hello frenz, i have not posted to this board in a while. Beunos Aires has kept me busy. I have posted to this board under various usernames over the years.
I write this post today as a discussion regarding the insurgency of muslims into the west. I apologize i might not be able to respond for a few months as the internet is a privilege where I'm at.
This the end game of freemasonry. Think about it. High level masons choose to become a Shriner. Shriners wear a fez with a star and crescent. Many high level masons turn to Islam.
This islamic takeover is to subdue Christianity, all guided by Freemasons. Freemasons worship Satan. Freemasons fear Christians.
Okay cool, so how can you possibly not see that Jesus is a Jewish invention? Like, how can you take all this bullshit Jewish nonsense seriously, like why give credence to Moshiach Ben Joseph or Moshiach Ben David, who gives a fuck about Jewish fairy tales? Why not invest the same amount of energy into learning about your own ancestors mythologies?
That’s what’s crazy to me, like the only reason someone would spend so much time learning about this nonsense is because they truly believe there was a guy who fulfilled some dumb desert people’s bullshit prophecies. And yet…not that interested in learning about the historicity of Jesus? Like, read Richard Carrier’s On The Historicity Of Jesus if you care about critiques rather than gassing yourself up on Christians telling you “this stuff is totally true and real, see this Christian from another era who did bullshit research says so”.
Within your reading, the counter argument is Jesus is the kelipot, he is the husk that gets burned by the gentiles to cleanse us of our pagan evil, and return our stolen shards of light to the “chosen” the true owners of the light. So it’s all about destroying edom to get back the stolen shards of light for Yahweh, and they use Jesus as the sacrifice (Ben Joseph) to serve the greater purpose of destroying anyone who doesn’t worship Yahweh - it’s also why they don’t want you to become Jewish, because it’s about genetics. They want you to remain a filthy goy who is just a shabbo’s goy, basically a gentile slave to Jews. And to accomplish that, they had to destroy paganism which had been fucking them up. So to destroy paganism, you convince filthy goys to worship Yahweh while also keeping them out of Judaism, which Christianity and Islam accomplish. It’s gentile fodder to subvert you.
That is the Jesus being sold to you and me today... that's an invention. And not just this Jesus, but all the other main characters in the OT. There is no historical Abraham, Moses, or Joshua. Many scholars agree on that. Historically the 12 Tribes of Israel are closer to the 12 Tribes of Yemen. Stories from all over were put together in what we now call the OT.
On the contrary the historical existence of Jesus as a person (historical Jesus) is important to me. Not just Richard Carrier but many others like Bart Ehrman have talked at length about the "historical Jesus". Today Bart Ehrman calls himself a historian of early Christianity. Have you looked into Ehrman's "The Historical Jesus"? it consists of a series of 24 lectures delivered "from a purely historical perspective, with no intention of affirming or denying any particular theological beliefs".
There is independent historical record about Jesus. Most likely there was a person named Jesus, or Yeshua/Iesous, of Nazareth. Jesus was probably born in Nazareth. And “Yeshua” was among the most popular male names in the 1st-century Palestine. Jesus didn't have a last name and people used "Jesus(Yeshua) of Nazareth" or "Jesus(Yeshua) the Nazarene" the common way to differentiate him. This referred to his place of origin, Nazareth, a small town in the region of Galilee.
Jesus never prayed to, or worshipped, Yahweh. Take a look at original Greek texts, not the translations (or I should say mistranslations). In the passages where Jesus withdraws to pray, whether on the mountain, during the 40 days in the desert, or in the garden of Gethsemane, the manuscripts do not say that he prayed to God. They specifically mention that he prayed to the Father. Even in Luke 11:2, KJV he teaches to pray to the Father "And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.".
That's what I said in my previous message, Gen 3:15. Jews represent the seed of the serpent. You may call them Edomites and Canaanites, but not Israelites. "I'll place hostility between you and the woman, between your offspring and her offspring. He'll strike you on the head, and you'll strike him on the heel." - Genesis 3:15
Are you familiar with Genesis 6:1–4? how about books that have been removed from the Bible, I'm referring here to The Book of Enoch (1 Enoch)? Book of Enoch used to be part of the Bible, the Vatican removed it in 1684. But not from the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible.
Well at least you’re more interested in the fact finding than most Christians. You should read Carrier’s book, he basically took on the project of “if we held Bible history to the same standard as every other element of history we evaluate” and he goes through every single piece of firsthand evidence we have going out to 130AD, because he gives 100 years after Jesus’s supposed death in case a kid met Jesus and then lived to be over 100, and he basically outlines that there are like 13 supposed firsthand sources, they basically all have issues, he goes through each Gospel and Paul’s letters, shows how many issues there are with those. He shows how Jews already had an industry for creating stories based on the Torah (this also explains things like the Book of Enoch, it was just Jews writing biblical fan fiction, that’s also why there are so many apocryphal texts, it was basically all just Bible fan fiction). The Jesus story is the same thing - they had already mapped out all the lines in the Old Testament that could be taken as prophetic, and then they just made up a character that fulfilled all the prophecies they already mapped out.
Lastly, Bart Ehrman, eh, there’s a reason he won’t debate Carrier.
I'm familiar with Richard Carrier and the fact he doubts the historical existence of Jesus as a person, using Bayesian reasoning to analyze the evidence. I haven't read his book, "On the Historicity of Jesus,", perhaps I will. I may agree with Carrier on many things, but I'll disagree with him regarding the existence of the historical Jesus. There is a lot of evidence and independent accounts of a human teacher which matches what today we would call Jesus in the 1st century AD. The 4 canonical gospels which made it in the NT are probably as Carrier puts it "forged", or fake, modified or made up. So, I agree with Carrier here as well, why only these 4 gospels, when we know there are so many more discovered at Nag Hammadi. 52 manuscripts found there in 1945. To me the New Testament canon seems in many ways like a reaction against Marcion's version. Irenaeus writing around 180 AD insisted there must be exactly four gospels. No more, no less. Interesting, because Marcion had only one gospel.
To me real Jesus is presented to us in the Gospel of Thomas. But, here Jesus's message is very different than what church teaches. He says "That which you have will save you if you bring it forth from yourselves.". Perhaps that's why this gospel was not included in the canonical Bible. Not because it contains teachings that contradict those in the canonical Gospels, as most scholars would argue. Heck there are plenty of contradictions among the 4 included gospels.
How about historical Paul? did Paul even exist? if he did exist, who was Paul and where did he come from (other than Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, modern-day Turkey)? We actually know very little about the early life of Paul, which itself is suspicious for someone so important.
So were many other stories in the Bible... made up. But, that doesn't explain why this writing was removed from the Bible, and others weren't, does it? especially when it elaborates on Genesis 6:1 by providing a narrative about the "Watchers".
What's the reason in your opinion? I'm aware in March this year Ehrman debated Jonathan Sheffield, whom he claims is backed up by Richard Carrier, Mark Goodacre and others.
To be fair to Carrier he does not claim that Jesus didn’t exist, he gives a probability and iirc he gave around a 2/3 likelihood he existed and a 1/3 that he’s fiction, but he also says that neither possibility impacts his argument. I just take it further and agree with Adam Green that when you put all the evidence together it makes more sense that he’s made up - like if they made up this character that just so happens to fulfill all these prophecoes that they had mapped out in their rabbi schools studying Torah all day, what does it matter if a person existed or not? Like whether it’s made up embellishment around a real guy or not it’s still mythology.
Carrier believes that Paul existed but iirc it’s correct that we don’t have much info on him, with Paul it’s more that 1) he never met Jesus, his claims are based on visions, the way Paul writes gives that away, and that it also shows that writing from the authoritative stance of “I saw visions while reading scripture” was considered a valid stance back then, which validates other pseudo-historical evidence that people use to make other Biblical claims, and 2) that only 7 of his letters can be authentically attributed to him (again iirc I read it like 3-4 years ago now). He goes through evidence on all those.
With Ehrman, I personally have only seen him on critique videos where the people commenting on it disagree with him, so I’m not super familiar with his work other than I’ve seen clips and I generally know what camp he’s in, I did see something of his where I was like “oh I see now why his argument is compelling, it’s more nuanced than I thought”, but I still disagree with his take.
But my impression is that the reason they don’t debate is that Ehrman believes Christianity was made up by the Romans and Carrier believes it was made up by the Jews. And I think even with Ehrman’s nuanced take, Carrier’s case and the foundation for it is stronger - the book is just too Jewish, the context is too Jewish, the background information you’d have to know is too Jewish. The layer on top of that that I think Adam Green gets right is that when you marry the Jewish-source argument with Kabbalah, esoteric Judaism, that’s where the question of “why would someone make this up” gets answered.
I think to that end, Ehrman probably knows that like the biggest foundational column to destroy in his argument is that origin claim and letting someone as knowledge as Carrier embarrass him would hurt his credibility too much because that’s like, his whole thing. Also Carrier rejects where Adam Green takes the argument, which I think he sees AG’s take as like a political issue where he’s just trying to be a detached historian, so Carrier doesn’t go nearly as far in his claims.
Because they do.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War