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.
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.
Adam Green says Christianity is a deception and came from Judaism. I'm well aware of his views and beliefs. Like I said before imo Judaism is not a religion, it's blood cult masquerading as a religion. So, how could a religion be created by a cult? it's not possible, it has to be created by a system. Maybe the same people (bloodlines) are responsible for coming up with both Christianity/the religion, and Judaism/the cult... yes, absolutely. Otherwise, I agree with a lot of things Adam Green claims. I also disagree with him and also with Christopher Jon Bjerknes (I'm not sure if these two made up or are still enemies) when it comes to Jesus as revealed in the non-canonical gospels. This real Jesus is not Moshiach Ben Joseph as these two, and others believe. He simply does not fit this description according to traditional Jewish beliefs. Simon of Peraea (aka Simon son of Joseph), who led a revolt against Roman rule, would be a much better fit. So, I feel like they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
If you read carefully the manuscripts found at Nag Hammadi you will see Jesus gave us a message of spiritual autonomy, which is very dangerous to any system of power. But, it's also dangerous to Jewish beliefs like repairing the world as well as the coming of the messianic age (Jew World Order). A slave with inner light does not fear death, a peasant with a sense of divine stature does not accept being owned by the system or someone else, and a whole nation moved by inner courage & character it’s not possible to control.
That's one of the problems, but there are others. For instance, according to most scholars the Gospels are generally considered to have been written after the Epistles, with the following approximate dates: Mark around 66 AD, Matthew 80–90 AD, Luke 100 AD, John 96 AD. In contrast, the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians are believed to have been written earlier, 1 Corinthians around 50 AD, Galatians around 50 AD. So, Paul wrote his letters, or if his letters were published or written down, before the Gospels, 20 to 50 years before Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Why would the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which claim to be the first person eyewitness accounts of the actions and sayings of Jesus, why on earth would they have been written down 20 to 50 years after the letters attributed to Paul were written down?
It's possible they're both correct. Paul (and Paul could represent a team of Romans and Jews) replaces Jesus' message and belief and hands interpretive power back to the system (authority, the Church or Rome). Paul shifts the center of experience and creates a new kind of structure. A structure that will grow much faster as a community than any individual autonomy. You could say Paul was the original architect of what today we call social media. Paul was very familiar with an ancient Greek art of using words not to seek truth but to construct reality. Paul takes Jesus’s message of spiritual autonomy and redirects/reconstructs it as a message of spiritual submission. Something that worked for both the Romans and the Jews.
Look at today's Jewish controlled Roman Catholic church, it's such a sad sh*tshow. For example, last year Pope Leo XIV blessed a giant ice cube in the name of fighting "climate change".
I kind of see Judaism as reflective of old world religions where they were basically tribal/racial inherently, and you could say Judaism is the cult of Yahweh and Yahweh is a violent psychopath, so generally I guess I agree with you I just don’t see it as that different from other old world religions - like if every religion was some flavor of “yeah we’re the fucking best and if you gotta wipe out people for Your Guy it’s righteous”, Judaism just survived longer than most so it’s sort of jarring to see nowadays.
As far as I know AG and CJB still hate each other, I think CJB holds the more fervent opinion on Jesus being Ben Joseph, but it’s something you can see modern rabbi’s claim on video too so it’s something being actively taught in some schools of Judaism. But they have a more nuanced tale as to what Ben Joseph is and how it can be represented - all I’m saying is it’s not gentiles who made up the idea that Jesus could represent Moshiach Ben Joseph, it’s gentiles who found the documents and videos of Jews talking about it themselves.
I think just to summarize my position on Judaism and all the various texts, apocryphal and canon, I don’t really put that much weight into the stuff other than analyzing it as you’d analyze any other ancient text. If I’m ever going to get well versed enough on any ancient mythology that I’m like “well if you recall Ecclesiasties 3:2-5”, it’s going to be European mythologies and not Biblical ones. I just…I don’t know when people get all emotional about the Bible being this divine miracle, I kind of just find that to be gay, like grown men acting like reading about mustard seeds is so damn profound and being called a sheep is like, only GOD could have come up with that! as they cry, I just think it’s super gay and sad, because most of the time they’ll then turn and say that their own ancestors worshiped demons while also knowing less than nothing about their own mythologies, it’s really sad to me, total Abrahamic mind virus folk-soul death.
Anyway, enough of my own opinions, Carrier did go over that about Paul, I forgot about that - I mean you could make the case that Christianity IS Paul’s creation. Also, he studied under Gamaliel! Like could you have a better premise for a poison pill religion? “Oh yeah so I studied under the most famous Pharisee of the day, expert in Jewish law, one of the leaders of the Sanhedrin, but we toooootally have this authentic religion for you guys who are routinely slaughtering us, we really truly care about you.”
The church has literally always been Jewish - Peter…first pope…who were the first Christians? What race were the first popes. There’s also some sort of conspiracy that I want to look into about Constantine as well as…there was this family who was Jewish banking family who got one of their guys as Roman emperor and there’s a conspiracy around it all being a Jewish takeover of Rome using religion and finance - but regardless (it’s something I’m meaning to look into) - the church’s goal has always been to destroy paganism and get people to worship Yahweh so it’s literally always been Jewish. But iirc Laurent Guyenot has a book about how the church routinely helped either finance or direct wars in Europe strategically to prevent European unity, that it’s always been used as a divide and conquer mechanism to stifle White people’s development - I mean the renaissance itself was a rebellion against the church and back to Roman and Greek pagan principles. Anyway, some scattered thoughts but I’m about beat on this convo
That's because it's not a real "church", but an instrument to be used for imperial control. Bloodlines run and own the world, not the Church.
Maybe you're thinking of Giulio de’ Medici who would become Pope Clement VII. Giulio de’ Medici (1478-1534) would become Pope Clement VII, Alessandro de’ Medici (1535-1605) was Pope Leo XI and Giovanni de Medici, Pope Leo X (1513-1521).
The Medici family are a well known Black Nobility bloodline involved in the Vatican, banking, medical industry, secret societies, and Zionism. Medici involvement with the Vatican includes in addition to the popes also two queens of France: Catherine de’ Medici and Marie de’ Medici.
Some of the famous artists commissioned by the Medici family and paid to paint include: Sandro Botticelli, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo Buonarroti, Raphael, Peter Paul Rubens, and many others.
Have you ever heard of the Black Nobility? 13 satanic bloodlines who control the world. Some people use the term "Khazarian Mafia", or their official name the "Khazars"... same thing. They are also known as the "Name Stealers", which imo is the best term.
Newton, Einstein and Darwin were Orsini and Farnese. Christopher Columbus was Colonna. The Rothschilds are at the top of this pyramid as Jesuit agents operating under a Kahzarian Jewish cover. The Rothschilds are Aldobrandini bloodline by marriage into this bloodline.
Yahweh worship can be traced back all the way to the ancient religion of Canaan. Yahweh was but one of many deities united under a figure known as El. Yahweh and Baal were merely two of El’s children.
I used to be more into that stuff but there’s a lot I consider to be conspiraslop now - the Khazar thing was a Russian psyop, they create that as an intel operation as a way of deflecting from the “not all Jews!” stuff - i.e. it’s another scapegoat ritual - “hey man it’s not like Jews who are the problem, it’s actually these Europeans who are DISGUISING themselves as Jews! It’s another way of blaming Europeans for Jewish crimes.
The bloodline stuff, I’m not opposed to that generally, it makes a lot of sense, my issue in recent years with that has been that unless you (general you, not you in particular) can point to like real evidence that’s not like some made up meme hierarchy - like “oh it’s the Orsini family!”, okay and where is your direct evidence? “Well it’s in this meme I saw on twitter”. To me, putting the blame on mysterious families where you’re extrapolating guilt based on very little hard evidence is not as useful as doing something like just mapping connections in the Epstein files. Like, okay the Orsinis are guilty of X because reasons, but let’s ignore Les Wexner, Leon Black, and the obvious network of billionaire Jews who are running ops literally in writing, emails, physical documents.
Part of why I’ve become this way is just seeing what the (fake) conspiracy space chooses to prop up, like “why is Alex Jones so dead set on telling me it’s Fourth Reich super Nazi Chicoms from the 9th dimension but he won’t discuss Jesus being fake?”, just seeing all these podcasters grifting on these things that seemed like cool conspiracies 10 years ago, now I’m like “oooh, so like 90% of this shit is fake”. That basically where I’m at - any conspiracy that gets pulled into what I consider distraction-oriented intel networks I’m now extremely suspicious of. There’s too much incentive to muddy the space with threads that ultimately go nowhere, and I see a lot of people investing in ideas that are unprovable yet they hold it with the utmost conviction, like the Khazars, the nephilim, etc, which again, notice how most of these conspiracies are meant to lead you back to Abrahamism - when people say “satanic”, the implication is that “satan is real, therefore Christ is real, therefore flee back into the Abrahamic matrix.” That’s how I see most things now, they’re meant to keep you on the Abrahamic plantation where you are goy cattle that they have a playbook on how to deal with you. Their biggest fear is Europeans returning to paganism.