TOO piece

Now that I have read Laurent Guyenot’s article more carefully, I would like to make a few observations.

I agree with Guyenot that Paul’s subversion was not conscious but unconscious: it can be understood under the concept of the Jewish evolutionary strategy (unlike most racialists who start by reading CofC, I believe one should start with the first book of Professor MacDonald’s trilogy to understand Jewry).

But that it was Pauline subversion, it clearly was.

In Plutarch’s book on Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told that Romulus was the son of God, born of a Virgin, and that there were attempts to kill him as a baby. As an adult, the elites finally killed him and the sun went dark, but Romulus’ body disappeared. Then he rises from the dead. Some doubted and, along the way, Romulus appears to a friend to pass on the Good News to his people. It is revealed that, despite his human appearance, Romulus had always been a God and had become incarnate to establish a great kingdom on earth. Romulus then ascends to heaven to reign from there. Before Christianity, the Romans celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. Plutarch recounts that at the annual Ascension ceremony the names of those who were afraid because they had witnessed the feat were recited, something that reminds me of the true ending of Mark’s Gospel (Mk 16:8) before Christians added more verses. Richard Carrier comments that it seems as if Mark is adding a Semitic spin to the original story of Romulus: an Aryan story that seems to be the skeleton on which the evangelist would add the Semitic flesh of his literary fiction. Carrier’s sentence in bold has convinced me that his treatise On the Historicity of Jesus deserves our attention.

There are many differences in the two stories, surely. But the similarities are too numerous to be a coincidence—and the differences are likely deliberate. For instance, Romulus’ material kingdom favoring the mighty is transformed into a spiritual one favoring the humble. It certainly looks like the Christian passion narrative is an intentional transvaluation of the Roman Empire’s ceremony of their own founding savior’s incarnation, death and resurrection. [page 58]

The implications of this transvaluation are enormous! It does seem that the Gospel writers, presumably Jews according to David Skrbina, plagiarised the founding myth of Rome to sell us another myth. This new myth not only involved the substitution of an Aryan hero (Romulus) for a Jewish hero (Jesus). It did something infinitely more subversive, what Nietzsche called the transvaluation of values.

That is why the Christians tried to erase any trace of the Romulus festivals when they destroyed almost all the Latin books, from the 4th to the 6th century. Also, it cannot be a coincidence that Mark wrote his gospel in 70 c.e.—chronologically, the first gospel of the New Testament ever written—right after the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem.