Below, an abridged translation from the third volume of
Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums.
Fabrications in the Old Testament
The boldest, daring and of greatest consequence of this type was to attribute to the spirit and dictation of God all the writings of the Old and New Testaments.
The bibles of the world and some peculiarities of the Christian Bible
The ‘book of books’ of Christians is the Bible. The German translation Bibel appears for the first time in the moral poem ‘The runner’ of Bamberg’s school teacher and verse builder, Hugo von Trimberg (born around 1230, he was also the author of a collection of homiletic fables and about two hundred hagiographic almanacs). The term coined by Hugo derives from the Latin biblia, which in turn has its origin in the neutral plural ta biblia (the books).
The Bible is a ‘sacred’ scripture and texts. Books and sacred writings form, in the history of religions, part of the trade, of the business on which it depends closely and not only the monetary but also the political and, ultimately, anyone sheltered by the human heart.
The bibles of mankind are therefore numerous: the three Vedas of ancient India, for example, the five Ching canonical books of the Chinese imperial religion, the Siddhanta of Jainism, the Typitakam of Theravada Buddhism, the Dharma of Mahayana Buddhism in India, the Tripitakam of Tibetan Buddhism, the Tao-tea-ching of Taoist monks, the Avesta of Persian Mazdaism, the Qur’an in Islam, the Granth of the Sikhs, the Gima of Mandeism. There were many sacred writings in the Hellenistic mysteries, which were already referred to in the pre-Christian era simply with the word ‘writing’, or with the formula ‘is written’ or ‘as written’. In Egypt the sacred writings go back to the most ancient times and a sacred text has already been cited in the 3rd millennium BC, Words of God (mdw ntr).
Of course, we know that the Bible is not just a book among other books but the book of books. It is not, therefore, a book that can be equated with Plato’s, the Qur’an or the old books of Indian wisdom. No, the Bible ‘is above them; it is unique and unrepeatable’ (Alois Stiefvater). In its exclusivity, the monotheistic religions insist with emphasis—and that is precisely why they are, so to speak, exclusively intolerant! ‘Just as the world cannot exist without wind, neither it can without Israel’ says the Talmud. In the Qur’an it is said: ‘You have chosen us from among all the peoples; you have raised us above all the nations’. And Luther also boasts: ‘We Christians are bigger and more than all creatures’.
In short, the Bible is something special. But Christianity did not have its own ‘Sacred Scripture’ in its first 150 years, and for that reason it assimilated the sacred book of the Jews, the Old Testament, which according to the Catholic faith precedes ‘the Sun of Christ’ as the ‘morning star’ (Nielen).
The name Old Testament (Greek diathéke, covenant) comes from Paul, who in 2 Cor. 3:14 talks about the Old Covenant. The synagogue, which naturally recognizes no New Testament, does not speak of the Old but of Tanakh, an artificial word formed by the initials of Torah, nevi’im and ketuvim: law, prophets, and remaining writings.
The Old Testament, as they were transmitted by the Hebrews are, to date, the Holy Scriptures of the Jews. The Palestinian Jews did not establish the final received texts until the Council of Jamnia, between the 90s and 100 AD: twenty-four texts, the same number as the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. (The Jewish bibles of the 15th century were the first that proceeded to a different division and gave rise to thirty-nine canonical books.) In any case, God, to whom these Sacred Scriptures refer and from which they come, needed more than a millennium to compile and finalise the Bible.
The unique thing about the Christian Bible is that each of the different confessions also has different bibles, which do not coincide as a whole; and what some consider sacred, to others seem suspicious.
The Catholic Church distinguishes between Protocanonical writings, that is, never discussed, and Deuterocanonical writings whose ‘inspiration’ was for some time ‘put into doubt’ or was considered uncertain. This Church has a much wider Old Testament than that of the Jews, from which it proceeds. Besides the Hebrew canon, it collected within its Holy Scriptures other titles. In total, according to the Council of Trent in its session of April 8, 1546, confirmed by Vatican I in 1879: forty-eight books, that is, in addition to the so-called Deuterocanonics, Tobias, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch and letters of Jeremiah, Maccabees I and II, Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate, Daniel 3:24–90), Story of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14; Septuagint epilogue), Esther 10, 4-16, 24.
On the contrary, Protestantism, which gives authority exclusively to the books that appear in the Hebrew canon, does not consider as canonical or manifested by God, the Deuterocanonics added by Catholicism. It grants them little value and calls them ‘apocryphal’, that is, that what Catholics call books never had canonical validity.
Luther, in defining what belonged to the canon, relies on the ‘inner spiritual testimony’ or the ‘internal sense’. He eliminates, for example, the second book of the Maccabees because Luther was disturbed by the passage on the purgatory, whose existence he denied. On that same book and also on that of Esther, Luther opined that ‘they have too many Jewish and pagan remnants’. Nevertheless, he considered the Deuterocanonical writings to be ‘useful and good to read’ although were not inspired by God, in any case by the ‘internal sense’ of the reformer.
An early German translation by Martin Luther.
His translation into the vernacular was highly influential.
In the Synod of Jerusalem, the Greek Church included, in 1672, among the divine word four other works that did not appear in the Council of Jamnia: Wisdom, Ecclesiastical, Tobias, and Judith.
Much broader than the Old Testament was the canon of Hellenistic Judaism, the Septuagint (abbreviated: LXX, the translation of the seventy men). It was elaborated for the Jews of the Diaspora in Alexandria by various translators in the 3rd century BC: the book for the Greek-speaking Jews, the oldest and most important transcription of the Old Testament into Greek, the language of the Hellenistic period, and the official Bible of Diaspora Judaism. It became part of the synagogue.
The Septuagint, however, collected more writings than the Hebrew canon and more also from those later considered valid by Catholics. The quotations of the Old Testament that appear in the New (with the allusions 270 to 350) come mostly from the Septuagint and it constituted for the Fathers of the Church, who used it with insistence, the Old Testament or Holy Writ.
______ 卐 ______
Liked it? Take a second to support this site.
5 replies on “Christianity’s Criminal History, 72”
Should be “the Council of Trent” rather than the count of Tridentine. Fascinating text otherwise!
Oops. You’re right about the ‘Concilium Tridentinum’ (Latin for Council of Trent).
An excellent and very enlightening run down on the Bible. Religion’s history is so convoluted as to defy any form of sensibility. It is interesting that the people of words, Jews, have such a long and intense affair with the WORD.
The Tanakh was founded on an oral tradition of religious law passed down to this day. Jews have excellent verbal and memory skills which is why they rate so high in the legal profession.
(((Their))) WORDS have profoundly affected man’s destiny. Here is an interesting take on the Jews’ Dragon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ § ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This may be somewhat off the current topic by a smidgen, but, you know, there are different ways of seeing things. One person’s truth isn’t necessarily another’s. For instance, we Whites see our replacement as a bad thing… while non-Whites don’t. Our truth is quite different from their truth.
To my point: The Christian story about “the Fall of Man”. Most preachers will tell that story, you know, about Adam and Eve being beguiled by the Serpent into eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and consequently having their “eyes opened” so that they perceived “their nakedness”… and those preachers will go on to tell you their truth, from the point-of-view that they’ve been indoctrinated to hold. But, is there another way of looking at this story, another truth? I believe that there is! For the sake of having a frame of reference, let’s substitute the word commonly used in Genesis, Elohim (which means “mighty ones”, or gods) with those who hold the most power in this age, Jews. And let’s then replace the term “the Serpent” (which means to oppose, or adversary) with the Jews’ #1 enemy, We The Awakened. And let’s call Adam and Eve “the White demographic”.
We The Awakened can clearly see that the White demographic are “naked” (meaning defenseless and destitute). We implore the White demographic to “let your own experience of what’s happening around and to you” open your eyes… so that you can live. We invite them to “partake of the forbidden fruit”, which ultimately leads to what The Mighty Ones (the Jews) understand as “antiSemitism”… or a REVOLT, a REBELLION against their domination. To the Jews, our activities are “sin” (meaning non-correct) and even “murder” (to hate, according to the Bible, is the same thing as murder). And so, the White demographic partakes of our forbidden fruit, opens their eyes, beholds their naked state of affairs under Jewish domination, and is judged by the Jews as having “a fallen nature”.
Didn’t mean to take so long with this, and I hope I’ve explained myself in a way that people can connect with. We are “Satan” to the Jews, those creatures who believe that they are Elohim on earth. And we ARE at war with these self-appointed gods, have been for quite a long time. But, unlike the duped Christians, we’re NOT convinced that ours will be the losing side in the end! Our “Great Rebellion” against these tyrants WILL succeed in bringing “hell on earth” to THEM.
Please understand that I’m not trying in any way to legitimize the Christian or Judaic “scriptures” by interpreting the Eden story in this way. I personally believe that both are big balls of pig-snot. But, having said that much, I do believe that many Christians and Jews believe in their own versions of “truth”. I know that the Christians believe for the most part as the aforementioned preacher believes. As for the Jews, quite another story indeed. I suspect, because of their subtlety and occult tribal secrecy in dealing with we Aryans, that they, at the top of their rabbinic pyramid, understand things on a dimension similar to what I’ve roughly tried to convey above.
Food for thought.
P.S. Please, for any Christians reading, do NOT try to “teach” me anything about the Bible. I assure you that I’m VERY familiar with the points-of-view that most theologians take concerning the stories, allegories, etc., I’m very familiar with C.I. doctrine, etc. I don’t need to be “corrected”. I’m merely pointing out a curiosity or three.
The story of the “Lord’s garden” is about Egypt.
blockquote”The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good. “Genesis 2:11-12.
Name another place in the region that answers the description of a desert garden spot with gold, graded as “good,” surrounding its territory.
“Naked,” as used in Genesis, is a biblical euphemism for “without wealth” so you are on target with your “defenseless and destitute” description. The meaning for this euphemism is clearly described in the story when Adam fashions an “apron” or “girdle” out of leaves to “cover his nakedness.”
For centuries, the apron or girdle was where one kept their personal wealth. Early on, the apron became a symbol of wealth and power for Egyptian kings and priests, like the later Masonic apron. In the story one finds Adam fashioning an apron to mimic the appearance of wealth immediately after eating the fruit and becoming aware of his destitute state.
The snake in the story is a priest administrator of the lord or king. The symbol for such authority was the uraeus.The uraeus (snake), was the Egyptian priesthood’s symbol of authority as well as the symbol of wisdom. The uraeus was the symbol of the priesthood initiate. Referring to Eden’s priest as a “snake” was the means of identifying the character’s position of authority, the same as one might say “badge” in reference to a cop. To wit, “I heard a badge arrested him yesterday during a traffic stop.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ § ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sanctuary, “Branches” – like a tree bearing the fruit of knowledge.
This is the same scenario that became extant during Herod the Great’s reign, a time when priests manipulated a king to construct the monstrous edifice known as the “second Temple.” Jews stole their idea for their priesthood structure from the ancient Egyptians’ “tree of knowledge.” Remember, the one thing Adam and Eve took from the “Lord’s garden” was the “knowledge of good and evil.” “Good and evil” refer to the intimate knowledge of the development and use of control systems over advanced civilization. Is that not what one sees today in the political realm, constant displays of apparent good and evil?
Egyptian priests put themselves above the law. Therefore, when Joseph hijacked all Egypt into slavery, stealing their land in the process, Egyptian priests had been self-exempted from his depredations.
Jews learned this lesson well. Priests of the second Temple were fully hypocritical to their own law, a point Jesus made repeatedly. Modern Jews have done the same thing, putting themselves beyond the laws they create.
And why not? it makes perfect sense to an egotistical psychopath to say, “I created the law, therefore as creator, I exempt myself from the laws I create. Since I am a demigod, my real law is “do as I say, not as I do.”
This is the basis for the Jews’ concept of legal and moral relativism. They say, “The laws we create are written in stone by the iron finger of our God, therefore one cannot forget or dispute the LAW. (((Our))) LAW, which is now your law, remains, sacrosanct, inflexible, indisputable – until (((we))) decide to change it.”
Note the fate of the snake in the garden. The upshot of the story is the king throws the two miscreants out on their ears into the hard scrabble desert while condemning his lecherous, treacherous priest to his gold mines. “Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life”. A perfect description of a common punishment in ancient times.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ § ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are interesting words to ponder