View Full Version : WHO WROTE THIS????????????

08-15-2012, 04:40 PM
Key Passages:
... I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalization' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.

With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours, ************

Gayle in MD
08-16-2012, 06:24 AM
Albert Einstein.


08-16-2012, 07:10 AM
Gayle -- Yep, but in german of course.
I didnt praktis billiards today, koz today i read the following article.
U must read it. Here iz the first page.

On the Historicity of Jesus Christ
Prof. Ioannis Roussos


The issue of the historicity of Jesus Christ has zealously kept busy a great part of hu**manity from the 1st century C.E. until today. On this subject there are, roughly spea*k*ing, three categories of peo*p*le. (1) Those who religiously believe whatever is written in the Gospels and Cate*chisms of the various Christian sects. For these people both the divinity and the historicity of Jesus Christ are given. On account of religious faith they do not find necessary scientific and histo*rical proofs and they do not search for them. This is the category of the so believers. (2) Those who ac*cept that indeed there was so*me man, named Jesus, who was not god but the lea*der of a mo*ve*ment. His followers dei*fied him and characterized him as the mythological Christ after his death by making up and attaching to him diverse legendary stories. These pe*o*p*le, in other words, accept the hi*storicity of Jesus the man, but not his divinity. Even the original older Christian among the Jews, the Ebionites (= the poor, am haartes) considered Jesus Christ just a prophet. This is the category of the so historizers (3) Those who in*sist that the Judaic idea about Christ (Messiah), which already existed for a ve**ry long time, was in the end attached to a nonexistent mytho*lo*gical person whose na*me for some reasons was Jesus. These pe*ople, of course, deny both his divinity and histo*ri*ci*ty. This is the category of the so mythicists.

08-16-2012, 07:24 AM

The Gospel of Mark is written in the name of Mark, the disciple of the mythical Peter. (Peter is lar*gely based on the pagan god Petra, who was door-keeper of heaven and the after life in Egyptian religion.) Even in Christian mythology, Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, but a friend of Paul and Luke. Mark was written before Matthew and Luke (c. 100 C.E.) but after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. which it mentions. Most Christians believe it was written in c. 75 C.E. This da*te is not based on history but on the belief that an historical Mark wrote the gospel in his old age. This is not possible since the style of language used in Mark shows that it was written (probably in Rome) by a Roman convert to Christianity whose first language was Latin and not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. Indeed, since all the other gospels are written in the name of legendary characters from the past, Mark was probably written long after any historical Mark (if there was one) had died. The contents of Mark is a collection of myths and legends put together to form a continuous narrative. There is no evidence that it was based on any reliable historical sources. Mark was altered and edited many times and the modern version probably dates to about 150 C.E . Clement *of Alexandria (c. 150 C.E. -c. 215 C.E.) complained about the alternative versions of this gospel which were still circulating in his lifetime. (The Carpocratians, an early Christian sect, considered pederasty to be a virtue and Clement complained about their versions of Mark which told of Jesus' homosexual exploits with young boys!)

Gayle in MD
08-16-2012, 07:50 AM
Having been raised Catholic, and having attended Catholic Schools, and then spending a number of years in my teens and also in my early twenties on a personal quest to determine the truth, and to decide what I did and did not believe in as regards organized religion, I don't think about it anymore.

I found numerous accounts of the same story of the virgin birth of the savior, with magical powers, the crucifixion, the ressurection, it was all around hundreds, some say thousands of years B.C. and has been rehashed over and over again.

My studies led me to a Buddhist Philosophy, and years of studying psychology and philosophy.

All very enriching.

Today, my observations of organized religions, and the followers of such, only serve to solidify my opinions about the gross damages to the world at large, prosecuted against humanity, by the dogma of organized religions and I believe the damages are even worse when these organized religions, regardless of which ones, are embraced by political movements.

A whole world of various groups or cults of "chosen ones" who attack and condemn other groups of "chosen ones" all claiming supreiority above the rest, even rejecting and likking the "others" it's to me, all too absurd, far fetched and overall a waste to spend my time and thoughts contemplating any of it.

Hence, I don't think about any of it. I am just constantly noticing all of the damage, which I see all of it creating for human beings, animals, and the world at large.

More bad than good, IMPO. What I am most disturbed by is racism, sexism, discrinimation, violence, and greed. I find so much of all of that in religious dogma, I find it all repulsive.

BTW, did you ever see Bill Mahr's movie, "Religulous"?

I think you'd like it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Probably asked you that before and forgot that I asked you, huh?

My religion is to do no harm, to live and let live, to assist others who are suffering in some way, and deserving of assistance, whenever I can, and basically to just enjoy every moment of my life that I am lucky enough to still be alive to enjoy.

My motto is "Be Love".....

Thats' about it, my friend!


08-16-2012, 08:09 AM
Yes i think i saw bill's movie -- great stuff -- great guy.
Anyhow that article shows that jesus christ didnt exist, nor mathew mark luke and john and paul.
Or at least that jesus christ woz an amalgam of 6 fellas -- 3 christs (that were stoned i think)-- and 3 jesuses (that were crucyfyd).

08-16-2012, 05:39 PM
Many things have been proposed about the beginning of the Christian communities. Certainly the event of the Pentecost in the Acts 2, is far detached from reality, concerning their beginning. All the data show that the Christian movement started about 200 years before Christ. There are many common and uncommon characteristics amongst of all these inchoate, archetype Chri*stian socie*ties. A common element of all these communities was an immediate eschatology and total de*merit of the exi*sting world to*gether with an immediate apocalyptic messianism. Horror and terror domi*nated these societies, for according to their beliefs the end of the world was already in front of their doors. The ju*dge Messiah would appear in any moment to renovate eve*ry*thing in this world and woe and thrice woe to those that he would punish. Another common point was a continuous reference to the canonical or non-canonical Jewish scriptures (eschatological, apocryphal, apocalyptic, etc.) Every community tried to use and interpret them at will and liking. This is an uncommon element.

08-16-2012, 05:45 PM
If though in the time of Tacitus in +110 the followers of the heresy of Jesus had become known with the name Christiani and Tacitus uses this anachronistically, then how could it be possible his friend Pliny the Younger to say in the same years that he discovered them for the first time in Bithynia? The situation with Tacitus becomes even more despondent, because: The first references to his works appear quite recently, that is, at the end of the 15th century and after, when a mutilated copy of the Annals was published for the first time in Venetia, by the rich collector Johannes de Spire in +1468. This publication is incomplete because the crucial chapters about Gaius Caligula and Claudius are missing. These chapters could tell us many things on several issues and answer many questions. Before this publication, that is, for almost 1300 years, Tacitus is entirely ignored by all the Christian Fathers and non-fathers, even all the Popes of Rome. He is not referred to anywhere; there is no hint or insinuation to him, whereas this reference about martyrdoms and persecutions by Nero would comprise one more praise and strong advertisement for all the Christians. Nero became evil for the Christians only after the year +1468! What do you think? Strange! But even if for a moment we assume that this tardy paragraph of Tacitus is genuine, its testimony is on some Christians, who by the way believed in some Christ. It does not constitute a historical reference on Jesus Christ.

08-16-2012, 06:10 PM
We quote here the English translation of the whole paragraph 201 Ε - 206 Β in Julian's book Against the Galileans, by Loeb Classical Library, Volume ΙΙΙ, pages 374-377. We consider all elements exposed in this paragraph to be of particular importance and significance and they should be carefully studied and examined. We emphasize and underline some of them and you notice the rest of them.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<«But what great gift of this sort do the Hebrews boast of as bestowed on them by God, the Hebrews who have persuaded you to desert to them? If you had at any rate paid heed to their teachings, you would not have fared altogether ill, and though worse than you did before, when you were with us, still your condition would have been bearable and supportable. For you would be worshipping one god instead of many, not a man, or rather many wretched men. And though you would be following a law that is harsh and stern and contains much that is savage and barbarous, instead of our mild and humane laws, and would in other respects be inferior to us, yet you would be more holy and purer than now in your forms of worship. But now it has come to pass that like leeches you have sucked the worst blood from that source and left the purer. Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy of you, has been known by name for but little more than three hundred years: and during his lifetime he accomplished nothing worth hearing of, unless anyone thinks that to heal crooked and blind men and to exorcise those who were possessed by evil demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany can be classed as a mighty achievement. As for purity of life you do not know whether he so much as mentioned it; but you emulate the rages and the bitterness of the Jews, overturning temples and altars, and you slaughtered not only those of us who remained true to the teachings of their fathers, but also men who were as much astray as yourselves, heretics, because they did not wail over the corpse in the same fashion as yourselves. But these are rather your own doings; for nowhere did either Jesus or Paul hand down to you such commands. The reason for this is that they never even hoped that you would one day attain to such power as you have; for they were content if they could delude maidservants and slaves, and through them the women, and men like Cornelius and Sergius. But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time, these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters. »>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

08-16-2012, 06:20 PM
If Jesus was not an historical person, where did the whole New Testament story come from in the first place? The Hebrew name for Christians has always been Notzrim. This name is derived from the Hebrew word neitzer, which means a shoot or sprout -an obvious Messianic symbol. There were already people called Notzrim at the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah (c.100 B. C.E.). Although modern Christians claim that Christianity only started in the first century C.E., it is clear that the first century Christians in Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the Notzri movement which had been in existence for about 150 years [and so from the beginning of the Hashmonean period] . One of the most notorious Notzrim was Yeishu ben Pandeira, also known as Yeishu ha-Notzri. Talmudic scholars have al*ways maintained that the story of Jesus began with Yeishu. The Hebrew name for Jesus has al*ways been Yeishu and the Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene" has always been "Yeishu ha-Notzri." (The name Yeishu is a shortened form of the name Yeishua, not Yehoshua.) It is important to note that Yeishuha-Notzri is not an historical Jesus since modern Christianity denies any connection bet*ween Jesus and Yeishu and moreover, parts of the Jesus myth are based on other historical peo*ple besides Yeishu.

[From fall the known elements we can conclude that even if the same Christian, messianic, eschatological heresy had not started as consolidated group, at least its bases had been already put down a century before the -167 B. C.E., that is the inception of the Hashmonean period. Besides the elements in the Talmud the author cites here these elements include: Writings of the heretic Judaism, teachings of rabbis, apocryphal, messianic, pseudepigrapha, eschatological, demonological and astrological writings, etc.

For instance, the demonology of the New Testament has many glaring similarities with the demonology of the Testament of Solomon, a hideous demonological passage derived from the sick minds of those epochs. We suggest to you to study this booklet with the New Testament abreast to see for yourselves these similarities and understand what morbidity is!

08-16-2012, 07:35 PM
Where did the story that Jesus was crucified come from? It appears to have resulted from a num**ber of sources. Firstly there were three historical characters during the Roman period who pe*o*ple thought were Messiahs and who were crucified by the Romans, namely. Yehuda of Galilee (6 C.E.), Theudas (44 C.E.) and Benjamin the Egyptian (60 C.E.). Since these three people were all thought to be the Messiah, they were naturally confused with Yeishu and ben Stada. Yehuda of Ga*li*lee had preached in Galilee and had collected many followers before being crucified by the Ro*mans. The story of Jesus' ministry in Galilee appears to be based on the life of Yehuda of Ga*li*lee. This story and the belief that Jesus lived in Nazareth in Galilee reinforced each other. The be*lief that Agrippa killed some of Jesus' disciples in c. 44 C.E. appears to be based the fate of Theu*das's disciples. Since ben Stada had come from Egypt it is natural that he would have been con*fu*sed with Benjamin the Egyptian. They were probably also contemporaries. Even some mo*dern au*thors have suggested that they were the same person, although this is not possible sin*ce the sto*ries of their deaths are completely different. In the New Testament book of Acts, which uses Jose*p*hus's book Jewish Antiquities (93 - 94 C.E.) as a reference, it is made clear that the au*thor consi*dered Jesus, Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Benjamin the Egyptian, to be four different pe*o**ple. However, by that time it was too late to undo the confusions, which had already taken place before the New Testament was written, and the idea of Jesus' crucifixion had become an in*te*gral part of the myth.

08-16-2012, 07:38 PM
[* In Josephus we have many more pseudo-messiahs and Jesuses that claimed to be prophets and Messiahs who suffered a lot in the hands of the Romans. (Just study Josephus to see this.) Interesting example is Jesus son of Ananus, a rustic character, who prophesied for many days the fall of Jerusalem, Jewish War, VI 300-309. The poor fellow was arrested, tortured and put to death by the Romans. Even the Acts of the Apostles, 5: 34-39, recognize the phenomenon of self-proclaimed Messiahs and give as examples: Theudas and Judas the Galilean (Gaulanites). So, this passage in the Acts and the written messages in: Matthew 7: 15, 24: 23-24 "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the every elect.", Mark 13: 21-23, Luke 17: 21-23, 21: 8, John 5:43, Acts 5: 36-37, 9:22, 2nd to Thessalonians 2: 3-10, 1st John 2: 18-19, 2nd John 7, Apocalypse, etc., reflect the followings: 1st) The fact that in Judaism during those periods Messiahs were very much in fashion. They appeared very now and again and with last one of them Simeon Bar Kokhbah in +132-135. 2nd) The unstoppable immediate eschatology and the terror about the imminent end of the world and the coming of the kingdom of heavens that had captivated the Christian groups of the first three century of the C.E. This conclusion has been put forward and supported with many elements and arguments even the worldwide renowned theologians Johannes Weiss and Etienne Trocmé in their studies on the Primal Christianity. E. g., in the common dinners, after the cutting of the bread the end of the primal Christians' prayer was: "Grace come, may this world end; maran-atha!", as this was saved in the manual of the primal church during the second half of the first century, Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles):10. In Paul's 1st Letter to Corinthians 16:22 we find again the Aramaic words "maran-atha."= Come oh Lord!]