The Racial Soul Of A Folk
Myths take many forms depending on the culture from which they evolve. But their function is always that of pinpointing vital issues and values in the life of the people and society concerned. They often dramatize those profound concepts of life and death, of creation and the purpose of life, of how a man should conduct himself as a citizen, husband or warrior, as a creature of a selected God or Gods of a race.
Myths are not scientific or sociological theories about these issues, nor are they childish fairy tales. They are a synthesis of the way a people have pondered the great questions. Their function is not merely to provide a theory of life which can be taken or left at will; they serve to compel a response from man. We might speak of myths as bridges between the intellect and emotion, between the mind and heart, between the collective will and consciousness in the racial soul of a folk.
-----
From "Creed Of Iron" by Ron McVan.
@ChristianityExposed
Myths take many forms depending on the culture from which they evolve. But their function is always that of pinpointing vital issues and values in the life of the people and society concerned. They often dramatize those profound concepts of life and death, of creation and the purpose of life, of how a man should conduct himself as a citizen, husband or warrior, as a creature of a selected God or Gods of a race.
Myths are not scientific or sociological theories about these issues, nor are they childish fairy tales. They are a synthesis of the way a people have pondered the great questions. Their function is not merely to provide a theory of life which can be taken or left at will; they serve to compel a response from man. We might speak of myths as bridges between the intellect and emotion, between the mind and heart, between the collective will and consciousness in the racial soul of a folk.
-----
From "Creed Of Iron" by Ron McVan.
@ChristianityExposed
The Unshakable Folk Consciousness
Rome (named after Romulus, son of Mars) was founded in 753 BC. In 380 CE, the emperor Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica, which made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Only 15 years later, in 395 CE, the Empire fractured and the classic half utterly collapsed, never again to be made whole.
The victory was complete. About 350 years after Paul and his Jewish cabal initiated their psychological ploy. They had successfully "pulled down [our] idols, cast aside [our] racial inheritance, and substituted for them [their] God and [their] traditions".
Proclaiming to be pro-European while glorifying the destruction of our racial inheritance by worshiping our enemy's God and therefore our enemy by proxy truly is the height of hypocrisy.
"If you worship your enemy you are defeated. If you adopt your enemy's religion you are enslaved."
- King Polydoros of Sparta
Marcus Eli Ravage wrote:
"I tell you, you are self-deceivers. You lack either the self-knowledge or the mettle to face the facts squarely and own up to the truth. Compared with what Paul the Jew of Tarsus accomplished in Rome, the Russian upheaval is a mere street brawl. Your real quarrel with us is not that we have rejected Christianity, but that we have imposed it upon you. We have pulled down your idols, cast aside your racial inheritance, and substituted for them our God and our traditions. No conquest in history can even remotely compare with this clean sweep of our conquest over you."
Ron McVan wrote:
"Only a religion which is indigenous to a people will serve and preserve them. The key ingredient which ensures the survival of a race is its will to self-preservation and the persistent and unshakable folk consciousness that stems from a mutual indigenous belief. A cohesive belief MUST be established before an iron will and a collective consciousness of the folk can begin to develop."
Rome (named after Romulus, son of Mars) was founded in 753 BC. In 380 CE, the emperor Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica, which made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Only 15 years later, in 395 CE, the Empire fractured and the classic half utterly collapsed, never again to be made whole.
The victory was complete. About 350 years after Paul and his Jewish cabal initiated their psychological ploy. They had successfully "pulled down [our] idols, cast aside [our] racial inheritance, and substituted for them [their] God and [their] traditions".
Proclaiming to be pro-European while glorifying the destruction of our racial inheritance by worshiping our enemy's God and therefore our enemy by proxy truly is the height of hypocrisy.
"If you worship your enemy you are defeated. If you adopt your enemy's religion you are enslaved."
- King Polydoros of Sparta
Marcus Eli Ravage wrote:
"I tell you, you are self-deceivers. You lack either the self-knowledge or the mettle to face the facts squarely and own up to the truth. Compared with what Paul the Jew of Tarsus accomplished in Rome, the Russian upheaval is a mere street brawl. Your real quarrel with us is not that we have rejected Christianity, but that we have imposed it upon you. We have pulled down your idols, cast aside your racial inheritance, and substituted for them our God and our traditions. No conquest in history can even remotely compare with this clean sweep of our conquest over you."
Ron McVan wrote:
"Only a religion which is indigenous to a people will serve and preserve them. The key ingredient which ensures the survival of a race is its will to self-preservation and the persistent and unshakable folk consciousness that stems from a mutual indigenous belief. A cohesive belief MUST be established before an iron will and a collective consciousness of the folk can begin to develop."
Paul The Jew
While Christians of virtually every stripe, Catholic and Protestant, mainline and evangelical, now willingly accept that Jesus was a Jew, Paul is typically viewed as the first true Christian.
Paul was called by God to fulfill a particular mission, one that was foretold in the Hebrew prophets: to bring knowledge of the one God - the God of Israel - to all the nations of the world. He was a Jew who understood himself to be on a divine mission. As a Jew, Paul believed himself to be entrusted with the special knowledge God had given only to Jews. Reconciling non-Jews to God also meant reconciling non-Jews to Jews.
If a Roman centurion had intercepted Paul's letter to the Romans, he would have quickly spotted it as Jewish. Consider how the letter opens: Paul says he is in service to someone named Jesus, which is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua, and this Jesus is descended from the Davidic dynasty, the most glorious of the ancient monarchies of Israel.
And if the first few lines didn't tip off the centurion, when he saw the language of Jew and Gentile - language Paul uses over and over again in Romans (and elsewhere) - the centurion would know that this letter reflected a Jewish perspective on the world. For who else divides up the entire world into these two kinds of people, Jews and Gentiles, those who are Jewish and those who are not? It is certainly not how the Romans divide up the world: their operative categories were Romans and barbarians.
-----
From "Paul Was Not A Christian" by Pamela Eisenbaum.
@ChristianityExposed
While Christians of virtually every stripe, Catholic and Protestant, mainline and evangelical, now willingly accept that Jesus was a Jew, Paul is typically viewed as the first true Christian.
Paul was called by God to fulfill a particular mission, one that was foretold in the Hebrew prophets: to bring knowledge of the one God - the God of Israel - to all the nations of the world. He was a Jew who understood himself to be on a divine mission. As a Jew, Paul believed himself to be entrusted with the special knowledge God had given only to Jews. Reconciling non-Jews to God also meant reconciling non-Jews to Jews.
If a Roman centurion had intercepted Paul's letter to the Romans, he would have quickly spotted it as Jewish. Consider how the letter opens: Paul says he is in service to someone named Jesus, which is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua, and this Jesus is descended from the Davidic dynasty, the most glorious of the ancient monarchies of Israel.
And if the first few lines didn't tip off the centurion, when he saw the language of Jew and Gentile - language Paul uses over and over again in Romans (and elsewhere) - the centurion would know that this letter reflected a Jewish perspective on the world. For who else divides up the entire world into these two kinds of people, Jews and Gentiles, those who are Jewish and those who are not? It is certainly not how the Romans divide up the world: their operative categories were Romans and barbarians.
-----
From "Paul Was Not A Christian" by Pamela Eisenbaum.
@ChristianityExposed
The Corrupt Influence Of Judaism
The Roman satirist Juvenal, for example, is famous among historians for his laments about the corrupt influence of Judaism [Christianity] and other foreign cults on Roman tradition [written c. AD 100–127]. He complains caustically about some unfortunate fellow Romans "who have had a father who reveres the Sabbath", and who worships "nothing but clouds and the divinity of the heavens".
It is clear that Juvenal is speaking about Jewish practices performed by Romans and the ill-fated consequences for the future children of Rome. For he continues, "In time they [the children] take to circumcision. Having been wont to flout the laws of Rome, they learn and practice and revere the Jewish law. . . . For all of which the father was to blame, who gave up every seventh day to idleness."
-----
From "Paul Was Not A Christian" by Pamela Eisenbaum.
@ChristianityExposed
The Roman satirist Juvenal, for example, is famous among historians for his laments about the corrupt influence of Judaism [Christianity] and other foreign cults on Roman tradition [written c. AD 100–127]. He complains caustically about some unfortunate fellow Romans "who have had a father who reveres the Sabbath", and who worships "nothing but clouds and the divinity of the heavens".
It is clear that Juvenal is speaking about Jewish practices performed by Romans and the ill-fated consequences for the future children of Rome. For he continues, "In time they [the children] take to circumcision. Having been wont to flout the laws of Rome, they learn and practice and revere the Jewish law. . . . For all of which the father was to blame, who gave up every seventh day to idleness."
-----
From "Paul Was Not A Christian" by Pamela Eisenbaum.
@ChristianityExposed
Storytellers & Mythmakers
It is no exaggeration to say that the four Gospels contradict each other from before Jesus’ birth to after his death and at nearly every juncture in between. The portrayals of Jesus vary so widely that biblical historians have been able to reconstruct dozens of “historical” Jesuses in their own image, all equally plausible - and perfectly contradictory. And all attempts to sift through textual criticisms to tease out the “real” Jesus seem to ignore one nagging problem: not only do the four Gospels give us four very different and incompatible Jesuses, they appear to do so quite deliberately.
Historians don’t take such liberties with real people and events - but storytellers and mythmakers do.
So this is the state of the Gospels: four contradictory, convoluted and reworked writings set down decades after the supposed events by unknown authors falsely being passed off as eyewitnesses, and all primarily derived from a single source, which appears to be entirely literary fiction.
-----
From "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All" by David Fitzgerald.
@ChristianityExposed
It is no exaggeration to say that the four Gospels contradict each other from before Jesus’ birth to after his death and at nearly every juncture in between. The portrayals of Jesus vary so widely that biblical historians have been able to reconstruct dozens of “historical” Jesuses in their own image, all equally plausible - and perfectly contradictory. And all attempts to sift through textual criticisms to tease out the “real” Jesus seem to ignore one nagging problem: not only do the four Gospels give us four very different and incompatible Jesuses, they appear to do so quite deliberately.
Historians don’t take such liberties with real people and events - but storytellers and mythmakers do.
So this is the state of the Gospels: four contradictory, convoluted and reworked writings set down decades after the supposed events by unknown authors falsely being passed off as eyewitnesses, and all primarily derived from a single source, which appears to be entirely literary fiction.
-----
From "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All" by David Fitzgerald.
@ChristianityExposed
Why Didn’t Anyone Notice Jesus?
The truth is, not only did plenty of contemporary historical accounts survive from the first century, but many of these very writers were in the right time and place and had excellent motive to have written about Jesus’ famous life, teachings, ministry and miracles. But there is no external corroboration for anything written in the Gospels.
If Jesus had been an actual historical figure we have a thorny paradox. Either this Jesus was a remarkable individual who said and did a host of amazing, revolutionary things – but no one outside his fringe cult noticed for over a century. Or he didn’t – and yet shortly after his death, tiny communities of worshipers that cannot agree about the most basic facts of his life spring up, scattered all across the empire.
The truth is inescapable: there simply could never have been a historical Jesus.
-----
From "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All" by David Fitzgerald.
@ChristianityExposed
The truth is, not only did plenty of contemporary historical accounts survive from the first century, but many of these very writers were in the right time and place and had excellent motive to have written about Jesus’ famous life, teachings, ministry and miracles. But there is no external corroboration for anything written in the Gospels.
If Jesus had been an actual historical figure we have a thorny paradox. Either this Jesus was a remarkable individual who said and did a host of amazing, revolutionary things – but no one outside his fringe cult noticed for over a century. Or he didn’t – and yet shortly after his death, tiny communities of worshipers that cannot agree about the most basic facts of his life spring up, scattered all across the empire.
The truth is inescapable: there simply could never have been a historical Jesus.
-----
From "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All" by David Fitzgerald.
@ChristianityExposed
Our Heroes. Our Gods.
"These are the role models that mold men of our sons, wives and mothers of our daughters, noble creatures of us all. All who dare to tread the holy path of honor and duty.
They provide the seeds of our culture, our culture defines our essence, our essence demands a purpose, and that purpose is concealed in our living Gods, the folk-God archetypes of our tribes.
The seemingly instinctual impulse toward self-sacrifice and heroism is sparked and nurtured by our knowledge of the good and our lust for truth and justice.
The insatiable quest for spiritual understanding drives us towards our own divinity. We cast off the delusions of universalist creeds, embrace the ethnic traditions of our kind and stand boldly against the storm's fury, unrelenting in purpose."
— Katja Lane
@ChristianityExposed
"These are the role models that mold men of our sons, wives and mothers of our daughters, noble creatures of us all. All who dare to tread the holy path of honor and duty.
They provide the seeds of our culture, our culture defines our essence, our essence demands a purpose, and that purpose is concealed in our living Gods, the folk-God archetypes of our tribes.
The seemingly instinctual impulse toward self-sacrifice and heroism is sparked and nurtured by our knowledge of the good and our lust for truth and justice.
The insatiable quest for spiritual understanding drives us towards our own divinity. We cast off the delusions of universalist creeds, embrace the ethnic traditions of our kind and stand boldly against the storm's fury, unrelenting in purpose."
— Katja Lane
@ChristianityExposed
The Gospel Of John
Imagine in your golden years you are accused of murdering a child many decades ago and put on trial for it. The prosecution claims you murdered a little girl in the middle of a public wedding in front of thousands of guests. But as evidence all they present is a religious tract written by ‘John’ which lays out a narrative in which the wedding guests watch you kill her.
Who is this John? The prosecution confesses they don’t know. When did he write this narrative? Again, unknown. Probably thirty or forty years after the crime, maybe even sixty. Who told John this story? Again, no one knows. He doesn’t say. So why should this even be admissible as evidence? Because the narrative is filled with accurate historical details and reads like an eyewitness account. Is it an eyewitness account? Well, no, John is repeating a story told to him. Told to him by an eyewitness?
Well, we really have no way of knowing how many people the story passed through before it came to John and he wrote it down. Although he does claim an eyewitness told him some of the details. Who is that witness? He doesn’t say. I see.
So how can we even believe the story is in any way true if it comes from unknown sources through an unknown number of intermediaries?
-----
From "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier.
@ChristianityExposed
Imagine in your golden years you are accused of murdering a child many decades ago and put on trial for it. The prosecution claims you murdered a little girl in the middle of a public wedding in front of thousands of guests. But as evidence all they present is a religious tract written by ‘John’ which lays out a narrative in which the wedding guests watch you kill her.
Who is this John? The prosecution confesses they don’t know. When did he write this narrative? Again, unknown. Probably thirty or forty years after the crime, maybe even sixty. Who told John this story? Again, no one knows. He doesn’t say. So why should this even be admissible as evidence? Because the narrative is filled with accurate historical details and reads like an eyewitness account. Is it an eyewitness account? Well, no, John is repeating a story told to him. Told to him by an eyewitness?
Well, we really have no way of knowing how many people the story passed through before it came to John and he wrote it down. Although he does claim an eyewitness told him some of the details. Who is that witness? He doesn’t say. I see.
So how can we even believe the story is in any way true if it comes from unknown sources through an unknown number of intermediaries?
-----
From "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier.
@ChristianityExposed
"They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings."
— Romans 15:27
@ChristianityExposed
— Romans 15:27
@ChristianityExposed
That Brutal Germanic Love Of War
Christianity - and that is its greatest merit - has somewhat mitigated that brutal Germanic love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered, the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame.
This talisman is fragile, and the day will come when it will collapse miserably. Then the ancient stony Gods will rise from the forgotten debris and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and finally Thor with his giant hammer will jump up and smash the Gothic cathedrals.
Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder is of true Germanic character; it is not very nimble, but rumbles along ponderously. Yet, it will come and when you hear a crashing such as never before has been heard in the world's history, then you know that the German thunderbolt has fallen at last.
At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead, and lions in the remotest deserts of Africa will hide in their royal dens. A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll.
At present, it is true, everything is tolerably quiet; and though here and there some few men create a little stir, do not imagine these are to be the real actors in the piece. They are only little curs chasing one another round the empty arena, barking and snapping at one another, till the appointed hour when the troop of gladiators appear to fight for life and death.
-----
From "Religion and Philosophy in Germany" by Heinrich Heine.
@ChristianityExposed
Christianity - and that is its greatest merit - has somewhat mitigated that brutal Germanic love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered, the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame.
This talisman is fragile, and the day will come when it will collapse miserably. Then the ancient stony Gods will rise from the forgotten debris and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and finally Thor with his giant hammer will jump up and smash the Gothic cathedrals.
Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder is of true Germanic character; it is not very nimble, but rumbles along ponderously. Yet, it will come and when you hear a crashing such as never before has been heard in the world's history, then you know that the German thunderbolt has fallen at last.
At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead, and lions in the remotest deserts of Africa will hide in their royal dens. A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll.
At present, it is true, everything is tolerably quiet; and though here and there some few men create a little stir, do not imagine these are to be the real actors in the piece. They are only little curs chasing one another round the empty arena, barking and snapping at one another, till the appointed hour when the troop of gladiators appear to fight for life and death.
-----
From "Religion and Philosophy in Germany" by Heinrich Heine.
@ChristianityExposed
The "Witnesses"
Why is it that the best Paul can offer in defense of the resurrection is this small and problematic laundry list of "witnesses" anyway? With all his available options - eyewitnesses, relatives, his own exciting conversion story - Paul offers nothing but a suspicious list, with a few names of those who Paul claims found Jesus the same way he did: speaking to him from the Hebrew scriptures.
It’s important to note that all this means we have no authentic writings from the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, or from anyone who claimed to be a personal disciple of Jesus. Everything we know about the three "Jerusalem Pillars", James, Peter/Cephas and John, comes from Paul - and Paul says nothing about Peter, John or anyone else traveling around with Jesus. Apart from one suspicious and highly uncharacteristic partial line, he says nothing that would make us think he believed James had any special relationship to Jesus.
The implication here can’t be emphasized enough: there is nothing in the New Testament that was actually written by anyone who could claim to have personally known Jesus.
-----
From "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All" by David Fitzgerald.
@ChristianityExposed
Why is it that the best Paul can offer in defense of the resurrection is this small and problematic laundry list of "witnesses" anyway? With all his available options - eyewitnesses, relatives, his own exciting conversion story - Paul offers nothing but a suspicious list, with a few names of those who Paul claims found Jesus the same way he did: speaking to him from the Hebrew scriptures.
It’s important to note that all this means we have no authentic writings from the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, or from anyone who claimed to be a personal disciple of Jesus. Everything we know about the three "Jerusalem Pillars", James, Peter/Cephas and John, comes from Paul - and Paul says nothing about Peter, John or anyone else traveling around with Jesus. Apart from one suspicious and highly uncharacteristic partial line, he says nothing that would make us think he believed James had any special relationship to Jesus.
The implication here can’t be emphasized enough: there is nothing in the New Testament that was actually written by anyone who could claim to have personally known Jesus.
-----
From "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All" by David Fitzgerald.
@ChristianityExposed
Set honour in one eye and death i' the other,
And I will look on both indifferently,
For let the gods so speed me as I love
The name of honour more than I fear death.
From "Julius Ceasar" by William Shakespeare.
@ChristianityExposed
And I will look on both indifferently,
For let the gods so speed me as I love
The name of honour more than I fear death.
From "Julius Ceasar" by William Shakespeare.
@ChristianityExposed
Not The Real Jews?
The Khazar myth was primarily developed and propagated by three Jews. Zionist extremist and Communist Party member Arthur Koestler (author of the The Thirteenth Tribe), Jewish geneticist Eran Elhaik, and Shlomo Sand, an Israeli academic and former member of the Israeli Communist Party (Maki).
They argue that a large number of present-day Jews are completely genetically unrelated to the Middle Eastern-origin Jews who wrote the Abrahamic scriptures, despite overwhelming evidence disproving their case.
Koestler, the Jew who popularized the theory, stated (page 546) that if he could prove that the bulk of European Jews were descended from the Khazars, the racial basis for anti-Semitism would be removed and anti-Semitism itself could disappear.
It is nothing but a Jewish distraction to scapegoat a non-existent group for Jewish crimes, which the Christian Identitarians are willfully forwarding, simply because they want to be Jews themselves.
@ChristianityExposed
The Khazar myth was primarily developed and propagated by three Jews. Zionist extremist and Communist Party member Arthur Koestler (author of the The Thirteenth Tribe), Jewish geneticist Eran Elhaik, and Shlomo Sand, an Israeli academic and former member of the Israeli Communist Party (Maki).
They argue that a large number of present-day Jews are completely genetically unrelated to the Middle Eastern-origin Jews who wrote the Abrahamic scriptures, despite overwhelming evidence disproving their case.
Koestler, the Jew who popularized the theory, stated (page 546) that if he could prove that the bulk of European Jews were descended from the Khazars, the racial basis for anti-Semitism would be removed and anti-Semitism itself could disappear.
It is nothing but a Jewish distraction to scapegoat a non-existent group for Jewish crimes, which the Christian Identitarians are willfully forwarding, simply because they want to be Jews themselves.
@ChristianityExposed
If you believe in the Bible, you believe in the Old Testament. If you believe in the Old Testament, you are a Zionist.
@ChristianityExposed
@ChristianityExposed
"That the system of morals propounded in the New Testament contained no maxim which had not been previously enunciated, and that some of the most beautiful passages in the apostolic writings are quotations from Pagan authors, is well known to every scholar. To assert that Christianity communicated to man moral truths previously unknown, argues on the part of the asserted either gross ignorance or willful fraud."
From "History of Civilization in England: In Five Volumes" by Henry Thomas Buckle.
@ChristianityExposed
From "History of Civilization in England: In Five Volumes" by Henry Thomas Buckle.
@ChristianityExposed
Women As Common Property
The prominent early Christians Carpocrates of Alexandria and his son Epiphanes created the doctrine that women should be kept as common property, which Karl Marx adopted and incorporated into the Communist Manifesto. This degenerate practice promoted miscegenation in multiracial societies and enabled the worst males to mingle their genes with the best females, and most deficient females to breed with the best males, which produced the dysgenic degeneration of the Gentile races.
Despite their sexual degeneracy, the early Christians forbade having children, which would obviously and predictably cause them to exterminate themselves. That was what the Jews wanted for the Gentiles and it is no coincidence that the Jews taught the Gentiles these self-destructive doctrines.
-----
From “Satanic Secrets of Jesus Christ Volume II” by Christopher Jon Bjerknes.
@ChristianityExposed
The prominent early Christians Carpocrates of Alexandria and his son Epiphanes created the doctrine that women should be kept as common property, which Karl Marx adopted and incorporated into the Communist Manifesto. This degenerate practice promoted miscegenation in multiracial societies and enabled the worst males to mingle their genes with the best females, and most deficient females to breed with the best males, which produced the dysgenic degeneration of the Gentile races.
Despite their sexual degeneracy, the early Christians forbade having children, which would obviously and predictably cause them to exterminate themselves. That was what the Jews wanted for the Gentiles and it is no coincidence that the Jews taught the Gentiles these self-destructive doctrines.
-----
From “Satanic Secrets of Jesus Christ Volume II” by Christopher Jon Bjerknes.
@ChristianityExposed
All four [Gospels] contain numerous references to the Old Testament, something that would only be expected of elite and educated Jews. Matthew has the most references—something like 43 direct citations. Mark and Luke have about 20 each, John around 15. But if we include indirect references, parallel wording, and other allusions, the numbers double or triple. Even if the Gospels underwent later modification by Gentiles, this does not change their essentially Jewish nature.
The remainder of the New Testament also seems very likely to have had Jewish authors. The lengthy Hebrews—which is claimed by some to have been written by Paul—is addressed to Jews and contains at least 36 direct references to the OT. James is addressed to "the twelve tribes in the Dispersion", and so is 1 Peter. It’s clear that Gentiles would not be lecturing to Jews about God. The other short letters are ambiguous but contain nothing to indicate Gentile authorship.
-----
From "The Jesus Hoax" by David Skrbina.
@ChristianityExposed
The remainder of the New Testament also seems very likely to have had Jewish authors. The lengthy Hebrews—which is claimed by some to have been written by Paul—is addressed to Jews and contains at least 36 direct references to the OT. James is addressed to "the twelve tribes in the Dispersion", and so is 1 Peter. It’s clear that Gentiles would not be lecturing to Jews about God. The other short letters are ambiguous but contain nothing to indicate Gentile authorship.
-----
From "The Jesus Hoax" by David Skrbina.
@ChristianityExposed
None Of The Gospels Actually Knew Jesus
If Paul was dead by the year 70, then he just missed the destruction of the Temple that dealt a shattering blow to the Jewish community. But something else happened around that time, something equally significant: the appearance of the first Gospel, Mark.
It’s an astonishing fact that, in all of Paul’s letters, nothing indicates any knowledge of any of the four Gospels. Surely, in 13 letters, Paul would have wanted to quote his savior or to cite a fact from his biography. But we find nothing like this; no quotes from Jesus, no facts about his past, no virgin birth, no miracle stories. All these are found only in the Gospels.
So why didn’t Paul cite the Gospels? The conclusion is obvious: They did not yet exist. And indeed, this is what modern scholarship confirms.
-----
From "The Jesus Hoax" by David Skrbina.
@ChristianityExposed
If Paul was dead by the year 70, then he just missed the destruction of the Temple that dealt a shattering blow to the Jewish community. But something else happened around that time, something equally significant: the appearance of the first Gospel, Mark.
It’s an astonishing fact that, in all of Paul’s letters, nothing indicates any knowledge of any of the four Gospels. Surely, in 13 letters, Paul would have wanted to quote his savior or to cite a fact from his biography. But we find nothing like this; no quotes from Jesus, no facts about his past, no virgin birth, no miracle stories. All these are found only in the Gospels.
So why didn’t Paul cite the Gospels? The conclusion is obvious: They did not yet exist. And indeed, this is what modern scholarship confirms.
-----
From "The Jesus Hoax" by David Skrbina.
@ChristianityExposed
The Shroud Of Turin Hoax
Christians often claim that the Shroud of Turin proves Jesus' historicity, despite the fact that there are many reasons to believe that it's an obvious hoax.
The main one being that the earliest definitive mention of the Shroud of Turin in any written document is a letter written in 1389 by Pierre d’Arcis, the bishop of the city of Troyes to the Avignon Antipope Clement VII, in which he describes how his predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers, set out on a mission to find out where the shroud had come from.
Bishop Henri managed to track down the original forger who had made the shroud, who then confessed to him that he had created the shroud as a deliberate hoax:
"This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to the shroud of our Lord. The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter."
"For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Saviour’s likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time."
"Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."
@ChristianityExposed
Christians often claim that the Shroud of Turin proves Jesus' historicity, despite the fact that there are many reasons to believe that it's an obvious hoax.
The main one being that the earliest definitive mention of the Shroud of Turin in any written document is a letter written in 1389 by Pierre d’Arcis, the bishop of the city of Troyes to the Avignon Antipope Clement VII, in which he describes how his predecessor, Bishop Henri de Poitiers, set out on a mission to find out where the shroud had come from.
Bishop Henri managed to track down the original forger who had made the shroud, who then confessed to him that he had created the shroud as a deliberate hoax:
"This story was put about not only in the kingdom of France, but, so to speak, throughout the world, so that from all parts people came together to view it. And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud, which all believed to the shroud of our Lord. The Lord Henry of Poitiers, of pious memory, then Bishop of Troyes, becoming aware of this, and urged by many prudent persons to take action, as indeed was his duty in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction, set himself earnestly to work to fathom the truth of this matter."
"For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Saviour’s likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time."
"Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."
@ChristianityExposed