Jesus

In the next entry of the series ‘Apocalypse for whites’ we will see the theme of the historical Jesus in the context of the Roman reaction against the Zealots of Jerusalem. Before translating his article I must invite visitors to become familiar with the subject of Biblical criticism and overall scepticism about Saul/Paul’s Christological claims.

The crucial point is to distinguish the historical Jesus from the Christ of the dogma (although fictional, my previous post ‘Kazantzakis on Paul’ hits the nail from an artist’s point of view). Of course, for Christians there is only one: Jesus Christ. A casual read at Wikipedia’s featured article on the most influential Jew in Western history will introduce the neophyte to the subject. But it is a biased article: it has a lot of Christian and Jewish input.

Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906)
demonstrated that the “lives of Jesus” were projections
from the authors’ personal views.

In my life, the quest of who Jesus really was meant a struggle against the religious introjects of my father. Now I agree with the secular authors that I have quoted in this site: Randel Helms and Joseph Hoffman. However, lately I have been inclined to the criterion of Rudolf Bultmann that the verses that go against the theology of the evangelist in question, might be historical.

There are quite a few statements that counter the evangelist’ POV within the New Testament itself. For example: the mention of Jesus’ brothers and sisters. The NT describes James, Joses, Jude and Simon as brothers of Jesus. Also mentioned, but not named, are the sisters of Jesus in his native town. ‘If it runs against the theology of the evangelist then it is historical’ may be a mere conjecture. But conjectures are also the educated guesses of those who say that the Jesus of the gospels is one hundred percent fictitious, and that not even the crucifixion that Pilate ordered was real.

Let me be crystal-clear: I do not believe that the god of the Jews exists. But whoever the historical Jesus was, if he existed at all, this subject is fundamental to understand the darkest hour of the West.

Published in: on December 21, 2017 at 11:27 am  Comments (7)  

7 Comments

  1. The difficulty the White Survivalist faces with ‘Jesus’ is the distinction between a universal humanitarian ethos and how to make it exclusive of non-white integration. There are sparse examples,- really, only two I can think of – of ‘prejudice’ by Jesus in the Gospels, but they are never-the-less poignant. The first is his initial rejection of the Sumerian woman’s plea with his explanation of his ministry being ONLY for the ‘chosen people’. The second is his contempt of the temple priests. The point here is that it is not personal; it’s racial. He rejects them for WHO they are irrespective of their personal quality.

    Outside of the Christian perspective I will not name ‘prejudice’ is contemptible in contemporary church’s. It rebuts the compassion that ‘seems’ to have been at the core of Jesus’s ethic. And with the inclusion of the Sephardic Paul’s Christology it is totally defeated. Consequently, western society had no spiritual basis for rejecting any human. I have never been able to get over the horror of Robert E. Lee taking communion with Negro’s at the end of the Northern War of Aggression to try to heal the ‘nation’ as it were …

    To reform ‘Christianity’ may seem impossible from a theological standpoint. But religions are based on ‘interpretations’ of arcane statements combined with whatever seems most relevant to the supposed authority of the moment. Athanasius had Arian beat up in the privy so that Constantine never heard his viewpoint, as one example of how religious doctrine is formed.

    The key to reforming Christianity is a solid review of the racism in the Old Testament. It leads to the simple question of Jesus being like or distinct from his ‘Father’. If he was like his Father he clearly recognized distinctions in people that ordered society. Thus, miscegenation is plausible.

    • The OT is racial. But OT ethnocentrism is for the Jews alone. Xtianitiy can never be reformed because of its substratum is Jewish.

      • Like I said in regards to your correspondent:

        ‘If we were to ‘salvage’ this religion, which I assume equates to scrounging up anything that could be for Whitey consumption, then it would make up nothing more than a pamphlet (not much of a Holy Book). Any ‘Aryanised’ form of this religion would be the equivalent of jazz – a vile and disgusting hybrid of a beautiful culture, created by beautiful beings and a nasty counterpart of the previous.
        We should just throw away Christianity, Islam and Judaism for the foreign Levantine cults that they are.’

        I am also referring to the OT as well, in the above paragraph.

        I then said:

        ‘The way I see things (and always will) is that if a religion is not Explicitly Pro-White then it is bunk and we don’t want it.’

        This goes for the OT and the NT. Nothing about either of these are explicitly for the Aryan race.

      • This is so obvious and yet very few WNsts seem to see it. Pierce saw it very clearly in those pages of Who We Are when referring to how Xtinity infected Europe. American WN will always be charlatanry unless and until it valiantly addresses this issue.

        But guess what? Even if I manage to translate the whole 10 volumes of Kriminalgeschichte for this blog I doubt that any WN would dare to face the facts.

  2. Well, Jack and C.T., you may very well be right …

    But what would it take to abridge the foundation faith of European culture? I say ‘abridge’ as opposed to ‘incinerate’ because the Sermon on the Mount and Christian exemplars of conduct are the ethical standards that have led to law, polity, indeed, civilization. Could National Socialism, for instance, have been inculcated into a population without ethical discipline? We are not dealing with idle words on paper here gentlemen, but inspiration that changed the world. INSPIRATION. And inspiration by it’s nature is not intellectual, but spiritual. If Schopenhauer was right, he would be on everybody’s lips outside of a scholastic demimonde. But he only spoke to the mind, not the heart. Granted, Hitler spoke to both. But if we can only rely upon a titanic personality, indeed, an Avatar, then we are as wishful thinking as the Fundamentalists waiting for the ‘Temple’ to be rebuilt for ‘Christ’ to return …

    C.T.’s analysis of sudden and traumatic economic decline is probable. In such a catastrophe anarchy would result, especially given the prevalence of the uncultured in our cities. Lets pray its true, forcing a return to a ‘tribal’ consciousness. But if we cannot ‘winnow’ Christianity to separate the Pauline trash from the racism of the Old Testament and the wisdom of Jesus’s words on human conduct, we will have to build a new ethical construct – without a ‘Divine’ exemplar.

    • ‘Sermon on the Mount and Christian exemplars of conduct are the ethical standards that have led to law, polity, indeed, civilization.’

      So ignorant, Matthew…

    • The Sermon of the Mount should be thrown into the toilet.

      Fulfilling the promises of the Sermon of the Mount, which contains the central tenets of Christian discipleship, has become mandatory, especially the Beatitudes, even among atheists! — “atheists” or “humanists” that I call Secular Christians.

      That’s why whites are dying. Out-group altruism, so inherent in today’s Christianity and secular humanism = white suicide.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: