web analytics
Bible Judaism Karlheinz Deschner Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) Literature Moses (fictional Hebrew lawgiver) Old Testament

Christianity’s Criminal History, 73

Below, a translation from a section of the third volume of
Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums.

The five books of Moses, which Moses did not write
The Old Testament is a very random and very fragmentary selection of what was left of ancient transmission. The Bible itself quotes the titles of nineteen works that have been lost, among them The Book of the Wars of the Lord, The Story of the Prophet Iddo, The Book of the Good. However, the researchers believe that there were many other biblical texts that have not left us even the title. Have they also been holy, inspired and divine?
In any case the remains are enough, more than enough; especially of the so-called five books of Moses, presumably the oldest and most venerable, that is, the Torah, the Pentateuch (Greek pentáteuchos, the book ‘containing five’ because it consists of five rolls): a qualifier applied around 200 AD by Gnostic writers and Christians. Until the 16th century, it was unanimously believed that these texts were the oldest of the Old Testament and that they would therefore be counted among the first in a chronologically ordered Bible. That is something that today cannot even be considered. The Genesis, the first book, is without good reason at the head of this collection. And although still in the 19th century renowned biblical scholars believed they could reconstruct an ‘archetype’ of the Bible, an authentic original text, that opinion has been abandoned. Or even worse, ‘it is very likely that such an original text never existed’ (Comfeld / Botterweck).
The Old Testament was transmitted mostly anonymously, but the Pentateuch is attributed to Moses and the Christian churches have proclaimed his authorship until the 20th century. However, while the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the first Israelite fathers, must have lived between the 21st and the 15th centuries BC, or between 2000 and 1700 if they actually lived, Moses—‘a marshal, but at the bottom of his being with a rich emotional life’ (Cardinal Faulhaber)—must have lived in the 14th or 12th century BC, if he also lived.
In any case, nowhere outside the Bible the existence of these venerable figures, and others more recent, is ‘documented’. There is no proof of their existence. Nowhere have they left historical traces; neither in stone, bronze, rolls of papyrus, nor in tablets or cylinders of clay, even though they are more recent than, for example, many of the Egyptian sovereigns historically documented in the form of famous tombs, hieroglyphs or cuneiform texts: authentic certificates of life. Therefore, writes Ernest Garden, ‘either one is tempted to deny the existence of the great figures of the Bible or, in case of wishing to admit their historicity even with the lack of demonstrative material, it is supposed that their life and time they passed in the way described by the Bible… had circulated for many generations’.
For Judaism, Moses is the most important figure in the Old Testament. It is mentioned 750 times as a legislator; the New Testament does it 80 times. It is claimed that all the Laws were being handled as if Moses had received them at Sinai. In this way he acquired for Israel a ‘transcendental importance’ (Brockington). Each time he was increasingly glorified. He was considered the inspired author of the Pentateuch. It was attributed to him, the murderer (of an Egyptian because he had beaten a Hebrew), even a pre-existence. He became the forerunner of the Messiah, and the Messiah was considered a second Moses. Many legends about him emerged in the 1st century BC; a novel about Moses, and also a multitude of artistic representations. But the tomb of Moses is not known. In fact, the prophets of the Old Testament quote him five times.
Ezekiel never mentions him! And yet, these prophets evoke the time of Moses, but not him. In their ethical-religious proclamations they never rely on Moses. Neither the papyrus Salt 124 ‘has a testimony of any Moses’ (Cornelius). Nor does archaeology give any sign of Moses. The Syrian-Palestinian inscriptions barely quote him in as little measure as cuneiform texts or hieroglyphic and hieratic texts. Herodotus (5th century BC) knows nothing of Moses. In short, there is no non-Israelite proof of Moses, our only source of his existence is—as in the case of Jesus—the Bible.
There were already some who in Antiquity and in the Middle Ages doubted the unity and authorship of Moses in the Pentateuch. It was hardly believed that Moses himself could have reported on his own death, ‘an extraordinary question’ Shelley mocks, ‘almost as how to describe the creation of the world’ in Genesis. However, a deep criticism only came from the pen of Christian ‘heretics’, as the primitive Church saw no contradiction in the Old or New Testaments.
In the modern age Andreas Karlstadt was one of the first scholars in which some doubts were aroused when reading the Bible (1520). More doubts were raised by the Dutchman Andreas Masius, a Catholic jurist (1574). But if this pair, and shortly afterwards the Jesuits B. Pereira and J. Bonfrère, only declared some citations as post-Mosaic and continued to consider Moses the author of the whole text, the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes declared that some paragraphs of the Pentateuch were Mosaics but post-Mosaic most of the text (Leviathan, 1651). In 1655 the reformed French writer I. de Peyrère went even further; and in 1670, in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus Spinoza denied Mosaic authorship for the whole thing.
In the 20th century some scholars of religion, among them Eduard Meyer (‘it is not the mission of historical research to invent novels’), and Danek of the school of the Prague, have questioned the historical existence of Moses himself; but their adversaries have rejected such hypothesis.
It is curious that even the most illustrious minds, the greatest sceptics and scientists under whose daring intervention the sources of material are shelled so that there is little space left for the figure of Moses, present us again, as if by sleight of hand, Moses in all his greatness as the dominant figure of all Israelite history. Although everything around this character is too colourful or too obscure, the hero himself cannot be fictional they say. As much as the criticism of sources has reduced the historical value of these books, almost annulled it, ‘there remains a broad field of the possible’ (Jaspers). It is not surprising, then, that among some conservatives Moses is of greater importance than the Bible!
In short: after Auschwitz, Christian theology returns to win over the Jews. ‘Today again a more positive idea of ancient Israel and its religion is possible’. However, Moses is still ‘a problem’ for the researchers, ‘there is no light to illuminate his figure’ and the corresponding traditions remain ‘outside the capacity of historical control’ according to the Bibl. Hist. Handwörterbuch (Hist. Bibl. handwritten book). Although these scholars strongly refuse to ‘reduce Moses to a nebulous figure, known only to legends’, they admit at the same time that ‘Moses himself is faded’. They claim that ‘the uniqueness of the Sinai event cannot be denied’ but they add immediately ‘although the historical demonstration is difficult’. They find in the ‘stories about Moses a considerable historical background’ and some paragraphs later claim that this ‘can not be proved by facts’, that ‘it cannot be witnessed by historical facts’ (Cornfeld / Botterweck).
This is the method followed by those who do not deny the evidence itself, but neither do they want everything to collapse with a crash (No way!). For M.A. Beek, for example, there is no doubt that the patriarchs are ‘historical figures’. Although he only sees them ‘on a semi-dark background’ he considers them ‘human beings of great importance’. He himself admits: ‘To date we have not been able to find documentary evidence of the figure of Joshua in Egyptian literature’. He adds that, apart from the Bible, he does not know ‘a single document containing a clear and historically reliable reference to Moses’. And he continues that, if we do without the Bible, ‘no source is known about the expulsion from Egypt’. ‘The abundant literature of the Egyptian historiographers silences, with a worrying obstinacy, events that should have deeply impressed the Egyptians, if the account of the Exodus is based on facts’. Beek is also surprised that the Old Testament rejects

curiously enough, any data that would make possible a chronological fixation of the departure from Egypt. We do not see the name of the Pharaoh that Joshua knew, nor the one who oppressed Israel. This is all the more amazing because the Bible retains many other Egyptian names of people, places and offices.
Even more suspicious than the lack of chronological reference points in the Old Testament is the fact that none of the known Egyptian texts cites a catastrophe that affected a Pharaoh and his army while chasing the fleeing Semites. Since historical documents have an abundance of material on the epoch in question, at least some allusion would be expected. The silence of the Egyptian documents cannot be dismissed with the observation that court historiographers do not usually talk about defeats, since the events described in the Bible are too decisive for Egyptian historians to have overlooked them.

‘It is really curious’, this scholar continues, ‘that no tomb of Moses is known’. Thus, ‘the only proof of the historical truth of Moses’ is for him ‘the mention of a great-grandson in a later epoch’.
‘And Moses was 120 years old when he died’ says the Bible, although his eyes ‘had not weakened and his strength had not diminished’ and God himself buried him and ‘no one knows to this day where his tomb is’. A pretty weird end. According to Goethe, Moses committed suicide and according to Freud his own people killed him. The disputes were not rare, as with Aaron and Miriam. But as always, the closing of the fifth and last book of the Pentateuch significantly recalls ‘the acts of horror that Moses committed before the eyes of all Israel’. Every character always enters the history thanks to his terrifying feats, and this is so regardless if he lived or not really. But whatever the case may be with Moses, the investigation is divided.
The only thing that is clear today, as Spinoza saw it, is that the five books of Moses, which directly attribute to him the infallible word of God, do not come from him. This is the coincidental conclusion of the researchers.
Naturally, there are still enough people like Alois Stiefvater and enough little treatises such as Schlag-Wörter-Buch für katholische Christen types (Schlag Words Book for Catholic Christians) who continue to deceive the mass of believers by making them believe in the five books of Moses, that ‘although not all have been directly written by him, they are due to him’. How many, and which ones Moses wrote directly, Stiefvater and his accomplices do not dare to say. What remains true is that the Laws that were considered as written by the hand of Moses or even attributed to the ‘finger of God’ are also fabrications. (On the other hand, although God himself writes the Law on two tablets of stone, Moses had so little respect for them that in his anger against the golden calf he destroyed them.)
It is also clear that the writing of these five books was preceded by an oral transmission of many centuries, with constant changes. And then there were the editors, the authors, the biblical compilers who participated throughout many generations in the writing of the books by ‘Moses’, which is reflected in the different styles. It looks like a collection of different materials, such as the entire fourth book.
Thus arose a very diffuse collection lacking any systematic organisation, overflowing with motifs of widely spread legends, etiological and folkloristic myths, contradictions and duplications (which by themselves alone exclude the writing by a single author). Added to all this is a multitude of heterogeneous opinions that have been developed in a gradual way, even in the most important issues. Thus the idea of the resurrection arises very little by little in the Old Testament, and in the books Ecclesiasticus, Ecclesiastes and Proverbs any testimony of beliefs in the resurrection is missing. In addition, the scribes and compilers have constantly modified, corrected and falsified the texts, which acquired new secondary extensions every time. And these processes went on for entire epochs.
The Decalogue or Ten Commandments, which Luther considered the supreme incarnation of the Old Testament, proceeds in its earliest form perhaps from the beginning of the age of kings. Many parts of the Pentateuch that must have been written by the man who lived, if he lived, in the 14th or 13th centuries BC—no less than sixty chapters of the second, third and fourth books—were not produced or collected by Jewish priests until the 5th century BC. Thus, the final redaction of the books awarded to Moses—I quote the Jesuit Norbert Lohfink—’took place some seven hundred years later’. And the composition of all the books of the Old Testament—I quote the Catholic Otto Stegmüller—was prolonged ‘for a period of approximately 1,200 years’.

Complete set of scrolls constituting the Hebrew Bible.
Research on the Old Testament has reached enormous dimensions and we cannot contemplate it here—saving the reader from the labyrinthic methodology: the ancient documentary hypotheses of the 18th century, the assumptions of fragments, complements, crystallisation and the important differentiation of a first Elohist, a second Elohist, a Jahwist or Yahwist (H. Hupfeld, 1835), the formal historical method (H. Gunkel, 1901), the various theories about the sources, the theory of two, three, four sources, the written sources of the ‘Jahwist’ (J), of the ‘Elohist’ (E), of the ‘writing of the priests’ (P), of ‘Deuteronomy’ (D), of the combined writing… We cannot get lost in all the threads of the story, the traditions, the plethora of additions, complements, inclusions, annexes, proliferations, textual modifications, the problem of the variants, the parallel versions, the duplications—in short, the enormous ‘secondary’ enlargement, and the history and the scrutiny of the texts. We cannot discuss either the reasons for the extension of the Pentateuch into a Hexateuch, Heptateuch or even Octateuch, or its limitation to a Tetrateuch however interesting these hypotheses may be within the context of our subject.
A simple overview of the critical comments, such as Martin Noth’s explanations of the Mosaic books, will show the reader its editors, redactors, compilers; of additions, extensions, later contributions, combinations of different states of incorporation, modifications, etc.: an old piece, an older one, a fairly recent one that is often called secondary, perhaps secondary, probably secondary, surely secondary. The word ‘secondary’ appears here in all conceivable associations. It seems to be a keyword, and even I would like to affirm without having made an exact analysis of its frequency: there is no other word that appears with greater assiduity in all these investigations of Noth and his work.
Recently Hans-Joachim Kraus has written Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments (The story of the historical-critical exploration of the Old Testament). Innovative and advanced for the 19th century was W.M.L. de Wette (died 1849) who perceived the many stories and traditions of these books and considered ‘David’, ‘Moses’ and ‘Solomon’ not as authors but as nominal symbols, such as collective names.
Due to the immense work of scholars in the course of the 19th century and the eventual debunking of biblical sacred history, Pope Leo XIII attempted to obstruct the freedom of research through his 1893 Encyclical Providentissimus Deus (The most provident God). A counteroffensive was opened also under his successor, Pius X, in a decree. From De Mosaica authentia Pentateuchi (Authentic Mosaic Pentateuch), June 27, 1906, Moses was considered an inspired author. Although on January 16, 1948 the secretary of the papal biblical commission declared in an official reply to Cardinal Suhard that the decisions of the commission ‘do not contradict with a later scientific analysis of these questions’, in Roman Catholicism ‘true’ always means: in the sense of Roman Catholicism. The final exhortation should be understood along the same lines: ‘That is why we invite Catholic scholars to study these problems from an impartial point of view, in the light of sound criticism’. But ‘from an impartial point of view’ means: from a partial point of view for the interests of the papacy. And with ‘sound criticism’ it is not meant to say anything other than a critique in favour of Rome.
The historical-scientific analysis of the writings of the Old Testament certainly did not provide a sure verdict about when the texts arose, although in some parts, as for example in the prophetic literature, the certainly about their antiquity is greater than, say, the religious lyrics. When it comes to the age of the Laws, there is less certainty. But historical-religious research with respect to the Tetrateuch (Moses 1-4) and the Deuteronomic historical work (Moses 5, Joshua, Judges, books of Samuel and the Kings) speaks of ‘epic works’, ‘mythological tales’, ‘legends’ and ‘myths’ (Nielsen).
The confusion that reigns in scholarship is manifest in the abundance of the repetitions: a double account of Creation, a double genealogy of Adam, a universal double flood (in one version the flood subsides after 150 days; according to other it lasts one year and ten days; and according to another, after raining forty days there are added another three weeks), in which Noah—then 600-years-old according to Genesis 7:6—took in the Ark seven pairs of pure animals and one of impure ones and, according to Genesis 6, 19 and 7, 16, there were a pair of pure and impure animals. But we would be very busy telling all the contradictions, inaccuracies, deviations with respect to a book inspired by God, in which there are a total of 250,000 textual variants.
In addition, the five books of Moses know a double Decalogue; a repeating legislation on slaves, the Passah, a loan, a double on the Sabbath, twice the entry of Noah into the Ark, twice the expulsion of Hagar by Abraham, twice the miracle of the manna and the quails, the election of Moses; three times the sins against the body and life, five times the catalogue of festivals, and are at least five legislations about the tenths, etc.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

43 replies on “Christianity’s Criminal History, 73”

How serendipitous. I was watching Battle for the Bible, an episode from the>Secrets of the Dead series, when this post popped up on the screen.

In short, there is no non-Israelite proof of Moses, our only source of his existence is—as in the case of Jesus—the Bible.

Outside the Bible, Jesus is mentioned by his near-contemporaries. Extra-Biblical and secular writers (many hostile) point to Jesus’ existence, including the Roman writings of Tacitus, Seutonius, Thallus and Pliny, and the Jewish writings of Josephus and the Talmud. Consider the chronicle of Cornelius Tacitus (55 to 117 A.D.). Tacitus was a Roman statesman and historian. He held several positions in the Roman government, including that of proconsul, or governor of the Roman provinces in Asia. Tacitus is also regarded as the “greatest historian” of ancient Rome. One of the crowning achievements of Tacitus’ work is Annals, a 16 volume history of the Julian emperors from Tiberius to Nero, written between 115 and 117 A.D. In this work, Tacitus wrote about persistent reports of Jesus’ resurrection.
Have you read Joseph Wheless’ book Is It God’s Word?After reading this book, there can be no question as to the absolute absurdity of the ancient Biblical myths. I have yet to find more masterful effort at exposing the religious frauds perpetrated by Biblical authors.
Zip copy here
It is truly amazing how the Bible’s stories defy both logic and physics at the same time in the very same manner as the Hallowedhoax myths defy both physical laws and rational logic. The ancient religious liars had no real understanding of the subject matter to which they professed intimate knowledge. Perhaps there was no need, as these were ancient teaching stories, not historical accounts. As for the lies penned by their modern counterparts, the Hallowedhoaxers, these are just bad lies that make almost no attempt to reconcile with the physical realities presented in the stories.
While undoubtedly the most prolific race of liars, Jews are perhaps the worst of all liars. They gabble on about subjects of which they have no working knowledge, claiming to have witnessed the impossible with their own eyes. Geysers of blood spouting from the earth for months on end; different colored smoke from burning bodies of different regional Jews; diesel exhaust as an asphyxiant; burying massive numbers of decomposing bodies around the camp’s sole water source; stupid, inept German Guards smoking while handling the bodies of alleged HcN contaminated bodies – on and on they go, (((thier))) lies growing taller with each repetition.
Despite telling truly insipid and absurd lies about a mythical event that obviously never happened, Jews excel at getting people to believetheir hallowedhoax lies in the same manner as their religious counterparts manage to get “true believers” to slavishly follow their mysterious mumbo-jumbo.
I am amazed at how people accept the Bible as having current relevancy, doing so in a manner they would never remotely consider other comparable works contemporary with the Bible. If the Bible, why not the Egyptian Book of the Dead or why not believe the story of Gilgamesh is an historical account?
The more I study the Jews’ religions, the more disgusting Jews appear.

It’s true that Tacitus (56-120 AD), Suetonius (69-after 122 AD), and Pliny the Younger (61-113 AD) referred to the Christians (and some alluded to Christ) but only because the Xtians spoke about the founder of their religion. But ultimately there’s no external validation of Jesus’ existence outside the Bible.
Nixey’s chapter in The Darkening Age on Pliny the Younger is a good example, as she recounts the very first time that Xtians (not ‘Christ’) are ever mentioned in the Roman literature: Pliny’s epistles to Trajan.
The point is that there’s no 1st-century text by the Romans on Jesus’s life as observed by Romans. The writers you mention assumed he existed. If you see the above dates, these historians wrote well after the purported crucifixion of Jesus, always assuming that what the Xtians said about him, that he was crucified by Pilate, was true.
After I finish my translations of the Old Testament I’ll start with the translation of the fascinating chapter about the New Testament.

C.T., those are interpolations. “Pliny” depicts the early Christians as worshiping Jesus as a god, that wasn’t the case until Julian’s time. As for Tacitus and Suetonius, they meant followers of the Jew Chrestus. Nero did not deviate from his predecessors on the Jewish question.
Christianity was a largely fourth century development. What preceded Christianity was in all likelihood Gnosticism, which originally stood for something great before it turned into the present day nihilistic rubbish (the Nag Hammadi library contains literature pertaining to dissident sects of gnosticism).
What confirms this conclusion in my view is the frequent reference to the Platonists in the writings of Church Fathers (i.e. Augustine), as well as Plotinus’ confrontation with what Porphyry labelled as “gnostics”. Plotinus accused them of borrowing ideas from Plato. Plotinus outlines several ideas which are very similar to Church teachings, such as the idea of reducing a plurality of gods. The Church systematically destroyed the gnostics, assumed their name for a time before splitting into numerous sects (like with Protestantism) competing for the title, with the triumphant sect emerging as a newly christened Catholicism.

As for Jesus, the only time where he could have possibly existed is before the first century (assuming he wasn’t merely an amalgam). I’ve been gathering my sources for an energetic correction of Jesus’ representation.
I don’t believe it’ll be feasible to wean Christians off of him without first setting him straight.

There were interpolations certainly, but unlikely in the specific epistles of Pliny the Younger to Trajan that Nixey quoted in her book, as in those specific epistles Pliny does not mention Jesus; only the troubles caused by the Xtians of Antioch.
As to your link, like Joseph Hoffmann I doubt it’s even possible to know for certain who the historical Jesus was (if he existed).
You are right that the Gnostics could claim an older tradition than the Orthodox Christians, though that does not mean either that their Gospel is closer to the words of the so-called historical Jesus. (Incidentally, I have on my bookshelf the Gnostic ‘Gospel of Thomas’ within the handsome edition published by the Jesus Seminar.)

I don’t believe it’ll be feasible to wean Christians off of him without first setting him straight.

This is what I have maintained for the last thirty years. The Christian issue must be addressed in an entirely new manner beyond denigrating challenging and denying beliefs. That hasn’t worked since they nailed the man to across.
What I hope to engender with my book is curiosity of a nature that will invite people to challenge the work. Validate or invalidate, accept or deny, no matter, it will get people looking at Jesus and Christianity in a new light, beyond the hoary old platitudes and myths people have been flinging about for centuries.
This story will not engender the usual “he was – he wasn’t” arguments, but bring forth an entirely new story, one fully outside the traditional box yet based on historical research. This story removes the millennial long stories of magic and mysticism to firmly ground it in the physical reality everyone has experienced since the story was written.
(1) The story is all about Jews, outside Pilate’s walk on role, “gentiles” hardly have even a bit part in the story.
(2) The story is about Essene issues with Temple law, the need for sacrificial atonement and a thoroughly corrupt priesthood administering the law. Nothing to be found here that isn’t commonly found among today’s power elite.
This is perhaps the greatest of importance. While Jesus succeeded at helping a tiny group in the short term, his actions were a disaster for a far larger number the long run. What people need to understand is we are reliving the first century times of an elite priesthood that never went away. Instead, it went underground and reformed; “metastasized” might be a better word, from a small regional problem to one of monstrous, global proportions.
You are in fact living under the same kind of system, run by the same people Jesus fought against. Modern Temple priests of the Federal Reserve replaced their unreliable, uncontrollable god with reliable, controllable money. If Jesus made a mistake, it was in shaking the priesthood out of its lethargy, forcing them to develop new plans and new methods to our detriment. All the “satanic” ritual stories, all the child sacrifice stories, all the weird dark, twisted, forces you hear about surrounding today’s elite are visible remnants of the first century Temple priesthood’s ceremonial practices of murderous bloodlust. Elite Jews were the “children of Satan” in the first century and remain so to this day. A major difference is instead of preying openly on their own people, elite Jews have now suckered their entire race into supporting their goals as only a YHVH god could.
(3) The story is about an oppressed people – first century Jews (now where have we heard that one before?)
(4) The Essene bred Jesus to fulfill their mission. (bet you haven’t heard that one before.)
Thus, Jesus did not work alone; he had the help and guidance of his enlightened Essene brothers. Who else would be holding the donkey reins for his disciples while awaiting his Easter Sunday ride through the Temple’s east gate? Who else might have had the influence to make sure Jesus was the Temple’s final blood sacrifice? Read the details of the story, it is clear Jesus was not a lone “gunman” gunning for the Temple at high noon on the Shabbat.
Jesus’ father, Joseph, was a Temple priest. Far from a simple peasant girl, his mother was chosen for her beauty and trained by the Essene. Mariam was educated and trained for maximum effect in attracting a Temple priest for marriage.
Joseph was young and unsure of himself in his role as priest. Skilled in the social arts with extensive knowledge of the Temple and its customs, Mariam was the quintessential “trophy wife” for a Temple priest. As a child, Mariam had been “sacrificed” to the Temple in lieu of the usual sacrificial animal. However, instead of sacrificing her on the Temple’s bloody altar, she was put to work weaving the Temple veil. She later combined her talent for weaving with her cosmetological skills to become a hair weaver.
While Jews claim Mariam was a hairdresser, This story of Mary the Ladies’ hairdresser happened under the Second Temple. She was the mother of Peloni, ‘that man,’ as he is called in the tract Schabbath,” (fol. 104b). Christians say she was a weaver. “The school of Temple virgins in Jerusalem formed an altar guild that fulfilled necessary tasks for the Temple. This included sewing and creating vestments, washing the vestments of the priests which would be stained regularly by animal blood, preparing liturgical linen, weaving the veil of the Temple, and most importantly, liturgical prayer. Both Jewish and Catholic tradition hold this school for the Israelite virgins was completed by marrying age of about fourteen and they were dismissed at this time.” [ . . . ] “In this passage the Holy Spirit refers not to all the virgins of Jerusalem, but to a special set of virgins, that is, those virgins who had the privilege and right to be in the presence of the High Priest and address him. It’s rather ridiculous to think that young girls would have general access to the High Priest of Israel. However, if these virgins had a special liturgical role at the Temple, it becomes clear that they would both address the High Priest Onias and would also be featured as an essential part of the intense supplication in the Temple at this moment of crisis. More here
The fact is Jesus’ mother was both.
Joseph was appointed “kohin gadol” or high priest, for one day as a fill in for his uncle who had become ritually impure due to a nocturnal emission. To fulfill this role, Joseph had to enter the holy of holies. Thus, Joseph leaned the secrets of the Temple’s inner sanctum, the “holy of holies. He later brought Mariam into the holy of holies where Jesus was conceived before the mercy seat, truly making him, as Joseph said, “a son of god.”
How’s that for a non-traditional Sunday school story?

The part about a political association is probably authentic, but this part is almost certainly a forgery: “and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god”.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t actually that far off in their energetic representation of the early Church Fathers as anti-Nicene.
In his essay, Julian wrote:
“But you are so misguided that you have not even remained faithful to the teachings that were handed down to you by the apostles. And these also have been altered!, so as to be worse and more impious, by those who came after. At any rate neither Paul nor Matthew nor Luke nor Mark ventured to call Jesus God.”
>As to your link, like Joseph Hoffmann I doubt it’s even possible to know for certain who the historical Jesus was (if he existed).
I concur with this sentiment. The most one can do is attempt to deconstruct the gospel narrative into something more rational. Consider the primitive attempts of Marcion, Mohammed, and Thomas Jefferson to give a rational context to the scriptures. It’s not sufficient to expunge the miraculous accounts.
One thing to negate would be Jesus’ resurrection of “Lazarus”. Why would he lament over Lazarus if he knew he had the power or foresight to raise him in the first place? It was not out of sympathy for Mary and Martha. A lesson I managed to pick up from the book of Job was that suffering with others merely intensifies their suffering, which Nietzsche was opposed to. A real life parallel to the Lazarus story would be a doctor who fully appreciated the ailing condition of his patient, but nonetheless weeps constantly in the presence of his patient’s family when they remind him of his patient’s pending demise.
>You are right that the Gnostics could claim an older tradition than the Orthodox Christians, though that does not mean either that their Gospel is closer to the words of the so-called historical Jesus. (Incidentally, I have on my bookshelf the Gnostic ‘Gospel of Thomas’ within the handsome edition published by the Jesus Seminar.)
I’m willing to bet that the anti-gnosticism of the early Church was not so theological and imitative, as is the case for their anti-Semitism, but purely ideological.
But anyone who has common sense can tell that the modern gnostic interpretation is perverse, in total contrast to the Hellenic view of a divine universe.
Don’t you think it’s interesting how the Gospel of Thomas is just a collection of sayings? However corrupted it be, it is what the original source for the gospels would have probably looked like.

One thing to negate would be Jesus’ resurrection of “Lazarus”. Why would he lament over Lazarus if he knew he had the power or foresight to raise him in the first place?

I have covered this before, the raising of Lazarus was a staged, public demonstration against the Temple’s onerous Para Aduma law, invoked for coming into contact with a dead body.
Jesus’ “lament” over Lazarus was due to his late arrival on the fourth day. Typically a Temple priest would enter the sepulcher after the third day, unwrap the head of the victim for a secondary validation of death and make his final proclamation of death.
The idea for the demonstration was to have Lazarus lay in the sepulcher for three days, at which time Jesus would appear and rescind the proclamation of death, thereby negating the Para Aduma law. Remember, Jesus was a priest with the authority to rescind the law. This would have been known by the witnessing crowd.
Few among the ill survived three days in a sepulcher without food and water. Dehydration was the usual cause of death in these situations. Had Lazarus actually been dead, it would have ruined the planned public demonstration against the Temple’s Para Aduma. Not to mention how Lazarus would have felt about his failure. See, even Jesus fucks up sometimes, after all he’s only human.

It seems to me that you want to help keep the Jewish narrative intact rather than emancipating non-Jews from the Jewish world. The assertion that Jesus only came to help a tiny minority of Jews is supporting Judaism.
How can you be so sure that Jesus was crucified?
Jesus did not come to emancipate Jews or to collaborate with the Essenes (Rudolf Steiner also proposed this theory). He was in total opposition to both elements. Neither the Church Fathers nor Eusebius interpolated the anti-Semitic statements into his words. Nowhere in the probable fabrication Acts of the Apostles is there anything remotely close to the condemnations found in the gospels. The Jews are merely represented as antagonists for the sake of the narrative. The Church’s anti-Semitism was almost entirely theological, in stark contrast to the modern anti-Semitism which recognizes the Jews as a biological menace and racial foreigner.
The story appears to be about the “oppressed” Jews… because the Jews have succeeded in distorting it into a “supernatural” narrative, just as they did with historical events mentioned in the OT (i.e. slaughter of the Assyrians, sun standing still, parting of waters, the deluge), which are also reported by non-Jews without the Judeocentric slant.

How can you be so sure that Jesus was crucified?

How can I be sure? The story clearly describes the reasons for it. The crucifixion was Jesus’ raison d’être. It was his delivery of first century Jews from their Temple’s sacrificial bondage. For some reason people invariably fail to grasp the full gravity of the crucifixion’s importance.
Jesus’ mission was all about the Temple and only about the Temple. Millennia of Jewish programming has put the issue into the background, with Christians reducing his incredible effort to a mealy-mouthed, “Jesus died on the cross to deliver us from our sins.”
Bullshit! Jesus died on the cross as the final paschal sacrifice that would fulfill the law, absolving Jews ~ and only Jews ~ of sins requiring continual sacrifice to the Temple.
The problem I find in relaying information about Jesus and the Bible is the goyim’s ignorance of background information concerning Jews and their religion. Any “Holocaust denier” will tell you this is the very problem they encounter when trying to enlighten the gullible masses about the mythical Hallowedhoax. The classic problem faced by those trying to enlighten others about the Jews’ lies and perfidy is, where does one begin?
Like fish in water, ignorant goy swim through an ocean of Jewish lies and misdirection. When someone comes along to tell them of another world above the surface under which they live, the response is “Nonsense! There is only the water surrounding us that we fish understand and are willing to believe in!”
Jews intentionally engineer massive variations and complexities into their stories. Words are confusing, having one meaning here and another there. Stories are repeated with insensible variation. These stories are often of such complexity, even Jews fail to understand them.
Jews believe these complexities lie beyond the goyims’ comprehension and in most cases, they are correct. Jews know they only have to fool the majority of the masses most of the time to gain their goals and that dear reader, is exactly why they do it.

i guess the bible mania shows the power of belief when rooted and nurtured from early childhood? somehow the brain’s god spot facilitates neurotransmitters to short circuit the requirement of scientific test of reality when it comes to beliefs. akin to the power of the bonding neurotransmitter oxytocin in short circuiting cognition in processing cost/ benefits of a relationship and instead jumping too soon into bed to consumate what is not really anything more than sexual appetite.

We live in an epoch that loves to advance unproven, bio-reductionist hypotheses. I much prefer the POV from developmental psychology, specifically what some call ‘introjects’, or to use my appropriation of the term, ‘struggling with parental introjects’.
This is why confessional autobiography is paramount to understand religion and the notion of ‘god’. Do you remember my post ‘God’? I wish you could read it in context, as the context (my 2nd autobiographical book) is the analysis of the mind of my Catholic father.
In this site, I am almost done with the excerpts of Day of Wrath. But I have not received an educated opinion about the overall thesis, even though these excerpts from my book are so devoid of personal confessions.
Those who comment here have not noticed the importance of studying the structure of the inner self, including the pathology of belief thru in-depth autobiographies, to grasp what’s going on with white suicide. My guess is that my real work, mostly in Spanish, will go unnoticed until the day of my death.

Neither the Ugarritic texts of Babylon or the Hieroglyphs of Egypt record any Old-Testament personage. If men such as Moses and Daniel really existed and caused so much trouble, one would think that the Egyptians and Babylonians would have mentioned them.

No mention of Solomon, either, although there exist letters and references to historical kings of his time.

This is Robert G Ingersoll’s deconstruction of the Pentateuch. Must read that decree ‘De Mosaica Authentica,’ he cites.
The “Joahnnine Comma” was another battleground for Saint Pius X:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
This is found in no Greek Manuscript, according to Wikipedia, until the 1400s!
It is said by historical bible scholars to have been a marginal note made by some fervent scribe, and then just crept into the Vulgate text.

“It is said by historical bible scholars to have been a marginal note made by some fervent scribe, and then just crept into the Vulgate text.”
That should be:
“It is said by secular bible scholars to have been a marginal note made by some fervent scribe, and then just crept into the Vulgate text.”

Why is it so hard to comprehend the Bible? It’z a goddamned Jewish book! Therefore, if one understands the Jew, the intent behind these stories is clear.
Once again, the Bible is a book written by Jews – for Jews – about Jews. Get it? It’z all about JEWS! The Bible has nothing ~ nothing ~ to do with non-Jews anymore than the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Goyim* should view the Bible in the very same light, i.e. a curious book from an ancient civilization, irrelevant to modern life.
All the issues discussed here are irrelevant to religious Jews. Don’t believe it? Read their Talmud where Jews, and only Jews, endlessly hash over minute details of their religious law, forever redefining and arguing endless points of religious legal minutiae.
I have yet to find a goy that can stomach the twenty volumes of Talmudic bullshit, yet they put the very same effort into the Bible as any Orthodox Jew puts into the Talmud, attempting to decipher an indecipherable book of legalistic mish-mash. Considering the books were written by Jews, is it any wonder these are confusing works of religious, legal relevancy open to endless conjecturing?
Try finding a passage in the Bible or Talmud where Jews incorporate the goyim’s views or opinions – I dare ya’. The Talmud is merely extensive discourse on the original Torah. The Gospels are merely the attempt to remedy poisonous Torah law. Outside being a hated block of good-for-nothing heathens, suitable only for extinction, where does one find the goyim in these books?
Jews don’t care what the goyim think about their books. All that matters to Jews is knowing what these books mean to them.

The Talmud is twenty volumes of religious bullshit written – by Jews – for Jews – about Jews.

How many goy might argue that statement? Yet, like religious Jews, idiot goy endlessly argue and debate how, why and if the Bible is “God’s” inerrant word delivered to all mankind. It is truly sickening.
Had the stupid, ignorant, goyim a brain between them, they would understand they should hold the same condescending attitude about Jews and their Bible Jews level at the goy and their literary viewpoints. From a goy perspective, one should realize the Jews’ Bible is irrelevant to their lives. But then, stupid goy are the result of long-term Jewish programming.
The only thing that has provided relevancy to that worthless Jewish trash novel about religious blood, murderer and mayhem, is the stupid goyim’s willingness to accept its self-assigned importance. Believe in the Bible and you have become the perfectly programmed sucker for the Jew. There’s one baptized every minute. All I’m attempting to do is point this out.
Jesus? Jesus was a Jew that gave his life to release fellow Jews from their oppressive religion’s insanely psychopathic beliefs. If there is an ultimate irony in this story it is how Christians today cling so desperately to those same beliefs Jesus tried to remedy, totally ignorant of his clear injunction – Gentiles need not apply.

R. Johanan said: A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance; it is our inheritance, not theirs. Tractate Sanhedrin, Folio 59a

Hellooooo, stupid goyim! Can Jews state it any more clearly?
*I use the Jewish terms “goy” and “goyim” as appropriate for bovine-like humans that peacefully graze upon the Jew’s poisonous silage, only to be slaughtered at their owners’ whim.

A funny thing about the Bible Jesus: he is always exhorting people to give what thou hast to the poor. No record of Jesus giving anything, personally, to the poor. He magic-ced up some loaves and fishes… at no personal expense to Himself.
When suggested to give the monetary equivalent of Saint Mary Magdalene’s Nard to the poor: He refused!

Again, this confusion stems from a lack of understanding. As an enlightened master, Jesus took the path of poverty, a path that spiritually frees one from the material world that binds others to their suffering, preventing one from pursuing and attaining spiritual perfection.

The guide must have no desire for, nor any part in any of the property of the disciple. He can only accept material things from a disciple when he is impelled to use them for the common good. When a disciple wants to bestow his property on the Sheikh, the dervish teacher may take it, because he is able to exchange it for the tranquility which the disciple needs. But if the disciple is still attached to the property, he will be allowed to spend some. [. . .] The disciple should choose poverty rather than riches, though to the Sufi, poverty and riches are one.- The Sufis

Sound familiar? Apply the above to the following:

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! – Luke 18

Note Sufis as such, were not established until six hundred years after Jesus, however the basis of their knowledge is described in the following manner:

The seed of Sufism
was sown in the time of Adam
germed in the time of Noah
budded in the time of Abraham
began to develop the time of Moses
reached maturity in the time of Jesus
produced pure wine in the time of Mohammad

Note: The personages mentioned in the above are there to provide a time line reference easily understood by those following the Judaic religions, not as promotion of those religions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ § ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Loaves and fishes. Reading the story carefully, one discovers Jesus only divided the loaves, not the fishes. This was again a matter of the priestly blessing. Fish were outside the sacrificial system, which is why Christians used the sign of the fish as their symbol.
Bread on the other hand was a sacrificial grain requiring priestly blessing. A Temple priest “dividing” a few loaves into a multiplicity inferred the creation of ritually pure bread by the hand of a ritually pure priest, thus negating need for priestly blessing in the same manner recanting unblessed wine (water) into ritually pure vessels rendered the wine ritually pure with no need for costly blessing.
In these stories, Jesus is clearly a Temple priest manipulating Temple law by providing traditionally paid Temple services at no chaaage, setting dangerous legal precedence in denying the Temple its legally binding revenue. This is the reason Jews describe Jesus “miracles” as “magic tricks.” Remember, the first century Jews’ definition of a “miracle” was an “untended outcome to the law.”
Knowing this, is it any wonder the kohein gadol (high priest) and his Temple kohanim (priests) wanted Jesus dead?

I am glad you know the term “kohein Gadol”. More of us should learn Hebrew.
That story about Jesus being annointed with Spikenard: one of the few master-morality natural law teachings in the gospel.
The poor are always with us: but we need not go without nice things because of them. This is “a doctrine of cannibals” – to deny oneself riches because of the poor – according to Ayn Rand.
Jesus Christ might have been a “Martin Luther” of Torrhannic Mosaic Temple-cult Judaism… but that has nothing to do with us white europeans, especially in the current year, two millennia later.

Although this teaching – the spikenard is MINE not the poor’s – I agree with… I am merely noting the hypocrisy of Jesus. When given an opportunity to give a year’s wages to the poor, he refused.
He complements the widow who threw all she had into the temple basket… and yet Jesus would not give all He had to the poor.
He is a stereotypical Jew in this regard: a stingy hypocrite.

That “Christian Nazi” that you cite: trying to make Christ seem “antimasonic.” Both Jesus and Joseph were JEWISH FREEMASONS. ‘ Tekton’ in Greek, mistranslated as “carpenter.” Jesus constantly uses building metaphors to expound spiritual truths – “chief stone of the corner; upon this rock I shall build; houses built on sand” – just like the Freemasons of today do. The New Testament is unsalvagable. I t just needs to be rejected in toto.

The New Testament is unsalvagable. It just needs to be rejected in toto

. As a religious document I full concur with your view, as an historical document I do not. Like the stories from the Greeks of old, it is at times difficult to separate myth from fact in the Gospels, but there is no reason to toss out wheat because of the chaff.
I have great love, respect and admiration for both Jesus and Hitler, perhaps that is why I continue spending so much time with them. Imagine, two great men, visionaries from opposite ends of the spectrum, working, sacrificing their lives, to achieve the same end – the destruction of the Jew’s economic oppression over their people. What could possibly constitute a greater work of love for one’s people?

Admiring ‘Jesus’ means that you’re still a Neo-Christian. But I’d go further: it is not possible to admire a fictional character:

Like the stories from the Greeks of old, it is at times difficult to separate myth from fact in the Gospels, but there is no reason to toss out wheat because of the chaff.

Obviously, you have not grasped the force of what Hoffmann calls the ‘Platonic fallacy’ while referring to all those who write novels and purported ‘Lives of Jesus’.
It is not ‘difficult’ to separate myth from fact in the gospels: it’s a Quixotic task. Had you read Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest for the Historical Jesus you’d know by now why trying to separate the wheat from the chaff is a fool’s errand.

@ Arch Stanton
“I have great love, respect and admiration for both Jesus and Hitler …”
How can you admire Jesus but claim you hate Jews? The testimony of the NT is that he takes the typical attitude of a Jewish rabbi toward non-Jews, i.e., he considers them “dogs”. Cf. Mark 7:24-30 where the Prince of Peace sadistically forces a white woman to say she is one before he will grant her a miracle.
You may love Jesus but he doesn’t love you. The universal brotherhood of man nonsense was created and sold to the gentiles by Paul of Tarsus, the original Jewish huckster par excellence. Christianity was his traveling roadshow, not Jesus’.

The anointing of Jesus was a symbolic act. Priests had traditionally been anointed with oil as part of their initiation rite. However, by the time of Jesus the practice had stopped, most likely due to the high cost of the oil, as described in the narration. The symbolism was not just one of recognizing a kohein worthy of the title, but one of the old school, as delineated by his blood linage. The woman was essentially saying, “I recognize and honor this kohein as a full cut above average.”

Even calling the Christian Writings “the new testament” is silly. Christians steal the Jews’ holy book: the Hebrew Bible, and then stupidly accuse the Jews of interpreting it wrong.
To the Jew, Jesus Christ and His “New Testament” are as spurious as Joseph Smith and his book of Mormon is to Christians. Rightly so.
Listen to Rabbi Singer speak, and you will become convinced that it was his ancestors that wrote the Old Testament, not ours. He has the same racial mentality as the old testament “saints” and this becomes clear as he speaks.
Rabbi Singer is actually a good antidote to British Israelism or Christian Identity.

“Neo Christian?” Hardly. In the first place, I do not view Jesus as “Christ,”
“god,” “the trinity,” “the messiah,” “my savior,” or “the one who came to deliver the world from sin.”
I do not see Jesus as a magical, mystical divinity that healed the sick and raised the dead. What I do see is a man who, like so few others, had achieved a degree of spiritual perfection equal to the Buddha and other great masters.
If one knows the Jews, their culture and religion, separating mythical religious hyperbole from the day to day fact of life in first century Judea is achievable. This should be apparent in my other postings. Research my post about the anointing of Jesus. See if what I wrote corresponds with the reality of life in first century Judea.
No doubt, one can counter by saying, “maybe so, but did it happen to Jesus?” Consider the obscure detail in this story. Why would a myth have such useless detail that has now lost all meaning and cultural context? The only meaning this arcane detail might have had would have been to a Temple follower, like an early Christian Temple convert familiar with arcane Temple customs.
One only need talk to Christians to hear the most ludicrous, nonsensical explanations for such detail. One of the major problems Christians have is their attempts at understanding and explaining myths and stories for which they have no referential information.

The Toads in the Castle
Once in a reverie, I saw a community of wholly admirable toads. They had taken over, and made their home in a castle, obviously, to me, originally built by men.
I spoke their language, in my dream, and asked them to explain to me, as a matter of information, the origins and uses of various parts of their castle.
They were kindly, hospitable toads that gave me full details of their lives and thoughts, and the way in which the building was used.
Every single aspect of the castle and its surroundings, including the moat, marshes and reed-beds in which it was set, had a thoroughly plausible use and a toad-origin in theory, indicative of toad thought and toad design – conclusive to the toad mind.
I said: ‘Brothers, forgive my seeming discourtesy, but this place was formed designed and erected, by other beings. It was intended for quite different purposes than you have mentioned.’
Some did not hear at all. The whole idea was so strange that it did not even register with them. Some said shortly : ‘You are a liar, or a cheat!’
Others, trying to help me, said to one another : ‘Poor fellow, he is raving mad.’
That of course quite disposed of me.”

The sole fact that you hijack a thread on the OT to interject NT stuff is a red-herring. You obviously had Christian parents (as most of us).
The transvalued man has written a thick autobiography as the only way to understand the parental viruses in one’s own mind: the only way to vaccinate his mind. Only after criticizing my father in the most severe way I realized that the Jesus figure was a parental introject. And I suspect that every westerner unable to give up Jesus is still a slave of his own parental introjects.
Every Neo-Christian admires in one way or another Jesus of Nazareth. Even liberals do as he preached helping the poor and the downtrodden. He who, on the other hand, knows himself as the Delphi Oracle advised admires a fictional character no more.
A novel is a novel. But you believe that your novel is real history and real biography not because it’s supported on hard facts, but on a parental introject. Something similar happens in the minds of CI-rians, unable to give up Jesus, give up the OT and the New—give up the whole thing.
That’s why I believe that the Hitler of the table talks was so superior to American WNsts. They are still struggling and will continue to struggle with their parental introjects.

The sole fact that you hijack a thread on the OT to interject NT stuff is a red-herring.

My humble apologies. When the subject is Christianity, I unwittingly pay no attention to such religious distinctions. I was also was unaware I “hijacked a thread.” I assure you, that was not my intention. Perhaps I have overstepped the boundaries of civil discourse.
I keep urging you to read a least the first few chapters of my book, I read yours. I especially urge the reading of Chapter four, the rewrite of Genesis and how this information was presented to Jesus by Essene teachers. Ask yourself if my parents could have possibly known about these stories, let alone “introjected” the information presented in this book.
See if you can find one other source that provide explanations like the ones found in this book. I gave up on Christianity long ago, but was unknowingly compelled to return to the subject by my own request for submission. As I said, I never accepted Judaeo-Christian myths – never, and I still reject them. I assure you, this is not my story. While it is the story of Jesus’ life, I’m not the one telling it, I’m just the transcriptionist.
Question: Where have you encountered these views espoused by any Christian? Show me one Christian that laughs at the idea Jesus is their savior come to deliver them from their sins. In fact, I challenge you to show me a Christian that can provide the Jews’ concrete, legal definition for sin.
Find a Christian that will tell you, by Jewish definition, sin is a set of 613 Levirate laws that required continual sacrificial atonement, along with seven noahide laws for gentiles, for a total of 620 laws. Lay Christians are invariably clueless about such matters, as are much of the Christian clergy.
You might better define me as a closet Jew, (as some have) but that would be just as inaccurate.Perhaps the issue you’re having here stems from discomfort at being unable to fit me into an identifiable category for which none exists.

No Arch: you perfectly fit in the category of those who are still slaves of religious parental introjects.
Remember our ol’ friend Matthew Crawford? He was always extremely polite but he seemed to believe that, by repeating ad nauseam his CI faith—that whites are descendants of some Biblical characters and Jews from Cain—, we would become CI-rians! He was hallucinating of course. And when I confronted him he said that he had given up Xtianity long time ago—exactly what you say.
No man without being educated in such religion will cling to the figure of Jesus as tenaciously as you guys do. It is irrelevant whether CI theology is different from your novel. The common ground is a parental introject: the virus of the figure of Jesus who, at best, is a semi-legendary man.
You simply cannot ‘admire’ a semi-legendary man. It’s like saying that I admire King Arthur. When you say that you admire Jesus you’re admitting that you’re a Neo-Christian. ‘People learn religions as they learn languages’ said Schopenhauer. You learned to admire Jesus because you were raised in a Christian family. It is just that simple. You guys, Christians, CI-rians, or neo-Christians are confusing the structure of your inner Selves with the empirical world.
Also, what would be the point of reading your novel if I don’t believe that your Jesus, or any other Jesus that comes from the pen of any other novelist, is a historical figure (unlike, say, Vidal’s Julian)? This criticism on the myriad of ‘Jesus Lives’ was known since Schweitzer wrote about Renan’s Life of Jesus, that 19th-century super-bestseller. Do you honestly believe that by repeating his faith Matthew Crawford would make a dent in the worldview of say, Jack Halliday or me regarding the OT? What’s the difference with your interpretation of the NT?
The fact is that we need primary, 1st-century credible sources about the figure of Jesus from the pen of the Romans—or whoever Aryan was around 1st-century Palestine. But we have none. Hoffmann’s ‘Platonic fallacy’ applied to your novel means that you are massively projecting WN ideology onto whatever shreds of evidence you cherry-pick from… notoriously unreliably Semitic sources, whether Jewish or Christian! I’ve already stated my response to that Platonic fallacy in another thread but I’ll repeat myself here:
Let it go!
If you can unearth a primary source from the pen of, say, Pilate, you’ll gain my full attention. I promise you. (Remember that according to Nietzsche Pilate was the only honourable character of the whole New Testament insofar as the Semites’ words are unreliable.)
Otherwise let it go, give up Jesus.

What I have written is not what I believe, but what is based upon years of research of the times, places and people from whence it is derived. My only agenda is to discount the myths behind what has become a mythical religious figure, by relating the story of a very real man that stood against a very real, bloody, corrupt, religious system.
The horror Jesus gave his life to end, is the very same horror you suffered as a child. The Catholic Church is nothing more than the re-framing of the horrific second Temple founded on the bizarre, bloody sacrificial system of the Tabernacle. Surely you have noticed the free-flowing, sacrificial blood on Catholic statuary?

What’s the difference with your interpretation of the NT?

And therein lies the problem, you cannot know the difference unless you read the story. You judge my work without examining the evidence.
I have noted this all too common occurrence with people fixated on their own agenda, like those of the “Holocaust industry.” By far, the biggest obstacle encountered with any attempt at exposing the Hallowedhoax is trying to get people to look at evidence they have been programmed to ignore.
Of course, the difference is, you are not milking an agenda for billions in profit that continues oppressing people with a lie. I accept your premise that we are programmed by our parents. I also understand few realize how deep this programming runs.

You guys, Christians, CI-ers, or neo-Christians are confusing the structure of your inner Selves with the empirical world.

While these groups would undoubtedly find common religious ground, all would most assuredly reject the story I have written in the very same manner as yourself.
What you insist on ignoring is information that does not conclusively prove, to your satisfaction, the existence of Jesus, maintaining information to the contrary can only be due to religious programming. Essentially, since there is no proof presented by accepted, authoritative sources, on the matter, if one refuses to believe Jesus existed, then he did not.
This is the atheist’s viewpoint i.e. “Because there is no evidence that fits my perception of god, then god must not exist.” Most assuredly, the little, magical, mystical god of their perception does not exist. But does that deny the possibility of an intelligent design by something that lies far beyond man’s comprehension?
Can the universe really be just a happy accident, a big bang with no foundation? A coincidence of fate? An accidental combining of matter that brought forth life on this planet? Are we to accept this because there are no documented footnotes by accepted authorities that prove the existence of a Jewish god? Is it possible that both sides of this argument are wrong?
Your reasoning works well for stories like those of Alien grays doing battle with humans underneath the Denver airport, however there is a major difference. Alien gray stories are based on a very few eyewitness sources, this in contrast to two thousand years of religious upheaval over the story of Jesus. Yet we are to believe this history was all due to a mythical figure? Jesus never existed, but the religion brought forth in his name did? Can you name another mythical figure that has had such profound impact on humanity? Despite the fact, a smoking cross cannot be found, there is far too much ancillary evidence for his existence to believe otherwise.
One might say this is the same reasoning used to effectively discount the sacred Hallowedhoax, since no orders can be found it could not have happened. But closer examination reveals it is ancillary evidence that proves the revisionist’s case. Impossible numbers, impossible time-frames, absurd claims for methods used, lack of infrastructure, lack of any reliable sources, only those with a huge profit motive in promoting the story. The story I relate discounts these types of impossibilities, replacing them with very real probabilities gleaned from many different sources, not just the Bible.
Like the sacred Hallowedhoax, the Christian religion has a heavily vested interest in promoting the mythical Jesus, but what might be my motivation in discounting the Christian tenet of Jesus as god incarnate? Surely your own experience has shown how much profit there is in refuting the Christian version of the story. You mention Christian Identity, but note the difference; CI is yet another growing religious movement that is merely a modification of the original version using Jesus as a lever for controlling beliefs.
I have no followers, nor am I promoting any religion. I do not lust for an adoring public that has seen the light I shine forth. In fact, the story I have written would end the use of Jesus as leverage over the adoring masses. Jesus can only be used in this manner if he remains a divine god. One can rail against the stupidity of religion and the absurdity of Jesus as one’s savior, but it will continue to fall on deaf ears within the church as it has since its inception two thousand years ago.
Dear Cesar, why can you not see we are working for the same end by different means? We both want to see the end of the Judaic religions. We both want Jesus removed from the lives of Christians, thereby dissolving Christianity. We both want the world freed from these insane mass religious hallucination. Yet you lump me in with those merely wanting to continue the promotion of religion under new auspices, “old wine in new bottles” as it were. Like you, I want to smash the bottle.
Reduced to a mere man working against a corrupt system, Jesus would fade into history’s background like all others, both great and small. The only thing keeping Jesus in the forefront of everyday life, as a real time figure, is his divinity, falsely assigned by greedy, corrupt, religious shysters looking to make money off his name.
By contrast, the only thing my story might bring to my doorstep are legions of religious haters from all three Judaic religions. I have no friends, no alliances lauding my efforts or promoting this story. I maintain my website without any request for support; my only support coming from my own resources. At this point, I stand completely alone. At best, I find people like you arbitrarily dismissing this story as yet another delusional myth of a religious nutcase.
~~~~~ My religious programming ~~~~~~~~
My father’s mother was Catholic (complete with monstrous, four foot, bleeding, open-heart Jesus statue that scared the bejesus out of me; bathed as it was, in dim shadows cast from a faded streetlight outside while I tossed restlessly on her living room sofa.) My grandmother was a large, jovial, maternal figure that never regaled me with stories of hellfire and brimstone I would surely suffer if I did not accept Jesus and the Catholic Church as my savior. Her view of Catholicism was more of a moral duty to attend church. While I attended Latin mass with my grandmother a few times, since no one else in the family would, the mysterious religious proceedings were completely lost on me.
My other grandparents never mentioned god or religion. My father was completely a-religious, (could it have been that icon hovering over the sofa?) He never went to church and I never heard him mention any views on god or religion. The only religious indoctrination I might have suffered came from my mother and it was not the belief in god or salvation that sent her to church, but the fellowship she felt was beneficial. Like my Catholic grandmother, my kind, loving mother used the Lutheran religion for a moral compass, as opposed to salvation from hellfire and damnation in the afterlife. Thus, my childhood did not suffer the religious hammering of your Catholic upbringing.
At one point during my enlistment in the Marines, I did get on my knees and ask Jesus into my heart. But then anyone who has spent time in “Gitmo” Cuba will tell you assignment to that purgatorial hell-hole is enough to get anyone on their knees to pray. Ironically, this experience has served well when talking with Christians who exclaim, “you just don’t know Jesus as your savior, because you haven’t asked Jesus into your heart!” My reply is “I did get on my knees and fervently ask Jesus into my heart and this is the story he gave me,” never mentioning the twenty year lapse it took for him to get around to telling it.
I have spent some time talking with people raised in the Catholic religion. I have learned just how terrifying such a childhood can be after hearing stories of their upbringing. Of course, stories about Catholic nuns with their rulers are legendary. And the Catholic church did burn people at the stake for eight hundred years, using the excuse of heresy as justification for the horror they induced in the population. Then there is that creepy, Jesus statue hovering over the sofa. Yea verily, I say unto you, the Catholic religion is truly a horror.
By the way, I grew up in Camelot. King Arthur was the next street over.

They should have nailed him to a cross with a sign over his head reading. “King of the Imposters”

On 6 July 2018, after exhausting all appeals, Asahara and six other followers were executed by Japan, as punishment for the 1995 attacks and other crimes. The last six members of a Japanese doomsday cult who remained on death row were executed Thursday for a series of crimes in the 1990s, including a sarin gas attack on Tokyo subways that killed 13 people. Thirteen members of the group had received death sentences. The first seven, including cult leader Shoko Asahara, were hanged about three weeks ago.
Aum Shinrikyo/Aleph is a syncretic belief system that draws upon Asahara’s idiosyncratic interpretations of elements of early Indian Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism, as well as Hinduism, taking Shiva as the main image of worship and incorporating millennialist ideas from the Christian Book of Revelation, Yoga, and the writings of Nostradamus.
Its founder, Chizuo Matsumoto, claimed that he sought to restore “original Buddhism.” In 1992, Matsumoto, who had changed his name to Shoko Asahara, published a foundational book, declaring himself to be “Christ”, Japan’s only fully enlightened master, as well as identifying himself as the “Lamb of God”.

“Find a Christian that will tell you, by Jewish definition, sin is a set of 613 Levirate laws that required continual sacrificial atonement. “F
A myth invented by Talmudists. 613 a magic Qaballistic number. The Sceptics Annotated Bible numbers the Torah laws at about 1,000.I
The Talmudist Maimonides started this 613 stuff.

> What I have written is not what I believe, but what is based upon years of research of the times…
So says every single author of mutually exclusive ‘Lives of Jesus’.
> Jesus never existed, but the religion brought forth in his name did? Can you name another mythical figure that…
Strawman. I have said that Jesus is a semi-legendary figure.
> You judge my work without examining the evidence.
If I believe that King Arthur is a semi-legendary figure, am I obliged to read a specific novel (among hundreds of novels about King Arthur) by someone who claims he has, finally, got the chisel to make a sculpture of the real King Arthur (see Hoffmann’s quote below)? I judge as a result of your pushing a certain POV, like an unwelcome Jehovah witness who believes that visiting my home for the Nth time will, finally, change my mind about his own interpretation of the Bible. It is in this sense that you are not very different from Matthew Crawford.
In the extensive quotes you have been posting in this site for a long time, you have always been pushing the idea that the historical Jesus was certainly a reformer that rebelled against the Jerusalem Temple. Elsewhere I’ve told you this but I’ll repeat it: While I don’t deny the possibility that this speculation might be historical, I cannot accept it as fact: it’s a perfect example of the Platonic fallacy about which Hoffman wrote:

Whether the program was demythologizing or structuralist exegesis, the methods seemed to chase forgone conclusions about what the Gospels were and what the protagonist must “really” have been like. Judged by the standards of the chisel-bearers of the Tübingen school, Schweitzer’s caution that the Jesus of history would remain a mystery (“He comes to us as one unknown…”) was both prophetic and merely an interlude in the effort to excavate the historical Jesus. If it was meant to be dissuasive, it was instead a battle cry for better chisels and more theorists.

> Like my Catholic grandmother, my kind, loving mother used the Lutheran religion for…
So the parental introject comes from your mother? Thanks for sharing!

You certainly do an excellent job of alienating those not sharing your point of view. This is what I have found throughout the so-called “white nationalist” movements, to wit: “If you are not 100% on board with my views, then we cannot possibly share any goals.”
Jews have programmed individualism into the goy to an extreme point, where we can no longer connect, where intractable offense is taken at the slightest difference. Where, “if you’re not with us all the way, then yur agin us.”
You are quite correct when you write of how Christianity has “introjected” its destructive lies into our lives. Yet you ignore the destructive programming Jews have “introjected” into the goyim that keeps them isolated and prevents any solidarity that might form effective opposition.
Jews say “We may argue, we may disagree, but you’re a fellow Jew and that’s good enough for me.” The non-Jews’ common philosophy is, “If we must argue or disagree then get the fuck away from me.”
You write as if I have been trying to hide what little religious programming was “intojected” into my childhood. The fact is, why would I not admit it? How many people can honestly say “there has been no religious influence in my life?”
What I was trying to point out is how minimal the religious influence was in my life as opposed to the overwhelming influence it had on yours. You are angry at religion, I am not. For this reason you have become intractable in your views about about the subject. I can certainly understand your anger about this, but it may prevent you from achieving your goal.
I detect you becoming highly irritated by my presence on your website and you probably would not care to hear anymore from me. I have never been good at recognizing hints, but I will take this one.
So be it, but you remain my friend and ally.

> You certainly do an excellent job of alienating those not sharing your point of view… “If you are not 100% on board with my views, then we cannot possibly share any goals.”
What do you mean? I may agree to disagree with S. Ranch on technology (I blame humans instead, that I call ‘exterminable Neanderthals’) but am I ‘alienating him’?
> Yet you ignore the destructive programming Jews have “introjected”…
What do you mean? I have said many times that white traitors are worse than the external Enemy. Does that mean that I ignore the Enemy’s influence?
> What I was trying to point out is how minimal the religious influence was in my life as opposed to the overwhelming influence it had on yours.
What do you mean? If you admire a semi-legendary figure that can only mean that you suffer from a parental introject. My brother never was mistreated by our parents. But he’s a religious idiot who goes every day to Mass. He didn’t need any abuse to internalise the religion of our parents, who always treated him at a distance.
> I detect you becoming highly irritated by my presence on your website and you probably would not care to hear any more from me.
What is irritating is that Mathew Crawford, after being told that we don’t swallow the CI myth about the Old Testament, continues his preaching on this site.
As to your novel, I am only saying that your thesis is unprovable. But you cannot wrap your mind around the idea that we follow stringent historiographical methods that have a long story in the quest of the historical Jesus, and that we have reached the conclusion quoted above that ‘He comes to us as one unknown…’
The burden is on you to make your point: that, finally, the real historical Jesus has been unearthed in… a novel!
Hasn’t it occurred to you that it’s possible that you have merely written another fictional Life of Jesus?
The burden is on you to convince anti-Semites that, with no other primary sources than Semitic sources, you have produced a novelesque sculpture…that finally resembles the historical Jesus! But you can’t convince us for the simple reason that the Semitic sources that you have used are highly suspicious in the first place.
In a nutshell, you are re-enacting a Semitic myth, as no 1st century Aryan who witnessed the life of ‘Jesus’, if he existed, left us any writing.
Let it go…

Comments are closed.