web analytics
Christendom Christian art Jesus New Testament St Paul

On the risen Jesus

People do not know how the mind works. Virtually all white nationalists who are Christians believe that the stories of the Resurrection have to do with the empirical world: an event in 1st-century Palestine. Now comes to my mind an oil painting of the risen Jesus that Andrew Anglin chose for his Daily Stormer in the days of Easter a few years ago.
In reality, the stories about Jesus that Christians believe, and revere, have nothing to do with the empirical world but with the structure of the inner self. I’m not going to give a class in this post about what introject means, or how our parents can program us malware without us knowing. Suffice it to say that, in my long odyssey in the fight against dad’s introjects, I had to read a lot of literature to convince myself that what the Gospels say must be questioned.
The resurrection of Jesus
The ordinary Christian does not have the faintest idea of the studies about the narratives of what they call the Resurrection and the Pentecost apparitions—research by those who have taken the trouble to learn ancient Greek to make a meticulous examination of the New Testament. The way secular criticism sees all these Gospel stories is complicated, but I will summarise it here in the most didactic way possible.
The oldest texts of the New Testament, like one of the Pauline epistles to the Corinthians, better reflect the theology of original Christianity than the late texts. Therefore, it is important to note that Paul does not mention the empty tomb or the ascension of Jesus. Modern criticism says that, if Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians was written by the 60s of our era, in that decade these legends had not yet unfolded.
Of the evangelists, Mark is the oldest and John the latest. (The Christian churches confuse the order in their Bibles by placing the Gospel of Matthew before Mark.) As Matthew and Luke copied and pasted a lot of verses from the Gospel of Mark when putting together their own gospels, these three evangelists are known as the Synoptics to distinguish them from the fourth gospel. Take this very seriously to see how the writers of the New Testament were adding narrative layers throughout the 1st century. To the brief visions that Paul had, collected in his first epistles some three decades after the crucifixion, in the 60s, the Synoptic evangelists were adding greater legends in the following decades and, in the case of John already in the dawn of the 2nd century of our era, more sophisticated Christologies.
I said that the oldest texts of the badly ordained New Testament in the traditional Bible are some of the epistles of Paul, who, while mentioning the ‘risen Christ’, does so within his dense and impenetrable theology. The Paul question is very important. Unlike the apostles, he never met Jesus in flesh; he only claimed that he heard his voice in a rare vision he had on the road to Damascus. And it is this little fellow who never knew Jesus the first one to speak of the ‘risen Christ’ in a chronologically ordered New Testament.
Unlike Paul the author of the Gospel of Mark, who wrote after Paul, does mention the empty tomb; but not the apparitions of Jesus.[1]
Matthew and John, who wrote after Mark, do mention the risen Jesus speaking with his disciples; but not the Ascension to the heavens.
It is Luke who already mentions everything, although he does not develop Christology at such theological levels as those of John the evangelist.
Another thing that uncultured Christians ignore is that Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts of the Apostles as a single book. The way both Catholic and Protestant churches separate the book of Luke is contrived. And it was precisely Luke who popularized the idea of the Ascension of Jesus: an obviously late legend insofar as, had it been historical, such a Hollywoodesque achievement would have been narrated not only by Paul; but by the other writers of the New Testament epistles, and by Matthew and John the evangelist (and let’s not talk about the other John: John of Patmos, the author of the Book of Revelation).
In short, serious scholars see in the diverse New Testament texts a process of myth-making: literary fiction that, in layers, was developed throughout the 1st century of our era. He who knows the chronology when the books and epistolary of the New Testament were written, and reads the texts in that order—instead of the order that appears in the Bibles for mass consumption—can begin to glimpse the evolution of the myth. Ultimately, there is no valid reason to suppose that what is told in the New Testament about Jesus’ resurrection and apparitions was historical.
It took me years to get oriented in the best literature about the Bible, including everything miraculous that is alleged about Jesus. The truth seeker could consult these selected texts.
[1] To the bare ‘empty tomb’ narrative of the original Markan text in Greek, the church interpolated the verses that, in the common Bibles, we see at the end of Mark’s gospel; but the exegetes detected that trick a long time ago.

11 replies on “On the risen Jesus”

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.

Death before dying and rebirth of the soul is a common theme in esoteric writings. The concept is the ego must die before the soul can be reborn into pure spirit. Ego is what drives our desires, ego is what makes us believe we are deserving of what we desire. Ego is what drives the belief that we are more deserving than others.Thus, ego is the basis of all misery and suffering in its relentless drive to obtain that which it believes it is deserving.
When ego is subsumed by the pure soul it dies. The soul is then “reborn” into its original state of selflessness. Once achieved, the soul can then return to the “oneness” leaving the material world behind. The Sufis say we are like drops separated from the ocean. In this state we see ourselves as individuals, but when the drop returns to the ocean at death, individuality is consumed by its vastness, yet the drop remains.
What is alluded to here is the all too common literal approach to concepts stated in metaphorical terms. As for the resurrection of Jesus, he achieved his purpose in life when he absolved Jews of their Temple sins. There would be nor need nor reason for his return. However, he might make that choice. Yet, were he to return, no one would recognize him and his message would be rejected as it would not fit the Christian’s preconceived beliefs.
Paul’s new religion needed a new living “god” to replace the old “living god”
and a dead savior simply would not do. The obvious answer was to “resurrect” Jesus from the grave. Of course none of this prevents true believers from awaiting the return of their beloved savior who saved them from their sins.

Your above quote comes from the gospel of John. I wonder if the fact that I don’t believe that most of the gospel narratives reflect the real biography of a Jesus who may have (or may have not) been sentenced to death by the historical Pilate is apparent to you? You continue to post here your own Christology as if I give credence to most of the NT stories.
But back to John. For those versed in modern NT studies, the Gospel of John is considered the least reliable because it was written a few decades after the synoptic gospels. In my personal library (pic left) I have a copy of the gospels with bold letters (words attributed by the evangelist to Jesus but not of Jesus), letters in gray (words that are probably not of the historical Jesus), letters in pink (words that could have been of the historical Jesus), and red letters (words that, according to the authors, probably were used by the historical Jesus). The book was published by the Jesus Seminar, a group of professional exegetes in the gospels. It is interesting that the book puts almost all the gospel of John in black and gray print. That is to say, the consensus of the exegetes is that what the fourth evangelist says were words attributed to Jesus, either from the pen of the evangelist or whoever; not from the historical Jesus.
John wrote his gospel seventy years after the crucifixion. In addition, John the Evangelist is not John the Apostle: a fact that ignorant religious people are not aware of. And by the way, I am even more sceptical than the members of the Jesus Seminar, as can be surmised in the masthead of my NT articles.
You also say, ‘concepts stated in metaphorical terms…’ But no serious NT scholar that I know believes that the resurrection and other miraculous narratives in the gospels were intended to be metaphorical.

I fully agree John’s writings are an unabashed attempt to deify Jesus. He is the last author to trust for finding truth in the Gospel narrative. However, we are not speaking of “gospels” here. Instead, we are speaking of spiritual concepts that religion has taken and twisted them totally out of their original from and intent.
Again, first century Jews interpreted the word “miracle” to mean “an unintended outcome to the law.” Not the magical, mystical ideas held by modern Christians. The New Testament is a story about a man that brought the antidote of truth that countered the Temple’s toxic effect on the people.
All of Jesus’ miracles concerned very real, legal issues. Outside these issues, other descriptions, like his walking on water, are employed to further his religious stature. Jesus used the prophets’ words to discredit kohanim actions. He turned the system around on itself in the very best Jewish tradition. The Jews have remained apoplectic over his doing this for the last two thousand years.
The Gospel narrative is the story of a man who stood against religious law. This is the very thing you attempt with your anti-Christian message. The reason Jesus was successful is that he worked within the Temple system to defeat it. This also explains the lack of your success. You stand outside Christianity to cast your ineffective arrows against the Christian’s fortress walls. Yet Jews have been quite successful in their attack on Christianity by following Jesus’ example of infiltrating the religion and subverting its religious structure to self-destruction. You need not bother with your attacks as the Jews have already set the course for Christianity’s destruction and no one can stop it.
That said, there is a very real spiritual component to this existence at best, obliquely addressed by religion. The best books I know that put such matters into concrete, real-world terms is Professor Boris Mouravieff’s series titled Gnosis. Be forewarned, those unfamiliar with these concepts will find them challenging their ability to understand the information being conveyed.
Interestingly, Mouravieff couches his information in an Orthodox Christian framework. This was the first time I encountered these concepts in a Christian format. However, the work is a “nuts and bolts” explanation to how and why human life functions in this existence. Long before I read this series and after spending time at an Orthodox monastery, I would tell Christians, if one wants to know what Christianity really has to offer, then look to Orthodox Christianity.
While Jesus attacked the corrupt Temple system, based on greed and hatred for others, he also injected matters of spiritual truth. Later Gnostics took the Essene teachings, diametrically opposite of the Temple’s religion, and kept them alive. It is no surprise that modern Christians abhor the Gnostic information, calling it the worst heresy. Yet Orthodox Christianity employs many of these concepts into its structure.
If your belief is that life ends in totality at death, then why bother with anything outside amassing as much of he material gains this world offers? After all, that is how the atheist Jews view the world. Why bother with these matters of child abuse and Christian ethics, after all everyone dies and at that moment, there is no longer any need for such thoughts, so why bother? To spare future generations yet more grief and suffering? Examining that question from a historical perspective, has there ever been any hope of ending the misery and suffering on this planet? Can you show an example of where this has happened?
The reason is that this is the design of the world, why it exists. The misery and suffering you have experienced so profoundly in life is what allows the soul to move onward towards its ultimate goal of perfection. This has nothing to do with religion, but with function.
Last night I watched an interesting Japanese movie based on an ancient folktale that alludes to these very concepts. The story has nothing to do with religion, but is about soul’s purpose for being here. One sees these ideas of the spiritual journey in every culture and not always based on religion. Forget the reviews as these invariably misinterpret the concepts presented by this folk tale.
When one cares to study matters of the soul more deeply than the superficial patina imposed by religion, they find it transcends religion. Religion is merely man’s corrupt attempts to harness the information for his own greedy ends. Ignoring this, insisting on remaining mired in the physical world, will only lead to another cycle of misery and suffering. Remember your childhood? How do you feel about replaying this life again?
The approach of death often makes this all too clear, but by then it’s too late. This is why esoteric teachers enjoin their students to remain constantly aware of their mortality, that death is a fact of life that can and might occur at any moment. The awareness of death focuses the mind in ways inconceivable for the mind blithely assuming this physical existence remains forever, that death is what happens to others.
Man has but two choices in this world. One may only serve themselves, taking everything they can get from others, or one may choose to serve others giving what they can to others. One of these choices must be taken, there is no other option. Once the choice is made, every action thereafter will lead toward one’s choice. One choice leads to spiritual advancement the other leads only to endless cycles of greed for material gain and its associated misery and suffering.
You have in fact made your choice. This website is proof of that choice. Your efforts to publish are not to enrich yourself, but to enrich others. That you have chosen not to indulge your ego’s demands to serve its own greedy desires, but instead devote your time to helping others, says much about your life’s path. You spend your time trying to enlighten others to certain truths about this world in the best manner of your ability. There is no greater reward in life than this service to others and for this, I salute you.

The New Testament is a story about a man that brought the antidote of truth that countered the Temple’s toxic effect on the people.

Yes, according to the blogger Arch Stanton, who has written a ‘Life of Jesus’ in form of a novel.
I am getting a little tired to point out the obvious: that this is your own vision of what could have happened in Jerusalem, but that serious scholars such as Joseph Hoffmann, whose essay I linked above, would never dare to write such a thing as if it was real history.
Writing a life of Jesus often ends in what Albert Schweitzer warned more than a hundred years ago: the author projects his own cherished ideals onto the figure of Jesus; in this case, projects Jew-wise WNsm onto him, whoever he was.

All of Jesus’ miracles concerned very real, legal issues. Outside these issues, other descriptions, like his walking on water, are employed to further his religious stature. Jesus used the prophets’ words to…

Again and again: You are making dogmatic statements about a man (that it is not even clear he existed) as if you have at home a Karellen-like machine to see the past. You have been indulging exactly in the same mistake of thousands of writers who have written ‘Lives of Jesus’, often differing from each other.
I am not asking you to start researching the New Testament from the POV of serious scholarship. I am only asking that the thought dawns in your mind that there are people out there who think that there is very little in the gospel narrative which has chances of historicity. I for one am interested in Rudolf Bultmann’s criterion but even that is speculative. (And Bultmann by the way was a Lutheran, not a secular scholar like Hoffmann; let alone an anti-Christian like me.)

If your belief is that life ends in totality at death, then…

No: It is you the one who has residues of Christian introjects of your parents by believing that the Jesus story is an exemplary life in our fight against the Jews.
Even if your parents were traditional Christians and not Jew-wise, the introject of a wise Jesus is still there. As I said above, American white nationalists are incapable to distinguish between the empirical world and the structure of their inner selves (which is why I recommend my autobiographical books to them). Exactly the same could be said about how you have internalised the notion of the immortality of the human soul: a notion that, in Europe, was not mandatory before Christian takeover.
When I speak about the transvaluation of values I mean, among other things: Give up Jesus! And also, it is lunacy, real lunacy to believe in the Christian concept of an immortal soul.
Again, I am not asking you to give up your cherished beliefs, only to become aware that there are Nietzscheans out there that hate such beliefs and will fight them until their last breath.

These are not “cherished beliefs” these are facts uncovered by more than twenty-five years of research. Obviously, I am not the only one to have discovered such facts; after all, where might I have found them? For an example, look at Margaret Barker’s web site. I was never a “true believer” in the Bible narrative. In fact, I was thrown out of Lutheran catechism class at age thirteen for “asking too many questions.” By age 21, I had given up on Christianity and begun searching other venues for answers.
I first found evidence in a book titled The Fourth Way by P.D. Ouspensky; that was 1974. In the early eighties, I was given a book of Sufi parables; that led me to examine the Sufi path. In time, I actually danced with the dervishes. It was not until years later I learned Ouspensky had been a student of G.I. Gurdjieff. It took even longer to discover Gurdjieff had received training at a Sufi monastery staffed by the Sarmoun brotherhood. The Sarmoun monastery was very much the same form as the monastery maintained by the Essene brotherhood at Natzret.
What I have found throughout most my life is that the Sufis have been the primary influence on both my spiritual and world views. Outside certain Sufi sources, the majority of what one finds about these people is invariably conflicting misrepresentations of the truth.
Essentially, Sufis do not function on belief, instead they function on experiential fact. As they say, “all truth can be tested.” If one wants to find the information that has influenced my thoughts, read those books published by Idris Shah’s Octagon Press. While these sources in no way represent the sum total of my learning experience, they do represent its foundation.
I might propose that I am far less Christian in my views than yourself with a much heavier Christian influence from being bludgeoned by a Catholic upbringing. It is that upbringing that resulted in your unquestioning, vitriolic backlash against religion. Note that while I too reject the traditional Christian message, I maintain no such vitriol.
It is a long story how I began researching the Bible and Jesus, subjects in which I had absolutely no interest. Roughly, it began with my studying the Egyptians. This in turn led to studying the Jews and that led to my studying the Bible. Eventually this led to the story of Jesus. If one reads the book, they will find the first four chapters posted on the web are about what the Old Testament meant to first century Jews and their priests.
Chapter four encompasses the stories of Genesis that formed legal precedence for the Tabernacle priests and later Temple law that oppressed and impoverished first century Jews. The Conspiracy of Man was developed by threading together many, many facts, not the least of which are found in the Jews’ religion and culture. Without that knowledge, the book would not have been possible.
If you want to find “cherished beliefs,” I suggest you look within.

These are not “cherished beliefs” these are facts uncovered by more than twenty-five years of research.

Sure they’re facts! So factual that there’s a consensus among exegetes that what you, Barker or similar writers say is exactly what happened in the life of the historical Jesus, right?

By age 21, I had given up on Christianity and begun searching other venues for answers.

You have not understood our concept of neo-Christian. Even secular WNsts like Johnson, MacDonald and Spencer are considered neo-Christians from the POV of this site, let alone those who believe that what the gospel say was an actual recount of the events.

If you want to find “cherished beliefs,” I suggest you look within.

Which beliefs? It’s you the one who believes that the NT provides real biographical data and dismisses real research of those who use modern historiographical methods to scrutinise and debunk it. Literally billions of humans around the world don’t share your Xtian belief (NT = reliable source).

Which beliefs? It’s you the one who believes that the NT provides real biographical data and dismisses real research of those who use modern historiographical methods to scrutinise and debunk it. Literally billions of humans around the world don’t share your Xtian belief.

My Christian beliefs? And what might those be? The belief that Jesus was a man who existed as part of a conspiracy to bring down a corrupt, oppressive religious system? Talk to Christians, talk to the “experts” see how many agree with the story I have written. These are hardly Christian and hardly beliefs. As is wrote, my sources are many. Only some of them are derived from the Gospels. It is primarily Jews that serve as my source for information. What I wrote aligns more with the Jewish psyche than any Christian beliefs.
The cherished beliefs to which I refer are those beliefs that Christianity is the root of evil among the white race while downplaying the eight hundred pound elephant with a Star of David burned into its ass, shitting in the middle of the white living room.

Unnamed experts agree with your novel as a credible source of what happened in the real life of Jesus? Ts ts ts… Just compare such professional scholarship with what Wilson overviews in the first chapter of his 1987 book.
As to your last sentence, you totally missed the gist of Evropa Soberana’s essay on ‘Judea vs. Rome’, which is a sort of adapted masthead of this very blog. Or are you telling us that Soberana downplays the role of the Semites in the defeat of Rome?

“…death is what happens to others.”
Arch, I think you have just inadvertently said something true. Death truly is something that only happens to others, because by the time it claims us, we no longer exist. When a man dies, he does not feel the pain of death because he no longer is and therefore feels nothing. Hence, as Epicurus famously said, “death is nothing to us.” When we exist, death is not; and when death exists, we are not.

Maybe I haven’t been clear. Only if, as you believe, there’s something called a “soul” that survives your death can you ever “taste death”, as Jesus puts it (Matthew 16:28). Otherwise, if nothing survives, there can be no personal experience of one’s own death, because by the time death arrives, no awareness remains. That’s the point of Epicurus’ remark.
This idea that we are something other than our bodies is the root of most errors of religious thinking. For example, it has led Christianized whites into the false idea that race is unimportant. That follows quite logically if you assume, as the Bible repeatedly says, that a man’s soul is the only thing about him that’s truly important, because race is a property of the body, not the soul. In fairness, Christianity didn’t invent the idea of the soul, but its cultural influence is what popularized it, gave it its moral implications, and sustains it. Had whites become followers of Epicurus instead of Christ, they would have had no problem acknowledging race differences. I think you may mean well, but perpetuating this religious misconception that they are actually “souls” that will last for eternity, and therefore necessarily minimizing the importance of their bodies, does whites great racial harm. The Christian positing of a raceless “soul” has had disastrous consequences for them.

Comments are closed.