portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

anti-racism | faith & spirituality | legacies

so who really killed Christ and why should it matter...

while this website is well recognized by this reposter as NOT being a site to be hashing-out theological questions, nor upholding any religion to the exclusion of other's, this particular
comment/article from THE HOFFMAN WIRE seems important enough to put it before YOU
for your further considerations....
repostings 4 u

THE HOFFMAN WIRE
Dedicated to Freedom of the Press, Investigative Reporting and Revisionist History

Subscribe:  HoffmanWire-subscribe@topica.com

Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor

January 2, 2004

Finally, the Truth About Who Killed Christ

Dear Mr. Hoffman

Does this Los Angeles Times article (see below) coincide with your own
reading of the Talmud?

--M.O.B.

Dear M.O.B.

Yes, I forced these revelations out of them. First, by conveying this
information to Mel Gibson (through an intermediary) many months ago.
Gibson was thus armed with the actual, hardcore Antichrist Talmud
passages in the original Aramaic, at a time when The Lobby was trying to
buffalo him on this subject.

Second, when the ADL issued a news release against my book, "Judaism's
Strange Gods," I responded with these facts which Klinghoffer read on my
web page and then reproduced (without attribution) in "Forward."

Whether or not I recive the credit, this is a great revelation reversing
centuries of Judaic propaganda on this issue. Many Churchmen who fell
sucker to the agit-prop about Judaism being innocent of deicide, are now
discredited.

Maimonides has been a kind of hero among kosher conservatives. I recall
that fraud, Malachi Martin, telling the naive goyim at the Birch Society
that he wanted to write a bookb8@|` 0Ves' "Guide for
(sic) the Perplexed." He was retailing a little Kabbalistic jest at
their expense and of course it went right over their heads.

More and more the reality of the Talmud is coming to the fore of the
discussion and guys like Klinghoffer feel compelled to admit brutal
truths.

Meanwhile the Hollywood ding-a-lings, led by "Madonna" are preparing to
troop off to Palestine to the grave of a notorous Kabbalistic rabbi, to
take part in the Lag B'omer festivities honoring Rav Shimon ben Yohai,
the rabbi who uttered the immortal words, "Even the best of the gentiles
should all be killed."

A lot of folks are dispirited by the Hollywood crowd's growing Kabbalah
fad, but I think it's hilarious. I happen to know that privately the
Haredi rabbis are fuming that the goyim are going to to attempt to visit
their icon's grave. They regard it as a desecration, but don't know what
to do because Madonna is spending big bucks to "beautify" Yohai's
shrine.

Furthermore, have you noticed how Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has disappeared
from center ring in connection with the Michael Jackson circus? For
quite a while now Rabbi Boteach has been Jackson's much-publicized
"spiritual mentor." However, soon after the molestation charges made
headlines, Boteach did a disappearing act and --voila -- the "Nation of
Islam" organization is now fingered as Michael's religious connection.

Never fear. We live in the age of the making manifest of all that is
hidden. It's all coming out. But the deciding factor is not the
revelations themselves, but how we act upon them.

These are great days to be alive! The truth is forever young, while a
lie, as Chesterton said, is only young but once.

--Michael A. Hoffman II

'Passion' Follows the Scripture

Gibson's controversial film coincides closely with ancient Jewish
writings.
By David Klinghoffer

Los Angeles Times | January 1, 2004

 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-klinghoffer1jan01,1,6353944.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions


Mel Gibson's forthcoming movie about the death of Jesus, "The Passion,"
has created an angry standoff between the filmmaker and Jewish critics
who charge him with anti-Semitism. It's a controversy that will continue
to affect relations between Christians and Jews unless some way to cool
it can be found. One possible cooling agent is an honest look at how
ancient Jewish sources portrayed the Crucifixion.

According to those who have seen a rough cut, Gibson's film depicts the
death of Christ as occurring at the hands of the Romans but at the
instigation of Jewish leaders, the priests of the Jerusalem Temple. The
Anti-Defamation League charges that this recklessly stirs anti-Jewish
hatred and demands that the film be edited to eliminate any suggestion
of Jewish deicide.

But like the Christian Gospels that form the basis of Gibson's
screenplay, Jewish tradition acknowledges that our leaders in 1st
century Palestine played a role in Jesus' execution. If Gibson is an
anti-Semite, so is the Talmud and so is the greatest Jewish sage of the
past 1,000 years, Maimonides.

We will never know for certain what happened in Roman Palestine around
the year 30, but we do know what Jews who lived soon afterward said
about Jesus' execution.

The Talmud was compiled in about the year 500, drawing on rabbinic
material that had been transmitted orally for centuries. From the 16th
century on, the text was censored and passages about Jesus and his
execution were erased to evade Christian wrath. But the full text was
preserved in older manuscripts, and today the censored parts may be
found in minuscule type, as an appendix at the back of some Talmud
editions.

A relevant example comes from the Talmudic division known as Sanhedrin,
which deals with procedures of the Jewish high court: "On the eve of
Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went out before him
for 40 days [saying, 'Jesus] goes forth to be stoned, because he has
practiced magic, enticed and led astray Israel. Anyone who knows
anything in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him.' And
they found nothing in his favor."

The passage indicates that Jesus' fate was entirely in the hands of the
Jewish court. The last two of the three items on Jesus' rap sheet, that
he "enticed and led astray" fellow Jews, are terms from Jewish biblical
law for an individual who influenced others to serve false gods, a crime
punishable by being stoned, then hung on a wooden gallows. In the
Mishnah, the rabbinic work on which the Talmud is based, compiled about
the year 200, Rabbi Eliezer explains that anyone who was stoned to death
would then be hung by his hands from two pieces of wood shaped like a
capital letter T in other words, a cross (Sanhedrin 6:4).

These texts convey religious beliefs, not necessarily historical facts.
The Talmud elsewhere agrees with the Gospel of John that Jews at the
time of the Crucifixion did not have the power to carry out the death
penalty. Also, other Talmudic passages place Jesus 100 years before or
after his actual lifetime. Some Jewish apologists argue that these must
therefore deal with a different Jesus of Nazareth. But this is not how
the most authoritative rabbinic interpreters, medieval sages like
Nachmanides, Rashi and the Tosaphists, saw the matter.

Maimonides, writing in 12th century Egypt, made clear that the Talmud's
Jesus is the one who founded Christianity. In his great summation of
Jewish law and belief, the Mishneh Torah, he wrote of "Jesus of
Nazareth, who imagined that he was the Messiah, but was put to death by
the court." In his "Epistle to Yemen," Maimonides states that "Jesus of
Nazareth interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to
lead to their total annulment. The sages, of blessed memory, having
become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people,
meted out fitting punishment to him."

It's unfair of Jewish critics to defame Gibson for saying what the
Talmud and Maimonides say, and what many historians say. Oddly, one of
the scholars who has most vigorously denounced Gibson Paula Fredriksen,
a professor of religious studies at Boston University is the author of
a meticulously researched book, "Jesus of Nazareth," that suggests it
was the high priests who informed on Jesus to the Roman authorities.

Would it have been better if Gibson never undertook to make this movie
in exactly the way he did? Maybe, but trying to intimidate him into
fundamentally reworking it was never a realistic or worthy goal. The
best option now is to acknowledge that other sources besides the Gospels
confirm the involvement of Jewish leaders in Jesus' death and clear the
anger from the air. Considering that Gibson's portrayal coincides
closely with traditional Jewish belief, it seems that leaving him alone
is the decent as well as the Jewish thing to do.

David Klinghoffer is a columnist for the Jewish Forward and author of
the "The Discovery of God: Abraham and the Birth of Monotheism"
(Doubleday, 2003) and the upcoming "Why the Jews Rejected Christ: In
Search of the Turning Point in Western History."

[END QUOTE}

To purchase Hoffman's book, "Judaism's Strange Gods" visit our secure,
online store at:
 http://www.hoffman-info.com/bookstore.html

>>>>>>>>

The HOFFMAN WIRE is a public service of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA

24 Hour Revisionist News Bureau:  http://www.hoffman-info.com/news.html

Subscribe:  HoffmanWire-subscribe@topica.com

Disclaimer: The Hoffman Wire is a controversial and politically incorrect e-mail letter intended only for those who have requested it. We have a strict anti-spamming policy. The views expressed in the Hoffman Wire are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not reflect the views of advertisers or the transmitter.

Freedom of the Press: A hallowed right.
Responsible Dissent: A contribution to understanding and dialogue.
Who killed Christ? 06.Jan.2004 13:07

Spudnuts

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen in his excellent "A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair" which is a follow-up to his also excellent "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust" goes so far as to suggest that the Vatican needs to unambiguously codify that the Jews did not kill Christ. His two books lay a great deal of the blame for the holocaust at the feet of the Catholic Church, but also in the European Christian anti-semitic tradition which served as a foundation for Hitler's massacre.

Another book which deals with the culpability of the Catholic Church is John Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII."

Personally, I really wish humanity would get over a 2,000 year-dead Magic Carpenter (who killed Jesus? Who cares. The polar ice caps are melting RIGHT NOW), but for a great deal of the planet the ever-changing details of this murder mystery are as fascinating as if they had been "torn from today's headlines."

Who REALLY Killed Christ? 06.Jan.2004 13:20

Me

We all did. Every last person on Earth is guilty.

an equally relevant question: Who really killed Hercules? 06.Jan.2004 14:18

GRINGO STARS

There was no historical Jesus. A magical carpenter never existed.

 http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

"...examine the evidence for the Hercules of Greek mythology and you will find it parallels the historicity of Jesus to such an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for a historical Jesus."

"Many Christian apologists attempt to extricate themselves from their lack of evidence, claim that if we cannot rely on the post chronicle exegesis of Jesus, then we cannot establish a historical foundation for other figures such as Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Socrates, etc. However, there sits a vast difference between historical figures and Jesus. There occurs either artifacts, writings, or eyewitness accounts for historical people, whereas, for Jesus we have *nothing*."

Who is the god of the Pharisees? 06.Jan.2004 15:09

dunno

The Pharisees of that day were no more "Jews" than Zionists are today. The spirit of evil hid among "Jews" of that era to influence them to be blind to the truth and this trickester is at work today influencing the "Jews" and non-Jews alike to act in selfish and immoral choices that cause much suffering among the many nations.

There is proof 06.Jan.2004 15:46

Me

Besides the 4 gospel writers, there is Josephus -- a Jewish historian around the time of Jesus. -- who wrote of him. It is easy to say this person never existed, nobody expects you to prove it because you can not prove a negative -- all you can do is assert as you have done. But I suggest you read a little bit about the proof that there was a Jesus before sounding off on the subject.

dunno: Your writing suggests you don't like Jews very much and I suggest you come up with something interesting and intelligent to say otherwise you are looking like a jerk.

"Jews" 06.Jan.2004 16:59

dunno

The term 'Jew', has come to be used synonymous with the term 'Israel, Israelite', however, this is error. Scriptural Israelites were never called Jews, (Yahudim), Unless they were so associated by their religion. Most modern Jews are not ot the tribe of Yahudah (Judah), and are not 'Israelites. They are called Jew(s) because of their religion Jew-dah-ism (Judaism).
So hence my reference in the thread "Jews", was referring to the inaccuracy of that term in that instance. For a more in depth study on the question do a google search or go to the link below.
 http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/The_word_Jew.html

early Christians admitted to lying to further Christianity 06.Jan.2004 17:48

GRINGO STARS

To quote the article I linked to above:

There occurs many problems with the reliability of the accounts from ancient historians such as Josephus, Tacitus, etc. Most of them did not provide sources for their claims, as they rarely included bibliographic listings, or supporting claims. They did not have access to modern scholarly techniques, and many times would include hearsay as evidence. No one today would take a modern scholar seriously who used the standards of ancient historians, yet this proves as the only kind of source that Christology comes from. Couple this with the fact that many historians believed as Christians themselves, sometimes members of the Church, and you have a built-in prejudice towards supporting a "real" Jesus.

In modern scholarship, even the best historians and Christian apologists play the historian game. They can only use what documents they have available to them. And if they only have hearsay accounts then they get forced to play the cards that history deals them. Many historians feel compelled to use interpolation or guesses from hearsay, and yet this very dubious information sometimes ends up in encyclopedias and history books as fact.

In other words, Biblical scholarship gets forced into a lower standard by the very sources they examine. This got illustrated clearly in an interview by the renowned Biblical scholar, David Noel Freeman (Freeman, the General editor of the Anchor Bible Series and many other works). An interviewer asked him about Biblical interpretation. Freeman replied:

"We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything."

-David Noel Freedman (in Bible Review magazine, Dec. 1993, p.34)

The implications appear obvious. If one wishes to believe in a historical Jesus, he must accept it based on loose standards. Couple this with the fact that all of the claims come from hearsay, and we have a foundation made of sand, and a castle of information built of cards.

(end quote)

The burden of proof is on you, "Me', to prove that Jesus ever existed. Is it too much to ask that the same rigor of historic method is used as in any other instance of history?


My Jewish friends agree with me that the Jews in Israel (followers of the political movement of Zionism) are promoting anti-semitism worldwide by so violently oppressing non-Jews in Israel. I don't like ANYONE, no matter their creed, who establish violent theocracys and oppress those they consider infidels. Many Jews, including Rabbis and Grand Rabbis, point out that the state of Israel is an atheistic, political mockery of Judaism.

"The entire existence of the tumei regime [the Zionist "State"] is in opposition to our holy Torah in a manner that has not been precedent... and anyone who possesses even a thought that there is necessity for [the existence of] their "State", this constitutes acquiescence to idol worship without a doubt... and there is no doubt in my mind that we would already be in the period after the Messiah's arrival if not for this tzureh [Zionism] prevalent in the world."
-- Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum

"The Zionists have attacked the center point of Judaism."
-- Rabbi V. Soloveichik

"Not via our desire did we leave the land of Israel, and not via our power will we come back to the land of Israel."
-- Rabbi S.D. Schneerson

"[The Torah] forbids us to strive for the reunion or possession of the land by any but spiritual means"
-- Rabbi S. R. Hirsch

So are these Rabbis "Jew-Haters"?
They are strongly against *Zionism* and the state of Israel.

There are many organisations of Jews against Zionism. To list just a few:

JEWS NOT ZIONISTS
 http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/

JEWS UNITED AGAINST ZIONISM
 http://www.natureikarta.org/

JEWS AGAINST ZIONISM
 http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

RABBIS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
 http://www.rhr.israel.net/overview.shtml

And besides these groups, there are well over a hundred JEWISH groups for a free Palestine. Links found at:
 http://www.eccmei.net/~eccmei/j/orgs.html

My point was that all three Abrahamic religions are followed by "true" believers that do not hesitate to use violence and sexism to live their lives and impose their will on others.

Josephus a Poor Source 06.Jan.2004 18:06

Hmmm

No serious Jewish or religious scholar respects Josephus.

God killed Christ 06.Jan.2004 18:23

jlii

All of Christianity says so. God is all knowing, prior knowledge. God is omnipresent, opportunity. God is all powerful, ability. God sacrificed his only son for man, motive.
Glad my dad was not God.

Wha? 06.Jan.2004 19:49

me

It's so easy to make an assertion. But why don't you back up your statement? Who doesn't think Josephus is legit? Where are they? When did they say this? Why don't they think so? What about him do they object to?

oneday 06.Jan.2004 21:24

human

one day ill find out why im sickened so much by the thought of religion.

one day if i keep learning, i will understand.

why no scholar respects Josephus 06.Jan.2004 21:47

GRINGO STARS

The Credibility of Josephus - by Shaye Cohen
 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/masada.html

This time, use the link and READ the article, "me"
Try reading the article I linked to in my first comment as well.

Article doesn't say 07.Jan.2004 10:59

me

The article you cite says nothing about scholars not respecting Josephus. In fact, it gives Josephus a lot of credibility.

GRINGO STARS admits to lying 07.Jan.2004 16:56

Bill

He doesn't, of course.

He does, however, proclaim, "early Christians admitted to lying to further Christianity"; then, proceed to offer no evidence whatsoever.

In fact, the only "early" people Gringo mentions are a Jew and a Roman, neither of whom became Christian, neither of whom "admitted to lying", neither of whom lied in the sense Gringo appears to wish us to believe.

In fact, there is no evidence and little likelihood of early Christians lying, let alone admitting it. Howsoever incredible we may find their accounts, early Christians appear to have believed what they wrote, albeit sometimes in what we might consider a metaphorical sense.

Later of course, when Christianity was assimulated to the mummified corpse of the Roman State, lying to further Christianity -- or the liar's political career -- became routine. However, these were not early Christians, and neither they nor the evidentiary problems of modern Christians make liars of early Christians.

evidence for Bill... and quotes for the link-fearing 07.Jan.2004 18:05

GRINGO STARS

I never claimed that Josephus, a Jew, was a Christian. I provided evidence; Walker's article, which I linked to in my first comment, a link some readers here obviously chose not to explore. Not everyone seeks all sides of the story, apparently. So be it.

<<and I quote from  http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm ...>>

The editing and formation of the Bible came from members of the early Christian Church. Since the fathers of the Church possessed the texts and determined what would appear in the Bible, there occurred plenty of opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves.

Take, for example, Eusebius who served as an ecclesiastical church historian and bishop. He had great influence in the early Church and he openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church [Remsberg]. The first mention of Jesus by Josephus came from Eusebius (none of the earlier church fathers mention Josephus' Jesus). It comes to no surprise why many scholars think that Eusebius interpolated his writings. In his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived" (book 12, chapter 32).

The Church had such power over people, that to question the Church could result in death. Regardless of what the Church claimed, people had to take it as "truth." St. Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century even wrote: "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

The orthodox Church also fought against competing Christian cults. Irenaeus, who determined the four gospels, wrote his infamous book, "Against the Heresies." According to Romer, "Irenaeus' great book not only became the yardstick of major heresies and their refutations, the starting-point of later inquisitions, but simply by saying what Christianity was not it also, in a curious inverted way, became a definition of the orthodox faith." [Romer] The early Church burned many heretics, along with their sacred texts. If a Jesus did exist, perhaps eyewitness writings got burnt along with them because of their heretical nature. We will never know.

In attempting to salvage the Bible the respected revisionist and scholar, Bruce Metzger has written extensively on the problems of the New Testament. In his book, "The Text of the New Testament-- Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Metzger addresses: Errors arising from faulty eyesight; Errors arising from faulty hearing; Errors of the mind; Errors of judgement; Clearing up historical and geographical difficulties; and Alterations made because of doctrinal considerations. [Metzger]

With such intransigence from the Church and the admitting to lying for its cause, the burning of heretical texts, Bible errors and alterations, how could any honest scholar take any book from the New Testament as absolute, much less using extraneous texts that support a Church's intolerant and biased position, as reliable evidence?

<<end quote>>


And as far as "me" making an absurd statement that the "Credibility of Josephus" article actually argues FOR the credibility of Josephus - that is entirely wrong. Here are some quotes from that article at  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/masada.html ...

"But even without the benefit of the archaeological discoveries we would know that something is wrong with Josephus' story."
"But the story [of Josephus's] soon loses its plausibility."
"Is there any truth at all in this Josephan farrago of fiction, conjecture, and error?"
"We know that Josephus' account is false."

Oh Gringo! 07.Jan.2004 18:54

Me

You are parsing quotes from the PBS web site. The article had a problem with some of the things Josephus wrote but on balance gives him his due. If scholars didn't take him seriously they wouldn't be writing about him today.

And yeah, I skipped the nobeliefs.com article because the domain's name itself screamed BIASED. Besides, it's poorly informed. Early Christianity was not a powerhouse wielding all of this authority. In fact, until Constantine became Emperor of Rome its followers were persecuted.

Name one source that is not biased 07.Jan.2004 20:03

GRINGO STARS

ALL sources are biased. Those that claim objectivity are the biggest frauds of all (corporate media being a prime example of this). Interesting to see you willfully avoid the other side of the argument - and telling too. No wonder you interpreted Cohen's article the way you did, "me". There are plenty of frauds from the past that scholars still discuss today - that doesn't make the fraud unfraudulent somehow.

Evidence for Gringo 08.Jan.2004 00:33

Bill

Surprise! I was careful not to say you claimed Josephus was Christian, nor Tacitus either. I merely pointed out that you posted a title promising dirt on Christians, and that you delivered neither Christians nor dirt.

Other people might have assumed that by juxtaposing title and text you assert one is related to the other. However, you and I know that you often post irrelevant and misrepresented text and, when challenged, try to weasel out by saying you never claimed it was relevant or representative.

In addition to the present example of Josephus and Tacitus, we have the few scraps you ripped out of context from the early part of the PBS article. Pity you didn't bother to read the whole article. 'me' is correct.


Let's see, what else do we have here ...

Eusebius, although infamous as a proponent of the "pius lie", does not count as early Christian. He became Bishop in 313, the year after Saxa Rubra. Oddly, he is reputed to have upheld a moderate position between Arius and Athanasius at the council of Nicaea. Perhaps geography and naked force explain his caution.

It should be "no surprise" that early Christians do not quote Josephus, since they were mostly in Palestine and poor, while he was in Rome flattering wealthy Romans. On the other hand, it would be a great surprise, astonishing, if Eusebius, 250 years later, had not quoted Josephus -- rather like historians today, he had little choice but to quote "in general only those events which may be useful", from earlier documents.

Of course, you don't really expect us to believe Ignatius Loyola was an early Christian. It is interesting that you quote him though : he sounds so much like Lenin -- the same intolerance, the same psychopathic need to defend (his opinion of) the true faith, a slightly different religion though.


I shall dwell a while on Irenaeus. Born c130, Bishop of Lugdunum 177, died c200, he is the closest of all those you name to an early Christian.

Did you read this paragraph before you copied it? Or were you so eager to quote something which appear to support your prejudices that you didn't care whether or not it made sense?

The first sentence is almost a tautology. The "orthodox" church is by definition that church which defends "correct opinion" from error and heresy.

Irenaeus did not determine the four gospels. He merely reported that the four Gospels, the Acts, and the thirteen Pauline Epistles were generally held to be authoritative in his time and place. Two centuries later, Athanasius listed the twenty-seven books which we now accept as the New Testament. Even so, disputes over the proper contents of the Bible continued for centuries after.

There is nothing sinister, you know, in writing down what one believes, and clever arguments against what one disbelieves. It is rather a necessity for a teacher and a missionary. A double necessity when the local gens d'armes are hostile and not very bright. That it might be misused a dozen centuries later by evil men does not make one infamous, and certainly not a liar.

Nor is there anything curiously inverted about defining what is by defining what is not. Romer, or whoever it is who (mis)quotes him, is dishonest to say so. It is the way Aristotlean logic works. It is the normal way to define things in the real world : a memorable inclusive approximation, followed by a list of specific exclusions.

The early Church did not burn many heretics or books. Mostly they tried to avoid official notice, those who wished to avoid premature martyrdom. Later, when they assumed State power, then they burned heretics, pagans, each other, books, statues, barn-yard animals, and a few moldy corpses.


The text you quote, opens with a paragraph reciting the obvious opportunites to redact; claiming, with no evidence at all, motive -- unless you mean mere possession is motive. Curiously, you make no claim that alteration actually occured, although many are well-known and easy to prove.

There follows the three paragraphs of red-herrings and misunderstandings which I disposed of above.

Then, you quote Metzger's list human errors... I hope you will not insist that (for example) "faulty eyesight" constitutes a lie. Not if I challenge you, eh?

Finally, you refer to "such intransigence from the Church" without ever having pointed to a case of intransigence to be such.

You have not shown a single priestly lie. Not even a mistake.

historical Jesus 08.Jan.2004 06:21

K.C.Roberts

From the evidence I have been able to gather,
there was in fact ,a historical Jesus.Not the one in the bible,however.
The one,I speak of,was an Essene,probably from qumran(pardon the spelling).
Probably married. To whom? Mary Magdeline.The early church could'nt have a "married savior".
So,they turned her into a "prostitute".The word used to describe her is "almah",which means-A virgin undergoing a ritual
prior to marriage". There is no record of pontius pilate putting to death a man by the name of "jesus".
Furthermore,the city or town of Nazareth that he was supposed to be from,does not appear on
any maps that have been found dating from that period.
Organized religion is nothing more than man's feeble attempt at worshipping God.
I personally have no use for some religion that had to be taught at the point of a sword.
To the best of my knowlege,Buddhism is one of the few religions unstained by blood.
The bible is nothing more than a bunch of religious traditions cobbled together into one book.

Metta Y'all,
K.C.

You have disposed of nothing, Bill 08.Jan.2004 10:41

GRINGO STARS

Your polemic has all the trademarks of priestly writings (I see why you defend them so) - it is as if all writings are Rorschach ink blot tests in which you see all things as Church-supporting. Interesting. Even Cohen's piece, in which he exposes Josephus, like most early historians, as a transparent political hack who created history with the intention of supporting their patrons.

Your lawyerly nitpicking of details is besides the point. Considering that many books of the bible were written in the triple-digits AD, someone writing in the 300s is indeed an early christian. No one ever claimed Ignatius was early - he is called only a christian - and yes he is psychopath (you are right there).

The books of the bible were ever-changing in the early christian era. Because of Irenaeus' determinations, the books he chose eventually became "the bible."

How were the teachings of the bible "misused" by "evil men"? The books themselves have God Himself clearly commanding genocide as well as gender supremacy. Did that get all mixed up and turned into something bad? The Old testament is the bible too, Bill, like it or not. And the text has a hand in determining how it is interpreted. They don't just pull all the sexism and warmongering out of their ass - it's there in black and white in the text of the bible.

Bush (a devout Christian) has actually claimed God told him to attack Iraq - not the bible but God himself. Aside from the possibility of schizophrenic-voices-in-the-head, it's very probable Dubya got the idea of a just and holy war from the very book he claims to read regularly (daily in fact); the bible. And now we have a holy war of virtuous Christianity vs. those "angry irrational violent" Muslims. Nothing happens in a vacuum. The Spanish Inquisition didn't come out of nowhere. The Crusades weren't on a whim. To act as if there is NO connection between the warmongering text of the bible and the constant warfare of Christian cultures, as if the misogynist parables had NO relation to the Witch Hunts that went on for centuries - is merely you putting your own head in the sand and saying "la la la" to drown out the sound of the truth. "Misused" my ass. These people were being devout to a teaching which espouses genocide. Don't kid yourself.

For all the "prince of peace" and "turn the other cheek" rhetoric, Jesus also said he "came with the sword, not the shield." When you have mythical character that get "quoted" by multiple storytellers, funny how some of his quotes directly contradict each other. And a bit strange for such a "revolutionary" to go in opposite directions, don't you think?

I am seemingly debating with a "true believer", an apologist who wishes to distance himself from the "misuse by evil men" of what he claims is an innocent work. Am I speaking to a wall?

CNN 08.Jan.2004 12:15

Bill

"Your lawyerly nitpicking of details is besides the point."

I am tempted to claim 'scholarly'. However, I simply probed google; then, I opened a half-decent encyclopaedia, and another to verify.

When I refute the few points you make, and show that most of your text is simple mis-direction, that is not "beside the point". It demolishes your case.


The misuse by evil men refers to Irenaeus' book, 'Against the Heresies', not "the teachings of the bible". I believe your misunderstanding is sham.


No, I am not a "true believer". I am not Christian. I am, however, informed. I never enter debate without checking my facts. You should try it. You find yourself taken for a fool less often.

But that isn't the problem, is it Gringo. Up above, in 'Name one source that is not biased', 07.Jan.2004 20:03, you declare, "ALL sources are biased." You affirm that you deliberately and knowingly post misinformation. For anyone who cares to check, there is ample confirmation in this thread alone.


When you claim the right to act like CNN, you also claim the right to be treated like CNN.

biased sources are NOT misinformation 08.Jan.2004 12:58

GRINGO STARS

So, do you have any "unbiased" sources to claim? The fact remains that all sources are biased. That does not at all admit to misinformation. Very lawyerly (not "scholarly") of you to put words in my mouth and to ascribe actions to me that are entirely innacurate. It is CNN, in fact, which purports to be an "unbiased" and "objective" source - it is something that unites all corporate news sources. Are you honestly claiming to utilize "unbiased" and "objective" sources? If so, you are the one "acting like CNN".

Why do you stoop to engage such an "uninformed" person as me? Does that mean that I am not informed by the same things you are?

I fail to see how you refute any of Walker's text, which makes your claim that his case is "demolished" kind of silly.

biased sources are NOT misinformation 08.Jan.2004 14:41

Bill

Yes, I never said they are; although, obviously, some "biases" are carefully calculated. I said, you try to use the claim, "ALL sources are biased." to excuse your deliberately and knowingly posting misinformation.


As I said, "I never enter debate without checking my facts."

except for the fact that... 08.Jan.2004 15:58

GRINGO STARS

...I have never once "deliberately and knowingly posted misinformation" and I never will. Where did you even come up with that?

More than once 08.Jan.2004 17:47

Bill

By claiming, "ALL sources are biased.",

especially when and how you use the claim,

you admit that you know your own are dodgy.

This is absurd 08.Jan.2004 18:59

GRINGO STARS

I remind people that all sources are biased ONLY when people make the tired and ignorant statement that my sources are biased (just like you did in this thread). As if theirs aren't. I am not being dodgy. It's people who claim their sources are "unbiased" who are being either a)uninformed or b) dodgy. That is the mantra of every corporate news person/organization; that they are "unbiased". It's such BS.

No 08.Jan.2004 21:23

Bill

Not I.

It was "Me".

Which is to say, not me.

Who cares what Hoffman says? 09.Jan.2004 13:16

Anti-semites do...

Hoffman is just another Nazi obsessed with Jews. Hardly a resource for "anti-racism"

"why people should care who killed Jesus Christ" 16.Feb.2004 19:29

YeYa Yang

I believe that people should care about who killed Jesus Christ. I believe they should just find out so then other religions aren't blaming eachother for what they may or may have not done. Every religion and person has their own beliefs of who killed him.

We are responsible for Jesus' death 22.Feb.2004 17:30

Peter S. fabius2@netzero.net

I am afraid that in posting here I will inevitably trample upon some predispositions. The life and death of Jesus Christ is a subject of much controversy. So I will not attempt to agree with anyone at the expense of telling the whole truth.

Jesus was a Jewish carpenter and religious teacher. While this statement is true, it falls infinately short of the reality of who Jesus was (and is). The Bible states clearly and repeatedly that Jesus was the Son of God. He was in a fundamental way both God and man, having been supernaturally born of a virgin. Jesus' life and death are not abstract belief, they are historical fact. He was condemned by a Roman governor at the instigation of the Jewish religious leaders, who saw him as a threat to their structure and power. (He was.) He was put to death by Roman soldiers.

So if we look merely at the historical facts, we COULD say that the Jews killed Jesus. After all, they were the ones who called for His death. The mob even shouted, at one point, "His blood be upon us and upon our children!" BUT, beyond these historical realities, there is a deeper meaning, unseen but very true.

Jesus was God become man. He became like us. He, the infinite and perfect God, accepted the imperfections and limitations of human existence. Though he could have ruled over the world, had his way in all things, been acclaimed as supreme ruler, as he deserved; he instead chose a life of poverty and sacrifice. He lived in obscurity for probably thirty years, roamed Judea as an itinerant preacher for three years, and then was martyred by those who should have worshipped Him.

Why did he die? The Jewish religious leaders mocked him for dying. They taunted him. "He saved others, but he cannot save himself." They said, "Come down from the cross if you are the Son of God." Why didn't he? Why did he allow Himself to be brutally executed?

The Apostle Paul, as inspired by God, says that "Christ died for the ungodly." Jesus Christ died in place of those who were against God. Though the human race began perfect, as created by God, we corrupted ourselves. We became evil, completely given over to the exaltation of ourselves. We robbed God of the glory He deserved, and rebelled against His rules. For this treason, God had no choice but to punish us. He could not ignore our rebellion because He is perfectly just and righteous. Eternal torment in Hell, the manifestation of God's righteous and severe wrath, awaited us. But yet we were not destroyed! Why? Because God is not only just, but also merciful. He in his great love for us decided to save us, at a tremendous cost to Himself. He sent His Son to earth, and, as Jesus was executed, poured out on Him all His just wrath and punishment for our wickedness.

So who killed Jesus?

Jesus didn't need to die. He could have rescued himself, if he had wanted to. He said, "Do you not think that I could not at any time call legions of angels to my rescue?" No, He willingly chose to be punished, as He and His Father had planned.

Who killed Jesus? GOD killed Jesus! God punished Jesus for all of our wickedness and rebellion! The Romans and Jews were merely the tools God used to accomplish His plan. See what a terrible sacrifice this was! God killed His Son, with whom he had perfect union and fellowship. Why? Because of his amazing love for us. There was no other option.

But wait. But for our sins, Jesus would not have had to die. So we are responsible for Jesus' death.

Who killed Jesus? WE killed Jesus! It was our sin that sent Him to the Cross. Our guilt that weighed him down to death. Our punishment that He endured. We are culpable in His death. YOU are just as much as guilty of Christ's death as the Roman soldier that pounded in the spikes, or the Jewish priest that shouted "Crucify him!". You are more guilty than Judas Iscariot, who merely betrayed Jesus to a physical death - you, with your sin, betrayed Him with your treason against him, for which he endured Hell for you.

We MUST NOT isolate guilt for Jesus' death to the Jews. It belongs to all of us.

So we are guilty of His death. Without our sins, God would not have had to punish His Son. If it were not for His mercy, we would all be doomed to Hell's eternal torment. But wait! Now that Jesus has taken our punishment, we are free! God has died for us, that we might know His love again, and be under His judgment no more! We are free to love God, free to obey and find joy in Him! Christ endured Hell, that we might enter Heaven!

Jesus did not stay dead. He rose from the grave three days later, and ascended into heaven.

What a wonderful Savior. He bought us with His blood. The curse of the Jewish mob, "His blood be upon us and upon our children", became a blessing! Forty days later, one of Christ's disciples, the Apostle Peter, preached a sermon to the Jews in Jerusalem, in which he told them of their culpability in Christ's death. Thousands believed, rejected their sins and were saved, counted righteous by God because of His Son's death for them.

Jesus will return to earth, still as a man - for He will never lose His humanity - but glorified as God. He will judge all people then, and those who trust in His sacrifice for them will be saved, but those who do not will be sent to Hell.

The blood of Christ is for you! Reject your sins, believe in Jesus, and you too can be saved!

Though we are guilty of Jesus' death, His death takes away our guilt.



Your servant in Christ,
- Peter S.

Who Did Kill Jesus 10.Jan.2005 02:25

JJ

Both the Romans & Jewish Pharaisees saw Jesus as a threat because he had a non selfish agenda, the Gospels show the Romans as innocent as they were to be sold to Mainley Roman Converts