Information for thankful

[- AUB -]

Hi, I just wanted to have a word about a post you put up. I'm researching the gospels right now and my findings prompted me to respond.

 

I can't speak for all ex-Christians but studying for myself brought me to the belief that Paul was a hack and totally against the teachings of Christ. On my deconversion Paul was one of the first fallacies that I rid myself of. Paul was a liar, if there ever was such a person.

 

May I ask what you studied? As all research I have done indicates that Paul is the only apostle we can say existed, as at least we have some of his writings, whereas Jesus was definitely a fiction, and had no “teachings”. (You may be referring to later gospels embellishments stolen from rabbinical and philosophical teachings) Paul never mentions any of Jesus’s “teachings”, (or miracles for that matter) which if jesus had existed would make Paul a very dubious follower indeed, but as the pre-Paul history (0-35 AD) was a post-Paul fake (74-160?AD) that’s not the conclusion we can reach, Paul was not a follower of Jesus, but Jesus was an invention of Paul, or at least got to record his ramblings on him first.

 

It seems you have your data a little muddled, understandable as very few seem to grasp the correct order of events, and stick to the official chronology, even after de-conversion. The New Testament in no way presents either the epistles or the gospels in the right order, and so portrays a misleading view of the basis for the faith. Paul's writings where the earliest ever written by any "Christian" as we understand the term, no other works are either that early or even correctly attributed.

 

The rest are Pseudopigraphical, written in response to contemporary political/theological problems and attributed to earlier mythical figures to give them “authority” a very common practice at that time, for e.g. the later Pauline epistles where 2nd century fakes done to counter Gnostic claims as the earlier vague Pauline material could be used by Gnostics as proof of a “spiritual” Jesus The same applies to the Gospel of John, both written about 130-160 AD, whereas the earlier Mathew was written to pander to the messianic movements of 74-132 AD, and Luke to the emerging gentile market of 134-160AD, whereas all the Petrine epistles where Roman fakes (130-210AD, even the church admits they’re fake now) done so has to have their “resident patron saint” outshine Paul as supreme apostle when originally he was but a minor rival preacher, who was lucky to get even a mention in the gospels (also added for the church’s sake). He needed to be “promoted” after the Roman See chose to “find” his grave in Rome, so a flashy “history” was needed to impress other churches, so they faked a load of adventures, same as was done for Jesus after Paul’s cult got established.

 

Same pattern, false attribution, too late to be genuine and full of contemporary references and agendas, only the real late ones where too obviously fake to make the N.T., the difference being a generation too fake to make the compilation of fakes. “1st hand testimonies” lying unknown for 130 years before being “discovered” maybe, but not 230. Check the times the gospels and epistles appear, you’ll see what I mean, a lack of evidence for Jesus is one thing but the accounts appearing decades after the writers died is another. They must have though they’d get away with it after Mark was introduced and nobody thought it was suspicious this incredible account wasn’t announced till long after Paul’s death, let alone Mark’s, so they thought they’d really risk it by writing a later gospel accredited to an earlier disciple (Mathew), and as that worked they got really brave with John having the only definite accreditation to a 1st century character, even though it was around 150-200 AD, they must have been laughing their asses off. No wonder “Jesus” taught them to be like children, credulous and easily led.

 

Jesus was a salvation figure 1st then a Jewish teacher; hence the lack of information Paul gives us on any “historical” details. The gospels are much later frauds, written by anonymous and obscure plagiarists, for political and doctrinal purposes, each for their own individual agenda, and where designed to serve as "prequels" to Paul’s risen savour, to produce a historical background when a narrative adventure was the most popular way to introduce a cult of personality. As Jesus was nothing more than a vague name and concept in Paul's epistles, (unlike actual historical cult figures like Apolonius or John the Baptist), a specific time and place was needed to flesh him out, built around the necessary motifs of "death by Jew/s", burial, resurrection and assention to heaven, in presumably a Judean setting. These are the only elements not contradicted by any of the 4 gospels, (though the resurrection was excluded in mark) and xtians take confront in the doctrinal harmony, when the “historical” details are shown to be bunk, (“well at least they agree that there was a crucifixion” etc.) because as with Paul, doctrine is still more important than historicity, xtians would still worship him even without a “historical” background, just as they did originally.

 

With a personality cult, the fixation and doctrine is always more important than the facts, his ability to “save” you is the single most important factor, his teaching and miracles a distance second. Some now prefer the “historical” Jesus thinking him more believable or reasonable (ignoring all “his” worse moments) not realising that he’s just a prop for the “saved” and irrelevant without any doctrines to support. His “teachings” are just the opinions of 2nd century bishops who are suspiciously silent in this era as they save all their polemics for Jesus’s mouth. Those liberal xtians who see him as a teacher are just worshipping a load of rhetoric given to a myth to say, the “historical” Jesus is as much an article of faith as the Godman, as both where created for the credulous to worship, the “historical” was just an optional appendage, never separate or more real. To take his historicity for granted is as ignorant as those who take his divinity as “gospel”.

 

 

Although Paul was a charlatan, and maybe even a liar, (unless he really believed what he was peddling) he could not be regarded as a "hack" has his work was largely polemical and rhetoric, original and personal thoughts and opinions, and although his concept of messiah was an amalgam of various pagan and essene cults, it was quite originally presented. The term "hack" best suites the gospel writers, who didn’t just write their own opinions, but needed to “borrow” vast amounts of detail from Jospehus as they lacked any knowledge of 1st century Judea or Jewish customs. They even “adapted” some of Joe’s accounts and made them into (very bad) parables and (racist) miracles so hard up where they for narrative ideas, now if that isn’t hackery what is? Saint “ two donkeys” Mathew ripped of the O.T. miss-quoting and translated when it suited him, and did such a bad job of it that he clearly was no more Jewish than the rest of them. They even ripped off pagan philosophy, the original words being better.

 

For e.g. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god.” Is taken from Plato’s “It is impossible for an exceptionally good man to be exceptionally rich.” Which makes “jesus’s” line look ridiculously unsophisticated.

 

The shear degree of plagiarism and stupid errors in the gospels not only disproves a historical Jesus but show the earlier Christian scribes to have been of very poor quality. A truly intellectually (and honesty) impoverished religion, so not much has changed. Compared to Judaism, or even Islam at it’s height, xtianity really is the village idiot of monotheism, and the fact that so many are fooled by this junk just shows how endemic it is.

 

Regardless, all three religions...Judaism,Christianity and Islam worship an evil deity that will torture "sinners"

 

No, Judaism, lacks a hell, and all the other doctrines that are so immoral, they’ve learnt from the evils of the other two and have become much wiser and moral as a result, far removed from the barbaric O.T.

 

I'll never forget the Israelite atrocities,

 

The only point in their defence is at least they atrocities never happened, but served to justify those commited by xtians.

 

 

Christian atrocities,

 

How anyone could join a cult with such a history is beyond me. Being ignorant of it’s history is a poor excuse, as those who try to rationalise it away show their immorality.

 

nor 9/11 all three "holy books" allow for terrible cruelty to those who don't accept the god of abraham.

 

True, and even those who do, if they don’t to it “right”.

 

Here’s some sources.

 

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/3678/

 

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg00.htm#CONTENTS

 

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

 

Any questions?

[- AUB -]

He most certainly too could be considered a hack. Paul cut scriptures in several areas, omitting portions to make his message appear true. http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/law_stands.htm So in my opinion, he fits the definition of hack perfectly. Perhaps in yours, he doesn't.

 

He can be hackish in a theological sense; I tend to reserve the term for the gospel writers, as their plagiarism was so severe, and transparent. As to the site you gave, its interesting but myopic, clearly a pix n’ mix bunch, they use entirely internal biblical analysis to determine which bits are true or not, without any study of contemporary work or the historical context. So many theists fall into the trap of forgetting to look outside the bible, and use quotes to support their position, ignoring the bits they don’t like, all denominations do this and its dishonest. They also of course appear to take for granted the “historical” Jesus as if the gospels where anymore reliable than Paul’s stuff, special pleading is being used, as the criticisms they level on Paul could apply to the gospels 10 fold. They simply decide they prefer the gospel Jesus to the epistles polemics, (like many liberal xtians) and attack Paul, ignorant of the fact that he’s the origin for the whole thing, and the gospels are even less reliable, (written later and anonymously, and by idiots)

 

I refer you to another post on the same topic.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=1023&st=40#

 

Also your site is one of those back door xtain groups trying to con Jews, I find them despicable as converting anyone let alone those of a superior religion always involves dishonesty. Their double talk is just a way to get Jews to except Jesus as their savour by cutting out all the N.T. bits that make it impossible for them to do so and remain true to their faith. They fail, as there are still many central reasons why their doctrine is un-jewish nonsense. Even if their fallacial junk was theologically valid, they still base it on total faith in the gospels, which neither I nor any Jew can except, so they’re wasting their breath. As I’ve stated, the gospels are easier to debunk than any other part of the bible. They even try to use the Turin shroud for funks sake!

 

However, the God of all three religions is a torturer in their books, whether short or long term doesn't matter.

 

It would if you had to endure it. True, god is a monster whatever religion you use, but at least in Judaism their “hell” is only a temporary purification, they’d never believe anything as barbaric as xtains do, as by the time they came up with these “other realms”, they’d moved beyond the O.T. crudity. Seriously Jewish doctrine as nothing really wrong with it, if it did I’d have pointed it out long ago. You cannot judge them by the O.T. whose rules and barbaric actions they never followed anyway, they evolved, xtainity on the other hand went the other way, keeping the previous barbarity and adding a load more to their own, with conditional salvation, original sin, martyers, etc.

 

P.S. These Messianic pseudo-Jewish sites are just xtians trying to convert those fed up with xtianity by admitting its mostly bull, feeding of the carcass of other denominations to further their own. Desperate stuff, I’d get your data from proper Jewish sites.

 

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/

 

http://www.messiahtruth.com/

 

Why are they so determined to convert Jews? Even those who are aware of the false claims and bloody history? “All those xtains are evil, but were OK, come worship Jesus!” Desperate Desperate Desperate.

[- AUB -]

Thankful

 

Yes these messianic groups are very distasteful, I’ve been fighting them for years, (for the sake of Jews, and the truth) they fool a lot of people, as they appear to be making reasonable statements, but it’s just the same old proselytising, just a different tactic.

 

I'm glad you like Remsburg's Christ, it's a masterpiece, and the most thorough dissection of the gospels I've come across. It can be a little dry as he lists all the errors, but be patient, and you'll see the big picture he is painting. Everything he writes I have been able to confirm, the case for a mythical Jesus gets ever stronger the more we learn. Your point about keeping believers away from any extra-biblical facts is well put, that’s why they banned reading and writing, and only had the priests read from their bible for centuries, (I used to thing the lack of evidence was due to the time period, until I found out about the book burnings.) So much of xtain history is a total fabrication, that unlearning it all is quite a challenge. Just research is all I can say, there’s some great books out there, at Prometheus books, and available for free at Internet infidels, try to get some Joseph McCabe, I’ve some rare (out of print) volumes that list some incredible historical facts, I just hope newer authors take up the banner of reason.

 

Of all the things I’ve discovered about xtianity the degree to which they prevent their members from seeking knowledge is the most horrifying, they just believe all the propaganda uncritically and do no research for themselves. Many times I and others here have resorted to given theists lessons in every thing from science, to logic and history, as its not so much their faith as their ignorance that is the biggest obstacle to reality. This is about the objective who have and seek knowledge, and the subjective who believe what they want and have to twist or ignore all the facts.

 

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

 

Is what I'm currently going through.

 

http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/index.html

 

Have some great articles, very similar to mine.

 

The issue of biblical falsehood is a recent one for me, as I usually oppose religions and ideologies like xtianity on moral or rational grounds, finding anything conclusive on the N.T. is difficult as so much history is either destroyed or re-written, or simply made up. It'll take a very long time to sift through it all, but I feel it needs to be done, not knowing the truth drives me nuts, but at least I can say for certain what isn’t' true, and that’s the first step.