Christianity’s Criminal History, 82

Below, an abridged translation from the third volume of
Karlheinz Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums.

 
The ‘Holy Scriptures’ are piled up

No evangelist intended to write a kind of revelation document, a canonical book. No one felt inspired, neither did Paul, and in fact none of the authors of the New Testament. Only the Book of Revelation: the one that, with difficulty, became part of the Bible pretends that God dictated the text to the author. But in 140 Bishop Papias did not consider the Gospels as ‘Holy Scriptures’ and gave preference to oral tradition. Even St. Justin, the greatest apologist of the 2nd century, sees in the Gospels—which he hardly quotes while he never ceases to mention the Old Testament—only ‘curiosities’.

The first to speak about an inspiration of the New Testament, which designates the Gospels and the epistles of Paul as ‘holy word of God’, was the bishop Theophilus of Antioch at the end of the 2nd century: a special luminary of the Church. On the other hand, in spite of the sanctity and divinity that he presupposes about the Gospels, he wrote a piece of apologetics about the ‘harmony of the Gospels’, as they were evidently a little too inharmonious.

Until the second half of the 2nd century the authority of the Gospels was not gradually accepted yet. Still, by the end of that same century the Gospel of Luke was accepted with reluctance; and that of John with was accepted with a remarkable resistance. Is it not odd that proto-Christianity did not speak of the gospels in the plural but in singular, the Gospel? In any case, throughout the 2nd century a fixed canon ‘of the Gospels did not yet exist and most of them were really considered a problem’ (Schneemelcher). This is clearly demonstrated by two famous initiatives of that time which tried to solve the problem of the plurality of Gospels with a reduction.

In the first place, there is the widespread Marcion Bible. This ‘heretic’, an important figure in the history of the Church, compiled the first New Testament in Sacred Scripture, and was the founder of the criticism of its texts, written shortly after the year 140. With it Marcion completely distanced himself from the bloodthirsty Old Testament, and only accepted the Gospel of Luke (without the totally legendary story of childhood) and the epistles of Paul; although, significantly, the latter without the forged pastoral letters and the epistle to the Hebrews, also manipulated. Moreover, Marcion deprived the remaining epistles of the ‘Judaistic’ additions, and his action was the decisive motive for the Catholic Church to initiate a compilation of the canon; thus beginning to constitute itself as a Church.

The second initiative, to a certain extent comparable, was the Diatessaron of Tatian. This disciple of St. Justin in Rome solved the problem of the plurality of the Gospels in a different way, although also reducing them. He wrote (as Theophilus) a ‘harmony of the Gospels’, adding freely in the chronological framework of the fourth Gospel the three synoptic accounts, as well as all kinds of ‘apocryphal’ stories. It had great success and the Syrian Church used it as Sacred Scripture until the 5th century. The Christians of the 1st century and to a large extent also those of the next century did not, therefore, possess any New Testament. As normative texts they used, until the beginning of the 2nd century, the epistles of Paul; but the Gospels were still not cited as ‘Scripture’ in religious services until the middle of that century.

The true Sacred Scripture of those early Christians was the sacred book of the Jews. Still in the year 160, St. Justin, in the broadest Christian treatise up to that date, almost exclusively referred to the Old Testament. The name of the New Testament (in Greek he kaine diatheke, ‘the new covenant’, translated for the first time by Tertullian as Novum Testamentum) appears in the year 192. However, at this time the limits of this New Testament were not yet well established and the Christians were discussing this throughout the 3rd and part of the 4th century, rejecting the compilations that others recognised as genuine. ‘Everywhere there are contrasts and contradictions’, writes the theologian Carl Schneider. ‘Some say: “what is read in all the churches” is valid. Others maintain: “what comes from the apostles” and third parties distinguish between sympathetic and non-sympathetic doctrinal content’.

Although around 200 there is in the Church, as Sacred Scripture, a New Testament next to the Old—being the central core the previous New Testament of the ‘heretic’ Marcion, the Gospels and the epistles of Paul—, there were still under discussion the Acts of the Apostles, the Book of Revelation and the ‘Catholic Epistles’. In the New Testament of St. Irenaeus, the most important theologian of the 2nd century, the book Shepherd of Hermas also appears which today does not belong to the New Testament; but the Epistle to the Hebrews, which does belong in today’s collection, is missing.

The religious writer Clemente of Alexandria (died about 215), included in several martyrologies among the saints of December 4, barely knows a collection of books of the New Testament moderately delimited. But even the Roman Church itself does not include around the year 200, in the New Testament, the epistle to the Hebrews; nor the first and second epistles of Peter, nor the epistle of James and the third of John. And the oscillations in the evaluation of the different writings are, as shown by the papyri found with the texts of the New Testament, still very large during the 3rd century.

(Papyrus Bodmer VIII, at the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, showing 1 and 2 Peter.)

Even in the 4th century, Bishop Eusebius, historian of the Church, includes among the writings that are the subject of discussion the epistles of James, of Judas, the second epistle of Peter and the so-called second and third epistles of John. Among the apocryphal writings, Eusebius accepts, ‘if you will’, the Revelation of John. (And almost towards the end of the 7th century, in 692, the Quinisext Council, approved in the Greek Church canons, appear compilations with and without John’s Book of Revelation.) For the North African Church, around the year 360, the epistle to the Hebrews, the epistles of James and Judas do not belong to the Sacred Scriptures; and according to other traditions, neither belonged the second of Peter and the second and third of John.

On the other hand, prominent Fathers of the Church included in their New Testament a whole series of Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Epistles that the Church would later condemn as apocryphal but in the East, until the 4th century, they enjoyed great appreciation and were even considered as Sacred Scripture, among others, Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, etc. And even in the 5th century it is possible to find in a codex some ‘apocryphal’ texts, that is, ‘false’ together with the ‘genuine’ ones.

The so-called Catholic epistles needed the most time to enter the New Testament as the group of the seven epistles. The Father of the Church St. Athanasius, the ‘father of scientific theology’ was the first one to determine its extension (whom the investigators also blame for the falsification of documents, collecting the 27 known writings, among them the 21 epistles). St. Athanasius lied without the slightest hesitation when affirming that the apostles and teachers of the apostolic era had already established the canon. Under the influence of Augustine, the West followed the resolution of Athanasius and consequently delimited, almost about the beginnings of the 5th century, the Catholic canon of the New Testament in the synods of Rome in 382, Hippo Regius in 393 and Carthage in 397 and 419.

The canon of the New Testament, used in Latin as a synonym for ‘Bible’, was created by imitating the sacred book of the Jews. The word canon, which in the New Testament appears only in four places, received in the Church the meaning of ‘norm, the scale of valuation’. It was considered canonical what was recognised as part of this norm, and after the definitive closure of the whole New Testament work, the word ‘canonical’ meant as much as divine, infallible. The opposite meaning was received by the word ‘apocryphal’.

The canon of the Catholic Church had general validity until the Reformation. Luther then discussed the canonicity of the second epistle of Peter (‘which sometimes detracts a little from the apostolic spirit’), the letter of James (‘a little straw epistle’, ‘directed against St. Paul’), the epistle to the Hebrews (‘perhaps a mixture of wood, straw and hay’) as well as the Book of Revelation (neither ‘apostolic nor prophetic’; ‘my spirit cannot be satisfied with the book’) and he admitted only what ‘Christ impelled’.

On the contrary, the Council of Trent, through the decree of April 8, 1546, clung to all the writings of the Catholic canon, since God was its auctor (author). In fact, the real auctor was the development and the election through the centuries of these writings along with the false affirmation of their apostolic origin.

______ 卐 ______

Liked it? Take a second to support this site.

13 Comments

  1. Catholic League President Bill Donohue said, “(((They))) really do hate Christians…” (ellipsis mine – Arch)

    Michael Chapman:

    Art Show: Porn Actress Stormy Daniels as the ‘Virgin Mary’. CNSNews.com, August 8, 2018.

    Starting Aug. 9, an art gallery in Southampton, Long Island, will display some of the photographs made by Nika Nesgoda, including images of the “Virgin Mary” portrayed by porn actors, such as Stormy Daniels (real name Stephanie Clifford). Daniels allegedly slept with Donald Trump on one occasion in 2006, a claim that President Trump has denied.

    Commenting on the pending art display, Catholic League President Bill Donohue said, “They really do hate Christians. The latest expression of hate will appear August 9 at a dumpy art gallery in the tony Long Island town of Southampton. The rich and famous will have the opportunity of seeing Nesgoda’s masterpiece, ‘Virgin,'” said Donohue. “It is a doctored photographic exhibit featuring porn stars such as Stormy Daniels posing as the Virgin Mary. According to the promo for this trash, it says Nesgoda ‘playfully interprets art history’ and ‘challenges the contemporary notion of iconography, identity, and religion.’ Stunning. I have a suggestion for this genius. Why doesn’t she do an exhibit called ‘Muhammad’ that features Harvey Weinstein and Anthony Weiner as the prophet? That might attract a crowd, but I’d make sure to call the bomb squad first.”

    On her website, Nika Nesgoda explains her “Virgin” photographs and why she wanted pornography actors to depict Mary, the Mother of Jesus and arguably the most revered woman in history. Nesgoda on her website observes” “Like the Virgin Mary, porn stars are icons. They are both untouchable and misunderstood. Both have enormous followings of devotees.”

    Images at: link, link

    • And the relevance of the above (I guess off-topic) to this post is…? None, right?

      I don’t care the least bit that Jews claim to hate Xtianity. As Axe of Perun says, ‘Jews do not hate Christianity, they hate Europeans’.

  2. Just pointing out you have allies in high places. Don’t know about this Ax fella, but the evidence is obvious, Jews hate Christians and their religion in the same manner they hate Europeans, after all they reserve a special place in their special hell for Jesus, roasting him in a vat of boiling excrement. Jews also slaughter non-European Christians in the same manner as they do Europeans. Then there are those child sacrifices where the crucify toddlers. link

    Finally the torturers imitated the crucifixion by holding the twitching body upside down and the arms outstretched and during this horrible act they spoke the following:

    Take this, crucified Jesus. Just as our forefathers did once, so may all Christians by land and sea perish.

    If that ain’t hate, I cannot imagine how the word might be defined. In fact your use of “X” in the word Christianity hearkens back to Stan Freberg’s – 1958 Green Christmas line, “Just as sure as there’s an X in Christmas.” link

    It’s Jews like Freberg that first introduced many young whites to their hatred and scorn for Christianity through the clever use of humor. Note too, how Freberg uses the Jews’ crass commercialization of Christianity to discount the religion’s foremost holiday.

    ________

    And just to show you that we white guys can be as funny as any two-bit jew humorist, I wrote the following humor piece. Of course, I wouldn’t dream of going as far as crucifying toddlers upside down while draining their blood.

    But with all the grim news coming out, I felt the need for some humor. To that end, I now present another episode of Arch Stanton’s – Theater of the Absurd.

    Today The Son ‘O God.

    Our story opens on a bright, sunny day. Jesus has just parked his donkey and ran into the tent calling for his mother.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Hi mom I‘m home! What for dinner?”

    “Is that you Jesus!”

    “Ya mom, I’m home from the Elysian Fields.”

    “Jesus you startled me! Your father is working late tonight so we’re having unleavened bread and hasty pudding.”

    “Aw Mom, not again! Can’t we have pork chops once in a while?”

    “Not unless you want to become a swineherd. I understand the Gadarines over by the lake have an apprentice program if you’re interested.”

    “I don’t think so. Besides how would I have time with my last semester of law at Elysian Fields and all? Say where is Pop anyways?”

    “He’s your Father! Last I saw, he was down in the garden pruning the tree of knowledge and talking with the lead gardener about those itinerant nomads he picked up in the desert last week. Why don’t you go down there and tell him dinner will be ready soon.”

    “Ok I’m on my way, we’ll be back soon.”

    “Don’t forget to close the tent flap!”

    Close the tent flap, close the tent flap. God! How I wish she would quit mothering me. This all started when they left me back at the Temple with those scabrous, old, priests, Yuck! You’d have thought I had fallen off a cliff or something.

    So Jesus ran down to the Garden of Eden where he found his Father pruning the tree of knowledge.

    “Mmmmm mmmmm – there, that should do it. These limbs were much too long and you know what they say, too much knowledge can lead to trouble.”

    “Hey Father!”

    “Jesus you startled me!”

    “Sorry Father!”

    “How about rattling some bushes next time to let me know you’re here.”

    “Will do daddy-O.”

    “I’m your Father and don’t you forget it!”

    “Picky, picky! Ok Father, what’s up with Satan anyway?”

    “That’s what I want to know. Lately I can’t seem to find him anywhere. Ever since I brought those two into my garden, he’s been hard to find. I think he’s playing footsie with that floozy, Eve. God! (that’s me) I don’t’ know why I don’t fire that snake in the tree. I’m not sure about that Adam fella, either. You know I told him to count the animals, instead he gave them names.

    “Aw Father, you can’t blame Satan. After all, outside her an’ Mom, women are scarce in the garden. Besides, Satan promised to take me to the chariot races this week.”

    “Jesus! She’s your Mother!”

    “Alright already! She’s my Mother, Father this, Mother that, sheesh! You’d think this place is an English class!”

    “I told you before, I don’t want you hanging around the tracks and I damn sure don’t want you hanging around Satan, he’s a bad influence. Next thing you know I’ll find you down at the Cheribum bar and grill making bets on what names Adam gave to the animals. Don’t think I don’t know what’s going on down there. I’ve heard the talk, ‘I’ll give you good odds he named it
    Platypus.”

    “But Father . . .”

    “No buts! You’re not going to the track, especially with that snake Satan.”

    “Aw gee . . .”

    “Come on Jesus, walk with me through the garden. I’m heading over to the tree of life, it needs trimming as well. Look here Jesus, after you finish your law degree you can do what ever you want because you’ll be able to defend yourself in court.”

    “Court? Gee dad I didn’t know there were any courts.”

    “There aren’t. I’m creating them next week.”

    “Gee that’s swell! Now I’ll be able to make a living.”

    “Right son. I don’t want you to be like that ner-do-well John the Baptist down at the river handing out free baths of forgiveness.”

    “Yeah, I guess you’re right. There isn’t much future in that career path.”

    “You’re damn right! He’ll never get ahead doing that kind of work. Remember I’m God and I hang up the phone if it doesn’t ring like a cash register.

    “Yeah, how could I forget? Hey, what’s this cash register thing anyway?”

    “You’ll find out in good time my boy, all in good time. Ahhhh here we are. Look why don’t you go look for Satan while I finish pruning the tree of life. These lifespans are entirely too long. I’ve decided to cut at least a millennium off the top. Trim it down to say no more than eighty or hundred years, max, ‘cept mebbe in special cases.”

    “Ok dad ~ er ~ Fath-er. Boy, sure glad I’m eternal.”

    “Count your blessings son, count your blessings.”

    And so Jesus ran off to find Satan, who was at that moment pitching his best line to Eve.

    “Say babe, would you look at the color of this fruit – and the texture . . . Mmmmmm, juicy! Why this must be the most delicious fruit in the garden.

    “It sure does look tasty Mr. Satan . . .”

    “Stan, call me Stan sweetheart, no need to stand on formalities in our secret garden.”

    “It sure does look good . . . Stan”

    “It is, good babe, IT IS GOOD! This is the fruit from the tree of knowledge. If you play your cards right, I think maybe we could arrange for you to get some brains.”

    “Brains?”

    “Brains! you know, The sum of the squares of the two legs of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.”

    “You mean –

    I might wile away the hours
    Conferrin’ with the powers
    Consultin’ with the priests
    And my head I’d be scratchin’
    While my plots were busy hatchin’
    If I only had a brain”
    “I could even go more further
    And say why there is murder
    And why the law is there”
    (Satan)
    “With these thoughts you’d be awed
    You could be another Gawd
    If you only had a brain”
    (Eve)
    “Oh, I would tell you frank
    Why there’s money in a bank
    Why there’s rich and poor.
    I could think of things I never thunk before
    And then I’d sit and think some more”
    “I would not be just a face
    With a head all full of lace
    My heart so proud and vain
    I would dance and be golden
    Life would be just Tikkun Olam
    If I only had a brain”

    “By George, I think she’s got it!”

    “So can I have a bite now . . . Stan?”

    “I might if, uh, you agree to some reciprocity.”

    “Reciprocity? What does that mean?”

    “See? That right there’s exactly why you need a brain. You’d be right as rain if you only had a brain. So how about we go over into the bushes and work something out”

    “Work something out? What do you mean ‘work something out?’”
    “Hmmm, maybe I’m taking this brain thing too far. Never mind sweetheart, let’s go into the bushes and we’ll talk about it.”

    Jesus now comes walking down the path, humming to himself.

    “A mighty fortress is our lord, with his amazing grace you can look life in the face . . . Hey! Izzat you Satan?”

    Satan emerges from the bushes dusting himself off and adjusting his uraeus.

    “Oh, it’s you Jesus. I thought you might be your Father.”

    “Well I am, sort of.”

    “Yeah kid I know, like Father like son. What do you want anyway?”

    “Pop ~ er ~ Father is looking for you.”

    “What does he want?”

    “How the hell should I know, he’s the Father. I’m only the son.”

    “Keep it up kid and you’ll wind up being a holy ghost.”

    “Are you threatening me Satan?”

    “Naw kid, it’s just a joke. Call me Stan kid, call me Stan.”

    “Ok Stan, I’ll go back and tell Father where you are.”

    “You do that boy, you do that.”

    “Uh, where are we anyway?”

    “Don’t you recognize the crossroad of righteousness and perdition?”

    “No . . .”

    “Well that’s where you be standin’, at the corner of righteousness and perdition.”

    “Say it’s late, you must be hungry, why not have a bite of this delicious fruit? It’s brain food, it’ll help with the law exams”

    “Don’t tempt me Satan, don’t tempt me. Mother is waiting at home with another dinner of unleavened bread and hasty pudding. Anything is better than that, ANYTHING!”

    “So have a bite kid.”

    “Naw, I’d better not. Mom would crucify me if she found out I ruined my dinner.”

    In the meantime, not far away in the bushes,

    “Oh Adam, Adam, it’s always been you. I’ve never loved the serpent.”

    “Yeah babe, sure. You know, I’ve heard it all before.”

    “Really? From whom?”

    “I’m not being literal Eve, I’m speaking metaphorically.”

    “Ahhhh yes, metaphorically: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money). Here Adam, have a bite of this delicious fruit. It’s brain food you know.”

    “Eve! You know we’re not supposed eat of this fruit!”

    “Yeah I know, but Satan turned me on to a bite.”

    “Reaaaally?”

    “Yeah, you wouldn’t believe what I have learned already.”

    “Like what?”

    “Like we’re naked.”

    “What? You know the lord hath provided for us. Just look at these new sneakers he created ‘specially for me.”

    “Silly Billy. It’s like one of those metaphors you brought up earlier.”

    “Huh?”

    “Naked is a euphemism for “without wealth,” you know, poor. We got no gold dear even though this place is loaded with the good stuff.”

    “Euphemism?”

    “Here Adam, have a bite of fruit.”

    “Ok” (munch munch)

    “Wow! This is really good, crisp, tart and tangy with just a hint of mango. Euphemism: the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant; also: the expression so substituted. You mean we’re broke?”

    “Exactly. You know that little apron the lord wears around his waist?”

    “Yeah, I was a wondering about that. . .”

    “Well that’s where he keeps his personal gold. It’s sort of a mark of distinction that can be easily covered if needed. So anyone wearing one of those aprons looks dignified and gets respect. Hey! You know we don’t get no respect.”

    “Respect? From whom?”

    “Silly Billy, this place won’t always be this empty you know.”

    “Yeah, I guess you’re right Eve. Here look at this, if I take a few of these large leaves and string them around my waist . . . Look ma! I’m loaded with wealth.”

    Just then a loud voice is heard nearby.

    “Adam! Adam! Where the hell are you, Adam!”

    And in a hushed whisper –

    “Eve! It’s the Lord of the Garden, we gotta’ get out of here!”

    “There’s no place to run Adam. Let’s just go out and act innocent.”

    “Are you crazy if he thinks . . .”

    “Thinks? What is there to think? He knows we’re an item so, what’s the problem?”

    “Yeah, I guess you’re right.”

    So Adam and Eve stumbled from the bushes, Eve plucking grass out of her hair and Adam brushing off his clothes as the Lord speaks:

    “Adam! Eve! Where the hell have you two been! We’ve been looking for you everywhere!”

    “Well it looks like you finally found us. What can I do for milord?”

    “The first thing you can do is explain why you’re wearing that apron!”

    “Apron what apr . . . oh this old thing, just something I picked up in the bushes.”

    “Reaaaallly! Do you think I was born yesterday!? I’M ETERNAL AND OMNISCIENT.”

    “Well, you couldn’t find me in the . . .”

    “SILENCE! You are wearing an apron. That means you know about wealth and what it signifies. You cannot lie you must have eaten fruit from the tree of knowledge to know these things! Besides, you have the fruit juice of knowledge dribbling down your chin. You shall pay dearly for this transgression and who gave you the idea anyways?”

    “It was that slut Eve milord! I was minding my own business naming Drosophila melanogaster “fruit fly” when up walks Eve with this piece of fruit and offers me a bite. . .”

    “SILENCE! And you wench, you ungrateful shiksa slut, what have you got to say for yourself!?”

    “Milord, if you please, it was Stan, uh, Satan that is, who enticed me to eat of the fruit. I didn’t want it, but he said it would give me a brain and what woman can resist such an offer?”

    The Lord turned to his head gardener, casting a jaundiced eye at the miscreant.

    “And what have you got to say for yourself head gardener?”

    “I was just helping out the poor and oppressed milord with charitable ways. Is it not up to the wealthy to provide welfare for these miserable wretches? Eve is so pretty, all she lacked was a brain because you failed to give her one. I felt it my civic duty to help her with her brain problem.”

    “SILENCE!”

    “You are the lowest form of life! You gave away my most guarded secret of wealth creation! You’re one snake that won’t be living in the trees anymore. I’m taking your stripes and busting you down to slave second class. I hereby condemn you to my gold mines where you shall spend the rest of your days crawling on your belly in the dust! How do you like them apples?”

    “But milord!”

    “NO BUTS!”

    “Now where the hell are those cherubim?”

    “Hey pop, er, I mean Father. What’s going on?”

    “Jesus! You startled me. Go find my Cherubim and tell them I need to make an arrest.”

    “But father don’t cherubim have eyes all over the body, shouldn’t they have seen this coming?”

    “Judging from the optometrist’s bill they must be myopic. They sure missed this one! Now get outta’ here and find a couple. Try looking down at the Cherubim Bar and Grill and stay away from the waitresses. I don’t care if they are goddesses, they’re not good enough for you.”

    “Sure thing Father.”

    “Now as for you two desert rats, you’re outta here! Outta’ my garden NOW!”

    “But . . .”

    “NO BUTS! Now that you have a brain you can understand my wealth and how I obtain it. You know about good and evil and how to use extortion to leverage money from the suckers, and that’s the real problem, you know what money is and what it represents. You know the truth about inflation and compound interest. I cannot trust you around the garden any longer because the next thing you know you’ll become jealous of my wealth and try to steal it from me. You desert nomads are all alike, turn your back for a moment and there goes the magic carpet right out of the tent flap.”

    Jesus now approaches with two Cherubim guards.

    “Hey dad, I mean Father, I brought the cherubim.”

    “Are they sober? You know how drunk they get on thatPower O’ God 20/20.”

    “I think so.”

    “How may we serve milord?”

    Turning to the Cherubim, the Lord speaks:

    “Take this snake and toss him into the mines where he shall crawl on his belly in the dust for the rest of eternity, or his life, whichever comes first. And as for these two, take them to the East Gate and throw them out on their ear! And take off that damn apron Adam; it looks silly on you besides you won’t be needing it where you’re going.”

    “Yes milord.”

    “And guards, be sure you use your light sabers to guard the entrance so they don’t try sneaking back in to sample the tree of life. I’m not running a welfare state here with free health care you know.”

    “Yes milord!”

    “Turning to Adam and Eve, the Cherubim command:

    “You two come with us.”

    “But . . .”

    “BUT NOTHING! I am a wrathful, judgmental God! I dish out the punishment around here so save it for the coyotes – BEGONE!”

    “Yes milord.”

    As the two walk off with the cherubim guards, Jesus turns to his Father.

    “Gosh Father aren’t you going kind of hard on them banishing them to a hardscrabble life of farming and pregnancy and all.”

    “It’ll be good for them my son. Some day they will thank me for this.”
    Approaching the East gate, Eve begins looking gloomy and downtrodden.

    Just then one of the Cherubim barked. “Out, out you damn spots!” And so the two nomads returned once again to the desert dust from whence they sprang.

    Heading out into the vast desert expanse surrounding the garden, Eve wailed, “Oh Adam, Adam, what are we going to do? We have nothing! Worse, we have no money, no job and no prospects. Oh what are we ever gonna’ do!?”

    “Relax Eve, don’t be a Silly Billy. You’re forgetting one thing, we now have brains. We know the difference between the gullible good and profitable evil. We will use evil to advance ourselves in this world. Just wait, we’ll move into a neighborhood somewhere and ingratiate ourselves with the natives to exploit and subjugate them with our knowledge. Soon we will have our own aprons richly embroidered with precious stones. You know babe the future looks bright now that we have brains.

    We will wile away the hours
    Conferrin’ with the powers
    Consultin’ with the priests
    And our heads we’ll be scratchin’
    While our plots are busy hatchin’
    Since we got a brain”
    “I can even go more further
    To say why we must murder
    And why the law is there”
    (Eve)
    “With these thoughts we are awed
    You know we’re now like Gawds
    Because we got a brain”
    “Oh, I can tell you quite frank
    Why there’s money in a bank
    And why there’s rich and poor.
    I can think of things I never thunk before
    And now I think I’ll sit and think some more”
    “We are not just pretty faces
    With aprons full of laces
    With hearts so proud and vain
    Life will now be so golden
    It will just be Tikkun Olam
    because we got our brains”

    ~ Finis ~

    Today’s Theater of the Absurd has been brought to you by Old Testament soap; the soap made from 100% pure Jewish fat. One shower will leave a neo-Nadzee saying, “This Old Testament soap gives the body a superior feeling!” Yes, a shower with Old Testament makes one feel Temple fresh! Why its better than a Mikveh!

    • I’ve told you more than once that I’m not reading comments that long.

      Regarding what I did read, not even Kevin MacDonald, our foremost expert in the JQ, seems to believe in medieval blood-libel accusations, a trope that claims that kikes ‘use the blood of Christian or, sometimes, Muslim children to make their Passover matzo’.

      Medieval whites had not discovered MacDonald’s evolutionary psychology to approach the JQ, so they used these claims in their legit rage against the kikes.

      • It was not written as a comment, but as a humor piece I wrote some years back for a YouTube video. I understand your not wanting to read it, but maybe be some of your readers might enjoy it.

        Face it, the white race is doomed. Jews have programmed the gullible masses to remain stupidly ignorant of the facts to the point there is no hope they will ever awaken to what is happening or who is behind it. Surely your own experience has proven this conclusively. So why not just sit back and laugh. Like that Texan Clayton Williams said in his joke about rape:

        The Republican gubernatorial nominee apologized for an off-the-cuff remark suggesting that some victims of rape should ”relax and enjoy it.”

        Tropes? I guess you did not read my piece about the Tabernacle’s bloody sacrificial system. Perhaps you do not understand the Jews’ mentality well enough to understand what they are capable of; perhaps MacDonald missed the most salient facts of religious law dictated by the twenty volume Talmud. Has not MacDonald’s intent come into question with his publishing of articles written by Jews?

        Curiouser still, is how you can possibly fail to understand the Jews’ mentality in light of the excellent, stomach churning, piece you published about the Hebrews’ horrendous, bloody sacrifice of children; yet you deny their AD sacrifice of children? That doesn’t’ make any sense especially when considering the Jews’ dogged adherence to the Old Testament to this very day and the fact they are balls-to-the-wailing-wall with their plans to reconstruct the Temple and its sacrificial system.

        Since Jews still adhere to their twenty-five hundred year old sacrificial laws of the Torah, the question might be better posed as: “Why wouldn’t Jews sacrifice Christian children?”

      • ‘how you can possibly fail to understand the Jews’ mentality in light of…’

        Nope. You’re the misunderstander. I’d recommend reading MacDonald’s trilogy for a non-mythical approach to the JQ.

      • I have in fact read all three volumes of MacDonald’s trilogy and have long said his work is, by far, one of the best contemporary works about Jews ever written. Do you honestly think I would fail to read such work? Have you read E. Michael Jones’ The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: And Its Impact on World History?

        Still, how many “anti-Semites” sell out when the Jews apply the heat of their well moneyed god? How many crumble and grovel before their Jew masters when pressure is applied with threats of physical pain or financial destruction? After all, isn’t that how the Jew mafia has always worked their “magik” upon the goyim?

      • Still, how many “anti-Semites” sell out when the Jews apply the heat…

        Whom do you refer?

        White traitors are worse than jews.

        Take for example the recent discussion on Catherine Nixey’s book at Counter-Currents: here.

        In that thread, even a couple WNsts side Semitic Xtianity over the Aryan Greco-Roman world, to the point of calling the latter ‘losers’.

        I’ll be honest: to my eyes, the WN guy who wrote that is worse than any blood-libel jew you mention above: as treason is worse than kike subversion.

        That’s why this site focuses on the Xtian problem, which IMO ‘encompasses’ the JP.

      • Considering Christianity, like Islam, are two hated, unwanted daughters of their whoring mother Judaism, I think you may have it reversed, i.e., the Jewish problem encompasses the Christian problem. Might not a hater of Islam make the very same claim as you?

        Since the September attack on the trade towers, I have been receiving one forwarded email after another about how Muslims are taking over America, how the government has been covertly compromised by Muslim terrorists; that the real problem faced by whites, emanates from the Near East due to the belief in the Islamic religion.

        Would you agree that Islam presents the fundamental problem faced by whites whose country they invade? Would you find the loving, white, Christian embrace of the Muslim invasion as the primary cause behind the Islamic invasion of all Europe? Was it white Christians that went to the Near East to lure Muslims into Europe, or was it the Jewish proxy wars in the Near East and Jewish sponsored immigration policies that drove this successful mass immigration?

        Note that while Jews legally and financially support the Muslim invasion of Europe, they drive white hatred of Muslims from the other side with their Janus-faced political action. Of course, the difference is, Christianity presents an internal problem, while, for most whites, Islam presents an external problem. However, does that in any way alter or negate the mass destruction Islam now levels against white, western civilization? Can you deny that without Jews and their Judaic religion, none of these problems would even exist? So how is it you can maintain the Jewish problem is of secondary importance to the Christian problem, any more than one might maintain Islam is the primary religious problem presently faced by whites?

        As for sellouts, there are many examples. While not a direct sellout, since his trial, David Irving has been desperately backpedaling in an effort to convince everyone he never denied the Hallowedhoax. Dr. MacDonald is obviously trying to ameliorate the damage his trilogy has done to the Jews by allowing them to post their views on his website. Look at “Greggy” is he not an abject sellout?

        Perhaps the most egregious example of the Christian sellout is John Hagee, the onetime vitriolic, antigovernment, hell-and-brimstone, local Texas preacher that suddenly dropped his anti-government stance to become a slavish, cosmopolitan supporter of the Jews. Hagee now sells trips to the “holy land” while traveling the world in his private jet to espouse the overweening importance Jews have for Christians. Of course, it is obvious where the money goes from Hagee’s “holy land” trippers. There are many more, whose names do not come to mind at the moment.

        From the movie They Live.

        Gilbert: “Most of us sellout right away. All of the sudden we get promoted, our bank accounts get bigger; we start buying new houses, cars – perfect isn’t it? We’ll do anything to be rich.”

        Bum: “No, no, you gotta’ listen to me, I thought you boys understood, it’s business that’s all it is. Ya’ still don’t get it do ya’ boys? There ain’t no countries anymore, no more good guys. They’re running the whole show, they own everything, the whole goddamned planet, they can do whatever they want! What’s wrong with having it good for a change? Now they’re gonna’ let us have it good if we just help ‘em. They’re gonna leave us alone, let us make some money and you can have a little taste of that good life too; now I know you want it, hell everybody does.”

        Yet we are to believe this poisonous Jewish programming for the whites’ acceptance of their own genocide is fundamentally a Christian problem? Funny thing, I know far more atheist, anti-Christians and non–religious people that embrace this suicide as much, or even more, than Christians. To what Christian belief would you attribute that phenomenon?

      • David Irving has been desperately backpedaling in an effort to convince everyone he never denied the Hallowedhoax

        You are mistaken. Irving simply has a more nuanced POV (due to his historical research) than the more simpleton WNsts, who always want to see everything black and white with no grey tones.

  3. CT, You might find this article an interesting. Parallels current post subject.

    The Triumph of the Christ Myth

    LINK

    • The author omits that Xtianity only triumphed after the ethnically melting pot of the territories conquered by Rome projected onto a Jew their slave morality.

  4. Graham writes in his review at Counter-Currents:

    After Nero, the Imperial persecution of Christians did not recommence until nearly two centuries later, during the reign of Decius. The Decian persecution began in 250 CE, …

    The Catholics dispute this. Here’s what they say about the reign of Marcus Aurelius (emperor 161-180 AD):

    His dealings with the Christians

    In his dealings with the Christians Marcus Aurelius went a step farther than any of his predecessors. Throughout the reigns of Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius, the procedure followed by Roman authorities in their treatment of the Christians was that outlined in Trajan’s rescript to Pliny, by which it was ordered that the Christians should not be sought out; if brought before the courts, legal proof of their guilt should be forthcoming. [For the much-disputed rescript “Ad conventum Asiae” (Eusebius, Church History IV.13), see ANTONINUS PIUS]. It is clear that during the reign of Aurelius the comparative leniency of the legislation of Trajan gave way to a more severe temper. In Southern Gaul, at least, an imperial rescript inaugurated an entirely new and much more violent era of persecution (Eusebius, Church History V.1.45). In Asia Minor and in Syria the blood of Christians flowed in torrents (Allard, op. cit. infra. pp. 375, 376, 388, 389). In general the recrudescence of persecution seems to have come immediately through the local action of the provincial governors impelled by the insane outcries of terrified and demoralized city mobs. If any general imperial edict was issued, it has not survived. It seems more probable that the “new decrees” mentioned by Eusebius (Church History IV.21.5) were local ordinances of municipal authorities or provincial governors; as to the emperor, he maintained against the Christians the existing legislation, though it has been argued that the imperial edict (Digests XLVIII, xxix, 30) against those who terrify by superstition “the fickle minds of men” was directed against the Christian society. Duchesne says (Hist. Ancienne de l’Église, Paris, 1906 p. 210) that for such obscure sects the emperor would not condescend to interfere with the laws of the empire. It is clear, however, from the scattered references in contemporary writings (Celsus in Origen, Against Celsus VIII; Melito, in Eusebius, Church History IV.26; Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians 1) that throughout the empire an active pursuit of the Christians was now undertaken. In order to encourage their numerous enemies, the ban was raised from the delatores, or “denouncers”, and they were promised rewards for all cases of successful conviction. The impulse given by this legislation to an unrelenting pursuit of the followers of Christ rendered their condition so precarious that many changes in ecclesiastical organization and discipline date, at least in embryo, from this reign.

    Another significant fact, pointing to the growing numbers and influence of the Christians, and the increasing distrust on the part of the imperial authorities and the cultured classes, is that an active literary propaganda, emanating from the imperial surrounding, was commenced at this period. The Cynic philosopher Crescens took part in a public disputation with St. Justin in Rome. Fronto, the precepter and bosom friend of Marcus Aurelius, denounced the followers of the new religion in a formal discourse (Min. Felix, “Octavius”, cc. ix, xxxi) and the satirist Lucian of Samosata turned the shafts of his wit against them, as a party of ignorant fanatics. No better proof the tone of the period and of the widespread knowledge of Christian beliefs and practices which prevailed among the pagans is needed than the contemporary “True Word” of Celsus (see ORIGEN), a work in which were collected all the calumnies of pagan malice and all the arguments, set forth with the skill of the trained rhetorician, which the philosophy and experience of the pagan world could muster against the new creed. The earnestness and frequency with which the Christians replied to these assaults by the apologetic works (see ATHENAGORAS, MINUCIUS FELIX, THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH) addressed directly to the emperors themselves, or to the people at large, show how keenly alive they were to the dangers arising from these literary or academic foes.

    From such and so many causes it is not surprising that Christian blood flowed freely in all parts of the empire. The excited populace saw in the misery and bloodshed of the period a proof that the gods were angered by the toleration accorded to the Christians, consequently, they threw on the latter all blame for the incredible public calamities. Whether it was famine or pestilence, drought or floods, the cry was the same (Tertullian, “Apologeticum”, V, xli): Christianos ad leonem (Throw the Christians to the lion). The pages of the Apologists show how frequently the Christians were condemned and what penalties they had to endure, and these vague and general references are confirmed by some contemporary “Acta” of unquestionable authority, in which the harrowing scenes are described in all their gruesome details. Among them are the “Acta” of Justin and his companions who suffered at Rome (c. 165), of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonica, who were put to death in Asia Minor, of the Scillitan Martyrs in Numidia, and the touching Letters of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne (Eusebius, Church History V.1-4) in which is contained the description of the tortures inflicted (177) on Blandina and her companions at Lyons. Incidentally, this document throws much light on the character and extent of the persecution of the Christians in Southern Gaul, and on the share of the emperor therein.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02109a.htm

    If this is true, and one hopes it is, then it looks like our ancestors put up a better fight than Nixey gives them credit for. Marcus’ distaste for the Jews was something of which the historian Ammianus Marcellinus makes note (in Roman History, Book XXII, V, 5), and he probably regarded the Christians as an offshoot of Judaism.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: