Christianity was invented by the Jews to destroy the Roman empire
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-05-2014, 08:30 AM
RE: Christianity was invented by the Jews to destroy the Roman empire
(20-05-2014 04:35 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 01:35 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  That is, in my opinion, largely correct. I have been accused of supporting Joe Atwill's view that Christianity is a Roman plot to subdue Europe. My actual view is that Christianity is a product of Jewish sectarian thinking which has embedded inside some pagan tales, a philosophy which, once one realizes how palpably ridiculous the pagan tales and Jesus stories are, emerges and overpowers the paganistic, phallic based ideas on which Western civilization were based.

Which is well underway and is a good thing.

Mark, Eleazar ben Azariah was a Jewish Rabbi. He differed in his interpretation of the Torah. That is why there was a fourth sect. My view is that the core principles of Christianity are essentially no different from Immanual Kant's Categorical Imperative.

This exert from Wiki summarizes Kant's view, which is what I also share: Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner ... the object of this idea",[62] but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good". The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view";[63] compare Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."[64] In the Jäsche Logic (1800) he wrote "One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose" (9:93, trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590–91).

Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor, meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.

Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of religious organizations that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967). Nevertheless, other interpreters consider that Kant was trying to mark off a defensible rational core of Christian belief.[65]



"My actual view is that Christianity is a product of Jewish sectarian thinking"

Ah....no. Most definitely no. Go back and do some reading about Jewish beliefs. Digest the following...

Here’s the historical reality. Devout Jews (such as the Nazarenes) despised Paul (the true founder of Christianity) and rejected his ramblings. The idea that their mysterious, perfect, one and only God could be incarnated in a Christ was unthinkable to them. They couldn’t imagine that their God could die, or that a Christ’s death somehow addressed man’s sins. For them the kingdom of God promised in scripture never was in a hypothetical heaven, but was to be on earth in the here and now. Their messiah wasn’t some savior of souls, but a leader of the Jews who heralded in a glorious age in which Israel triumphed and pagans recognized the glory of their god, Yahweh. He was to build the temple, (Ezek. 37:26–28) gather all Jews back to Israel, (Isa. 43:5–6) and, importantly, bring an end to Roman rule. He was supposed to end all exploitation, corruption, famine, disease, and war. Paul’s fictional Christ had done none of this!

Paul claimed:
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2;16, KJV) and “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Gal. 3:13, KJV) and “Before faith came, we were allowed no free- dom by the Law; we were being looked after till faith was revealed. The law was to be our guardian until the Christ came and we could be justified by faith. Now that that time has come we are no longer under that guardian, and you are, all of you, sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. All baptized in Christ, you have all clothed yourself in Christ, and there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:23–28, NJB.)

Jews didn’t buy this. They wouldn’t be Jewish if they did. They believed - and still do - that the way to find favor with God was to obey “the Law” - that is, the Torah, as allegedly taught by Moses. There’s no mention in their scriptures about an end to the covenant God made with their ancestors on Mount Sinai. Jews regarded the Law almost like a gift from their God, not a curse, or an imposition on freedom. They knew there was no such thing as a “new covenant.” Why would they give up centuries of tradition to believe a renegade like Paul?

Imagine a hypothetical modern analogy; a fanatic from a small cult, such as the “branch davidians,” grabbing a microphone during a Catholic mass at the Vatican, and proclaiming that David Koresh was Jesus’ son, and Koresh’s teachings replaced the sermon on the mount. Paul was behaving like a deluded fanatic.

Paul had an ambivalent attitude to Jewish scripture, which varied with the audience he was writing to. At times he used it to justify his own ideas, such as when writing to “Hellenized” Jews in the diaspora. Yet when writing to Gentiles he claimed large parts of it were redundant.

Yeshua had died over a decade before Paul appeared on the scene, and I think would have been perplexed and offended by the idea that his death could somehow give Gentiles a ticket to heaven. He hated the Romans, (they did nail him to a cross!) and never imagined that Yahweh, whom he never regarded as his temporal sire, would grant them a place in heaven!

Jesus said,
“Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them but complete them. I tell you sol- emnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved” (Matt. 5:17–18 JB.) Paul and Jesus contradicted each other! So much for biblical infallibility! (http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_ or_Paul.htm).

Many people today insist that Jesus came to do away with the Jewish Law. They’re not considering Jesus’ words, but Paul’s (or Paul’s proponents like Luther or Calvin.)
Most Jews believed God dwelt in the temple, in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital. Paul made a cavalier dismissal of the importance of Israel by suggesting that all believers become a temple for God:
“And that is what we are—the temple of the living God” (2 Cor. 6:15, NJB) and “Didn’t you realize that you were God’s Temple” (1 Cor. 3:16 JB.) He was trying to expand God’s seat of power out of Jerusalem and into the whole known world. Yet for most first cen- tury Jews this downplayed the importance of the temple, the geographical pivot of Judaism.

Jews thought they were Abraham’s descendants and God’s special people. Yet Paul claimed:
“Those therefore who rely on faith receive the same blessing as Abraham, the man of faith.” (Gal. 3:9, NJB,) and “Merely by belonging to Christ you are the posterity of Abraham, the heirs he was promised” (Gal. 3:29, NJB.) He wanted believing Gentiles to consider themselves God’s chosen, so that they too were special, and weaken the patriotic fervor of Jews by downplaying their exclusivity.

Throughout Paul’s travels, he was initially welcome in synagogues because he masqueraded as a traditional Jew, but after Jews heard what he had to say, he was rejected, sometimes even beaten and pelted with rocks; a repetitive pattern portrayed in Acts. They liked to think they were a chosen race, superior in all ways, and in God’s eyes, to the pagan hordes. These Jews must have imagined Paul was upsetting their God, and the whole Jewish community would suffer as a consequence. Is it any wonder they physically attacked him? Jesus’ own people were attacking Paul because he was promoting Christian ideas, a fact that should raise eyebrows in today’s churches.

In the decades Paul was preaching, the Nazarenes were expand- ing into a significant force under James’ leadership in Jerusalem. They also enjoyed a strong membership among Jews throughout the empire. They definitely didn’t preach the divinity of Christ, nor intend to start a new religion. Paul, when he wasn’t pretending to be one of them, considered them competitors. He got very upset when he encountered rival missionaries, who were probably Nazarene, and complained bitterly about them hijacking “his” converts. He cursed them, using the undeniable truth of his own gospel as justification:
“I am astonished at the promptness with which you have turned away from the one who called you and have decided to follow a different version of the Good News. Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some trouble makers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one that we have already preached to you, whether it be ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is condemned” (Gal. 1:6–9, NJB.) He sounds like an upset child whose best friend has gone off to play with someone else. It’s ironic that he was accusing his adversaries of the very thing he was guilty of - preaching a fabrication! He clearly undermined Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. He was surprised and angry to find himself competing with them for people’s allegiance. They were treading on what he considered his turf. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and dis- rupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war-mongering Jews promoted subversive fantasies about a messiah, but today’s God had revealed to him the real Christ, the up-to- date modern Christ! He, not them, was plugging the “good news.” He claimed he knew what the flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God expected in these modern, pro-Roman times. He thought of himself as an educated, savvy sophisticate who knew a stack more about selling religion than the old fashioned anti-Roman bumpkins from Jerusalem!

The two faced Paul probably tried to ingratiate himself with the Nazarenes when in their company, but they became implacably opposed to him, as verified by the verbal confrontation described in Galatians chapter two, and the adamantly anti-Pauline assertions in James’ letter.

Paul knew he wasn’t a popular figure amongst traditional Jews. In his letter to the Romans he expressed his nervousness that the Nazarenes in Jerusalem might reject him, which, if the story in Acts is true, is precisely what happened. James summoned Paul to Jerusalem when it became apparent Paul was preaching against the Torah, and sent him to the temple to be purified and prove he was still a true Jew, (see Acts 21, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 21&version=KJV) which led to Paul’s so called arrest and eventual transportation to Rome. James, Jesus’ brother, effectively terminated Paul’s missionary career!

When Paul was forced to admit that he was a Roman citizen, his cover was well and truly blown. Nazarenes were implacably opposed to Rome. According to Acts, Roman authorities had to dedicate considerable resources (500 soldiers) to protect him from angry Jews. They were looking after one of their own. That’s about the same number of soldiers who arrested Jesus.

Paul wasn’t deterred. He kept writing letters from Rome.

His modern-day reputation as an honest evangelist, and the implication he taught Yeshua’s message, have no foundation, yet they’ve become part of Christian tradition, largely because of Acts, written some time in the early second century. Paul’s legitimacy must have lacked credibility, so the author had Jesus’ ghost appear to Paul on the road to Damascus, which was obviously a fiction, as was the story of Paul becoming best friends with Jesus’ disciples. The author even tried to shore up Paul’s status by having him (and his handkerchief) perform a number of miracles. Yet Paul failed to mention Jesus’ ghost or his own miracles; impossible omissions if they were true. Paul revealed many personality traits in his letters, but genuine modesty definitely wasn’t one of them.

If one were, today, to try to write a Harry Potter type novel to encourage people to accept the ideas of Kant, it would be strange and ridiculous to start arguing that Kant knew a boy called Harry Potter or that the existence of a Harry Potter type person in the age in which the Harry Potter story is set is in any way relevant to Kant's moral philosophy. In the same way, it is of no consequence who Jesus was, a rebel, descendant of Julius Caesar, king of Edessa or travelling Wilbury. It just doesn't matter. The myths and persona incorporated in the story are only of significance because the writers of the gospels were trying to sell the philosophy to the widest audience.

At the time of the Jewish Revolt, Nero, a hated emperor had committed suicide. Three other Caesars came and went in a year and the Emperor ends up being Vespasian Flavius who, from the historical record, appears to have been a much better person and far more humane than his predecessors, as was Titus. Josephus Flavius is said by some new researchers to have masterminded the New Testament. Suetonius writes that one of the factors in Vespasian deciding to attempt to become Emperor is that Josephus suggested this to him, that he was going to be Emperor so Vespasian adopted Josephus. Josephus was a follower of Eleazar ben Azariah who preached a form of Judaism which was very close to the principles which Kant sets out. In that sense, one could argue that a Jew, Josephus or a sect of Judaism, devised Christianity to supplant the brutalistic and barbaric paganism of the Romans and did so by wrapping it up in myths and using some amalgam of characteristics based on Judean figures.

The idea of a reason based morality did, in fact, take root in Europe and did end the Roman and Holy Roman rule over Europe which is now ruled by the EEC which has very classical secular, humanistic values at its core rather than Roman paganism or Roman Catholicism or even Christianity as such. And the USA is secularist as are most republics around the world which owe their origins to anti Roman Catholic thinkers many of whom have seen the problem embedded in Christianity and rejected it while keeping its core values.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 08:35 AM
RE: Christianity was invented by the Jews to destroy the Roman empire
Oh, for fuck's sake. There is no good evidence for any of these conspiracy scenarios, and certainly no good reason to believe any of them.

I call bullshit on the lot of you.

Look at the rise of other religions and cults - Mormonism, Scientology, cargo cults - that we have actual evidence for. No big conspiracies, just credulous people fulfilling emotional needs, often as the tools of the emotional or sexual needs of the cult leader.

Jesus bingo-calling Christ, people - get a grip. Angry

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
20-05-2014, 08:39 AM
RE: Christianity was invented by the Jews to destroy the Roman empire
Thread adjourned.

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 08:40 AM
RE: Christianity was invented by the Jews to destroy the Roman empire
(20-05-2014 08:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, for fuck's sake. There is no good evidence for any of these conspiracy scenarios, and certainly no good reason to believe any of them.

I call bullshit on the lot of you.

Look at the rise of other religions and cults - Mormonism, Scientology, cargo cults - that we have actual evidence for. No big conspiracies, just credulous people fulfilling emotional needs, often as the tools of the emotional or sexual needs of the cult leader.

Jesus bingo-calling Christ, people - get a grip. Angry

Yes, we have evidence that religions are constructed by people for reasons, and don't evolve the way Christianity is supposed to have, from a lone priest who was liked but then crucified for no apparent reason. So why think Christianity is any different? Your view is the one which requires one to ignore experience of other religions which are all "conspiratorial" if that is how you want to classify it.

I call bullshit on you big man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deltabravo's post
20-05-2014, 08:45 AM
RE: Christianity was invented by the Jews to destroy the Roman empire
(20-05-2014 08:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 08:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, for fuck's sake. There is no good evidence for any of these conspiracy scenarios, and certainly no good reason to believe any of them.

I call bullshit on the lot of you.

Look at the rise of other religions and cults - Mormonism, Scientology, cargo cults - that we have actual evidence for. No big conspiracies, just credulous people fulfilling emotional needs, often as the tools of the emotional or sexual needs of the cult leader.

Jesus bingo-calling Christ, people - get a grip. Angry

Yes, we have evidence that religions are constructed by people for reasons, and don't evolve the way Christianity is supposed to have, from a lone priest who was liked but then crucified for no apparent reason. So why think Christianity is any different? Your view is the one which requires one to ignore experience of other religions which are all "conspiratorial" if that is how you want to classify it.

I call bullshit on you big man.

Really ? "A priest who was crucified for no apparent reason" ?
Can you tell us what movie you got that from ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 08:52 AM
RE: Christianity was invented by the Jews to destroy the Roman empire
(20-05-2014 08:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, for fuck's sake. There is no good evidence for any of these conspiracy scenarios, and certainly no good reason to believe any of them.

I call bullshit on the lot of you.

Look at the rise of other religions and cults - Mormonism, Scientology, cargo cults - that we have actual evidence for. No big conspiracies, just credulous people fulfilling emotional needs, often as the tools of the emotional or sexual needs of the cult leader.

Jesus bingo-calling Christ, people - get a grip. Angry

Conspiracies SUCK, agreed.

It's inherently more likely for ignorant idiots to come up with brainfarts, than to have sophisticated master-minds drawing elegant plans for whatever intentions they might've had, nevermind succesfully executing them.

The latter quite simply don't exist.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 09:12 AM
RE: Christianity was invented by the Jews to destroy the Roman empire
(20-05-2014 08:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 08:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, for fuck's sake. There is no good evidence for any of these conspiracy scenarios, and certainly no good reason to believe any of them.

I call bullshit on the lot of you.

Look at the rise of other religions and cults - Mormonism, Scientology, cargo cults - that we have actual evidence for. No big conspiracies, just credulous people fulfilling emotional needs, often as the tools of the emotional or sexual needs of the cult leader.

Jesus bingo-calling Christ, people - get a grip. Angry

Yes, we have evidence that religions are constructed by people for reasons, and don't evolve the way Christianity is supposed to have, from a lone priest who was liked but then crucified for no apparent reason. So why think Christianity is any different? Your view is the one which requires one to ignore experience of other religions which are all "conspiratorial" if that is how you want to classify it.

I call bullshit on you big man.

Sure, this from the dolt who says Ellis was probably right, without having read Ellis.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-05-2014, 12:22 PM
RE: Christianity was invented by the Jews to destroy the Roman empire
(20-05-2014 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 08:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Yes, we have evidence that religions are constructed by people for reasons, and don't evolve the way Christianity is supposed to have, from a lone priest who was liked but then crucified for no apparent reason. So why think Christianity is any different? Your view is the one which requires one to ignore experience of other religions which are all "conspiratorial" if that is how you want to classify it.

I call bullshit on you big man.

Sure, this from the dolt who says Ellis was probably right, without having read Ellis.

Suck it up big boy and apologize.

I haven't read a single post from your which is more than a line long and doesn't contain some sort of insult.

A bunch of flags and what you think is some sort of pithy tag are no substitute for 1) manners, 2) the ability to think rather than just spout and 3) the ability to type with more than two fingers.

Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, GaspGaspGaspGasp
Drinking Beverage
Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deltabravo's post
20-05-2014, 01:22 PM
RE: Christianity was invented by the Jews to destroy the Roman empire
(20-05-2014 12:22 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  Sure, this from the dolt who says Ellis was probably right, without having read Ellis.

Suck it up big boy and apologize.

I haven't read a single post from your which is more than a line long and doesn't contain some sort of insult.

A bunch of flags and what you think is some sort of pithy tag are no substitute for 1) manners, 2) the ability to think rather than just spout and 3) the ability to type with more than two fingers.

Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, GaspGaspGaspGasp
Drinking Beverage
Laugh out load

I rate DB is Ralphie Drinking Beverage

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
20-05-2014, 01:48 PM
RE: Christianity was invented by the Jews to destroy the Roman empire
(20-05-2014 12:22 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  Sure, this from the dolt who says Ellis was probably right, without having read Ellis.

Suck it up big boy and apologize.

I haven't read a single post from your which is more than a line long and doesn't contain some sort of insult.

A bunch of flags and what you think is some sort of pithy tag are no substitute for 1) manners, 2) the ability to think rather than just spout and 3) the ability to type with more than two fingers.

Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, GaspGaspGaspGasp
Drinking Beverage
Laugh out load

My one-liners have more substance than your posts. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: