heard nothing!

    Two Pauls – One Illusion

    The trail-blazing Christian missionary and apostle, St Paul, appears nowhere in the secular histories of his age (not in Tacitus, not in Pliny, not in Josephus, etc.) Though Paul, we are told, mingled in the company of provincial governors and had audiences before kings and emperors, no scribe thought it worthwhile to record these events. The popular image of the saint is selectively crafted from two sources: the Book of Acts and the Epistles which bear his name. Yet the two sources actually present two radically different individuals and two wildly divergent stories. Biblical scholars are only too familiar with the conundrum that chunks of Paul’s own story, gleaned from the epistles, are incompatible with the tale recorded in Acts but live with the “divine mystery” of it all. Perish the thought that they might recognize the whole saga is a work of pious fiction.

    Acts

    The Paul of Acts is a team player. His conversion on the road to Damascus is so important that it is repeated three times (son et lumiere). From a previous state of error (as “Saul”, the persecuting Jewish zealot) he is brought into the loving embrace of the fledgling church.

    Now part of the brethren (“with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem” – 9.28), he is “managed” by the elders. Disciples “took him” from Damascus (9.25) and Barnabas “brought him” to the apostles (9.27). They “brought him” to Caesarea and then they “sent him” to Tarsus. Barnabas “brought” Paul back to Antioch (11.26) and then with him was “sent” to Jerusalem with famine relief (11.30) – (as it happens, a visit to Jerusalem completely unknown to Paul himself).

    Eventually the brethren “send” Paul on his first missionary journey (13.4). As a missionary, Paul is very much on the collective message:

    “And as they went through the cities they delivered them the decrees for to keep that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established.” – Acts 16.4,5.

    From Thessalonica, Paul is “sent away” to Berea by the brethren (17.10). He is also “sent away” by sea and “brought” to Athens (17.14,15). In Cenchrea, Paul even takes a Jewish vow and shaves his head! (18.18).

    Though his name is cited in Acts 177 times, “Paul” is never coupled with the familiar honorific “apostle”. The closest Acts comes to bestowing the title is 14.14 where his name follows Barnabas and the plural is used. In every other instance, Paul is an entity quite separate from, and implicitly subordinate to, the apostles. The slight is striking, given that Acts was supposedly written by Luke, Paul’s companion and admirer.

    Epistles

    In stark contrast, the Paul of the Epistles is a bombastic maverick, representing no one but himself and under no one’s direction. It is Paul who is doing the directing. Full of his own importance, in all his letters Paul hammers home the point that he is an apostle and that his appointment comes directly from the divine. His “proof” of this is his own success as a missionary (e.g. 2 Corinthians 2,3) – an argument of dubious merit still used by churches today. Look at our success! We must be right!

    Paul makes no reference to a “Damascene road” conversion nor to an origin in Tarsus (Jerome reported that Paul was from Galilee!). He makes no reference to Cyprus and the battle with a rival magician, nor does he refer to the edict from James on food prohibitions and fornication. Paul, it seems, owes nothing to any man. A bad-tempered bully, he wastes little sympathy on those who do not accept his point of view. Thus when he loses the support of Peter and Barnabas over eating with Gentiles, Paul rebukes Peter publicly and writes that he has reneged out of “fear” and Barnabas has been naively “carried away” (Galatians 2.12,13).

    The Implausible Paul

    It is curious that no Jewish rabbinic writings of the 1st or 2nd century so much as mention a renegade student of Gamaliel who, having studied under the master and vigorously enforced orthodoxy on behalf of the high priests, experienced a life-changing vision on an away mission. Not a word emerges from the rabbis about the star pupil who “went bad”, a heretic who scrapped the prohibitions of the Sabbath, urged his followers to disregarded Judaism’s irksome dietary regulations, and pronounced the Law and circumcision obsolete. Surely such a renegade could not have completely escaped the attention of the scribes?

    How likely is it that Paul really studied under the Pharisaic grandee (Acts 22.3)? Paul clearly had difficulty with the Hebrew language: all his scriptural references are taken from the Greek translation of Jewish scripture, the Septuagint.

    How likely is it that, as a young man, Paul – supposedly a Roman citizen and from the Hellenised diaspora – even got the job as chief policeman of the ultra-orthodox of Jerusalem? And if Paul really had secured such a position, he surely would have had far bigger fish to fry than a miniscule “Jesus group” in Damascus. We are told in Acts that the apostles continued to preach in Jerusalem even after the death of Stephen (“They all scattered abroad … except the apostles.” – Acts 8.1,2). So why didn’t Paul go for the ringleaders, closer to hand?

    “Nothing in his letters suggests that Paul had any official standing in his treatment of Christians … Hence, in opposition to what Luke says, he could not have used arrest, torture or imprisonment as a means of forcing Christians to recognize that they had been misled.” – Murphy O’Connor, Paul, His History, p19.

    Given that the Jewish High Council (the Sanhedrin) had no authority to empower a heresy hunter to operate in the independent city of Damascus, Paul’s road trip is even more implausible.

    Where DID they get their ideas from?

    Real earthquake – likely to do rather more than “loosen shackles and open doors”.

    Josephus was himself betrayed by ‘John’, chose an ally named ‘Silas’, and made a miraculous escape!
    ” But when John [of Gichala] was come to the city of Tiberias, he persuaded the men to revolt from their fidelity to me …

    A messenger had come to me from Silas, whom I had made governor of Tiberias …

    Upon the receipt of this letter of Silas, I took two hundred men along with me, and traveled all night …

    Having dismissed the guards I had about me, excepting one, and ten armed men that were with him,

    I attempted to make a speech to the multitude … But before I had spoken … to provide for my own safety, and escape my enemies there …

    [I was] carried upon the back of one Herod of Tiberias, and guided by him down to the lake, where I seized a ship, and got into it, and escaped my enemies unexpectedly, and came to Tarichese.”

    – Josephus, Life 17

    “But Paul thought not good to take John with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia …

    And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.– Acts 15.38,40

    ” And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them.

    And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one’s bands were loosed.

    And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.

    But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas”.

    – Acts 16.25,29

    Convert?

    How likely is it that Saul/Paul converted within a year or two of the crucifixion (Irenaeus says eighteen months)? If he truly was a precocious zealot of Judaism and was completely untouched by the perambulations and miraculous deeds of the godman himself – short of the supposed blinding “miracle” – why would he, of all people, so readily embrace the heresy? The four Gospels neither mention nor even hint at a pioneering apostle called Paul.

    There is also a curious parallel between the alleged “persecution” speech spoken by the celestial Christ to the blinded Paul (“Saul, Saul … “) and the persecution of Dionysius found in Euripides work “the Bacchae” – and both use the word “goads”.

    If Paul (Saul) really had apostatised to the extent of joining (or establishing) a radical new sect, how is it the rabbis did not anathematize his name? To be sure, Jewish Christians (Ebionites) did condemn Paul and did so in the harshest terms – even suggesting that in reality he had been a malcontented Greek convert, whose ardour had been rejected by the High Priest’s daughter! (Epiphanius, Panarion, 16). But that was in the 2nd century, long after any life and death of the apostle.

    The “persecution” of the early church seems an extraordinarily unlikely construct because once Saul, the “destroyer of the saints”, transforms into Paul the apostle, and is whisked away by the brethren to safety in Caesarea and home to Tarsus, the persecution abruptly stops. The “persecution” is entirely a one man circus.

    ” Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.” – 9:31

    The entire pre-Christian “Saul, the scourge of the church” makes no sense at all as history – but does make a great deal of sense as theology. “Zealous Jew sees the light of Jesus, becomes Christian.” The theological purpose is as obvious as the historical vignette is bogus.

    “Murderous Jews” of Damascus

    How likely is Paul’s “escape by basket” from the city of Damascus (Acts 9.25) ? Typically, baskets lowered by rope are used by tenement dwellers to buy bread from street vendors, first lowering the basket with payment then raising the basket with their loaf. But man-sized baskets? And why could not Paul just climb down the rope like a normal person?

    And just who was Paul escaping from? According to Paul’s “own” testimony (2 Corinthians 11.32,33) it was “the governor under Aretas the king”. Aretas IV was the Nabataean monarch who ruled a vast area from his capital of Petra, though Paul gives no explanation as to why Aretas was out to get him.

    But Acts, consistent with its hostility to “the Jews”, tells us it was Jews of murderous intent (Acts 9.23,24). Why were the Jews so murderous? Any reputation Paul had among the Jews of Damascus would have been as an enforcer of Judaism, not as a Christian heretic. The weak explanation offered by Acts is that the converted Saul had “confounded” the Jews in the synagogue with his Christ. Apparently, that was sufficient cause for them to organise the intended assassination and watch the city gates (and there were at least seven of them) “day and night” – a considerable investment of manpower. O’Connor asks the reasonable question:

    “Why should the Jews watch the gates, when it would have been perfectly easy to find out where Paul was living and arrange an ‘accident’ there?” – O’Connor, A Critical Life, p6.

    Faced with such hostility from his erstwhile co-religionists, how plausible is it that Paul, having just experienced a life-changing conversion, instead of joining the earthly companions of his newly acquired Lord, instead goes off to “Arabia” for three years – an “Arabia” that has just chased him out of Damascus?!

    Surely he would seek safety with fellow Christians? Surely he would wish to speak with his Saviour’s still living mother, visit the places where Jesus wrought his miracles, tread the path to Calvary and ponder on the spot where his Lord suffered his passion? (Could it be that Paul does NOT do any of these things because virgin birth, miraculous deeds and earthly crucifixion have not yet been added to the story??!!)

    Where DID they get their ideas from?

    Circumcision NOT necessary – says Josephus!
    ” At this time it was that two great men, who were under the jurisdiction of king Agrippa, came to me out of the region of Trachonius, bringing their horses and their arms, and carrying with them their money also.

    And when the Jews would force them to be circumcised, if they would stay among them, I would not permit them to have any force put upon them, but said to them,

    “Every one ought to worship God according to his own inclinations, and not to be constrained by force; and that these men, who had fled to us for protection, ought not to be so treated as to repent of their coming hither.”

    – Josephus, Life 23

    “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

    And after they had held their peace, James answered …

    Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.”

    – Acts 15.1,19

    Council of Jerusalem?

    Acts 15 reports that Paul’s “long abode” at Antioch which followed his first missionary journey is interrupted by “legalizers” from Judaea who insist that salvation required circumcision. The brethren are alarmed and Paul and Barnabas are chosen to lead a delegation to Jerusalem to meet the apostles and elders. The meeting is the famed “Council of Jerusalem”. Conventionally dated anywhere between the years 48 and 52, Acts reports a pretty harmonious get together, with the main issue readily resolved. Paul regales the brothers with tales of “miracles and wonders” among the gentiles (15.12) and James rules that as far as circumcising the Gentiles is concerned, “we trouble them not” (15.19). Back in Antioch, the brethren “rejoiced” (15.32).

    Yet Paul’s own report on the meeting with “those who seemed to be the pillars” is very different. He goes to Jerusalem as a result of his own “revelation” (Galatians 2.2) and records what is actually a confrontation.

    If there really was a “Council of Jerusalem” at which Paul won the argument that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised why did Paul so soon afterward personally circumcise Timothy, a disciple he found in Lystra? (16.3) To be sure, Timothy we are told is a half Jew so an apologetic argument is that it was to “gain acceptance” by the Jews of the region but such an argument presupposes a huge public awareness of poor Timothy’s genitals. (There’s no hint that Timothy was even asked how he felt about it!) But even more curious is what Paul himself says. Paul specifically declares that, not Timothy, but his other Greek sidekick Titus, was not circumcised!

    “Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.” – Galatians 2.3,4.

    “False brothers”, “spies”, are trying to make Paul and his entourage “slaves”?!

    Such love, such Christian fellowship.

    Founder of Churches?

    More oddities exist. Paul supposedly established the church at Ephesus (Acts 18.18ff; 19.5,7), spending more time with his acolytes in that city than anywhere else (three months during the second mission, three years during the third). We are encouraged to believe that Paul’s first and second “Letters to the Corinthians” were written from Ephesus, and that it was here that Paul received troubled delegates from Corinth and presided over Christianity’s first book burning (Acts 19.19).

    Yet it was the apostle John, settling in Ephesus after the crucifixion, who was ever after credited as founder of the Ephesian church. At the behest of Jesus himself, the Blessed Virgin had been placed in John’s care and it seems off they had traipsed to Ephesus. Here Mary’s house had been lovingly built by John with his own hands – a house which is is to be seen to this very day!

    John was also said to have been the teacher of the venerable Bishop Polycarp, at nearby Smyrna. Whereas Mary’s ultimate fate was not dreamed up for centuries, according to 2nd century Irenaeus (quoted by Eusebius, 23) John remained in Ephesus until the time of Emperor Trajan (98-117) and, according to 3rd century Dionysius of Alexandria, had not one but two Ephesian tombs.

    Thus the story has it that the apostle John was a long-term resident in the very city evangelised by Paul on his second journey, “popularly” supposed to have begun in the year 49.

    Yet for all the overlap in time and place, Paul neither met Mary nor consulted with fellow apostle John. Curious, to say the least.

    Just what is going on here: mutual ignorance, churlishness, hostility – at the heart of the church of love?

    Reality Check

    What we are dealing with are two distinct (and rival) traditions, one centred on the collective of the apostles and underscoring the leadership of Peter (and hence Roman Catholicism); the other starring the apostle Paul, the pioneering theological genius and founder of churches. And for whom does “Paul” speak? Why, the faction that lost the political struggle – the church of Marcion, the very person who first “discovered” the epistles of Paul in the mid-to-late 2nd century.

    In their original form (from the pen of the Marcionites) the Pauline epistles were far too dualistic and gnostic for a “mass market”, with a theology which embraced escape from the material world. But they provided useful tales of the Holy Spirit at work among the Gentiles. The core Pauline (Marcionite) theology of individual salvation – “justification by faith” – severed the attachment to an exclusive Jewish bloodline and dispensed with the irksome dictates of Mosaic law. Initially alarming to the Jewish element of Catholicism, geopolitical developments would soon make such a theology very appealing.

    The protracted struggle between the pro- and anti- “Jewish” Christian factions of the first half of the 2nd century ended after the Bar Kosiba war of 130-135 and the opprobrium in Rome of all things Jewish. In a half-baked fashion, the two “traditions” came together. The book of Acts was a Catholic triumph, which cut Paul down to size and brought the hero of the Marcionites into the securing arms of would-be orthodoxy.

    To be sure, Paul himself was “glorified” and credited with extensive missionary activity, replete with miracles quite unrecorded in the eponymous letters. But in the new story, Paul writes no epistles. Instead, he delivers one from the top dogs in Jerusalem! In a weakly thought out story the “leader” of the Jerusalem apostles is moved to Rome ahead of Paul, and is placed upon the “pope’s” chair. Paul, the superstar of a fabricated 1st century evangelical crusade, would ever after stand awkwardly at the shoulder of a far flimsier creature fashioned by the church in Rome – St Peter.

    Thus was Paul, erstwhile hero of the heretics, refashioned into the “13th apostle” and assimilated into the Catholic collective, even as the Marcionite churches were being integrated into the greater and universal Roman church. The epistles ascribed to Paul – too useful and too popular to be erased from the record – were expropriated and doctored for the Catholic cause and augmented by others composed by the Catholic ecclesia.

    These so-called “pastoral” epistles, addressed to the pastors or “shepherds” of the flock, reined in maverick and independent clergy and underscored episcopal authority. Nascent Catholicism, organizing itself in Rome, was very much of this world, and saw its future glory in accommodation with the imperial order. The approved “canon” followed, closing the door on further creative theology.

    The fabricated Paul

    “As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have
    received, let him be accursed … For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” – Galatians 1.9,12.

    A Catholicised sainthood was the ultimate fate of our hero Paul but from where did the super-apostle arise? If, as seems likely, Marcion created what would become the New Testament Paul as a messenger for his own ideas, he almost certainly used biographical material from his own life, particularly the power struggle he waged with the collective in Rome. Marcion, like “Paul”, alone knew the truth, a mystery made manifest to him by revelation.

    As a shipping magnate from Sinope (a Black Sea port, a hundred miles north of Galatia) Marcion enjoyed financial independence and was able to travel extensively. At one point he even financed the church in Rome before being excommunicated and returning to the east. He would have been familiar with the sea lanes and attendant dangers that figure so prominently in the Pauline story. To give his theology added “authority” it had to be back projected into an earlier “apostolic age”. He may have chosen the name Paul (meaning “small” or “humble”) as reflective of his own position.

    When Catholicism commandeered Marcion’s creation, the novelists in Rome would undoubtedly have used the works of Josephus, the all-purpose source books of the Christians, for additional material. And here they found not a Paul but a Saul, an Herodian aristocrat of unsavoury character. This material became the core for the preamble to Paul’s story, his “life in Judaism”. And the life of Josephus himself certainly was plundered: episodes in the Jewish historian’s biography resonate just too closely with the Pauline story, particularly the shipwreck on the way to Rome.

    Josephus was not just an historian. Before the war, he had been appointed by the high priest Ananias as governor in Galilee, with a brief that meant suppressing (“persecuting”) radical movements. One of the bandit groups he had to deal with in and around Tiberias was led by a bandit chief called … Jesus.

    “So Jesus the son of Sapphias [chief magistrate of Tiberias], one of those whom we have already mentioned as the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people, prevented us, and took with him certain Galileans, and set the entire palace on fire … Jesus and his party slew all the Greeks that were inhabitants of Tiberias, and as many others as were their enemies before the war began.” – Josephus, Life 12.

    • Agree: Olivier1973
  352. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Yoska Ruslo

    > “Not all Westerners, Christians or not, are the same, there are huge differences in mentality even in a single country like Italy for example.”

    Unfortunately, I do not view it that way. There must be a fine balance between a purely metaphysical conception and a geographical one, but here, geopolitics does precede morals – there is no hope for establishing a NatSoc state if it belongs to the European Union and NATO. This way, the only remotely independent European nation-state is Syria… I mean, Belarus. Alongside the breakaway republics of Transnistria, Donbass and Ossetia.

    When the push comes to shove, Hungary, for example, is a slave to America politically. A bunch of morons, all of them. And they have the gall to whine about a far more brotherly Soviet Russia! All Christians are the same.

    > “Germany is currently very liberal yes. but they had to kill 8 million of them, bomb the country into a pile of rubble…”

    And they didn’t have to do the same to Russia to achieve a similar result. The heart of the Christian civilisation is in America, and everyone in Europe is looking up to them, aping them in every way.

    > “Anglos are different from everyone in Europe…”

    The English language is indeed the most queer in Europe. They are the only people not readily able to read the Latin script properly (Miletus becomes Mailites). Being a centre of civilisation, they seem to be full of vigour to this day, constantly churning out disgusting new words – gender instead of sex, black instead of negro, Beijing instead of Peking – wholly forgetting the old ones in the span of a decade.

    But you have to give the Anglos credit for inventing science, discovering the biological evolution, and being the only imperial power which did not miscegenate in the colonies. Although the last point is probably a failure – had the USA been Brazil since the beginning, Europe would have been alive and triumphant.

    • Replies: @Yoska Ruslo
  353. Incitatus says:
    @Yoska Ruslo

    “Americans started yesterday, half of their brief history being ruled by Jewes, you delusional monkey”

    Actually it started 401 years ago for my family in Nouveau Monde, not “yesterday”.

    Sorry, no Hebrews in evidence from 260 AD. Tell us why that matters. Spare no words.

    Where was your family 1620 AD? In 260 AD? Give us a hint.

    Doubt you know. Prove me wrong.

    • Replies: @Yoska Ruslo
  354. @Laurent Guyénot

    Thanks, Laurent. Agreed, the internal Jewish strife is overlooked in the “anti-Semitic” aspect of Christianity. Jews know each other the best, and they can be their own fiercest critics.

    Glad to hear of your interest in panpsychism — it has a long, noble, and interesting history, though my critics here seem to think they can use this against me, as yet another ad hominem. Oh well. Yes, I briefly mention Sheldrake, though his case is purely speculative and not well-grounded.

    When you get a chance to read “Jesus Hoax,” I would certainly like to hear your thoughts.

    • Replies: @SeekerofthePresence
  355. @David Skrbina

    Pundits ponder the Hidden
    Through a panoply of words.
    Forget He reveals Himself
    To those hungry for the Word.

  356. @Adûnâi

    ” The heart of the Christian civilisation is in America, and everyone in Europe is looking up to them, aping them in every way.”

    That’s what humans always to do, the ape what they perceive as successful Most places on earth are Judaicized/Anglicized. The point is, white Europeans debating or expecting that the so called Right-Wing “anglos” do something to put a real challenge to their liberal elites and Jewish overlords are delusional, these “anglo” Right-Wing groups are largely without resources, many of them misfits, with poor knowledge of real history, quite stupid and nevertheless have an unbelievable ridiculous high opinion of themselves

    I was reading part of the thread and you wrote that you’re “little Russian” probably meaning Ukrainian and somebody said that so called Right-Wing “anglos” hardly would consider you even White, that is true and isn’t that laughable?
    That Celtic “we Wuz Angloz and Saxanz” scum is the arbiter to decide who is “white” or not in Europe?
    Not mentioning the inane “Aryan” label, If there was a people who could claim the dumb “Aryan” label in Europe are the Eastern European Slavs R1a haplogroup.

    Name the occasions where Right-Wing thinking prevailed among Britons aka “anglo” wannabes in the last 2000 years? Their most famous warrior of antiquity was General Boudicca who started a war because she had her “honor and female rights” apparently violated by Roman officials. Isn’t that laughable?

    Now that their usefulness is pretty much over thet are being replaced by their much superior (((overlords))) without a fight and dragging all White people to the abyss. On their knees worshipping negroes now that’s nearing the end game.
    Expecting something from those trash like a white ethnostate in america? The first real Right-Wing victory among them in two millennia? Better expect aliens.

    Christianity is a nocive religion, especially Protestantism, but clearly is not the main problem.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  357. @Incitatus

    You refereed to America when “No matter. Don’t worry about us. We’ll figure it out. We always have.”
    Brief history half of it ruled by Jews,

    Yes you can trace your family to 260 AD, And I’m sure they were relatives of Roman Emperor Valerianus.

    Please spare me of horrible insults like “You’re a miserable failure in the private sector.”

    • Replies: @Incitatus
  358. R2b says:

    Book of Psalms
    Psalm 2
    ”Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
    2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,
    3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
    4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
    5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, an vex them in his sore displeasure.
    6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
    7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
    8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
    9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potters’s vessel.
    10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
    11 Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
    12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.”

    The atheist and the Zionist, cant but acknowledge, if they read read this Word of God through, that Jesus Christ is the son of God, himself then God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, and that Zion is a stolen name, taken to false and earthly purposes, that now piece of clay.
    Also the inheritors of the German national socialists, called nazi, who want to cut the Old Testament from the Scriptures, that is the Bible, are doing the Zionists bidding.
    The thousand years are now nearly or perhaps absolutely over, and time is closing up.
    Be ye instructed

  359. Seraphim says:
    @Yoska Ruslo

    The heart of Christian civilization is the Orthodox Church, the only truly ‘One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic’. The particular ‘churches’, Roman, Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist, ‘Aryan’ (least of all) are ‘Protestant’ assemblies which have a name, ‘parasynagogues’ [“If someone (deacon, priest or bishop) has been found in error (πταίσματι: ‘fault,’ ‘sin’) and has been asked to cease from liturgical functions but has not submitted to the canons of the Church but instead has granted to himself priestly functions and some persons abandon the Church and join him, this is parasynagogue”], pitiful parodies of the Church, mimicking in some externals its doctrine and rituals.
    The simple idea that ‘everyone in Europe is looking up’ to the American ‘christianity’ (be it ‘puritan’, ‘evangelical’, ‘christian-zionist’) is beyond laughable. It is a cruel joke that Americans perpetrate against themselves. They cannot wrap their minds around that Orthodox don’t give a sh*t for their bluster, as they don’t give a sh*t for their ‘atheist’, ‘christian’ anarchist, ‘white christian identity’, ‘gnostic’, ‘rainbow’ fellow travelers. And that explains the impotent rage of the Skrbinas, Guyenots, Robin Hoods and ‘eiusdem farinae’ who pollute the commentariat here and elsewhere with their rantings against the Church who didn’t do them any harm.
    We pray that they might repent and come to their right mind.

  360. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Seraphim

    > “The heart of Christian civilization is the Orthodox Church…”

    Armenians were not asked.

    I myself typically respect long-winded comments, and view most one-liners as shit-for-brains Russian-tier garbage, but this one-liner of mine is exactly profound and laconic. The Orthodox church is not Christian because niggers can’t be Christian!

    Obviously, when I talk about Christianity, I don’t mean the church, but the culture it spawned, or even was spawned by in the midst of the millennia past. America is clearly the centre – because it has the vigour to create new words. Russians, for example, gobble up all the American terms – even the moronic 4chan “gay left vs trad right” dichotomy! – and consider Russian ideas shameful and unworthy. On the other hand, Juche Koreans do not care that some foreign faggots would laugh at them, they keep calm and love their own race.

    And the Koreans too had their history of race-denigrating nonsense – their Confucian China-worshipping values. Which they abandoned. Alongside their entire Hanja writing system. When people were laughing at the Korean language as peasant-tier and lowly. The same way Christians/liberals view atheist racists in the West.

  361. mcohen says:

    For the bakers

    how do you make a sausage roll……push it

  362. Doc says:
    @storxian

    I make this point to the neo pagans.. Catholic/Orthodox Christianity (the real mainstream, regardless what Prots think) has had thousands of years of intellectual development.. it is far greater than the story of Jesus.. it is a literal owner’s manual to the mind, body, and soul. The rules aren’t there to control you.. they are there to protect you because regardless of spiritual forgiveness, erring in those ways can have immense temporal consequence.. they can cause your mind and psyche to warp and wither in ways you cannot understand until it is too late..

    Like drugs, for instance.. when you are young they are fun and make you feel incredible.. when you are old, you realize you short circuit’ed your brain’s reward system.. overloading it by hitting level 11.. this makes the real spice of life and its successes feel boring by comparison.. like becoming noseblind to a smell.. but.. it is already too late at that point..

    Christianity has so much more than the Bible and suddenly snapping your fingers and declaring for Odin stories throws away a vast vast chunk of your intellectual heritage.

  363. @Seraphim

    An evil collusion between a tyrant and a man of God
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/19/nick-cohen-pussy-riot-putin

    Russian Orthodoxy has always been a state religion. The communists persecuted believers, but the KGB found many collaborators in the church who were prepared to put obedience to established power first. For this reason, it is a mistake to dismiss Kirill’s support for Putin as simple cynicism. He believes in autocracy and hates liberalism as much as his predecessors did and Putin does. That Kirill is liberalism’s avowed enemy becomes clear from reading his Freedom and Responsibility: A Search for Harmony. If its Amazon ranking is a guide, hardly any English reader has glanced at it, which is a pity because although the cleric’s arguments are drear when they are not repellent, they provide as a good an illustration as any of how opposition to human rights can be covered with smells and bells. …

    As always, the trouble with cultural exceptionalism is that it has no honest way of arguing with members of that culture who want change. You can search Patriarch Kirill’s writings in vain for any acknowledgement that Russians who protest against corruption or the denial of democratic rights or the crimes of the wars in the Caucasus have a case that deserves a hearing. They are just the tools of “puppet masters”; the propagators of the debased ideologies of “protestant theologians” and “Jewish philosophers”.

  364. @Seraphim

    Nice Gnostics – Christian ‘Mystics of Knowledge’ CHANGED
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/gnostic.html

    For early Christians, Christ had NO physical existence. For them, he was not born, nor did he die. “Jesus” in the early Gnostic gospels (Gospel of Thomas, Odes of Solomon, etc. ) is a teacher, a guide to spiritual development. He is placed in no historical context nor is he crucified. Christ was the spirit or wisdom of God, present in all things. To attain self knowledge was to know “Christ.” …

    Mainstream Christianity maintains the deceit that its collection of Jesus anecdotes and incidents are reports of actual comings and goings of their godman and were told “from the beginning” by his followers and fans. Collectively they buttress the falsehood that what passes for mainstream Christianity or “orthodoxy” originated with JC himself (rather than in the 4th century with the newly empowered hierarchs of the Church). With this lie in place, all the alternative stories told for 300 years by “heterodox” opponents, necessarily had to be denounced as pious fantasy. Were the heterodox to be the only liars it would indeed be curious. For it would mean that all the foremost Christian writers for over three centuries – without exception leaders and bishops of their Christian fraternities – wilfully suppressed an obvious and divine truth and chose instead to invent their own exotic fantasies. …

    Despite drawing in many Christian “intellectuals” the advocates of an ethereal Jesus were undermined by literalists whose ambition lay in establishing an organised Church.

    Often “liberal” and inclusive, gnostic Christianity found itself directly at odds with all who argued for unquestioning faith and a blind acceptance of dogma. Gnosticism’s free spirited speculations on the divine had thrived in the Pax Romana of the Antonine emperors. But in the militarised corporate state of the later empire it had no useful role to play.

    The theorists of early Christianity fell by the wayside as the sycophants and schemers triumphed. In any event, a purely spiritual saviour faced a problem of acceptance in a mass market accustomed to visible gods and idolatry. Their less gifted but no less ambitious brethren toadied to the masters of Rome and sought accommodation with the caesars. Increasingly they compromised with traditional paganism and expropriated its iconography. Eventually they would find their man in Constantine.

  365. Incitatus says:
    @Yoska Ruslo

    “Brief history half of it [America] ruled by Jews.”

    Hardly. Weren’t many around in the 17C. Most arrived in the early 20C. Tell us why they matter.

    “Yes you can trace your family to 260 AD, And I’m sure they were relatives of Roman Emperor Valerianus”

    You flatter me. He was an early Christian (a criminal) before Constantine’s Edict of Milan 313 AD.

    “Please spare me of horrible insults like “You’re a miserable failure in the private sector.””

    Never thus insulted you. Confusing me with someone else?

  366. Paul and the Acts of the Apostles – A Ripping Yarn
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ripping-yarn.html

    One of the most startling facts of early Christianity – yet one seldom commented upon – is that complete obscurity surrounds the foundation of its churches in all of the major cities of the Roman Empire. Those very churches which would define dogma, marshall the legions of the faithful and wield state power for millennia, present the interested enquirer with a mystery: How did they begin?

    Legends and “traditions” abound, of course, and apologetics is quite insistent that the “rapid growth of the church” is a primary proof and validation of the Resurrection and the claims of Christianity. But sober historical evidence is absent.

    Into this void in real history leaks a wondrous tale of the pioneers of the faith, Acts of the Apostles. This fable synthesizes an idealized version of events in a world of tireless apostles and bold evangelization; of recalcitrant Jews easily neutralized; of fraternal disputes quickly resolved; of cruel persecutions met with stoicism and forbearance; of divine and angelic interventions; and of immediate, mass conversions.

    Reality, however, tells a different story. Unlike in the later centuries of Christian conquest, when ambitious missionaries, backed by armies, destroyed indigenous gods and compelled the acceptance of Christ, early Christianity of necessity spread by an entirely different method. But the idea that the mechanism at work was the “bold evangelism” of a handful of charismatic apostles, armed only with the power of the Holy Spirit, is a fairy tale which should convince only the faithful.

    “There is something close to a black hole in the Christian story which lies tantalisingly between the events described in the New Testament and the emergence of something that looks more like conventional history in the second century.”

    – Edward Stourton, In the Footsteps of Saint Paul, p181.

    In truth, even the Church itself, reliant primarily on the first ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, has absolutely NO IDEA how its cardinal institutions began. Below the headline heroics of a handful of star performers, is conjectured numberless ranks of unnamed believers, who migrated their faith across the Mediterranean world in an unstoppable wave of Christian devotion. No thought is given to the possibility that “Christian-like” cults arose independently of any melodrama in Judaea, or that the antecedents of the Imperial cult, Mithraism, and myriad pagan enthusiasms fed into a nebulous “solar deity movement” in many towns and cities, a movement that lacked cohesion and direction until the Roman state itself adopted the ideology and regularized its dogmas.

    Of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Carthage – the four leading capitals of the Roman empire – secular history has much to say about their churches and acrimonious sectarian disputes from the 4th century onward, that is, from a time after the church had grasped power. But the first faltering steps of the organized Christian faith remain opaque. Even churches which “feature” in the New Testament story, such as at Ephesus, Damascus and Athens, have curiously uncertain origins.

    Many of the micro-dramas of Acts are confined to marginal settlements and towns which disappeared from the historical record. The tale, even excusing the miraculous as pious embellishment, is a poor fit with what little “fact” can be gleaned from secular history, a handful of epistles ostensibly written by the main player, and commonsense. Every step of the supposed epic evangelical achievement – the glorious winning of hearts and minds for Christ – raises conundrums and “difficulties” for those compelled to believe that, somehow, “truth” is to be found here.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  367. Anonymous[195] • Disclaimer says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    Bon merci.

  368. Seraphim says:
    @Robin Hood

    You cannot be unaware that all these ‘criticisms’, ‘objections’, ‘conundrums’ have been comprehensively answered and refuted. Not even alluding to the evidences that exist is a proof of dishonesty and an insult to our intelligence. But that’s what atheists do.
    “There is no worse blind man than the one who doesn’t want to see. There is no worse deaf man than the one who doesn’t want to hear. And there is no worse madman than the one who doesn’t want to understand.”
    ”Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight”.

    • Agree: Gapeseed
    • Disagree: Robin Hood
  369. FedUp says:
    @Anon

    Agreed. +99% of christians are pathological liars insofar as anything *perceived* by them as threats to their “faith.” Makes sense, since they’re severely traumatized wherein they believe they’ll boil in a lava pit (their bodyless soul, at least) if they upset the Big Bad Invisible Jewish volcano demon (((yahweh & rabbi yeshua)))…burn, eternally. And they know that in this life, their fellow christ-cucks will not approve if they “lose” their “faith.”

    They get us at birth. It’s very difficult to face this stuff, about as pointless as is the christian “strategy” for “dealing” with the threat posed by Jews (by dripping water on them, to “convert” them, & otherwise never molesting them, “sicut judaeis non,” the church has *always* protected them when Aryans get fed up).

    (((christianity))) is a lobotomy for the Aryan man, it cripples the avg victim’s ability to engage in curiosity/logical thought/bravery/etc.; and it turns us into a lesser version of Jews (who serve Jews regardless as to their claims). Pay close attention to the “pro Aryan christ” cucks, all the serious ones desperately *want* to be Jews. Can’t be said enough.

    Alex Linder (VNN Forum) & Cesar Tort (“The West’s Darkest Hour”) each have a great grasp of this issue. If you’re capable & willing to think, find their work.

    • Agree: Robin Hood
    • Disagree: Gapeseed
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  370. Incitatus says:
    @Adûnâi

    “Who determines the falsehood”?

    Each person for himself of course. Ultimately history (usually way too late). Oft disputed.

    “Russian anarchy mostly stems from the traitorous liberals”

    What are their demands? What are their ‘methods’ of persuasion? Are they violent? Or do they simply embarrass the régime with counter-narratives?

    At what point does someone who disagrees become a traitor?

    Russia vs. Ukraine is beyond my interest. Think the USA should stay out it, just as we’d condemn foreign interference in neighboring states (ala the Zimmerman telegram Jan 1917).

    That said, what are you doing in Ukraine? Have you really thought about it?

    “There are no true ideas – only the victorious and the vanquished.”

    You sound like Hitler. A Manichean, Hobbesian world. Best illustrated by Hieronymus Bosch.

    “I would prefer AOC to be President of the USA and the remaining and diminishing Whites disarmed.”

    LOL. That’s not going to happen. Who funds AOC?

    [MORE]

    Whatever the funding, she will not attract major support. She’s a valuable thermostat mouthing/measuring current fringe theory.

    Of course in Russia she would be long dead?

    “Freedom of speech is a disgusting illusion of the clearly Christian system, and I eagerly await its final form.”

    You’re against individual freedom to express oneself? You agree with Clubfoot Joe Göbbels, Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler and the lot? The individual is the servant of the state? Sad.

    What do propose instead?

    “Now this is surprising to me, Incitatus. I thought you wouldn’t stoop so low. Everyone knows that both sides had been courting Hitler.”

    Tell us where FDR courted Hitler. Be specific. Spare no words.

    “Stalin…was cucked out of helping Prague when the Westerners sold the Czechs in Munich.”

    Perhaps France and the UK should have partnered early with Stalin. But what’s that to do with FDR? Any Americans sign Chamberlain’s ‘Peace in Our Time’? Don’t think so. Nor did any sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact .

    “For the sake of improving USAAF firebombing capabilities, a mock-up German Village was built up and repeatedly burned down. It contained full-scale replicas of German residential homes.”

    Dugway Proving Ground? Constructed 1943 (two years after Hitler declared war on America? So what?

    Germany’s testing ground was Spain 1937: Madrid, Guernica (26 April 1937), etc. No need for models, go full force murdering civilians, level and burn towns, all in accord with Douhet’s theories:

    “Fear, which cannot be stimulated in peaceful training of troops, is very important because it affects morale. Morale is more important in winning battles than weapons. Continuously repeated concentrated air attacks have the most effect on the morale of the enemy.”
    – Oberstleutnant [later Generalfeldmarschall] Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen, field commander of the Condor Legion 1937

    It worked. Warsaw 1939:

    “Gentlemen, you have seen the ruins of Warsaw. Let that be a warning to those statesmen in London and Paris who still think of continuing the war.”
    – Adolf Hitler 5 Oct 1939 Address to Foreign Press, Warsaw [Beevor ‘The Second World War’ p. 35].

    18,000-25,000 civilians were killed. 10% of the city was destroyed, an additional 40% heavily damaged; the garrison suffered 140,000 casualties. All with Stalin’s blessing (?).

    No need to mention Rotterdam 1940. Here’s what Richthofen penned two years later:

    “In the late afternoon began my two-day major assault on Stalingrad with good incendiary effects right from the start”
    – Generalfeldmarschall Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen War Diary 23 Aug 1942.

    Two days later he declares the city completely destroyed with no remaining worthwhile targets; 40,000 (in a city of 600,000) are killed in the first week [Beevor ‘Stalingrad’ p.106, Beevor ‘The Second World War’ p.337].

    All well before the USA built Dugway Proving Ground.

    Richthofen, as before, made Stalingrad a real world test (models not required) in terror, killing, destruction. So why do you mention Dugway? To prove American were smarter than Richthofen? Thank you!

    Poor Richthofen. Suffered a brain tumor. Died (age 49) 12 July 1945. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

    “America should have helped Germany, their racial brethren, of course.”

    LOL! Who did George Washington fight at Trenton 26 Dec 1776? Hessian mercenaries hired by the Brits! Parse that!

    Stay well, Adûnâi.

  371. Seraphim says:
    @FedUp

    The truth is that the Christians do perceive the anti-Christian ravings not as a threat against their faith, but against themselves. Physical violence always lurks behind the verbal insults to the faith.

    • Agree: Gapeseed
    • Replies: @Robin Hood
  372. anonymous[161] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franz

    Yahweh tells his people he’s “the only god” then directly after tells them he does good, evil and whatever else he wants.

    As opposed to your idea of multiple “gods,” presumably taking on various specialities… the “god of good,” the “god of evil,” and so on? After all there is good and evil (with your eurapean kind qualifying as most evil) in this world, right?

    Jewish theologians always called Christians “pagans”.

    Yes, pagans should be called the mindless frickin’ pagans, that they indeed are! Not that the juden with their “in-his-image” mangod, are any better at comprehending God. It makes them pagan too.

    With the pathetic facade of Christianity’s pseudo-monotheism crumbling, you godless pagans are trying desperately to find some refuge in the reality of your pagan polytheist existence. You will never find it.

    This actually reminds me of some random extremist pagan hindoo in some forum proclaiming, “monotheism is childish.” Both of your kind are acting/reciting from the same pagan cookbook (“the body is the temple of God,” is another similar trope between the two of you).

    This is the reason why I call Christianity, Hinduism-lite. Both of your kind are spiritual savages, and it is laughable that you can take on the logicality of pure unbending monotheism. We will sever your spiritual jugulars whenever you try, every time.

    Christians just can’t see what a compliment that is.

    Lol!

    It is like, being a undisputed blithering idiot (and in the spiritual context, you most certainly are), being called an idiot, and to reconcile your pathetic minds to that sad fact, you all are simply trying to delude yourselves that being an idiot is a great thing. 😀

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Franz
  373. Anonymous[195] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    You’re a churlish fool. The origin and heart of Hinduism is monotheism. It is the recognition that All is One. You cannot or will not admit to this; you insist that God is One and All is God’s creation, which is somehow separate or subordinate to God. If my body is not God’s body, then whose is it? Islam has elevated a mere concept above reality. Reality is pantheism and panentheism. This is the true monotheism. You on the other hand are a xenotheist, worshipping the unreal, the abstract, the phantom of your true self. If you want to live your life sequestered from God then so be it. But don’t ask the rest of us to accept your petty limitations.

    • Agree: Franz
  374. gregor says:

    I heard Skrbina on a podcast once. He’s a fan of some of Ted Kaczynski’s anti-technology ideas. The Jews have him on the Canary Mission naughty list for BDS activities, so he can’t be too bad a guy.

    Based on the summary provided here, it sounds like Skrbina has ventured beyond his expertise here and I very much doubt many scholars of early Christianity would take his thesis seriously. The claim that Jesus never existed is popular among internet atheists but it has virtually no support among scholars specializing in NT and early Christianity. I get why people dismiss the miraculous and legendary aspects of the NT but I don’t understand why some people insist on overreaching with theories about Jesus not existing and the whole thing being a hoax. If Jesus existed (which he almost certainly did), then the origin of the Christian movement almost certainly goes back to Jesus himself and the time shortly after his death when the belief arose among his followers that he’d been resurrected and would soon return. The gospels indicate the Jesus himself had an apocalyptic worldview and many of the early Christians did as well, including Paul. The verses cited from Galatians and Corinthians are very typical apocalyptic verses.

    Paul no doubt played a pivotal role in spreading Christianity but that doesn’t mean he invented it out of whole cloth or that he didn’t really believe in it. In terms of motivation, I don’t see why Paul would be going around the Mediterranean, getting thrown in jail, trying to keep a minor and at the time rather inconsequential religion going. Christianity started among Jews but had minimal success since Jesus didn’t fit well with the Jewish concept of the Messiah. If Christianity was going to grow at all, it was going to be among the Pagans. There’s no need to assume any of this was some grand deliberate scheme. Sometimes things just happen.

    • Thanks: Gapeseed, RVBlake
    • Replies: @David Skrbina
  375. Franz says:
    @anonymous

    We will sever your spiritual jugulars whenever you try, every time.

    Thanks for this unsolicited expression of your faith and the reason so many places of worship are being deserted every day.

  376. Gapeseed says:
    @Robin Hood

    Indeed, there are similarities between some pagan stories and Christian stories. I think you approach it the wrong way, missing the forest for the trees.

    As someone not formally trained in theology or apologetics on a high level, I can’t claim to know why that is, although I suppose Joseph Campbell’s unearthed archetypes speak to us on a spiritual level and are written on our hearts so that Jesus’s story of sacrifice and redemption would ring true across cultures. For example, that Christ and Odin both hung on trees in religions without any cultural overlap whatsoever (to my knowledge) in a sense strengthens the probability that there is broad truth in both, although the selflessness of Christ is far preferable to the slyness and inconstancy of Odin, whose religion slowly faded because other parts of his story, while entertaining, did not strike the deepest mystic chords as does Christ. That subjective preference for Christ is buttressed by the witness of the Christian martyrs, many of whom chose death over apostasy because, even without seeing Jesus, they believed in the beauty of the sublime message. Like with the existence of St. Paul in our prior thread, it had to be true. If God were to reveal Himself to teach us how to love Him and our neighbors, how could there be a better way than by example? But perhaps God reveals Himself across cultures and religions where there is but a glimmer of that story, such as with Odin or Osiris. That should not surprise anyone who believes in a merciful God who has, I believe, written Truth in our hearts, pagan, Christian, and Jew alike.

    The Christian message of a loving God commanding us to love in kind and sacrifice as He did rings most true to me. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, and in your hunt for historical certitude (or really, in your hunt to disprove Christianity), you miss a bigger picture.

    • Replies: @Robin Hood
  377. Philo of Alexandria – Witness to Jesus?
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html

    From a distance of 2000 years Jesus Christ appears in glorious technicolor, a veritable rainbow of the power and the glory. Every child “knows” his story, every individual “recognizes” his slender frame, his flowing chestnut hair, his kindly blue eyes. But up close and personal our superhero evaporates into the ether, a phantom that leaves no trace upon the paper, no imprint in the historical record. Not only does no one notice Jesus during his supposed lifetime; Jesus notices nothing of the wider world into which he makes his spectral appearance.

    As for Christianity’s audacious claim that its hero introduced something new into ethics and morality, that assertion is wholly fallacious. Long before any mythical Nazarene had epithets of wisdom put into his mouth, other – real, yet mortal – philosophers taught a morality of brotherly love and human compassion. Christianity merely sequestered and then ignored those ideals.

    The “witnesses” who saw and heard nothing

    As it happens, we have an excellent witness to events in Judaea and the Jewish diaspora in the first half of the first century AD: Philo of Alexandria (c25 BC-47 AD).

    Philo was an old man when he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39-40 AD. Philo clearly, then, lived at precisely the time that “Jesus of Nazareth” supposedly entered the world to a chorus of angels, enthralled the multitudes by performing miracles, and got himself crucified.

    Philo was also in the right place to give testimony of a messianic contender. A Jewish aristocrat and leader of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, we know that Philo spent time in Jerusalem (On Providence) where he had intimate connections with the royal house of Judaea. His brother, Alexander the “alabarch” (chief tax official), was one of the richest men in the east, in charge of collecting levies on imports into Roman Egypt. Alexander’s great wealth financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple (Josephus, War 5.205). Alexander also loaned a fortune to Herod Agrippa I (Antiquities 18).

    One of Alexander’s sons, and Philo’s nephews, Marcus, was married to Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, 39-40. After the exile of Herod Antipas – villain of the Jesus saga – he ruled as King of the Jews, 41-44 AD. Another nephew was the “apostate” Julius Alexander Tiberius, Prefect of Egypt and also Procurator of Judaea itself (46-48 AD).

    Much as Josephus would, a half century later, Philo wrote extensive apologetics on the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. About thirty manuscripts and at least 850,000 words are extant. Philo offers commentary on all the major characters of the Pentateuch and, as we might expect, mentions Moses more than a thousand times.

    Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus, Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all this work, Philo makes not a single reference to his alleged contemporary “Jesus Christ”, the godman who supposedly was perambulating up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, raising the dead and causing earthquake and darkness at his death.

    With Philo’s close connection to the house of Herod, one might reasonably expect that the miraculous escape from a royal prison of a gang of apostles (Acts 5.18,40), or the second, angel-assisted, flight of Peter, even though chained between soldiers and guarded by four squads of troops (Acts 12.2,7) might have occasioned the odd footnote. But not a murmur. Nothing of Agrippa “vexing certain of the church” or killing “James brother of John” with the sword (Acts 12.1,2).

    Strange, but only if we believe Jesus and his merry men existed and that they established the church. If we recognize that the Christian fable was still at an early stage of development when Philo was pondering the relationship of god and man, there is nothing strange here at all.

    What is very significant, however, is that Philo’s theological speculations helped the Christians fabricate their own notions of a godman. …

    Nowhere Man

    The common assumption that Jesus was a peripatetic preacher, strolling through Palestine, though appealing, is unsupported by any evidence. There are NO contemporary sources that corroborate the existence of Jesus. All the godman’s pithy “wisdom” sayings predate the gospels, many taken from the works of Philo and Seneca. https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

    The earliest writers about him knew nothing of what were later supposed to be the major events in his life. When Christian texts eventually appeared which fleshed out a few months of human existence for Jesus, they were hopelessly contradictory and full of historical errors and anachronisms. https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/belief.html

    In short, the “historical Jesus” is a pious fraud, no less so than his divinity as “son of God” and “person” of the Trinity.

    • Replies: @Gapeseed
  378. @Seraphim

    The church who didn’t do them any harm? Time to study up. See, e.g. Christianization of the Roman world – The terrifying history of a morbid cult that destroyed the ancient world. https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/darkness.html

  379. @Seraphim

    “The truth is that the Christians do perceive the anti-Christian ravings not as a threat against their faith, but against themselves. Physical violence always lurks behind the verbal insults to the faith.”

    Winter of the World – The Terrible Cost of “Christendom”
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/winter.html

    Christianity was the first creed in history to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Raised to the status of State religion the Christian Church reigned over the destruction of civilization. As the centuries passed religious barbarism grew ever more vicious.

    1000 Years of Carnage & Barbarity in the name of Christ
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/1000years.htm

    Enforcing the Faith – Missionaries or Murderers?
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/murderers.htm

    The Christian Heaven may have been a vain folly but the Christian Hell was real enough. For more than a thousand years sadists in the uniform of Christ terrorised and brutalised a continent and then exported that terror to the four corners of the globe. The Church, which, with a satanic twist of humour, claimed to be the instrument of ‘Christ’s loving kindness’ , taught a brutalised and impoverished people new meanings to the words pain and suffering… For those who dared to be different: Incarceration – starvation – psychological torment and terror – laceration – mutilation – strangulation – suffocation – crushing – choking – burning – garrotting – slow and agonizing death. Welcome to a Christian Europe!

    Burning Times – Auto-da-fé. Act of Faith Brutal vengeance from the men of God
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/burning.html

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  380. anonymous[161] • Disclaimer says:
    @Levtraro

    we consider that the most laughable are Judaism and Islam.

    Most laughable, you say?! Lol!

    Let me ask you… have you heard of an extremist pagan faith called, Hinduism? This is a faith which worships queer deities, rapist deities, symbols of human genitalia, deities with animal heads, and so on.

    You really can’t make this up, because if someone were to do that, a sane society would feel compelled to lock the accursed person up in an asylum. But, we have a billion people who buy into this insaneness. And, we have a few other billions who also believe that God is man-like, and vice-versa. Sheesh!!

    It is indeed strange, and this should totally reflect on your kind’s retarded level intelligence (at least in matters spiritual), that you find the true monotheism of Islam as “most laughable.” You are not applying your brains, but blindly acting on your innate prejudices.

    As you laugh at us, we laugh and spit on you godless soul-diseased racist vermin. Fair enough?

  381. anonymous[161] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake

    The only thing that makes Jews fearful is the possibility that historic Christianity and Christendom can be revived fully.

    As your pestilential (of the soul) pagan godless faith crumbles around you, you still hold delusions about its revival? Lol!

    May God only increase your humiliation, here and after.

    You and your kind, Jake, are a curse on this earth. You are indeed destined to burn for all eternity, but your shrill vehemence against true monotheism, will reserve you a place in the worst pits of Hell.

    That is because, it is entirely possible that your kind will influence others (children, other family members) down the same path of Islamophobia and ultimately utter damnation. This is the reason why you are a curse on this earth.

  382. Gapeseed says:
    @Robin Hood

    Interesting for sure, but is Philo really an objective witness? Sounds like his family was in the class of Jewish elites that clashed with Jesus, and he could have easily thought that ignoring Jesus in order to not give the Christian movement oxygen was the way to go.

    • Replies: @RVBlake
    , @Robin Hood
  383. Seraphim says:
    @Robin Hood

    Obviously you are a deranged individual. What ‘trauma’ have you suffered from an ‘abusive father’?
    Was he telling you that you are going to go to hell if you jerk off?

  384. Seraphim says:
    @Fenrir

    The werewolves roaming the streets! Actually the lunatics escaped from the asylum howling at the moon.

  385. @Realist

    “There is no rational basis for any religion. ”

    They are all based on faith. There is something out there in the universe but our puny minds cannot comprehend what that is.

  386. RVBlake says:
    @Gapeseed

    The first question in my mind, as well. May account for the relative silence from Josephus, as well.

    • Agree: Gapeseed
    • Replies: @Robin Hood
  387. @anonymous

    Does not such arrogant language as yours usually suggest error? It sounds as though you are more interested in condemning others than in understanding the truth.

    Christ is the secret of the ages. God will reveal Him only to those who approach Him with humility and love.

    Hate is not the way. Let love, humility, and a determined search for the truth guide your footsteps. Call upon God in earnest and He will show you the way.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  388. RobinG says:
    @Maowasayali

    “A Joint Resolution To Designate March 26, 1991, As Education Day, USA.”

    Can you supply a link to this? NOT an article about it, but the Resolution itself. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Maowasayali
  389. Realist says:
    @europeasant

    They are all based on faith.

    Agreed.

    There is something out there in the universe but our puny minds cannot comprehend what that is.

    There may be much more highly developed beings, but I do not believe there is an omnipotent, omnipresent god.

  390. anon[161] • Disclaimer says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    “If I had the choice only between Christianity and atheism…”

    So, what is your belief (system)?

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  391. @europeasant

    There is something out there in the universe….

    Hymn of the Cherubim…

    The “something out there” is Christ, Creator of the Heavens and the earth, the seen and the unseen. Seek Him and all questions will be answered, all grace and truth given.

    • Agree: Gapeseed
  392. C.T. says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Regarding the Turin Shroud, I studied the claims full-time for two years!

    These are my conclusions:

    https://eliminatedleaves.wordpress.com

    • Disagree: SeekerofthePresence
    • Replies: @MomsBasement
  393. @gregor

    Thanks, gregor! I’d like to think I’m not too bad of a guy! Maybe my connection to TK and BDS give me some street cred, not sure. But I don’t back down from a fight, that’s for sure. And I’m rigorous in my analysis.

    True, most “scholars of Christianity” would not accept my thesis, but that says nothing about its viability. Most scholars buy the whole Jesus story, more or less in its standard form, and they are certainly not about to impugn any Jews in the process. But the facts demand otherwise.

    More to the point, I do NOT require that Jesus never existed. In fact, the OPPOSITE: I assume he lived (and died) as a mortal man, a Jewish rabbi, who advocated for the down-trodden and against Roman rule, and got himself crucified as a result. That (likely) true kernel of history forms the basis for the broader Pauline hoax that came along two or three decades later.

    The problem is that mortal Jesus almost certainly was no miracle man: no one wrote anything about him, pro or con, for literally decades — during or after his life. At least, nothing that survives. It is impossible that neither Romans nor pagans would have written nothing about such a miracle man. If a mortal man lived and died, and then decades later, someone says, in all seriousness, that he was son of God, raised the dead, etc, etc, then that’s a lie. And if it’s a lie for selfish reasons, then its a hoax.

    Paul and his cabal worked hard to promote their hoax because they detested both Roman rule and the pagan masses, and wanted to do whatever they could to undermine both. Being Jewish fanatics, they were ready to risk their lives if they thought they could damage the Roman cause. Seeing early, if minor, success, they continued to press their hoax to the limit. It was working, it was drawing in pagans, it was pulling people away from the Roman worldview — why not keep it up?

    Read the book, and give the full argument a chance.

    • Replies: @RVBlake
    , @gregor
  394. @RobinG

    “A Joint Resolution To Designate March 26, 1991, As Education Day, USA” = Public Law 102-14.

    It begins thus:

    Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

    Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-joint-resolution/104/text

  395. RVBlake says:
    @David Skrbina

    As noted in the Gospels, our only source for “historical” Jesus, did he even advocate against Roman rule? It was my understanding that as an apocalypticist, Jesus’s sole concern was the imminence of the Kingdom of God. All earthly kingdoms would be swept away before the arrival of the Son of Man. Those who point out that the strictures of the Sermon of the Mount are unworkable as a plan for living are correct; they were intended to qualify one for the Kingdom of God, expected to arrive any day.

    • Replies: @David Skrbina
  396. @RVBlake

    Right — the focus on some unknown, future “Kingdom of God” (which is “within”) is supposed to sweep away all earthly kingdoms, esp Rome. Consider:

    * Day of the Lord will not come “unless the rebellion comes first” (2 Thes 2)
    * “God of peace will soon crush Satan (Rome)” (Rom 16)
    * “rulers of this world are doomed to pass away” (1 Cor 2)
    * “the form of this world is passing away” (1 Cor 7)
    * Christ will “destroy every rule and every authority and power” (1 Cor 15)
    * “Put on the whole armor of God…against the world rulers of the present darkness” (Eph 6)
    * “nation will rise up against nation” (Mk 13)
    * “I have come not to bring peace, but a sword” (Mt 10)
    * “I came to cast fire upon the Earth” (Lk 12)
    * “as for these enemies of mine…bring them here and slay them before me” (Lk 19)–yes, this is a parable, but it’s intended as an allegory for Jesus.
    * “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one” (Lk 22)
    * “Whole world is under control of the evil one (Rome)” (1 Jn)

    I’d call that anti-Rome.

  397. I’ve just read half of prof. Skrbina’s book. It is a short book, and a quick and easy read. My impression is that this book was based on a course for undergraduate students with little prior knowledge of Biblical scholarship. If so, it must be a very enjoyable course. And the case is built in a very efficient manner, logical, in simple language. The author comes out as a good teacher, no arrogance, a kind of Socratic tone.
    Being already aware of most the issues, I found the first 3 chapters, which introduce the different schools, and the basics of Jewish and Christian history, a bit slow. But chapter 4 is a killer and taught me a lot. It would make a fine article by itself, and if only for this, I recommend this book. It is an impressive synthesis of everything that has been written about the Jews prior to the appearance of Christianity; many of those passages I wasn’t familiar with. Here is the inescapable conclusion:

    So what can we conclude from this brief overview of some 600 years of the ancient world? To say that the Jews were disliked is an understatement. The critiques come from all around the Mediterranean region, and from a wide variety of cultural perspectives. And they are uniformly negative. I note here that it’s not a case of ‘cherry-picking’ the worst comments and ignoring the good ones. The remarks are all negative; there simply are no positive opinions on the Jews or early Christians. A reasonable conclusion is that there is something about the Jewish culture that inspires disgust and hatred. As the saying goes, “When one person hates you, it’s probably them; when everyone hates you, it’s probably you.” Arrogance, insularity, superstition, self-absorption, and misanthropy surely all play a part. Monotheism is also a likely contributor, though indirectly.

    From chapter 5, David gets into his main thesis regarding Paul. Of course, if you already believe that Paul never existed, you will resist following his hypothesis. But his starting point remains valid: someone did invent Christianity. And this someone, or this group of people, were Jews, and they invented Christianity after the destruction of their cherished temple by the Romans. Did they want to bring something nice to the Romans? The hypothesis that Christianity was conceived as a deadly poison for Rome is something I find more and more plausible, almost obvious. But who? If not Paul, then someone else. Someone in the 2nd century, under Titus, perhaps. That would make little difference. But I’m still in the middle of chapter 5 (page 72, 60 percent of the book), so I’ll finish the book tonight and write my impression tomorrow.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  398. RVBlake: “Those who point out that the strictures of the Sermon of the Mount are unworkable as a plan for living are correct; they were intended to qualify one for the Kingdom of God, expected to arrive any day. ”

    It seems clear from the crucifixion story spelled out in the Gospels that Jesus himself expected God to show himself and intervene at the last moment, perhaps then to destroy the world, for why else cry out, as it is recounted that Jesus did before dying, “God, God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46) And why else say, as Jesus did: “27 For the Son of Man will come in His Father’s glory with His angels, and then He will repay each one according to what he has done. 28 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Matt. 16:28) Nevertheless, his failed prophecy has not discouraged his followers, who do all sorts of mental gymnastics to explain it away, just as the followers of contemporary preachers who predict the end of the world always have a good excuse for why their prophecies fail.

    Still, responding to the idea that Christianity was a malicious hoax, it’s strange that such a failed prophecy would be deliberately inserted into the narrative many decades after it was clear that it had failed. Logically, you would think that this would discredit the religion and its purported founder instead of helping the hoax succeed. But then, as Dawkins says, “The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.” Making faith instead of reason the underpinning of Christianity was a stroke of genius, and in large measure what separates it from Hellenistic predecessors such as Platonism, Stoicism and Cynicism.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  399. David Skrbina: “Maybe my connection to TK and BDS give me some street cred, not sure. ”

    Christians tend to give their religion credit for the successes of technological civilization, sometimes even going so far as to say that without Christianity, it wouldn’t have been possible. Above, MacDonald seems to fall into this camp when he writes: “The era of Western expansion was accomplished by Christian explorers and colonists. Until quite recently, the flourishing of science, technology, and art occurred entirely within a Christian context.”

    Do you believe that the triumph of Christianity was an indispensable precondition of technological civilization, and does TK?

    • Replies: @David Skrbina
  400. @Laurent Guyénot

    Correction: I meant Hadrian, not Titus, for the 2ne century.
    My impression after finishing the book (except the appendixes). Skrbina makes a good case that Paul’s message is fundamentally, and intentionally, detrimental to the social organicity of the Empire. Paul says: Turn away from the Roman gods, to the Jewish God. Rejecting the gods was a political act, not just a religious act. It included refusing to go through the simple motion of the public cult of the emperor, which was nothing but the manifestation of loyalty to the Empire. Paul said: Rome is doomed, God will soon destroy this arrogant empire. The poor will inherit the kingdom. “God whose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise…”
    I have some critics, though. Skrbina’s scenario of the writing of the gospels (by the followers of Paul?) would have needed to take into account the relevant scholarship, e.g., the fact that Matthew and Luke used a common source of logia (which may very well have been originally ascribed to someone else than Jesus; I have myself made the case that most were originally attributed to John the Baptist), or the notion that there are at least two conflicting layers in John’s Gospels. I’am afraid that Skrbina is here simplifying to the extreme what is in fact quite complicated. Speaking of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John as if they were four persons is a bit embarrassing for anyone aware of the complexity of historical criticism.
    Also lacking is a convincing explanation of Paul’s quarrel with the Pharisees, and, more generally, an attempt to contextualize the birth of Christinity withing the never ending quarrels inside Judaism, in particular the existence of Jewish gnosticism (see my comment 348), which seems to me very relevant to the Paul’s brand of Judaism. As a whole, I am not convinced by Skribna’s rejection of the “mythic Jesus” theory. And actually, I don’t see why it would necessarily conflict with Skribna’s thesis of a deliberate hoax: whether Paul taught about a real or a mythic Jesus, he was still trying to convert Gentils to the Jewish, anti-Roman God. (“Our god is your god too, but he has chosen us”).
    Some other points I would disagree with. For instance, Nietzsche’s idea (a few good quotes by Nietzsche there, by the way) that part of Paul’s deception was to introduce the belief in the afterlife “to deprive the world of value”: virtually all Romans already believed in the afterlife, and this is part of universal “natural” religion. This is absolutely not a Christian idea.
    My conclusion: the merit of this book is to “address the question of motive, something that’s utterly lacking in the other skeptics,” as the author says. I have myself argued fo the need to investigate the question of motive in my article “How Yahweh conquered Rome”, using Barbiero’s The Secret Society of Moses as a starting point. I recommend Barbiero’s book, which makes a similar but slightly different argument from Skrbina’s: Christianity as a Jewish plot, no just to undermine Rome, but rather to take over Rome, which is what happened with the Catholic Church.
    As Skrbina points out, it is highly unlikely that Christianity just spread as a rumor or a story that people started to find convincing “naturally”. “Even in ancient times, people were not idiots”. And “Paul was a clever man, could he really have fallen so completely for a bogus tale of a Jewish messiah?” So manipulation, that is the Jewish craft of lying, is involved. And I agree that it is high time that we start to consider this point seriously. How can we ever emancipate ourselves of Jewish Power if we refuse to admit to what extent we have been fooled. Skrbina makes a good remark about Luther calling Jews the masters of lies, yet believing that the Jesus story, invented by Jews, is the truth. How pathetic!

    • Agree: Robin Hood
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    , @David Skrbina
  401. @Anon

    Ah, yet another ignorant, hate-filled Christophobe, with what passes for his “mind” dissolving from an overdose of his own vitriolic rage and boundless hatred:

    Let go of your irrational denialism.
    Educate yourself.
    Try to be more tolerant.
    Accept Christ into your heart. You’ll feel better.

  402. Seraphim says:
    @SeekerofthePresence

    This Anonymous finally revealed his true identity: an ISIS militant spewing hate language who cannot control himself. Who would tell the ‘Islamophobes’ that: ‘We will sever your spiritual jugulars whenever you try, every time’, ‘we would humiliate you’, in pure Quranic language?.

    • Agree: SeekerofthePresence
  403. Seraphim says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    It is not the first time that your knowledge of Roman history appears a bit jumbled. Pathetic indeed.

  404. gregor says:
    @David Skrbina

    True, most “scholars of Christianity” would not accept my thesis, but that says nothing about its viability. Most scholars buy the whole Jesus story, more or less in its standard form, and they are certainly not about to impugn any Jews in the process. But the facts demand otherwise.

    Nowadays there’s not much of a taboo against attacking Jesus or Christianity, so I don’t think there’s much to prevent scholars from endorsing mythicism and related positions. On historical Jesus, I’ve read E.P. Sanders and Bart Ehrman and some other stuff on Jewish apocalypticism. And while those guys are pretty philo-Semitic, they are serious scholars and I wouldn’t dismiss them lightly. I think they make very good points about why many aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings are almost certainly historical simply because they contradict the later Christian narratives and therefore are unlikely to have been fabricated later on by Christians (or Jews). For instance, the gospels have to offer apologetic explanations for why Jesus was from Nazareth instead of Bethlehem, why he was baptized by John the Baptist, and so on. These aren’t likely to have been made up because they are somewhat inconvenient for the later narrative. Therefore the reason these things are found in the gospels is that Jesus probably was from Nazareth and probably was baptized by John the Baptist.

    More to the point, I do NOT require that Jesus never existed. In fact, the OPPOSITE: I assume he lived (and died) as a mortal man, a Jewish rabbi, who advocated for the down-trodden and against Roman rule, and got himself crucified as a result. That (likely) true kernel of history forms the basis for the broader Pauline hoax that came along two or three decades later.

    If Jesus was historical, then the most natural assumption is that Christianity was already a thing by the time Paul got involved. The strongest argument that could be made is that Paul hijacked a preexistent movement, although I don’t buy that either. All the evidence suggests early Christianity was very diverse and eclectic (especially the gnostic varieties). Moreover the letters of Paul imply that he had various “competitors,” i.e., other Christian ministers preaching their own flavors of Christianity. All of this is more consistent with it being an organic, “grass roots” movement, not some grand conspiracy.

    The problem is that mortal Jesus almost certainly was no miracle man: no one wrote anything about him, pro or con, for literally decades — during or after his life. At least, nothing that survives. It is impossible that neither Romans nor pagans would have written nothing about such a miracle man. If a mortal man lived and died, and then decades later, someone says, in all seriousness, that he was son of God, raised the dead, etc, etc, then that’s a lie. And if it’s a lie for selfish reasons, then its a hoax.

    My reading of Mark is that Jesus’ own followers did not believe he was a god during his life but some of them may have believed he was a messiah figure. Over time Jesus became more divine with the most important transitional point being his presumed resurrection. But just because the concept of who Jesus evolved over time that doesn’t mean we must assume this was the result of a deliberate hoax. Such an evolution could have easily occurred organically. I think you are projecting your own modern hyper-rational worldview onto the ancient world and are assuming that if people say they believe in something like resurrection or faith healing they must be “lying.” But magical and superstitious thinking is normal and many people sincerely believe in all kinds of extraordinary things.

    Given that Jesus’ disciples were illiterate Galileans we should hardly expect much contemporaneous documentation. Historical records back then are pretty thin even for relatively prominent individuals like Pontius Pilate, much less for Jesus of Nazareth! There’s nothing odd about the early Christians relying on oral tradition for the first few decades. Nor do I see why we should expect first century Roman writers to have spilled much ink over a fringe religious sect. Only in hindsight does this seem like an impossible oversight.

    Paul and his cabal worked hard to promote their hoax because they detested both Roman rule and the pagan masses, and wanted to do whatever they could to undermine both. Being Jewish fanatics, they were ready to risk their lives if they thought they could damage the Roman cause. Seeing early, if minor, success, they continued to press their hoax to the limit. It was working, it was drawing in pagans, it was pulling people away from the Roman worldview — why not keep it up?

    Read the book, and give the full argument a chance.

    I think a lot of the verses you interpret as expressing politically revolutionary sentiments are better understood in an apocalyptic framework. We have the evil present age and then the glorious age to come when the Son of Man (Jesus) comes (returns) and ushers in the kingdom. The evil present age includes not just Rome but the Jewish establishment as well. If anything early Christianity was in some ways depoliticized in that it advocated withdrawing from worldly pursuits and passively awaiting the return of Jesus. Similarly, the Christian concept of the suffering, sacrificial messiah is actually very depoliticized relative to the traditional Jewish messiah concept (e.g. Cyrus).

    Having read Paul’s letters, I just don’t see the Jewish fanaticism or the hatred of pagans. He dedicated his life to ministering among the pagans. There was tension between the Jewish and pagan converts with some Jews refusing to eat with the pagans for example and insisting on the continued necessity of circumcision and Jewish dietary rules and so on. But Paul always argued that traditional Jewish practices were unnecessary.

    I think Paul’s actions make more sense if we understand them as being motivated by sincere religious belief rather than by a triple bank shot scheme to undermine Rome very slowly.

    • Thanks: Gapeseed, RVBlake
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  405. Arguing the Apostles (including Paul) risked life and limb and often did die horrible deaths based on something they knew was a lie only for some double-secret-reverse-subversion attempt is laughable.

    And the later attempts by anti-Christians to claim that the proofs offered of their belief and suffering were fake is laughable as well.

    Gosh, religious people choosing to suffer and dye trying to convert others. I mean, how stupid, right? Must’ve been an anti-Roman, totally secular plot, eh?

    Anti-Christian retards.

    • Agree: Gapeseed
    • Replies: @Robin Hood
  406. Seraphim says:
    @gregor

    All discussions about Paul are irrelevant if we don’t know what he was really preaching. Let’s see what he said and done, not what the Skrbinas and Guyenots believe he said and did:

    ”For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God… For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty” (1 Corinthians 1:17-18; 22-27).

    ” Brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. 12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:1-26).

    If Paul was the agent of the Jews to subvert the Roman Empire why did they want to kill him? And if he was the Romans agent to subvert Judaism, why did they kill him?

    • Agree: Gapeseed
  407. @RVBlake

    Absence of Historical Witnesses Non-Christian Testimony for Jesus? – From the authentic pen of lying Christian scribes ! Josephus (c37-100 AD)
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html#fourth

    Flavius Josephus is a highly respected and much-quoted Romano-Jewish historian. The early Christians were zealous readers of his work.

    A native of Judea, living in the 1st century AD, Josephus was actually governor of Galilee for a time (prior to the war of 70 AD) – the very province in which Jesus allegedly did his wonders. Though not born until 37 AD and therefore not a contemporary witness to any Jesus-character, Josephus at one point even lived in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle.

    [MORE]

    Josephus’s two major tomes are History of The Jewish War and The Antiquities of the Jews. In these complementary works, the former written in the 70s, the latter in the 90s AD, Josephus mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era.

    At face value, Josephus appears to be the answer to the Christian apologist’s dreams.

    In a single paragraph (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus confirms every salient aspect of the Christ-myth:

    1. Jesus’s existence 2. his ‘more than human’ status 3. his miracle working 4. his teaching 5. his ministry among the Jews and the Gentiles 6. his Messiahship 7. his condemnation by the Jewish priests 8. his sentence by Pilate 9. his death on the cross 10. the devotion of his followers 11. his resurrection on the 3rd day 12. his post-death appearance 13. his fulfillment of divine prophecy 14. the successful continuance of the Christians.

    In just 127 words Josephus confirms everything – now that is a miracle!

    BUT WAIT A MINUTE …

    Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.

    The third century Church ‘Father’ Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this ‘golden paragraph’ from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was “not believing in Jesus as the Christ.”

    Origen did not quote the ‘golden paragraph’ because this paragraph had not yet been written.

    It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen’s third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.

    Consider, also, the anomalies:

    1. How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?
    The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian!

    2. If Josephus really thought Jesus had been ‘the Christ’ surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in someone else’s (Pilate’s) story?

    In fact, Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed ‘Egyptian Jew’ messiah.

    It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, he adds nothing that is not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.

    3. The question of context.

    Antiquities 18 is primarily concerned with “all sorts of misfortunes” which befell the Jews during a period of thirty-two years (4-36 AD).

    Josephus begins with the unpopular taxation introduced by the Roman Governor Cyrenius in 6 AD. He presents a synopsis of the three established Jewish parties (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), but his real quarry is the “fourth sect of philosophy … which laid the foundation of our future miseries.” That was the sect of Judas the Galilean, “which before we were unacquainted withal.”

    At the very point we might expect a mention of “Christians” (if any such sect existed) we have instead castigation of tax rebels!

    “It was in Gessius Florus’s time [64-66] that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and made them revolt from the Romans; and these are the sects of Jewish philosophy.”

    “Nor can fear of death make them call any man Lord.” Sound a tad familiar?

    Chapter 2 notes the cities built to honour the Romans; the frequent changes in high priest (up to Caiaphas) and Roman procurators (up to Pontius Pilate); and also the turmoil in Parthia.

    Chapter 3, containing the Testimonium as paragraph three, is essentially about Pilate’s attempts to bring Jerusalem into the Roman system. With his first policy – placing Caesar’s ensigns in Jerusalem – Pilate was forced to back down by unexpected Jewish protests in Caesarea. With his second policy – providing Jerusalem with a new aqueduct built with funds sequestered from the Temple, Pilate made ready for Jewish protests. Concealed weapons on his soldiers caused much bloodshed.

    At this point the paragraph about Jesus is introduced!

    Immediately after, Josephus continues:

    “And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews …”

    There is no way that Josephus, who remained an orthodox Jew all his life and defended Judaism vociferously against Greek critics, would have thought that the execution of a messianic claimant was “another terrible misfortune” for the Jews. This is the hand of a Christian writer who himself considered the death of Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy (fitting in with his own notions of a stiff-necked race, rejected by God because they themselves had rejected the Son of God).

    With paragraph 3 removed from the text the chapter, in fact, reads better. The “aqueduct massacre” now justifies “another terrible misfortune.”

    4. The final assertion, that the Christians were “not extinct at this day,” confirms that the so-called Testimonium is a later interpolation. How much later we cannot say but there was no “tribe of Christians” during Josephus’ lifetime. Christianity under that moniker did not establish itself until the 2nd century. Outside of this single bogus paragraph, in all the extensive histories of Josephus there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere.

    5. The hyperbolic language is uncharacteristic of the historian:

    “… as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.”

    This is the stuff of Christian propaganda.

    6. The Testimonium is a rather short for a genuine digression in the narrative of Josephus (the material surely was deserving of more attention than it gets). But a copyist, working with scrolls of a fixed length, would have had little space to play with.

    REALITY CHECK

    In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Constantine.

    Bishop Eusebius, that great Church propagandist and self-confessed liar-for-god, was the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus, about the year 340 AD. This was after the Christians had become the custodians of religious correctness.

    Whole libraries of antiquity were torched by the Christians. Yet unlike the works of his Jewish contemporaries, the histories of Josephus survived. They survived because the Christian censors had a use for them. They planted evidence on Josephus, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ ! Finding no references to Jesus anywhere in Josephus’s genuine work, they interpolated a brief but all-embracing reference based purely on Christian belief.

    Do we need to look any further to identify Eusebius himself as the forger?

    Sanctioned by the imperial propagandist every Christian commentator for the next thirteen centuries accepted unquestioningly the entire Testimonium Flavianum, along with its declaration that Jesus “was the Messiah.”

    And even in the twenty first century scholars who should know better trot out a truncated version of the ‘golden paragraph’ in a scurrilous attempt to keep Josephus ‘on message.’

    Christian apologists, for their own convenience, blur the distinction between evidence of Jesus and evidence of Christians.

    It is rather as if a child who believed in the Tooth Fairy was to be presented as evidence that the Tooth Fairy really existed.

    The Usual Suspects

    There is no doubt that Christians existed, from the early years of the second century certainly, and – as heretical Jews and under diverse names – up to a generation earlier. Belief in a Messiah (a ‘Christ’ in Greek) was endemic among the Jews after all.

    But belief in a celestial Christ does not equate to belief in a flesh-and-blood ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ – and when the ‘heretical’ and ‘gnostic’ views of early Christians are examined ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ is noticeably absent. And to press the point, even a belief in a ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ does not make him a reality – it is only the belief that is a reality.

    None abashed, Christian apologists compound their suspect ‘logic’ by recruiting notable pagans as witnesses, writers who were doing their best to faithfully report on a suspect cult. And as ever in the history of Christianity, in the hands of its scribes, forgery augments what the ancient writers actually wrote, the better to bring unbelievers to the One True Faith.

    • Replies: @Gapeseed
  408. @Gapeseed

    Witness to Jesus? – Seneca and the Stoics

    At the same time Philo was laying the foundations of Christian theology in Alexandria, in Rome, another educated aristocrat, Seneca, was articulating the highly developed morality and ethics of Stoicism. The two philosophers may even have met: Seneca took a long sojourn in Alexandria in 31 AD.

    Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) was a prodigious writer. His legacy includes satires, tragedies, several books on natural phenomena, and at least 124 insightful letters (Epistulae morales). A dozen essays on philosophy include edifying tracts on the brevity of life, human destiny, clemency and virtue. In On Clemency, Seneca describes the prince who safeguards the lives of his subjects as “god like”. In On Tranquility of Mind, he urges a contentment gained from thrift rather than a ceaseless passion for wealth. A lost work De superstitione ridiculed popular conceptions of the gods.

    As it happens, the life of Seneca, like that of Philo, was contemporaneous with the “Jesus” of legend. Yet though Seneca wrote extensively on many subjects and people, nothing relating to “Jesus” ever caught his attention, nor does he show any awareness of a “vast multitude” of Christians, supposedly, punished for the fire that ravaged Rome in 64 AD.

    [MORE]

    Seneca had a privileged upbringing. Born in Cordoba, he was the son of a famous father, Marcus Annaeus Seneca (Seneca the Elder, 54 BC-39 AD), himself a prolific writer of legal commentary, history and philosophy. Both father and son were of the Stoic school.

    The younger Seneca was sent to Rome as a youth, where he studied philosophy and law. He became a successful politician, but fell into disfavour when Messalina, wife of Claudius, persuaded the emperor to have him banished to Corsica. The charge was adultery with Julia Livilla, a sister of Caligula, and a rival Messalina wanted out of the way. After eight years in exile, Seneca was recalled by Claudius’s second wife Agrippina and over the next several years he attained great influence as the tutor of the future emperor Nero. ….

    Bringing Seneca on Message

    The lack of any reference to Jesus Christ or Christians by Seneca was an embarrassment rectified during the 4th century by a forger familiar with Seneca’s letters to his life-long friend Lucilius. What emerged was a correspondence purporting to be friendly exchanges between the eminent Roman philosopher – at the height of his fame and political influence – and an unknown itinerant preacher we now call St Paul.

    The catalyst for the fabrications appear to have been remarks by Tertullian, in the early 3rd century. Tertullian, aware that Seneca had articulated sentiments suited to a “great moral teacher” referred to Seneca as “often our own.” By the time of Constantius II (337-361), Seneca had been taken captive by the Christians, his fidelity to the cause vouched for by a lively exchange of letters (in Latin!) with the Jewish Christian apostle. We are asked to believe that Seneca wrote eight letters to Paul and received six replies. As if.

    A forger’s sycophantic drivel

    “The tradition that Gallio sent some of St. Paul’s writings to his brother Seneca is utterly absurd; and indeed at this time (A.D. 54), St. Paul had written nothing except the two Epistles to the Thessalonians.”

    – Rev. F. W. Farrar.

    The pen of a 4th century fraudster has one of the richest, most powerful men in Rome wishing he could swap places with the unknown Jewish apostle from Tarsus! …

    Last Days of Stoicism

    Over the course of centuries, as Stoicism developed, it became less elitist and less “indifferent” to the caprice of fate. Its concern with human issues and morality gave it new life as a popular “religion”.

    The Stoics often found themselves at odds with imperial despots. Stoics of republican persuasion, notably Helvidius Priscus, were banished from Rome in 73 by Vespasian; and Domitian ejected all the philosophers from Italy in 89 (a “persecution” the Christian’s would claim as their own).

    In contrast, the enlightened monarchs of the 2nd century – Hadrian, Antoninus, and Marcus Aurelius – counted themselves among the philosophers and by the time of Aurelius, the gods had assumed a more positive role as helpers and assistants. Antinous, Isis, Serapis, Jupiter and Asclepius, would all habitually appear to devotees in dreams. St Paul’s apparition on the road to Damascus was nothing out of the ordinary.

    Yet Stoicism remained too fatalistic and too reliant upon self-discipline for a mass audience. Its ethical system was to be vulgarised by the Christians, who developed the mystical element of unseen spirits, “the Word” attendant on believers, assisting and guiding. The distinction between truth and falsehood – so vital to the Stoics – was dispensed with in order to focus more on what was perceived as “good” and “evil.”

    Stoicism began to lose its hold on the intelligentsia with the rise of neo-Platonism and Plotinus, yet within a century neo-Platonism itself succumbed to Christian totalitarianism. The Stoic “ideal man” now became a vision ascribed to Jewish prophecy and frozen into a bogus historicism: Jesus of Nazareth, the Stoic who never lived.

    • Replies: @Gapeseed
  409. Gapeseed says:
    @Robin Hood

    There is no way that Josephus, who remained an orthodox Jew all his life and defended Judaism vociferously against Greek critics, would have thought that the execution of a messianic claimant was “another terrible misfortune” for the Jews. This is the hand of a Christian writer who himself considered the death of Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy (fitting in with his own notions of a stiff-necked race, rejected by God because they themselves had rejected the Son of God).

    So you spent all this time arguing lack of historical records, and only now grudgingly admit that there are historical records of Jesus, only to fall back on the claim – offered on supposition and without proof – that these records were forgeries? Because Christians ruled the world in the time of Josephus and controlled all of his surviving manuscripts? Huh.

    I think you’re running out of fallback positions, Mr. Hood.

    • Replies: @Robin Hood
  410. @R.G. Camara

    The Jesus Parade is Always in Town – Christian ‘Apologetics’ – Fundamentally Flawed
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/circus.html

    Logical fallacies and semantic trickery are the very essence of Christian apologetics, exploiting a general ignorance of science and responding to the desire for quick-fix salvation and something easy on the brain cells. …

    3. The “Suffering Disciples” Argument

    This one really takes the biscuit. Our Apologist, aware that non-Christians also have beliefs, now inflates a fallacy, invented by a triumphant Church and perpetuated by Hollywood. “Would the disciples have suffered and died for a fabricated saviour?” (Lurid pictures of stoning, beheading, savage beasts).

    This audacious nonsense is destroyed utterly by two separate realities:

    1. People suffer and die all the time for erroneous causes.

    Did the 9/11 terrorists go straight to the Islamic paradise?

    Pagans died at the hands of Christians. Did this prove the existence of Isis and Dionysus?

    2. There is NO evidence at all for the existence of the Apostles and NO evidence for widespread suffering by Christians either – until, that is, the Christian Empire turned its ferocity upon the heretics.

    Paul, for example, nowhere refers to the execution of a single apostle, though that does nothing to diminish the often reiterated tall tale of Nero’s “torching” of Christians.

    Let’s not forget, in a single day in 1209 at Beziers in the Languedoc region of southern France, more Christians died at the hands of fellow Christians than in the entire twenty year reign of the ‘great persecutor’ Emperor Diocletian – graphic evidence of Christian rather than pagan savagery. One can kill for, and die for, religion with equanimity and people usually do.

    Religion-inspired death and murder proves nothing.

    Persecution – Holy Mother Church Invents Heroic Origins
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/persecutions.html

    • Troll: R.G. Camara
  411. @Robin Hood

    . There is NO evidence at all for the existence of the Apostles and NO evidence for widespread suffering by Christians either – until, that is, the Christian Empire turned its ferocity upon the heretics.

    lmao. Man, you anti-Christian, anti-Truth bigots really will lie bald-facedly to try to fool others—especially yourselves.

    Poor little low-IQ atheists—so angry that no one takes their wittle illogical debunked nonsense seriously.

  412. @Seraphim

    Wow.
    Nice ad hominem.
    Such a ‘good christian’. I doubt I am the only now inspired to seek baptism into brain-dead compliance and mindlessness!! Lol

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  413. @Gapeseed

    There are those who claim that people who debunk Christianity are “atheists” at the worst or “persons who miss the bigger picture” at best. Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

    Native American Spirituality
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Spirit

    “The Great Spirit is the concept of a life force, a Supreme Being or god known more specifically as Wakan Tanka in Lakota, Gitche Manitou in Algonquian, and by other, specific names in a number Native American and First Nations cultures. While the concept is common to a number of indigenous cultures in the United States and Canada, it is not shared by all cultures, or necessarily interpreted in the same way. According to Lakota activist Russell Means, a more semantically accurate translation of Wakan Tanka is the Great Mystery.” (Footnotes omitted.)”

    And let’s not overlook the gnostic version of Christianity which preceded the proto-orthodox and Catholic versions. Also remember that many of America’s Founding Fathers who were Deists. They were not atheists or persons who miss the bigger picture either.

    Yahweh – Jehovah – Brutal Jewish God of War
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/brutal.htm#killers

    All cultures have anthropomorphized their gods into humanoid (if sometimes grotesque) form. Were the Jews the exception? Hardly. We know precisely what the Hebrew god looked like. We are, after all, fashioned in his own likeness! “Yahweh”, in fact, is an abbreviation of the longer name, “Yahweh Sabaoth.” It means, “He who musters armies.” Thus Yahweh’s name identifies the god primarily as the military leader of the tribe. No wonder the God bequeathed to the world by the Jews turned out to be a monster.

    The Holy Bible: A Good Book? Savage Biblical Injustice
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/execution-1.html

    Biblical morality is archaic and savage. It reflects a barbarous, pitiless age and a tribal, slave-based society, a time when “elders” and priests ruled desperately primitive villages and nomadic or semi-nomadic clans. The Romans regarded Judaism as a primitive religion – and it was.

    The legacy scarcely improved when repackaged as Christianity, for all the nonsense talked about “love” and heroic self-sacrifice. Indeed, as political need presented itself, the Christians turned increasingly to the corpus of Judaism to justify every vicious act.

    The New Testament, with its skimpy biography of a humanoid god and eclectic collection of letters, meant the practitioners of Christ, raised up as “elders” and priests of a decaying world, drew heavily upon the Old Testament and its rich compendium of inhumanity and intolerance.

    Jesus Christ – The Neighbour from Hell
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/neighbour.html

    JC’s presence next door could prove useful at the barbeque (a few sardines and a couple of bagels will feed everyone). But be wary if you get ill – this guy thinks sickness is caused by demonic possession and we all know what happened in The Exorcist. JC-the-role-model does humanity no favours by discouraging critical thinking and promoting popular credulity. By encouraging belief in the irrational and the fantastic it leaves people – particularly the simple, the uneducated and the young – open to charlatans and con artists, as two thousand years of Christian history tragically illustrates.

    There are those who are reasonably intelligent and not totally or partially brainwashed or mind controlled that believe in God, a Great Spirit, a higher power, Divine Providence, or some bigger picture of the meaning of the universe who are speaking up to encourage others to reject the OT and NT Biblegod War Criminal. Having viewed a number of ad hominem attacks in this discussion stream over the last couple of weeks, the following quote comes to mind:

    “The number one cause of atheism is Christians. Those who proclaim Him with their mouths and deny Him with their actions is what an unbelieving world finds unbelievable.”― Karl Rahner

  414. @Robin Hood

    This is a widely reported and documented act of immense cruelty. As I understand it, over 200,000 were killed off in this Albigensian Persecution.

    I don’t know much about this period though, really only the basic geography and none of the theology.
    Care to enlighten us?

    • Replies: @Robin Hood
  415. @Gapeseed

    Fallback positions? Nonsense. Looks like to me that you either did not read the articles, or if you did you didn’t understand the assertions therein contained, or that you are purposely mischaracterizing what’s been said. No problem. Many of us understand where you are coming from.

    A Catalogue of Church mendacity – Lying for God – Copy and Glorify!
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm#florida

    ‘Clearly the Christians have used … myths … in fabricating the story of Jesus’ birth … It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction.’

    – Celsus (On The True Doctrine, c178 AD)

    Celsus was one of the foremost thinkers of his age. His critique of the Christians was so damaging that Christians destroyed every copy of his work they could find.

    ‘The forgery of pious documents of every imaginable character was among the most constant and zealous activities of the holy propagandists of the Christian Faith, from the beginning to the critical era when forgeries were no longer possible or profitable.’

    – Joseph Wheless (1930)

    Whether we look at the Middle Ages and the Reformation, the first centuries of the Christian era or even today, Christianity has always been a fabrication, layer set upon layer of lies and nonsense, a fraud from its very inception.

    • Replies: @Gapeseed
  416. Seraphim says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    One cannot but wonder that one who tries to project the image of a ‘scientist’ can dismiss the research done by STURP and of its conclusions and instead endorse the laughable ‘science’ of a lapsed Christians who bases his theories on apocryphal writings, misreadings and downright inventions of his own (like the physical description of Jesus by Josephus – but why to invoke it at all once you deny that Josephus ever talked about Jesus?). Anyhow Eisler admits that Josephus did talk about Jesus.

  417. Gapeseed says:
    @Robin Hood

    Really, to get back to the original point, just read St. Paul. You don’t have to believe his writings, but at the very least, you’ll see he was sincere, and you’ll save yourself a lot of time otherwise spent tilting at windmills and straining at gnats.

    Good luck and God bless.

  418. @anon

    So, what is your belief (system)?

    No belief, no system, just plain common sense (natural religion, if you will): Mind exists, precedes matter, and survives death.

  419. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    > “But then, as Dawkins says, “The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.” Making faith instead of reason the underpinning of Christianity was a stroke of genius…”

    Your latest comments here have been illuminating. I heard this argument voiced by Richard Carrier – the evangelists make the women testify to the resurrection precisely because they are women, and thus unbelievable! Viewing it as “too shameful to be a lie” misses the point of Christianity in its veneration of the opposite, of evil.

    For an idea to triumph, it must not necessarily be true. The same way a knife will end life without a knowledge of anatomy. Or at least, a maim is not an immediate kill, the animal can still go on for some time impaired and technically alive.

  420. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Thomasina

    > “By refusing to consider the learned opinions of scores of frontline doctors and experts in order to reach a consensus…”

    What amazes me about America is your total lack of a desire to please your Führer (whom you don’t have either, incidentally). My question is – how hard is it to wear a mask? And why would you oppose it at all? Why not turn it into a sacrifice that you make for the good of the race, the smallest of concessions? To make their Führer happy, naked Stalinists used to sweat in the hellish caves of Donbass once. What a degenerate individualist place Christian America is.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakhanovite_movement

    These workers took pride in their ability to produce more than was required, by working harder and more efficiently, thus strengthening the socialist state.

    • Replies: @Mark Weatherly
    , @Thomasina
  421. Seraphim says:
    @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    What was your trauma, I wonder? Same?

  422. kapoore says:

    There is a version of the conflict between Judaism and Christianity that is intuitively obvious but not much discussed. This is Margaret Barker’s theory that Christianity came from First Temple Judaism and Judaism from the Second Temple. King Josiah around 633 BC proposed radical reforms of the First Temple practice with the discovery of Deuteronomy texts in a construction project–probably planted texts. The “reformers” rampaged through the countryside destroying the high temples (reported in the bible). This “reform” movement created a diaspora of First Temple worshippers in Egypt and Arabia. After the Babylonian Captivity that did not involve most people in the countryside the small elite group took over the Jerusalem Temple and continued the rewriting of texts. So…. there is a very large group of First Temple people in Palestine, and an elite ruling group in Jerusalem. The Jesus movement had roots in the south where the “Queen of Heaven” was still worshipped. Essentially First and Second Temple had constituents and parallel traditions. The Hebrew Bible does not contain the Wisdom texts written in Egypt from diaspora believers. Protestants followed the Second Temple religion and Orthodox and Catholicism still contain First Temple. There is substantial evidence of this split in the texts, and archeology.

  423. The “12 Apostles” – Fabricated followers of a fabricated Saviour
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/apostles.html

    Where DID they get their ideas from?

    Joshua also chose Twelve

    [MORE]

    “The LORD spoke to Joshua, saying: ‘Take for yourselves twelve men from the people, one man from every tribe’ … Then Joshua called the twelve men whom he had appointed from the children of Israel, one man from every tribe.” – Joshua 4.1-4.

    The names ‘Jesus’ and ‘Joshua’ both derive from the Hebrew Yehoshua – an heroic name (‘Yahweh saves’) given to the supposed leader of the Israelites in their conquest of Canaan.

    The parallels don’t end there. Matthew’s Jesus promises his groupies that they will “sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” – Matthew 19.28. …

    The apostles should be twelve of the most famous people in history. We’re told they were hand picked by Jesus to witness his wondrous deeds, learn his sublime teachings, and take the good news of his kingdom to the ends of the earth.

    Which makes it all the more surprising that we know next to nothing about them. We can’t even be sure of their names: the gospels list a collection of more than twenty names for the so-called twelve disciples – with Bartholomew sometimes showing up as Nathanael, Matthew as Levi and Jude as Thaddeus, Lebbaeus, or Daddaeus!

    It should be apparent that if the twelve were actual historical figures, with such an important role in the foundation and growth of the Church, it would be impossible to have such wild confusion over the basic question of who they really were.

    But what do we know about any of them?

    “Twelve Good Men and True”?

    The fact is that for seven of the twelve, our only early source, the Gospels, say nothing about them at all. They are just names on a list.

    Isn’t it a tad odd that such worthies, infused with the Holy Spirit and given powers to heal the sick and cast out demons, wrote nothing, or had nothing written for them or about them? Isn’t it odd that men chosen to be eye-witnesses to the mighty deeds of Jesus, wrote no eye-witness statements, left no sermons, no memoirs, no letters, no teachings, no pithy words of encouragement?

    All that we have about “the twelve” are conflicting legends and fantastic stories from a much later date, tall stories about where they went, what they did and most especially how they died. Their deaths, it seems, have been recorded in loving and lurid detail. And it is the graphic deaths of the disciples that solves the riddle. We’ve all heard the apologetic claim: “Would they have died for a lie? Therefore the story of Jesus must be true.”

    But we all know how useful to a cause is a dead martyr, even if he’s a fiction. In the case of Jesus, the twelve are a fiction, a necessary entourage for a sun god, passing through the twelve constellations of the zodiac. Just like other saviour gods, Jesus had to have his retinue.

    The truth is, the twelve disciples are a grubby and sordid invention. …

    The 12 become the 7 – sort of

    In Acts of the Apostles the eleven disciples, ordered by the risen Jesus to wait in Jerusalem for power from the Holy Spirit, drew lots to replace the hapless Judas Iscariot. They chose Matthias over Barsabas Justus and thus restored the magic circle. The wording used by Acts is curious: ” one must be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” At this stage “twelve” still has a divine or mystical importance.

    But after a Peter-led interlude (sermonizing at Pentecost, first miracles, arrest and re-arrest, etc.) “the Twelve” have outlived their usefulness. The cover story is that the apostles do not wish to “serve tables” (no kidding, Acts 6.2) or minister to “Grecian widows” – they want to get on with prayer and ministry. They direct that seven men, full of the Holy Ghost, be appointed to the more mundane business of welfare.

    What undermines the “authenticity” of this story is that from this point on the original (Jewish) disciples, now free to minister, almost disappear from the story. Instead, it is the “Hellenist” new guys, supposedly appointed for welfare work, who steal the limelight.

    Primacy goes to Stephen, who gives one big speech and becomes the first martyr, followed by Philip (not to be confused with the disciple of the same name) who works wonders in Samaria in competition with Simon Magus. Philip also converts the treasurer of Ethiopia and even “vanishes” from Gaza to reappear twenty five miles away in Azotus (Ashdod), courtesy of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8.39)! He obviously did not spend much time waiting on tables. Twenty-odd years later Philip is in Caesarea, where, as the father of four virgin soothsayers, he hosts the apostle Paul.

    The other Hellenists – Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas – are never mentioned again. Like most of the named apostles, they merely make up the number. By this stage Acts has become wholly preoccupied with a yarn about the adventures of Paul. As for the original witnesses chosen by Jesus – “fishers of men” divinely ordained to take the good news “to the uttermost ends of the earth” – they have faded into oblivion.

    Church of the Shadows

    After the “deaths” of the Apostles, even Church historians offer no great missionary figures (they make a weak attempt with Ignatius). The gap of more than two centuries is filled with an anonymous church of the shadows.

    Retrospectively, the void was filled with “suffering Christians” – a fallacy, invented by a triumphant Church for its own greater glory, elaborated at length by the feverish minds of medieval churchmen and perpetuated in our own time by the studios of Hollywood.

    Propagandists would concoct a fanciful story in which the ‘blood of the martyrs became the seed of the church’; they would tell of a continuous progress, first in secret then openly, by which brave, pious, humble, and noble followers of Christ, faced up both raging lions and sadistic emperors. By their submission to suffering with a divinely inspired countenance, these pioneers of Christianity – apparently – won first the respect and then the heart of a dark and cruel pagan world.

    Who Persecuted Whom?

    Across three centuries, a handful of Christian “martyrs” can be cited from a few locations. Their number, far from substantiating any general or sustained persecution of the early Christians, is no more than we would expect of a fraternity that, by the time of Constantine’s coup, amounted to some tens of thousands and was drawn disproportionately from criminal and marginal classes. The general persecution of Christians occurred only when the Christian Empire turned its ferocity upon the heretics.

    The Roman Empire had lasted more than a thousand years and persecuted Christians for fewer than twelve of them. The ‘Christian Empire’ also lasted more than a thousand years and persecuted non-Christians through all of them.

    Persecution – Holy Mother Church Invents Heroic Origins
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/persecutions.html

  424. They Should Have Known
    https://www.frank-zindler.com/religions-essays.html

    John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived:

    [MORE]

    Josephus
    Arrian
    Suetonius
    Plutarch
    Apollonius
    Hermogones
    Appian
    Lucian
    Aulus Gellius
    Damis
    Appion of Alexandria
    Philo-Judaeus
    Petronius
    Juvenal
    Pliny the Younger
    Quintilian
    Silius Italicus
    Phlegon
    Pausanias
    Dio Chrysostom
    Favorinus
    Seneca
    Dion Pruseus
    Martial
    Tacitus
    Lucanus
    Statius
    Phaedrus
    Florus Lucius
    Columella
    Lysias
    Theon of Smyrna
    Pliny the Elder
    Paterculus
    Persius
    Justus of Tiberius
    Epictetus
    Ptolemy
    Valerius Maximus
    Quintius Curtius
    Valerius Flaccus
    Pomponius Mela

    Accordingto Remsburg, “Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.” Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles—increas­ing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the founda­tion of Christianity.

    Absence of Historical Witnesses – Non-Christian Testimony for Jesus? – From the authentic pen of lying Christian scribes ! https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

  425. @Laurent Guyénot

    Thanks again, Laurent, excellent discussion. I’m happy that you find my thesis plausible/obvious. In quick reply to some of your questions:

    * If both Matthew and Luke used a prior “Q” source, that does not materially change my thesis. If Q was roughly contemporaneous with Mark, then we have those two documents as the supplements to Paul (who was evidently unaware of Mark, Q, or any canonical Gospel). Q would have been as fraudulent as Mark.

    * Yes, I speak of “Mark”, “Luke” etc as single individuals, but this is for simplification purposes only. Again, it does not significantly alter the hoax thesis if they were two or more Jewish individuals.

    * Paul’s quarrels with the Pharisees was likely over strategy: they could not countenance a flesh-and-blood Jewish Messiah, or even a lie about one. But Paul could, if he thought it would bring greater gains to “Israel.”

    * Yes, it doesn’t matter if Paul’s Jesus was real or mythic; he was still trying to convert Gentiles to the Jewish, anti-Roman God. And that’s the essential point.

    * Regarding the afterlife: Yes, Romans, pagans and others already had ideas of an afterlife. (Jews did not, however). But Paul’s innovation — to the best of my knowledge — was to conceive of a “good” and eternal afterlife (heaven) for the believers, and a “bad” and eternal afterlife (hell) for the skeptics. This was a true Pauline invention, I believe, intended to maximize the “carrot and stick” approach that he used on the masses. Or do you know otherwise?

    And I couldn’t agree more on the need to “start to consider this [thesis] seriously”. Feel free to contact me if you have any ideas for collaboration.

  426. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    The advent and flourishing of science and technology was largely, though not entirely, unrelated to Christianity. It is truer to say that they flourished in spite of, rather than due to, Christianity. I don’t know what TK would think of this.

  427. @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    Good morning ! I have no particular expertise concerning this particular persecution. But I was able to find the following items which appear to be good starting places for further research:

    Albigensian Crusade
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

    I have reservations about Wikipedia. Some of their articles are propaganda pieces. Others are good. Based only on what little I do know, this particular article looks O.K. as a starting place.

    The Southern French Nobility and the Albigensian Crusade
    By Elaine Graham-Leigh
    https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B5%20%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8B/%D0%9A%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8/ENG/Graham-Leigh%20E.%20-%20The%20Southern%20French%20Nobility%20and%20the%20Albigensian%20Crusade.pdf

  428. Gapeseed says:
    @Robin Hood

    Ah, progress! You are referencing an early writer in Celsus who, while anti-Christian, seems to at least acknowledge Christ existed by trafficking in ridicule of Him and His followers. Another fallback position.

    You ought to at least acknowledge that Celsus was a part of an early debate and jostling between pagans, Jews, and Christians, and his position in elite pagan culture made his critiques convenient for his place in this circle, one which looked down upon this despised minority of early Christians. Contrast that with Christian martyrs, who believed at great peril and paid for their beliefs in blood.

    But again, do yourself a favor and read St. Paul, another martyr. All these Christians had literal skin in the game and put themselves at great risk. What, exactly, did your Pagan champions risk?

  429. @C.T.

    Given some 13th-century datings for the shroud, perhaps the shroud is a manufactured image of the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus Comenus, who was torture-murdered, arguably crucified upside down, in 1185 CE. His biographers wrote that the body could still be viewed in reasonably good shape for a number of years after his death. Andronicus was tall, received injury to the left eye and the right wrist, and sported a beard parted in two as in some images of Christ.

    Nothing in the encyclopedia articles on Andronicus suggest that Andronicus was a late-date source of the gospel stories (which, rightly or wrongly, most people believe are much older) – he is portrayed as a rather dark individual capable of great cruelty and also attraction to many women – but the encyclopedia articles leave a lot out.

    The encyclopedias do describe how Andronicus and his army were welcomed into the capital of Byzantium in 1182 CE, at a time when financial corruption nearly led to a famine. He obtained the cooperation of the Angelo family, to which he was related, and was credited, even by his enemies, with cleaning up a great deal of corruption and at least temporarily restoring prosperity, though at great cost to the wealthy elites. After 3 years, the elites, led by the Angelos themselves, revolted against his zealous prosecutions and murdered him.

    However, the encyclopedia articles do not inform us that during his days of torture, Andronicus was said to have never once cursed his tormentors, asking instead, “If the reed is already bent, why do you beat it?”. When mounted backward on a camel and paraded through streets where people poked at his wounds with vinegar-soaked rags mounted on sticks, Andronicus responded with “Peace be with you,” according to his enemies. This extraordinary behavior, particularly in someone who fought against the financial elites of his day, would be considered Christ-like by some, but we don’t learn about it in history classes. Why is this?

    Then, there’s the issue of the star that biographers associated with Andronicus. Did a new star appear in the sky at the time of his birth? Although most astronomers believe the Crab Supernova first became visible in the sky during the mid-11th century, based upon Jesuit-compiled records, other astronomers have back-calculated the date of the explosion from photographs taken over the last hundred years and propose that the star became visible in the mid-12th century.

  430. Journeys with an Apostle – First Mission. Paul in Cyprus and Galatia – Real or Imagined?
    https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/apostle.htm

    Did Saint Paul, native of Tarsus and Roman citizen as he claimed, really make the journeys ascribed to him – or are they just a frame upon which to hang his seminal epistles? Did this erstwhile Rabbi Saul, student of Gamaliel and Pharisaic Jew, really sally forth over sea and mountain – or could the story of his travels have been concocted precisely to framework missives of orthodoxy aimed at recalcitrant synagogues of the Jewish diaspora? A century of archaeology appears to confirm a few circumstantial details mentioned in his letters and yet the biblical account gives one cause to wonder.

    Reality Check

    [MORE]

    “Paul’s first missionary journey under the auspices of Antioch is narrated only by Luke … A close analysis of this account brings to light so many improbabilities that it becomes impossible to accord it any real confidence.”

    – Murphy O’Connor, Paul, His Story, p44.

    In reality, the Cyprian story falls apart for a number of reasons, not least because the Governor’s palace, even today, is a visible celebration of a vibrant paganism, spanning centuries of Roman occupation. The huge palace complex, measuring 120 x 90 metres, includes the normal panoply of public and state rooms, gardens and bath houses. Exquisite mosaic floors feature the major Roman-Hellenic gods – and all without a Christian icon in sight! Ancient Paphos had its theatre, agora and even Asklepion, the shrine-cum-hospital of the ever-popular healing god Asclepius, until his overthrow by Jesus. We might also reasonably suspect a fraudster’s work because of a curious similarity (yet again) between the work of “Luke” (the purported author of Acts) and the history of Josephus written in the 90s. …

    Postscript: Fraudulent in tooth and claw

    Later accretions to the story of the apostolic mission allow us to better appreciate just how the Christian fabrication factory works. In the real world, fierce rivalry between ambitious clerics was the surest spur to the miraculous.

    In the 4th century, Salamis, on the eastern end of the island of Cyprus, gained a new sycophantic name, Constantia, in honour of the pious if stupid emperor Constantius II (337-361). The renamed city was the stomping ground of the patriarch Epiphanius, who spearheaded the destruction of pagan shrines which had existed for a thousand years.

    For nearly forty years (until 403) Epiphanius exerted his authoritarian influence across the eastern Mediterranean, seeking to control the affairs of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Strictly speaking his own see was actually subordinate to that of Antioch but Epiphanius’s answer was to promote the local hero St Barnabas (Agios Varnavas) as “founder of the Church” (his church) in Cyprus, often pushing Barnabas ahead of Paul in the apostolic pecking order. Naturally, Barnabas, the Cypriot Jew, was accorded a suitable “martyr’s death”. The 5th century “Acts of Barnabas” records that it was Jews led by Bar-Jesus of Paphos – enraged by the saint’s condemnation of “naked racing”, idol festivals in the theatre, and libations in the temples (boy are we talking sin) – who seized, throttled and “burned to dust” poor old Barnabas.

    Antioch lost control of Cyprus at the Council of Ephesus in 431 but in 488 Peter the Fuller, the ruthlessly ambitious Patriarch of Antioch, revived the claim. The then Archbishop of Constantia, Anthemios, met the challenge with a dream, which it seems led him to an hitherto unknown tomb of Barnabas where he found nothing less than the original edition of Matthew’s Gospel! Presented to the credulous Emperor Zeno (474-491), the Cypriot Patriarchy gained in return imperial privileges, that is, total authority over its own bailiwick. Theocracy now reigned in the island of love. Ever after, the boss of bosses, His Beatitude the Archbishop, has flaunted the sceptre rather than a pastoral staff, worn a pretty purple mantle and used red ink in official decrees. ….

    Sources:

    Hermann Detering, The Falsified Paul, Early Christianity in the Twilight (Journal of Higher Criticism, 2003)
    A. N. Wilson, Paul, The Mind of the Apostle (Sinclair-Stevenson, 1997)
    John Ziesler, Pauline Christianity (Oxford, 1990)
    Edward Stourton, In the