Jesus.
- This topic has 49 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 2 hours, 1 minute ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Born Agains adopt wholesale the Orthodox dogmas of the Trinity and Godhead as they do the Orthodox Bible.
Yet the Orthodox (or Catholic, if you prefer) would have burned the Born Agains just as assuredly as they did unitarians.One doesn’t see Unitarians proselytising and vomiting the Jesus cult on us all.
Without miracles, raising from the dead, healing the blind etc., there is no way a preacher preaching peace, forgiveness and forbearance would have appealed one jot to those suffering the most in Roman times any more than he would today.
In class society hate is paramount, and futile hatred is strongest among the poor.
If you can read in Spanish or can use a digital translator, these people have debunked Paul completely, as well as the catholic church and the popes:
https://www.facebook.com/ateismoparacristianos/?locale=es_LA
For them, Paul suffered from epilepsy and syphilis, and he used hashish or opium to treat his diseases, and both produce hallucinations and addictions.
Another point is that the New Testament is backward; the letters of Paul should have been published first, because he never met Jesus ( and Jesus never existed). He created that lie, and the New Testament appeared later after Paul’s letters; he never met any of the apostles ( and they never existed ); therefore, he was just a liar.
He used the word bishops, but the bishops did not exist during the primitive Christians, which was like a working-class movement, and the primitive Christians existed before the New Testament.
The so-called writers of the Gospel never existed; the whole Bible, including the Torah, is based on false narratives, and Moses never wrote the Torah either; it was written by different individuals at different times
Yes, but isn’t Paul himself a composite of sevwral anonymous people, and the letters too rewritten by different people.
The “heretical” Christian sects were the earliest. The Marcionites especially, who claimed “Paul” as their own. The Athanasians, who became the orthodox, were late on the scene, and moaned that they were outnumbered by the “heretics.”
Robert Price has written a book about the Paul fraud, called The Colossal Apostle, and two books exploding an historical Jesus.
Price talks about the “myth of the early Church.”
How sure are we of a communist early Church, and are we thus doing the same as evangelical protestants who think of themselves as being like an “early Church” that never was?
A myth of an early Church could have been invented to browbeat Christians of different traditions later on. To be sure, the early Christians would not have been Trinitarians/orthodox, who were late on the scene.
Paul did exist; she is wrong. The real historical fact is that he did not write most of his letters; he used a secretary or followers because he was sick. He is one of the few historical figures of the bible that did exist; he discriminated against women because it was the prevailing idea of that time in a society based on slavery.
The other fact is that he contradicts everything that was laid down by the primitive Christians, which was a working-class movement, and he lied about his encounter with Jesus because he never existed, and he never had a meeting with Jesus apostles because they did not exist either. He travelled to Rome because he was a Roman citizen, and he was not a jew; he was born in Syria, and he was a proselyte.
Most of the so-called historical figures of the Bible did not exist; Paul and David did exist. The Jewish Torah was written by different peoples; it was not written by Moses, who did not exist. There is no historical evidence in Egyptian history, and the Egyptians kept records of everything; it was a very advanced society.y
Genesis is an anti-scientific book, and the Exodus never took place; without that, everything else falls apart, including the promised land and the holy land, and the Ten Commandments were not given to Moses, and the so-called god never wrote them; they are backward laws written in a backward time where slavery was the prevailing mode of production, and many of those clauses existed within the Egyptian society, and the psalms were copied from the egyptian socciety.
I stick my gun to Frederick Engels and Karl Kausty, who wrote from the point of view of the Materialist conception of history. Most secular atheists are wrong; religion was created by human beings to explain their own world, and it was the only one to do that. In a socialist society, we are going to be able to see the real origin of religion, without any myth.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/keracher/1929/how-gods-made.htm.This is a very good explanation of the origin of gods, religion and prophets and how religion has been attached to a mode of production. It is based on the materialist conception of history. The SPGB pamphlet is perfect, and the preface written by Adam Buick is perfect too. T
The main thing is not whether a historical figure existed or did not exist; the question is why mankind created religion, and what was the mode of production that existed at that time.
The Indians believed in the spirit, but it was a society based on common possession and based on natural production, and Engels, Marx and Morgan described it pretty well, and the ethnological notebooks of Marx are good too
What non-Christian evidence for Paul is there? How do we know that Josephus’ “Saulus” is him? For someone apparently well-heeled and a Roman citizen we only have the New Testament letters; no date or details of trial and execution. Kautsky accepts Paul as real, but what qualifies that? As for persecutions of Christians, there were none, at least not systematically. The dates assumed for Paul place him in the middle of the Jewish war – hardly a time for the Romans to be bothered with Christians.
The Christians were not working class. The work of the Empire was done by slaves, and slaves were not the main source of converts. Most converts were from the proletariat – not a working proletariat like today’s, but the dispossessed farmers who boosted the urban populations and lived on the Imperial dole.
The New Testament Paul does not refer to any meeting with a fleshly Jesus, but speaks only of Jesus in a non-physical Gnostic sense. The Marcionites claimed a Paul as theirs, and they did not believe in Jesus as a man.
We only have the Acts to say he travelled to Rome, and they are fiction. No Roman source mentions him.
David did not exist.
I too hold to the materialist conception of history, but that doesn’t mean Kautsky was correct about Paul. Paul is every much a composite, like Jesus, for several anonymous people.Moses, David and Solomon are myths, and there is no evidence for any first Temple in Jerusalem, only the Temple permitted by Cyrus and which was destroyed by the Romans. None before that.
You have your point of view, and I have mine. I rest my case.
I do not care if they existed or did not exist; the point is why mankind created religion, and it was a very progressive idea at that time, because it was the only way to explain their own world.
I will not despise the churchgoers like most atheists do because they are human beings and they are members of the working class, and intellectuals are wage slaves too, like anybody else in this society
Fair enough. The Roman aristocracy, however, seemed to get along atheistically, with public worship (religion’s original definition) serving a purely social cohesive function. This was so with Judaism too, except for the Zealot fanatics. Only with Christianity does “faith”/belief become conflated with religion. For “Paul” belief is everything, and subsequent Christians will kill people for not believing as they do. For the Roman state belief was of no importance and, as in Hinduism, religion was about ritual, not belief.
Many secular atheists are as reactionary as the people that they reject; some want the death of religious leaders and churchgoers.
I do not think that it is correct, is the same case as the leftwingers who call poor fascists to the workers who do not vote for them and want them to be killed, or the assassination of political leaders.
Workers are not rightwingers or leftwingers; there is discontent around the whole world, but people do not know how to resolve their own problems
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.