Hunter – 3


This entry has been moved: here.

Published in: on August 24, 2013 at 9:28 am  Comments (4)  


  1. I don’t think it’s fair to blame Jesus for Saul, he never even met the guy.

    Even back when I was(?) a Christian I thought that was sketchy as hell. Why exactly are you letting this unrelated guy run around making decisions while the apostles are still alive? If Jesus wanted him to be in charge wouldn’t he have recruited him, since they lived at the same time?

    Gullible from the very start I guess.

    Also Jesus wasn’t a Jew, he was an Aryan. Hitler said so, and surely he wouldn’t be wrong about such a thing, being an agent of God himself!

    • That’s precisely why I omitted Jesus from the above categories, but included Paul.

    • I don’t think it’s fair to blame Jesus for Saul, he never even met the guy.

      This assumes that there was in fact an historical Jesus, Which is very debatable. The most likely scenario was that Christianity started as a series of legends and myths which were the product of the Jewish Midrash tradition. There is no literal Jesus in Paul’s writings. Its all typical Midrashic interpretation and expansion of religious themes from the OT. It very well may be that Paul created Jesus out of thin air or was responding to a cult which was growing in the Mediterranean at that time. But the Gospel writers really gave wings to the Jesus cult; and there Mark was the most important because he came first and the others went off him. Marc was the JRR Tolkein of his day. He is also the most influential fiction writer of all time; from our perspective a diabolical genius.

      All that said, I think Pierce is right with his analysis. The Jews have manipulated Universalist ideas to more destructive effect than anyone else in history. They’re a tribal people that are masters at preaching Universalism and anti-Euro-White particularism. They’re hypocrites on their own terms.

      • This assumes that there was in fact an historical Jesus


        I treat the entire thing like a story. Darth Vader was Luke’s father and Saul of Tarsus never met Jesus in person. Who first started talking about Jesus is irrelevant if our concern is with Jesus the character.

        Now what you’re probably thinking is “how can Saul of Tarsus be a subversive liar when analyzed in a literary manner?”, and the answer is he’s an unreliable narrator of sorts. This isn’t a stretch when you point out the contradictions between what he and Jesus say. In fact, it’s quite likely that Saul was as agent of the Devil.

        Don’t forget that Jesus is the Son of God by definition, he is necessarily a perfect exemplar of goodness, and thus any description of him which is inconsistent with that primary attribute is a falsehood.

        But then you may ask why I bother at all. Poorly written scripture, only meaningful in mythical and metaphorical terms, which is then (within the myth) corrupted by the story’s own villain! Why not pick up The Lord of the Rings instead, a beautiful and far less confusing myth?

        If The Lord of the Rings could have such a cultural impact on people I’d happily use it, it’s brilliant, but it simply isn’t in the position that the story of Jesus is. It isn’t yet thought of in reverent terms, except among a few odd-balls. “Neo-pagan” theories seem to suffer from the same problem.

        You can’t get much more intolerant than a Muslim, but what did they decide to call their god? Allah, the chief deity of the Arabs’ pagan pantheon. Christianity just calls its god “God”, which I guess is uncontroversial, and was a throwback to Greek metaphysics. Explanation always means starting with what people know.

        Besides, the story of Jesus isn’t bad. It has a fight against corruption, the defiance of the Devil, the transcendence of the material, betrayal, self-sacrifice, redemption. I like the gnostic gospels even better, I can’t believe they were edited out…

Comments are closed.