Jesus Christ

The name “Jesus” was according to my sources was coined first by St. Paul [I don`t think he ever existed] who idenitifed his epileptic vision of some crminal on a cross with that of a pagan God-man called Dionysus [the dieing and resurrecting pagan god-man]. The name “Yesous” which I believe means “anointed one” in Greek means “Jesus”. And “Yesous” was the name given to Dionysus [and Adonis] apparently. The whole saga of drinking blood and eating the body [of Christ] was first used by the Dionysian and Orphic cults who after having slaughtered a lamb of God and nailing it upon a tree would drink its blood and eat its flesh so as to be “reborn” anew.

 In the Christian story of Jesus the similarities are startling. We find that a Jew bids his disciples eat his flesh and drink his blood. 12 apostles sit around the son of God like they do in the Dionysian Moon Dance [the Hierophant priest represents the son of god]. 12 disciples of Dionysus each representing the 12 signs of the zodiac. Jesus and his Jews drank wine and ate bread or fish and so do the Disciples of Dionysus. Jesus talks about a kingdom of God that belongs to children and so too does the Dionysians when they talk about a secret garden were they can become like children again! Jesus preaches morals like “turn the other cheek…” and so too does Plato [in the Crito], who said it better and first had the idea, and the Neo-Platonists and also the Stoics have a similar argument.

Jesus as the son of God is a fake. The little cult of a Jewish rabbi hell bent on overthrowing the establishment may have a been true and its leader [Yeshua] apparently may have been a real historical person albeit unrecorded. But there is not a single reason for believing that this anarchist of a Jewish cult had a divinity or was the “son of God” [the one true God at least]. Just as the Jews had their “son of God” which was Jesus Christ so too did the Greeks have their “son of God” which was Dionysus or Adonis or Perseus. The Greeks were the first to get their son of God; the Jews merely followed the trend.

And as for shame one need only mention the Dark Ages. In those times the Church thought it was righteous enough to make barbarians [Europeans..i.e of the North] of every kind into moral and virtuous human beings. The means they employed to do so was anything but moral!! Through fear, shame and guilt the Catholic Church and other devout Christians made men into sick animals; inviting them into their Churches were they could be healed and taught right from wrong – what? As if they knew what constituted right and wrong?! The Catholic church was deeply anti-intellectual! They expanded their theology on their own doctrines particularly “sin”, “salvation” and ‘The Devil’. St. Augustine was one of its most ardent theologians of this Catholic movement. Who needs the Devil when you have Augustine!! On the heels of the theologians came all the popes who eventually made saints not by the good that they did but by the doctrines that they enforced on the credulous and impressionable. One need only mention Pope Callixtus and immediately the Catholic Church is tainted forever and given the “evil” stamp! Of course, we can go right back to the council of Nicea and Constantine and all those early popes of Rome who couldn`t really shake off their pagan origins – just what did they signify? One of them was a pimp!

Published in: on January 21, 2007 at 12:56 pm  Comments (2)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. let me start by giving you some background of myself. i was a philosophy major in university. i am in the process of writing a blook (blog-book) that is open for all to read/comment on as i write. you might find it interesting.

    now to your blog:

    there are so many things that you address in such a small blog, it makes it challenging to touch all bases. so i would like to focus on just a couple. first, you are very very very right about the popes throughout history. (especially the pimp one. i couldnt believe that the church had allowed such a thing to go on from its top leader, but such the hypocrisy of man). you would also be right to say that the same issues still exist today. there are people like the american president who claim to be “christians” but they dont set very good examples. so i appreciate your point there.

    second, i would like to just talk a little about the historical person “jesus”. i am making no claims to his divinity nor anything else here. but i would like to share what i found in my research of the historical jesus of nazareth.

    the jewish historian josephus speaks of him as a jewish rabbi who was crucified and people called him the Christ. you also have philo of alexandria who wrote of jesus. this is all from the generation right after he lived. (just to put things in perspective, most historical documents by which we know ancient history was written down many years after it happened, much longer than one generation. for example, with julius caesar’s writings, the earliest copy we have is 900 years after he wrote it)

    then if you look forward you find many historians writing of the man jesus (biased though they are, they show that there was a significant impact by a man named jesus). you even find the royal roman historian eusebius write a very detailed account of jesus and his followers.

    of course, there are also the contested “jesus” passages in the jewish talmud. many talmudists believe that there are passages about a man named “yesu” who was hung on a tree for using demonic power to heal and do miracles.

    then you have the biased accounts by jesus’ followers who all wrote their historical accounts within 20 years after he died. now, logically, if someone wrote a story about king george vi, there are still many people alive today who remember him. so they could easily verify or negate any claim. suppose someone claimed the king george vi claimed to be a god. would there be a big stink raised today? of course there would. what if someone claimed that king george was never king, wouldnt that be ridiculous as well?

    in the same way, the biased accounts of jesus’ followers do not lend to the truth of jesus’ claims (or the followers’ claims), but they lend to the historical fact that jesus was a 1st century rabbi who was crucified and his followers claimed that he raised from the dead. even if you look at the recently found “nag hammadi” library in egypt, you will find many differing accounts of the traditionally believed story of who jesus was, but that is not the question. the question is: did jesus exist.

    in my research of the historical jesus, no matter how i looked at the matter, there was no way around seeing that jesus was a real figure in history. there are far more historical documents and far more copies that demonstrate very good accuracy of the present day texts of jesus, than any other person of his day.

    i am glad that you are searching for truth. philosophy is a great endeavor. i hope you find the truth you are looking for. and dont believe what i said just because i said it. check it out for yourself. see if it makes sense to you that there was a man named jesus. i did.

  2. Thankyou for the comments, PB and J.

    Now I have read the famous passage in Josephus were it mentions Jesus but it doesn`t add up. Josephus was not a Christian and in some of his works he writes about them as if detests them. The passage where Josephus mentions Jesus is spurious; I believe it is a Christain interpolation. Eusebius once said “Let`s make use of the works of Josephus…” Now what did he mean by that? According to my sources the original copy of Josephus does not contain the Jesus passage; it only appears in the Slavonic versions. It is true that there were many people claiming to be miracles workers in the first century. Josephus mentions an Egyptian prophet leading Jews astray. Another thing about Josephus is that Origen tells us in one of his works that Josephus did not believe in Christ [did not believe he was real]. My conclusion is that the Church propagandist Eusebius inserted the passage about Jesus into Josephus [rather clumsily] just as they did when they confused the John the Baptist rite [for sins/not for sins]. The passage in Josephus is inserted clumsily and the words used does not tie in with anything that Josephus would have said.

    There are no Roman records neither of a man called Jesus who was crucified without a fair trial. The Roman Justice system was the best in the world and any man would have been given a trial and the trial would have been recorded. Josephus and especially Philo would have written something about a man performing miraculous deads and gathering large crowds. Both Philo and Josephus is silent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: