by Evropa Soberana [1]
‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel’.
—Matthew, 2:6
‘…which you have prepared in the sight of all nations: a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel’.
—Luke 2: 31
‘You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews’.
— John 4:22
‘Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular’.
—Tacitus, Annals, 15: 44, about the persecution decreed by Nero.
Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm
Yosef (a.k.a. Joseph), Jesus’ father, was a Jew from the House of David. But since Yosef supposedly did not intervene in the Virgin’s pregnancy, we will go on to examine the lineage of Miriam (a.k.a. Mary).
Luke the Evangelist was an individual from Antioch, in present-day Turkey. According to him, this woman was from the family of David and the tribe of Judah, and the angel who appeared to her predicted that a son would be born to whom Jehovah ‘will give him the throne of David, his father, and he will reign in the house of Jacob’.
According to the gospel story, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. In the Gospel of Matthew (1: 1) he is associated with Abraham and David, and in that same gospel (21: 9) it is described how the Jewish crowds in Jerusalem acclaim Jesus by shouting ‘Hosanna to the Son of David!’ without mentioning, of course, the ‘wizards of the East’ who visited the Messiah by following a star and asking ‘Where is the king of the Jews who was born?’ (Matthew, 2: 1-2).
Jesus, who never intended to found a new religion but to preserve pure the Orthodox Judaism made it clear, ‘I have not come to repeal the Law [of Moses, the Torah] but to fulfil it’ and, enraged to see that the Jerusalem temple was being desecrated by merchants, he threw them with blows. This Jewish agitator, like an Ayatollah, did not hesitate to face—with the authority given to him by being called rabbi—the other Jewish factions of his time, especially the Sadducees.[2]
Jesus surrounded himself with a circle of disciples among whom we could highlight the mentioned Simon the Zealot, Bartholomew (of whom Jesus himself says in the Gospel of John, where he is called Nathanael, ‘here is a true Israelite’); Judas Iscariot (who betrayed him to the Sadducees for money), Peter, John and Matthew.[3] Although there is not much information about the rest of the Apostles, it is necessary to remember that, until the trip of Paul (also Jewish) to Damascus after the death of Jesus, in order to be a Christian it was essential to be a circumcised, orthodox and observant Jew.
That the doctrine of Jesus was addressed to the Jews is evident in Matt. 10:6, when he says to the twelve apostles: ‘Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel’. The phrase implies to rescue those Jews who have strayed from the Law of Moses. This was because ‘if you believed in Moses you would believe me’ (John, 5:46).
In the year 26, Tiberius, who had expelled the Jews from Rome seven years before in times when the zeitgeist was fully anti-Semitic, appointed Pontius Pilate as a procurator of Judea, a Spaniard born in Tarragona or Astorga: the only decent character of the New Testament according to Nietzsche.
After the incident with the banners of Pompey, the Jews had obtained from previous emperors the promise not to enter Jerusalem with the displayed banners, but Pilate enters parading in the city, showing high the standards with the image of the emperor. This, the golden shields placed in the residence of the governor, and the use of the money of the temple to construct an aqueduct for Jerusalem (that transported water from a distance of 40 km), provoked an angry Jewish reaction. To suppress the insurrection, Pilate infiltrated the soldiers among the crowds and, when he visited the city, gave a signal for the infiltrated legionaries to take out the swords and start a carnage.
In the year 33, after various skirmishes of the Jesus gang with rival factions—particularly with the Sadducees, who at that time held religious power and saw with discomfort how a new vigorous faction arose—, Pontius Pilate orders the punishment of Jesus, at the request of the Sadducees. Jesus is scourged and the Roman legionaries, who must have had a somewhat macabre sense of humour and who knew that Yeshua proclaimed himself Messiah, put a crown of thorns and a reed in his right hand, and shout at him with sarcasm ‘Hail, king of the Jews!’ (Matthew 27: 26-31 and Mark 15: 15-20). When they crucified him they placed the inscription I.N.R.I. at the top of the cross: IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM (Jesus Nazarene King of the Jews).
Yeshua of Nazareth, known to posterity as Jesus, was one of many Jewish agitators who were in Judea during the turbulent Roman occupation. Executed around the year 33 during the reign of Tiberius, his figure would be taken by Saul of Tarsus (a.k.a. Paul): a Jewish Pharisee marvelled at the power of subversion that enclosed the sect founded by Jesus.
Jesus was, then, one of many Jewish preachers who, before him and after him, proclaimed themselves Messiah. Only that, in his case, Saul of Tarsus (now Turkey) would soon call him, instead of masiah, Christus: the Greek equivalent of ‘Messiah’. After changing his name to Paul he preached the figure of ‘Christ’, indissolubly linked to the rebellion against Rome, throughout the empire, deciding that Christianity should be spread out of its narrow Jewish circle and introduced in Rome.
________________
[1] Slightly modified by the Editor of this site.
[2] Note of the Ed.: The split of early Christianity and Judaism took place during the first century CE. Traditional Christian doctrine aside, it is more likely that the point of conflict between Jesus and the religious authorities was political rather than religious. It had its roots right after the driving of the traders from the Temple of Jerusalem. Jesus thus came into direct conflict with the High Priest, a Sadducee: the one who officiated the Temple.
The texts known as the ‘New Testament’, written not in Jesus’ Aramaic but in Greek, are Christian propaganda when, later, the early church entered in conflict with the Pharisees. (At the time that the gospels were edited the Sadducees had lost their leadership and the Pharisees were the sole repository of religious authority.) Although the evangelists specifically mention the Pharisees as those who Jesus scolds—even the author of this essay (which is why I modified his text)—, modern scholars postulate that the fight of the historical Jesus was with the Sadducee faction of Judaism: the bourgoise priesthood that represented the Temple, the collaborators with Rome.
On the other hand Talmudic Judaism, as known today, is the offshoot of Pharisee theology with Jews already in the Diaspora.
No Sadducee documents survived Titus’ conquest of Jerusalem. It is likely that, by editorial intervention, the name ‘Pharisees’ was substituted for the original ‘Sadducees’ in several gospel verses, in times that early Christians clashed with the Pharisees. In future instalments of the Kriminalgeschichte series (Volume III) we will see the extent of the tampering of gospel verses by the early Church.
[3] Note of the Ed.: Not to be confused with Matthew the Evangelist, a Greek-speaking author who never met Jesus in the flesh.
11 replies on “Apocalypse for whites • XII”
Tell me if we are not antipodes—just see Occidental Dissent’s featured article this Christmas and compare it with the above…
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2017/12/25/merry-christmas-5/
So David(who killed Goliath?) was Jesus’s father?
Do you reckon that his mother Mary was a prostitute, like Talmudic Jews claim according to their traditions?
Nevertheless, this is important because, among other things, it responds to Alt-Righters’ claims about the Jews supposedly hating Jesus, and their inferences being that he was a Pro-White leader.
Jesus was much like a Wahhabi, but a Jewish version.
This shows some similarities between our struggle and the Pharisees’/zealots’.
Who was Jesus Christ?
Mark: He was the son of man.
Matthew and Luke: He was the Son of God.
John: He was God himself.
In the Four Gospels are presented three entirely different conceptions of the Christ. In Mark he is represented as the son of human parents — the Messiah — but simply a man. In Matthew and Luke we have the story of the miraculous conception — he is represented as the Son of God. In John he is declared to be God himself. “In the beginning was the Word [Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (i, 1).
According to Mark, Christ is a man; according to Matthew and Luke, a demi-god; according to John, a God.
Voltaire thus harmonizes these discordant conceptions: “The son of God is the same as the son of man; the son of man is the same as the son of God. God, the father, is the same as Christ, the son; Christ, the son, is the same as God, the father. This language may appear confused to unbelievers, but Christians will readily understand it.”
This is quite as intelligible as the Christian Confession of Faith, Article II of which reads as follows: “The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man.”
“The theological Christ is the impossible union of the human and divine — man with the attributes of God, and God with the limitations and weaknesses of man.” — Ingersoll.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Who did Mary say was the father of Jesus?
Luke: When he remained behind in Jerusalem, and they found him in the temple, “his mother said unto him, son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold thy father [Joseph] and I have sought thee sorrowing” (ii, 48).
To believe that a Jewish virgin was overshadowed by a spirit, and miraculously conceived and bore a child, requires more convincing proof than the dream of a credulous lover. We ought at least to have the testimony of the mother. But we have it not. She testifies that Joseph is his father.
What did Jesus’s neighbors say regarding his paternity?
Matthew: They said, “Is not this the carpenter’s [Joseph’s] son?” (xiii, 55.)
Luke: “They said, Is not this Joseph’s son?” (iv, 22.)
John: “They said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph?” (vi, 42.)
The Rev. Dr. Crapsey, of the Episcopal church, in his work on Religion and Politics (p. 289), makes this significant admission regarding the divine origin of Jesus: “The fact of his miraculous birth was unknown to himself, unknown to his mother, and unknown to the whole Christian community of the first generations.”
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, wrote: “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter” (Jefferson’s Works, Vol. IV, p. 365, Randolph’s ed.).
I’m certain that in the Gospels Judas betrayed Jesus to the Pharisees, not the Sadducees as you mention above.
I could be wrong, but I just wanted to point that out in case.
Did the Pharisees command guards? I thought the guards under Roman occupation were under the jurisdiction of the High Priest and, at any event, the story says that after they picked Jesus they delivered him to the Priest, right?
You are correct. The focus on the Pharisee is a feint to distract readers from the real criminal, the kohanim or priesthood. These were the Sadducee who controlled the Temple treasury, the real power of Judea. According to the story, Jesus was first delivered to Annas, the former high priest and father in law of the acting high priest, Caiaphas.
The Sadducee were the psychopathic murderers that represented a very real danger to their opposition. Therefore, New Testament authors deflected the Temple’s criminal onus onto the toothless Pharisee. It’s much the same today with the soft words “Neocon” or “Zionist” replacing the hard word for the real criminals – “Jews”. It’s a classic example of how Jewish wordsmiths work their magic upon the goyim mind.
Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah as he in no way fit the description of a Jewish Messiah. Such a personage was to be a strong military leader who would lead the Jews away from their goyim oppressors, in this case the Romans.
No first century Jew would have recognized that title applied to someone like Jesus, who not only did not oppose Rome (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars) but attacked the Temple, an unthinkable act for any and all self proclaimed Jewish messiahs, as the Temple was the very foundation of Jewish power. Would it make sense to mount opposition to an external enemy by first attacking the power behind the people one is supposedly representing?
Jesus also never claimed the title of “God” or “Son of God”, although he actually was a “Son of God.” The key to understanding this, is what the title actually meant to first century Temple Jews. “Son of God” was a pseudonym for the Temple priests.
Think about it for a moment, would this not be an apt title for self aggrandizing priests who “made broad their phylacteries, enlarged the borders of their garments and loved the uppermost rooms at feasts and the chief seats in the Temple*?” Would not this title elevate these arrogant, religious criminals above the hated hoi polloi that supported them? Do not modern Jews hate the goyim supporting them, do they not elevate themselves above their supporters?
Jesus was inducted into the priesthood by his cousin John who was also a renegade member of the priesthood, thus he had a legal right to the title. However, he never laid claim to that lofty title as it would have put him squarely in the opposition’s camp. Yet he had to be a priest to have the legal authority to rebuke and rescind Temple law. Were this not the case, no Jews would have paid the slightest attention to his words.
These titles were assigned to Jesus by gospel authors, but even then it was done obliquely as when Caiaphas asked Jesus if he is a son of god Jesus replies “if you say so.” Only the rabid Christophile John directly elevates Jesus to “god” status in the gospels.
Yet Jesus clearly proclaims he is the “Son of Man” some 88 times in the gospels. This was a clear message to his followers “I am a Jew like you, but while I have found the true god, “the lost sheep of Israel”, remain lost in the Temple’s corrupt criminal practices.
Jesus is in effect telling the Temple followers, “while I wield the legal authority of a priest, I am not one of them, but one of you; those oppressed and impoverished by Temple authorities, those sons of god, the priests.
*There were no “chief” or upper seats” in a synagogue as these were simply meeting places for the common people to listen to a Rabbi’s teaching. There were however “chief” or “upper” seats in the Temple, occupied by the Sanhedrin council.)
> “Yet Jesus clearly proclaims he is the…”
There is the rub, as this is as speculative as Evorpa Soberana’s POV that the INRI accusation by the Romans reflects real history. This is exactly why I tend to side Albert Schweitzer that it’s not possible to be sure who the historical Jesus was, only educated guesses.
In real biographical studies you cannot say “Jesus clearly proclaims he is the…” as it is not certain what he actually said. The wisest thing I’ve read among those who used to study the subject is: “Get a life, give up Jesus”.
This doesn’t mean that we cannot continue to study the NT. But the focus is then on the authors, not on “Jesus”. For example, what I said another thread: that Matthew the evangelist was probably gentile and John of Patmos, the author of the Book of Revelation, probably Jew.
Hit with Occam’s razor, one finds it in perfect keeping with the Jew’s cultural thought process. Know the pig, know the taste and smell of their bacon. To this day, Jews believe only they are “men”, or humans. Goyim are relegated to “beast” status, merely made in human shape to better serve the Jew.
Jews refer to themselves as “sons of Adam”, a word that literally means “man”. Thus, by their claim, they were, and yet remain, the “sons of man”. As for the title “Son of God”, does not this title fit perfectly those deeming themselves worthy to impart the word of god to lesser men so not privileged? Would it not take a “Son of God” to interpret the words of the Father?
More to the point, is this not exactly the type of self-aggrandizing title a Jewish priest would assign themselves? After all, are not the Jews the remnants of an ancient tribe with the chutzpah to claim only they are “men” or human?
All history has been perverted by the Jews and their Bible. One cannot “get a life and give up on Jesus” until he has been properly vetted as a man with a mission against the elite, Jewish, Temple priesthood. Only this exposure will deconstruct the gullible Christian’s starry-eyed belief this ancient Jewish priest is the savior who will return to deliver them into heaven.
This horrid religion and it’s ugly, bastard progeny are on the verge of once again plunging the world into war over ancient words from a group of elite psychopathic murderers. Exposing Jesus for the man he actually was and the mission he undertook against the Temple, is the same as what Jesus did when he raised Lazarus to expose the priest’s lie about the deceased status of gravely ill, but very much alive, first century Jews.
This could not be timelier with Jews now declaring Jerusalem as their capital, clearing the way for the construction of their third Temple. This is the religious edifice that will serve as proof to Jews worldwide of their victory over the hated goyim Christians that have usurped their “power of god” for the last two millennia.
For Jews, the Bible’s bullshit is quite literally yesterday’s history, as opposed to the stale, psychopathic teaching stories of an ancient elite priesthood. This is why they constantly seek proof for stories like that of David, Solomon and the first Temple, proof yet to be forthcoming.
Jews have long been weak cowards lusting after the ultimate power of god. This is why they were on the forefront of nuclear weapons development. This is why Jews transferred nuclear technology along with the resources necessary for its development, to their communists brethren even before “the bomb” had been tested. Were it not for the Jew’s lust for this “power of god”, the world would never have suffered the ever-present, nuclear Sword of Damocles presently dangling over their heads.
It is likely that religious Jews and their gullible Christian supporters will be the ones that will lead the world to “nuclear “holocaust”. With that in mind, how is one to “get a life” when these murderously bloody religions are on the cusp of obliterating most, if not all, life on the planet? To “give up” on the story of Jesus, is to relegate one’s life, race and nation to history’s dustbin.
(I really like WordPress’ crappy spelling checker function as it forces me to go back and manually correct my spelling errors.)
Trouble is, Evropa Soberana’s view that the INRI inscription of the Romans represents real history (the historical Jesus’ Messiah claims) is as reasonable as yours, that he never made such claim.
That’s why we are stuck with Bultmann’s criterion that if a NT verse runs against the theology of the evangelist, it might be historical (e.g., the Markan verse that Jesus could do no miracles in his hometown contradicts Mark’s own POV).
When it comes to the Bible, there is no real history. There is only the haziest outline of real events twisted out of recognition by religion. However, if one knows the people, their culture, their history and their religion, then they have a much greater insight on the real stories behind the Bible.
The Old Testament is nothing but maddened, Jewish hyperbole framing a series of teaching lessons on how to set up a religious system to fleece the gullible through guile and deception in the name of a lying, murdering god called YHVH.
Essentially the Old Testament is a cookbook of poisonous recipes. The connection of the Old Testament stories to history are as tenuous as Lewis Carrol describing England as Wonderland and Victoria as the the Red Queen.
By contrast, the Gospels contain the germ of real events that have evidence beyond the mythical and allegorical books of the Old Testament. Unlike the Old Testament, where no character can be historically traced, many people and places in the gospels were said to exist by unrelated sources. The New Testament is essentially messages containing the antidote to the poisonous stories of the old and the corrupt sacrificial system maintained by the Temple priesthood.
The real story behind Jesus is in no way unique or unusual, but a reflection of real events that have occurred since man began recording them. I maintain Jesus was bred specifically for his role by the Essene. This is fully in keeping with the noted way royalty and other elite have sought to inbreed successors, not to mention how man has been breeding animals for specific traits since the beginning of domestication.
Why was Jesus bred for his mission? Because the technical requirements of a specific bloodline assured no one outside the Temple priesthood elect would have access to the Temple’s wealth and power. To this day, the Cohen (kohein) bloodline denotes a descendant of that ancient priestly class.
The Essene required a man of exceptional intelligence and wisdom, and beyond all, immense fortitude to undergo the rigors for their planned sacrifice of a priest as the Passover’s Paschal lamb, not to mention the very real possibility of his actually dying. The local population could not be depended on to produce such a man. Even the Essene could not depend on their own to produce such a man.
A man with such exceptional traits had to be specifically bred with the necessary blood linage and then carefully trained from his earliest days to bring about the desired result of calling Temple law into question and having the intellect to successfully argue the finer points of that law.
Where, by age thirteen, would a country bumpkin like Jesus of Galilee receive his immense knowledge of Temple law and custom that so astounded Temple authorities? It is notable that to this very day, Jewish boys in the Yeshiva receive gold stars for their ability to argue the vagaries of Talmudic law.
The so-called “temptations of Christ” were actually the Temple priest’s attempt to threaten, cajole and finally bribe Jesus to accept his role as a traditional priest. The”Satan”, or “opposition”, in that story is actually a Temple priest. The techniques described in the Temptation narration are exactly the same methods used by modern Jews to pressure those unwilling to accept Jewish authority.
The corruption of the Temple and its priests can be found in stories right up to the moment in virtually all political and religious organizations. The rebellion Jesus brought about against the Temple is reflected in countless other rebellions throughout history.
A conspiracy against the Temple? Political and religious history is nothing but a long litany of conspiracies conducted against established powers. Jewish history is one long story of rebellion against any and all authority. Second Temple history provides yet more evidence for this proven proclivity.The conspiratorial revolt of the Maccabees is what led to the Hasmonean dynasty that brought about the second Temple. Should it be surprising to find yet another Jewish conspiratorial revolt against the long established and very corrupt Temple?
When the practical, real-world explanations for the “miracles”, a term that literally meant “an unintended outcome to the law”, are exposed, everything in the story of Jesus can be found in countless other examples throughout man’s history. Can this be said for the confabulous stories of the Old Testament where men talk, argue and fight with god directly on a regular basis? The confusion stems from the attempt to combine these books as though they were woven from the same thread when they clearly are not.
The Biblical narrations are like oil and water spun into an emulsion of confusing myths and historical events. However, this Jewish emulsion can yet be separated by those understanding the religious, cultural and historical context of these otherwise seemingly alchemical events.
Again: you are proving my point. You say the historical Jesus was an Essene. Recently, I have been reviewing one of my old books (one that I obtained in California when it was published by the way) by a scholar who says that the historical Jesus was a Pharisee. There are as many Jesuses as scholars on the “historical” Jesus.
That’s why I prefer either Bultmann’s criterion or Hoffmann’s scepticism.