Jump to content

Christian = Pagan


The Paineful Truth
 Share

Recommended Posts

Let me preface this with a small defense of Jesus. He had nothing to do with what we call Christianity. He was a Jew (which has its own faults) but what we call Christianity today is nothing more than Paulism. In fact, Jesus was probably trying to fight the corruption by the Temple priesthood, for which they turned him over to the Romans for sedition.

 

Paul, in order to sell whatever Jesus had originally stood for to the Gentiles, dumped the Jewish messianic movement that succeeded Jesus and gave it all the trappings that would appeal to Gentile pagans. He came up with the divinity of Christ, that Jesus had arisen from the dead, (probably that) he was born of a virgin, and the absurd idea that Jesus (or even God) could die for our sins. Repentance and restitution is the only way to right a wrong--as much as that is possible (re: Jesus' partner, John the Baptist, and his primary message of repentance).

 

At the end of Revelation, Jesus is made to say that he is the Bright Morning Star. It just so happens that the Jewish word for Morning Star is Lucifer, the fallen angel, used in Isaiah as an epithet against the King of Babylon.

 

But the real kicker, instituted by Paul, was the rite of the Last Supper (the name of which was changed later by the early church fathers to the Eucharist because of the former's commonly understood, at the time, pagan associations.) Eating human flesh, and drinking blood of anykind, symbolically or otherwise, would have been blasphemy to the Jews--and Jesus was, if anything, an ascetic Jew. Why did Paul need to receive the revelation from Jesus in I Corinthians to establish the rite, if it had already been started by Jesus when he was alive, and subsequently observed by the early "Christians"?

 

Whatever the early Jerusalem followers of Jesus believed was morphed by Paul in to what we know now as Christianity, in order to pander to pagan, even Satanic, tastes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read this in a book?

 

Persoanly, I think if Jesus did exist, and that's a big if, he was an Essene.

 

Yes, Paul put his stamp of Hellenism on Chrsitianity, but his were the books that were put in the cannon by people who decided they wanted Christianity to be a certain way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Paul put his stamp of Hellenism on Chrsitianity, but his were the books that were put in the cannon by people who decided they wanted Christianity to be a certain way.

 

It was more than that. He went head to head personally with James and the early Jerusalem Chruch. I think its fair to say that many of the original followers of Jesus hated Paul for how he was misrepresenting their sect. It's almost certain that the "Asian Jews" were a Christian group an the ones who tried to kill him at the Temple (Acts 21).

 

But no matter what else it might look like, there is still that major tell, the Last Supper, the pagan aspects of which can be laid directly at his feet.

 

 

Persoanly, I think if Jesus did exist, and that's a big if, he was an Essene.

 

I think the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming for his existence, and it's pretty good that something happened to his body--probably secreted out of the tomb if was ever but in in the first place.

 

I personally believe that "James the son of Joseph and brother of James" ossuary (bone box) is authentic and refers to them. Israel's fear of the private trade in ancient artifacts was at least one of the reasons the Israel Antiquities Authority dismissed it with poor science that contradicted even the original Israeli tests by another Israeli agency that indicated it was genuine as did many outside examinations.

 

I believe most scholars believe James and the early Jerusalem Church, and thus Jesus & John the Baptist, were Nazarene or Ebionite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that circumstancial evidence points to Jesus existing as much as it points to him never existing.

 

Are you aware that some of the books in the NT by Paul may be forgeries. It was common for someone to write a letter and put someone elses name on it, in order to propagate their stance. For instance the book of Titus is a considered a forgery.

 

The other problem is that we don't have any of the origianals. We have copies of copies of copies through the centuries. They were first copied by the few people who could read in an illiterate society, and then later by trained scribes who sometimes changed the texts.

 

It wasn't just the ossuary that was deemed to be fake. There were many, many, many other artifacts that were in the possession of the Isreali antiquities collector (I forget his name) including the ossurary that were proven to be fakes. Including a tablet that was supposedly from the temple of Solomen, which Isreal and all of Judaism would have been celebrated if it were indeed the real thing. There were so many fakes that they now have to consider all artifacts not in the possession of a museum before this person started dealing in artifacts to be fakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best I can say is that I've been watching the James Ossuary story since it first broke in Biblical Archaeologyh Review. They post updates on it on their website, but the only way to get a complete picture is to read the back issues that cover the subject--and there've been many since the original Nov/Dec 2002 issue.

 

As for the books of Paul being forgeries, that would be the best news possible for undermining today's Paulism. He's quoted 3-1 (my guess) over Jesus in Christian sermons every Sunday. Even if Paul himself was a fiction, what was created in his name is just as evil as if he existed. But I'm afraid there's too much evidence that he did actually exist, as with James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the evidence? Everyone keeps speaking of evidence for Jesus, Paul, etc to have existed..where the fuck is the evidence??

 

Lizard,

 

There isn't any evidence, none, zip, zero. What I think of as circumstancial evidence is that even secular Bblical Historians believe that Jesus did exist as a man, nothing more. I think if he did exist than any evidence of who and what he really was may have been destroyed in 70 AD when Jerusalem was razed in the first of the Jewish wars. I'm not conviced he existed or did not exist either way, and there is no way of knowing for sure.

 

TPT,

 

I am not familiar with Biblical Archeology Today. Although, even if it isn't a Christian publication than it will most certainly have Christian subscribers. I have seen and read even the History Channel and National Geographic make things ambiguous concerning Christianity. They don't exactly lie, but they present opinoins and case scenerio's that support Christianity as to not offend them and ensure their continued patronization.

 

The book on my wish list is, Jesus, Paul, and Mary (Magdaline) by Bart D. Ehrman. Any book by Ehrman is a great read. He's an ex-Christian who deconverted in the course of becoming a Biblical Scholar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not familiar with Biblical Archeology Today. Although, even if it isn't a Christian publication than it will most certainly have Christian subscribers.

 

It's Biblical Archaeology Review. Yes, there are Christian readers and many Christian advertisements, but articles are by scholars, many Jewish, as is the editor, a man of considerable integrity that I've observed over the 25 years I've subscribed to it. He was instrumental in overcoming the opposition of fearful Christians and Jews to break the Dead Sea Scrolls out of the publication deadlock they were in in the early '90's. Many readers, such as my agnostic/deist self, are not Christians, and the regular letters to the editor from Christians canceling their subscriptions is excellent testimony that it doesn't pander to a Christian viewpoint.

 

Most people view the ossuary as possible evidence for the historical Jesus (which it would be), but some think it means verification of the supernatural aspects of Jesus (which it would not). In fact it emphasizes the historical aspect of James which will only expose Paul for the demagogue he was and the myth he manufactured. We have nothing to fear from the historical Jesus but the Truth of that history. If we fear the Truth, we create lies to avoid it--a pretty good analogy for how most religion corrupts.

 

For what it's worth, I believe it is authentic, leaving only the question of whether the inscription names the Biblical James, Jesus and Joseph in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

For what it's worth, I believe it is authentic, leaving only the question of whether the inscription names the Biblical James, Jesus and Joseph in particular.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the name jesus (Yeshua), James, and Joseph VERY common names in the first century? Isn't this "debate" much like people 2000 years from now finding a headstone with the name John Smith, son of Bob Smith, and brother of Joe Smith on it, and trying to tie it to some mythical figure who happened to have the same name? How many John, Bob, and Joe Smiths are out there today? How many Yeshua, Joseph, and James were out there 2000 years ago?

 

Even if authentic, it proves nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's Biblical Archaeology Review.

Yep, the old Heimdall has a subscription to the BAR...If you ignore the Christian slant to the information, it is quite informative. Strangely, the Christian slant is rather easy to discredit, the last issue has a very good article on Qumran and the author makes a good case that it was not a Essene "monastary" but rather a secular pottery plant. What he does ignore is that it could very well have been an Essene pottery plant, since the sect was well known for it's willingness to perform hard labor in support of it's organization. He also tried to explain the large cemetary as the burial place for workers and soldiers (there was a fortress nearby), even though 1800 burials would be a very large casualty rate for a factory and fortress (especially since the period was relatively peaceful). As for evidence for Jesus, If you can call the stories told by 2nd century Christians as evidence (even circumstantial), then there is also circumstantial evidence for Mithra, Krishna, Osiris, etc! As Taphophila stated, there is no contemporary evidence of Jesus of Nazareth (hell, the town of Nazareth didn't exist until the second century CE), not even by the two Jewish historian/essayists (Justus of Tiberia and Philo of Alexandria) writting at the time he supposedly lived. Philo even made a hobby of "collecting" Jewish sects...yet no mention of Christianity at all! - Heimdall :yellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I believe it is authentic, leaving only the question of whether the inscription names the Biblical James, Jesus and Joseph in particular.

 

The James ossuary is definitely fake. It has a rossette on the back, and it shouldn't have, unless that back is the real front, and the current front with the inscription is the real back. The rossette is old and show what happens with the lime stone over time, while the inscription in the "front" is too perfectly deep and untarnished by time. And also, the antique dealer was charged for fraud. There are also experts arguing the inscription being two parts, done by two different people.

 

 

From the skeptics: http://www.livescience.com/history/reason_...ary_050112.html

And from a Bible Archeology site: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm

In both cases, the ossuary is still a fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the latest article on the examination of the ossuary. It, like so many other problems continues to draw a cloud over the IAA. Even the Israeli Geological Survey said the box was genuine. And the IAA said that the box was authentic, just the last name (Jesus) was added. The problem for both sides is that it was almost certainly stolen from the crypt where it was kept (some think they know which one), which forces him to lie about buying it before it became a crime.

 

http://biblicalarchaeologyreview.org/bswbO...beinsummary.asp

 

HS, that's the first I've heard about the back front controversy. I'm not really sure what it means, particularly since they were often stored end on, making the surfaces in question the sides.

 

As for the names being common (which I pointed out in the last sentence of my last post), this was addressed in a subsequent issue which I will attempt to locate. As I remember, it authenticity wouldn't be proof of it being the Biblical three in question, but it was (much?) more likely than you might think.

 

In any case, the box is of little relevance, even if it were a forgery, to the original point that James hijacked and morphed the religion of a Jewish sect into a pagan myth with a Jewish background. It's important because the words and deeds ascribed to Biblical individuals can be used to expose the supernatural aspects and inconsistincies of their religion, even in the unlikely event that they turn out not to be historical figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think BAR's whole obsession hinges on the fact that the editor of the BAR lost quite a bit of prestige and money when the thing was shown to be a fake. He had after all co-authored at least one book that suddenly lost all sales and the BAR lost prestige...this is the sum total of the obsession as shown by the BAR. Heimdall :yellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a transcript from the trial (I guess a short version), and most of the experts agree from one view or the other that the box is fake. However there's not enough evidence to prove that Oded Golan is the one who made the forgery. One of the reasons why he was a suspect was that he had another forgery in his possession and a dentist drill that could have been used to make the inscription. BAR got criticized too by one of the experts.

 

HS, that's the first I've heard about the back front controversy. I'm not really sure what it means, particularly since they were often stored end on, making the surfaces in question the sides.

From what I heard these kind of ossuaries are stored in niches, with only one front. It shouldn't have two fronts, only one of them are the true front, and it's most likely the older one (the one without the inscription).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I heard these kind of ossuaries are stored in niches, with only one front. It shouldn't have two fronts, only one of them are the true front, and it's most likely the older one (the one without the inscription).

 

No one has contested the 1st century age of the ossuary, not even the IAA.

 

Yes, they can be stored either end on or sideways. I did find an article that discussed it. But it didn't say anything about an inscription necessarily being on the decorated side. In fact, it appears that the back side (with the inscription) is less weathered than the front because it was stored with that side toward the back nich wall. BTW, the patina on the ossuary from points around the ossuary was the same as it is within the inscription.

 

The likelihood of how many James's sons of Josephs brother of Jesus's there were during that period, boils down, using a liberal 80,000 population of Jerusalem (out of 25,000 to 95,000) and the occurrence of those names in all types of inscriptions, to there being approximately 20 such James's. Of those how many would have had their bones make it to being placed in an inscribed ossuary? James was murdered in Jerusalem (66 CE) and certainly he would have been entombed and his bones would have been placed in an ossuary in Jerusalem (as was happening to Jesus if his body hadn't been stolen or whatever). Add to all this that listing a brother on an ossuary is very uncommon, and having an inscription at all was relatively uncommon.

 

Proof no. Probability, high.

 

I can only disagree that "most experts agree...that the box is a fake". If that's so, why has the IAA not issued a report showing why it concluded that the ossuary was a forgery? It does show, however, what you can get away with in court that you could never publish for the scientific community.

 

He had after all co-authored at least one book that suddenly lost all sales and the BAR lost prestige...this is the sum total of the obsession as shown by the BAR.

 

You have nothing but pure supposition. If I had a reputation, I'd stake it all on the integrity of Hershel Shanks. There are very few who can walk the treacherous line he does--prima donna archaeologists and government obstructions on one side, and print it my way or no way Christians holding the purse strings and subscribers on the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**sigh** we only have the NT (written generations after the fact, by non-witnesses with no access to witnesses) and tradition that Jesus even had a brother named James….Please don’t trot the much edited and altered writings of Josephus, Antiquities 20.9 in particular which many Christians swear refer to their little man god, but probably refers to the brother of the High Priest (Jesus bar Damneus), the victim of 1st century political strife. Even were the Ossuary to be proven not a fraud, the names engraved on it would be naught more than mere coincidence. That is unless there is any contemporary evidence of a Jesus or a James brother of that Jesus. This is problem with Christianity, they can't even tell us what century their little man god was born in and none of the occurances in the NT will fall into a comprehensive timeline....Yet they find a coincidence and "Katy bar the door" every idiot crawls out from under the rocks to start claiming how their mythology has been proven!

 

If I had a reputation, I'd stake it all on the integrity of Hershel Shanks.

Whether a man of integrity or not, Mr. Shanks is just a man...just as easily fooled and just as full of himself as any other man...Never stake your reputation on another person, that way you will never be disappointed! - Heimdall :yellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Asian Jews"

 

Is this a typo? What is an "Asian" Jew?

 

I tend to agree that "Jesus" was not one man, and probably a bunch of earlier collected works compiled and attributed to one man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.