The Jesus of the Gospels

EdwinJohnson

Member
Messages
14
Reactions
40
I've noticed that Jesus at times is depicted as a rebellious protestant in the canonical gospels. If the mainstream view is to be trusted and the Gospels are ancient, it means the Catholic church basically showed little to no awareness of this side of Jesus for over a thousand years or deliberately suppressed it. I find it very strange that the Church practiced a religion so contrary to their own holy scripture yet faithfully transmitted that scripture generation after generation without much comment until the reformers could rediscover it and otherthrow them. Is it possible that the reformers had a hand in writing it and that the medieval Catholic Church was genuinely ignorant of the full portrait of Jesus we have today?

Gospel of Matthew Chapter 23 is a good example of what I'm talking about. Pretty much the whole chapter is extremely negative towards the religious authourities. Here are just some points:

Jesus teaches:
-not to call any man father
-we are all brothers
-those that exalt themselves will be humbled

Regarding the religious leaders he says:
-blind guides who shut the kingdom of God to others and don't go in themselves
-serpents who will go to hell
-hypocrites
-that they work hard to make converts who ends up twice as rotten as themselves
-they burden the common people and don't help them
-they love praise and positions of honour
-they are guilty of killing the true prophets

Another example is when Jesus fashions a whip and drives out the livestock and money changers from the Temple. (John 2:15)

Or how about this one:

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it ( Luke 11:27-28).


Who here thinks it is in any way possible that some of these Gospel texts were actually created around the time of the reformation?
If so, how on earth did the reformers dupe the Catholic church into accepting their edition of the Gospel that contained a Jesus who basically condemned their hierarchy, corruption, Marian devotion and many other things?
 

Effie

Member
Messages
29
Reactions
93
Jesus is historically interpreted through the lens of Paul, a man, who by his own admission, was an adversary to the movement. This is man who claims to be a Pharisee, a Herodian, and an opponent to Jesus hand-picked students. This is a man who never knew Jesus, except for some alleged supernatural encounter -- a story that is told three different ways. And yeah, this is the man who the various churches and theologians lofted up, putting his writings and teachings above those of Jesus. Yeah, that guy.
 
Last edited:
OP
EdwinJohnson

EdwinJohnson

Member
Messages
14
Reactions
40
Jesus is historically interpreted through the lens of Paul, a man, who by his own admission, was an adversary to the movement. This is man who claims to be a Pharisee, a Herodian, and an opponent to Jesus hand-picked students. This is a man who never knew Jesus, except for some alleged supernatural encounter -- a story that is told three different ways. And yeah, this is the man who the various and churches lofted up, putting his writings and teachings above those of Jesus. Yeah, that guy.
Good point. But it's strange that somehow the words of Jesus were left intact and not altered to align more with Paul and church dogma over such a long period of time. Also, there are some things Paul writes that also conflict with the church's teachings. Luther was a big fan of Paul and actually uses his writings against the Catholic church.

While the Church has always upheld ideas similar to those found in Paul's writings, there doesn't actually seem to be that much evidence that they possessed his epistles as we have them today. The epistles seem to not be really much of a thing until the 16th century. In fact, some argue that Paul's epistles were constructed much closer to our time by monks using bits and pieces of Catholic writings and also the writings of other factions. Basically that he is a literary creation maybe vaguely based on a real guy like Marcion or Simon Magus but really mostly just existing on paper as a mouthpiece for the church and also competing factions and frustrated monks. People were just putting their own ideas and tradition into the mouth of "The Apostle" to justify their arguments.
 

tupperaware

Well-known member
Messages
192
Reactions
498
I've noticed that Jesus at times is depicted as a rebellious protestant in the canonical gospels. If the mainstream view is to be trusted and the Gospels are ancient, it means the Catholic church basically showed little to no awareness of this side of Jesus for over a thousand years or deliberately suppressed it. I find it very strange that the Church practiced a religion so contrary to their own holy scripture yet faithfully transmitted that scripture generation after generation without much comment until the reformers could rediscover it and otherthrow them. Is it possible that the reformers had a hand in writing it and that the medieval Catholic Church was genuinely ignorant of the full portrait of Jesus we have today?

Gospel of Matthew Chapter 23 is a good example of what I'm talking about. Pretty much the whole chapter is extremely negative towards the religious authourities. Here are just some points:

Jesus teaches:
-not to call any man father
-we are all brothers
-those that exalt themselves will be humbled

Regarding the religious leaders he says:
-blind guides who shut the kingdom of God to others and don't go in themselves
-serpents who will go to hell
-hypocrites
-that they work hard to make converts who ends up twice as rotten as themselves
-they burden the common people and don't help them
-they love praise and positions of honour
-they are guilty of killing the true prophets

Another example is when Jesus fashions a whip and drives out the livestock and money changers from the Temple. (John 2:15)

Or how about this one:

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it ( Luke 11:27-28).


Who here thinks it is in any way possible that some of these Gospel texts were actually created around the time of the reformation?
If so, how on earth did the reformers dupe the Catholic church into accepting their edition of the Gospel that contained a Jesus who basically condemned their hierarchy, corruption, Marian devotion and many other things?

Jean Hardouin and Edwin Johnson would say that the gospels were written by Benedictine Monks and Fomenko probably would say all history outside Europe like China's pre 14th century was forged or modified by Jesuits with plenty of time on their hands.

Is Ancient History Completely Made Up By 'The Man'?

Christ = Krishna Similarities Between the Lives and Teachings of Christ and Krishna maybe seemingly ancient India really is much older than Christian European and Middle East culture and the Krishna myths traveled to Byzantium around 800AD or so to become the core of Christianity where the Krishna text was gradually modified to work with local culture and events taking around 200 years for that. The old testament was created from Hebrew mythology perhaps after the new testament. The old testament was needed for new testament historical context and timeline.

This Europeanized Krishna/Abraham religion then became a tool to civilize illiterate pagan cultures that were mired in human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism.. Attempting to eradicate sexual diseases might have been another "noble" effort. The Pustulent Penis: Searching for STDs in the Centuries before Syphilis Eating the body of Christ (Eucharist) was the perfect pathway out of cannibalism and the old testament instructed away from human sacrifice. Monagamy and celibacy until marriage was a route to reduce STD's with a bit less success here than cannibalism and human sacrifice. BTW, recent discoveries in England and Greece prove that Syphilis existed in Europe and the near East for thousands of years.

The reason why Jesus was a revolutionary in the new testament is because so was Krishna in Indian mythology and a revolutionary Jesus was very effective for converting pagans. Paul might have known that his message was based on Krishna mythology - India's God Krishna Was the King of Jerusalem!

"Some interesting support for Krishna = Christ/God and both used to suppress sacrifice/cannibalism. The latter in the Middle East and Europe.

"Sahadev, however knew that Krishna was Vishnu. When Pandu was alive, one day he said to his sons that since he had nothing but his knowledge to give to his children, when he died they should take a part of his body and eat it, as this would give the all the knowledge he has accumulated in his lifetime. Yuddhisthir, Bhim, Arjuna were appalled by this instruction of cannibalism by their father but decided to follow through since their father commanded it, while Nakul and Sahadev were very young and didnot understand the true nature of their father’s instruction. When Pandu died, everybody forgot about his insturctions, Sahadev saw a group of ants carry away a piece of Pandu’s flesh, remembering his father’s words he ate it. And as a boon of obeying his father’s words he knew everything, and hence knew that Krishna was God."
Did Krishna know that he is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu? - Quora.

The new testament is remarkably stable with many different versions dating from 200AD or so with only around 100 words and phrases differing amongst those versions but that is because they really date from 1200 AD on and all previous versions were destroyed or stored in the Vatican.
The Making of A Myth

Before Christianity was Mithraism which could have its origins in India as well. MITHRAS = CHRISTIANITY

This could be backwards since Christianity could have been based on only Middle East mythologies (Ishtar/Easter) and Krishna could be based on Middle East myths.
 
Last edited:

Red Bird

Well-known member
Messages
160
Reactions
346
If you are interested read this, for one- it’s very thorough.
http://www.ldolphin.org/PDFs/The_Two_Babylons-Alexander_Hislop.pdf

This was widely known not too long ago- JFK was the first catholic president and it was a big deal. For good reason. Now there is big satanic ecumenical movement. When people think of Christians these days they include the Catholic Church and the terms are interchangeable. I was looking up this clover symbol and was shocked when it (searches) said it was a Christian symbol. Then I thought AH, they are pushing Catholic = Christian
 

Effie

Member
Messages
29
Reactions
93
Basically that he is a literary creation maybe vaguely based on a real guy like Marcion or Simon Magus but really mostly just existing on paper as a mouthpiece for the church and also competing factions and frustrated monks.
In books like the Clementine Homolies, lines can be drawn between Simon Magus and Saul/Paul. The first canon was alleged to be the handiwork of Marcion, so there is potential there. It's pretty clear that some of the letters attributed to "Paul" where authored by others. Not sure how you feel about Josephus, but Saul is mentioned in his histories.

Paul's alleged writings do seem to back away from the more revolutionary aspects of the Jesus community. His letters uphold the social order of the day, including things like slavery and the consumption of animals.
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
480
Reactions
2,446
I've noticed that Jesus at times is depicted as a rebellious protestant in the canonical gospels. If the mainstream view is to be trusted and the Gospels are ancient, it means the Catholic church basically showed little to no awareness of this side of Jesus for over a thousand years or deliberately suppressed it. I find it very strange that the Church practiced a religion so contrary to their own holy scripture yet faithfully transmitted that scripture generation after generation without much comment until the reformers could rediscover it and otherthrow them. Is it possible that the reformers had a hand in writing it and that the medieval Catholic Church was genuinely ignorant of the full portrait of Jesus we have today?

Gospel of Matthew Chapter 23 is a good example of what I'm talking about. Pretty much the whole chapter is extremely negative towards the religious authourities. Here are just some points:

Jesus teaches:
-not to call any man father
-we are all brothers
-those that exalt themselves will be humbled

Regarding the religious leaders he says:
-blind guides who shut the kingdom of God to others and don't go in themselves
-serpents who will go to hell
-hypocrites
-that they work hard to make converts who ends up twice as rotten as themselves
-they burden the common people and don't help them
-they love praise and positions of honour
-they are guilty of killing the true prophets

Another example is when Jesus fashions a whip and drives out the livestock and money changers from the Temple. (John 2:15)

Or how about this one:

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it ( Luke 11:27-28).


Who here thinks it is in any way possible that some of these Gospel texts were actually created around the time of the reformation?
If so, how on earth did the reformers dupe the Catholic church into accepting their edition of the Gospel that contained a Jesus who basically condemned their hierarchy, corruption, Marian devotion and many other things?
Very interesting topic.

I think I figured out a possible answer. Here's my summary:

- The reformation did not happen as people are made to believe, in reality it happened the other way round, that is the catholics were the reformers (the other group was the protestants, who protested against the catholic changes to the holy scriptures)
- The bible did not exist before the time period of the so called reformation
- The bible is a product of the early 17th century, and was put together shortly after the peak of the reformation wars, which was probably the time of the Thirty Years War (see the European wars of religion - Wikipedia)
- The reformation wars, in my view, were the last big bloody conflict between forces of light and darkness, and darkness won
- After they eliminated the free people, the catholics put together the bible, as the most important pieces of writings, collected from the books that circulated freely before, but they changed essential elements
- The reason there is still truth to be found within the bible is that they did not have much time, as they needed to quickly come up with a propaganda version of the scriptures to indoctrinate the masses, and, more importantly, they (papal catholics) also needed to include some of the good stuff to convince people that they represent the true religion

All of this shit went down somewhere between 1600 and 1700 I think, and the following 100 years were then used by the now powerful church to clean up the debris and sanitize the history. By 1800 the church not only controlled academia but also the minds of the masses.

Their genius idea? Proclaim a church history of 2000 years, and invert the truth of the religious wars: Now it wasn't the protestants who were the conservative force, trying to preserve history and culture; no, now it was the opposite: the church invented the reformation, but they never were able to completely bury the name 'protestantism', which is a testament to their original meaning of the protest against the pope. (It is nevertheless true that in the century long conflict between "heretic" christians and the church, the Protestant Christians later emerged as some kind of "more acceptable version of catholicism", although I have the suspicion we aren't being told about what kind of processes really led to this split. It's simply thesis, antithesis, synthesis - the institutionalized Protestants are merely a shadow what they once stood for)

This protest united all of Europe, and was decentral in nature. There never were 'protestants' (in the sense of some kind of religion), other than that groups of gnostics and other christian people and tribes were united in their will to fight against the church institution of Rome. The reason those religious wars were so bloody was because religion was still extremely young, these so called reformation wars were the true original conflict between free christians and institutionalized christianity, and it was so bloody because the knowledge of Jesus and other bible stuff was still so fresh, historically speaking. People knew their history, they were still connected to the stuff we can read about in the bible, because it happened to their forefathers.

So there really could have been no reformation, as there was nothing to reform. What we know as reformation today is only the very last part of this entire cultural process, when the church had already wiped out the original resistance, and over time the survivors slowly initiated a modern reform of the church, but this was after the wars, and this corrupt political process was then huddled together with the original Protests associated with all the burnings and killings. (Whatever the case may be in regards to how the church managed to create this false dichotomic narrative, the true resistance against the church has been wiped from history.

The term 'reformation' was added later by historians. As we learn on christianstudylibrary.org about the origins of the term reformation: "Whatever the case, the reformers themselves did not invent the term to describe the developments in which they were involved". The original protestants were born out of the idea of totally destroying the roman catholic church, but with the continuation of the process of gradually losing the true knowledge, a group emerged that simply wanted to give the church a more humane face. Only later all of this was attributed to one single man, Luther, when historians shaped and changed the history into a single, more or less convincing narrative.

The earliest protestant counter-movement was this Waldensians - Wikipedia, where it is stated that "our current knowledge of the history of the Waldensians in the Middle Ages is almost exclusively tributary of the sources coming from the official Roman Church". According to this narrative, it wasn't until 1545 that the Waldensians were finally broken morally in the Massacre of Mérindol. Government forces killed most of the male population and raped the women in more than 20 villages after they had successfully refused to surrender to the new order for more than 400 years, and recently had started to fortify their villages against the evil forces. It is highly likely to me that the early generations of Waldensians were largely decimated in the genocide against early Christians, and that most people living under the name later on were not closely connected to the original knowledge. Despite the continued persecution well into the 16th Century, people continued to live under the banner of the Waldensian culture in remote mountain villages, mainly in Italy. They used caves as churches, and tried to stay under the radar. Their coat of arms read 'Lux lucet in tenebris' - Light glows in the darkness. Their actions proved this to be more than a simple lip service, and show the connection to the early Christians. The Waldensians and other long forgotten groups were the backbone of the fight against the Church. After these free "heretic" groups were killed or forced into the underground, the church became the dominant political force, often working together with local rulers.

19986

I believe Fomenko that Jesus died around 800 years ago. Between 1200 and 1600 many people still lived in harmony in the memory of whatever happened that made people glorify a single person.

The writings about Jesus were probably produced between 1200 and 1400 and, due to growing danger, were shared via underground networks of rebels, so these writings probably already included the conflict between Jesus and the authorities of his time, and the catholic papists who later distorted the writings probably descended from the latter.

One could say that, at the time of Jesus, good and evil were still in some kind of equilibrium, which allowed a global resistance against evil to be organized and communicated. Only over time did the corrupt popes emergy to control and manipulate the available knowledge, burned the wiches and heretics, burned down the books and libraries, killed the free thinkers and shamans, outlawed medicine and magic, and essentially heralded a new dark age, one of central governments and authoritarian control.
 
Last edited:
OP
EdwinJohnson

EdwinJohnson

Member
Messages
14
Reactions
40
Very interesting topic.

I think I figured out a possible answer. Here's my summary:

- The reformation did not happen as people are made to believe, in reality it happened the other way round, that is the catholics were the reformers (the other group was the protestants, who protested against the catholic changes to the holy scriptures)
- The bible did not exist before the time period of the so called reformation
- The bible is a product of the early 17th century, and was put together shortly after the peak of the reformation wars, which was probably the time of the Thirty Years War (see the European wars of religion - Wikipedia)
- The reformation wars, in my view, were the last big bloody conflict between forces of light and darkness, and darkness won
- After they eliminated the free people, the catholics put together the bible, as the most important pieces of writings, collected from the books that circulated freely before, but they changed essential elements
- The reason there is still truth to be found within the bible is that they did not have much time, as they needed to quickly come up with a propaganda version of the scriptures to indoctrinate the masses, and, more importantly, they (papal catholics) also needed to include some of the good stuff to convince people that they represent the true religion

All of this shit went down somewhere between 1600 and 1700 I think, and the following 100 years were then used by the now powerful church to clean up the debris and sanitize the history. By 1800 the church not only controlled academia but also the minds of the masses.

Their genius idea? Proclaim a church history of 2000 years, and invert the truth of the religious wars: Now it wasn't the protestants who were the conservative force, trying to preserve history and culture; no, now it was the opposite: the church invented the reformation, but they never were able to completely bury the name 'protestantism', which is a testament to their original meaning of the protest against the pope. (It is nevertheless true that in the century long conflict between "heretic" christians and the church, the Protestant Christians later emerged as some kind of "more acceptable version of catholicism", although I have the suspicion we aren't being told about what kind of processes really led to this split. It's simply thesis, antithesis, synthesis - the institutionalized Protestants are merely a shadow what they once stood for)

This protest united all of Europe, and was decentral in nature. There never were 'protestants' (in the sense of some kind of religion), other than that groups of gnostics and other christian people and tribes were united in their will to fight against the church institution of Rome. The reason those religious wars were so bloody was because religion was still extremely young, these so called reformation wars were the true original conflict between free christians and institutionalized christianity, and it was so bloody because the knowledge of Jesus and other bible stuff was still so fresh, historically speaking. People knew their history, they were still connected to the stuff we can read about in the bible, because it happened to their forefathers.

So there really could have been no reformation, as there was nothing to reform. What we know as reformation today is only the very last part of this entire cultural process, when the church had already wiped out the original resistance, and over time the survivors slowly initiated a modern reform of the church, but this was after the wars, and this corrupt political process was then huddled together with the original Protests associated with all the burnings and killings. (Whatever the case may be in regards to how the church managed to create this false dichotomic narrative, the true resistance against the church has been wiped from history.

The term 'reformation' was added later by historians. As we learn on christianstudylibrary.org about the origins of the term reformation: "Whatever the case, the reformers themselves did not invent the term to describe the developments in which they were involved". The original protestants were born out of the idea of totally destroying the roman catholic church, but with the continuation of the process of gradually losing the true knowledge, a group emerged that simply wanted to give the church a more humane face. Only later all of this was attributed to one single man, Luther, when historians shaped and changed the history into a single, more or less convincing narrative.

The earliest protestant counter-movement was this Waldensians - Wikipedia, where it is stated that "our current knowledge of the history of the Waldensians in the Middle Ages is almost exclusively tributary of the sources coming from the official Roman Church". According to this narrative, it wasn't until 1545 that the Waldensians were finally broken morally in the [Massacre of Mérindol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Mérindol). Government forces killed most of the male population and raped the women in more than 20 villages after they had successfully refused to surrender to the new order for more than 400 years, and recently had started to fortify their villages against the evil forces. It is highly likely to me that the early generations of Waldensians were largely decimated in the genocide against early Christians, and that most people living under the name later on were not closely connected to the original knowledge. Despite the continued persecution well into the 16th Century, people continued to live under the banner of the Waldensian culture in remote mountain villages, mainly in Italy. They used caves as churches, and tried to stay under the radar. Their coat of arms read 'Lux lucet in tenebris' - Light glows in the darkness. Their actions proved this to be more than a simple lip service, and show the connection to the early Christians. The Waldensians and other long forgotten groups were the backbone of the fight against the Church. After these free "heretic" groups were killed or forced into the underground, the church became the dominant political force, often working together with local rulers.


I believe Fomenko that Jesus died around 800 years ago. Between 1200 and 1600 many people still lived in harmony in the memory of whatever happened that made people glorify a single person.

The writings about Jesus were probably produced between 1200 and 1400 and, due to growing danger, were shared via underground networks of rebels, so these writings probably already included the conflict between Jesus and the authorities of his time, and the catholic papists who later distorted the writings probably descended from the latter.

One could say that, at the time of Jesus, good and evil were still in some kind of equilibrium, which allowed a global resistance against evil to be organized and communicated. Only over time did the corrupt popes emergy to control and manipulate the available knowledge, burned the wiches and heretics, burned down the books and libraries, killed the free thinkers and shamans, outlawed medicine and magic, and essentially heralded a new dark age, one of central governments and authoritarian control.
Thank you so much for the brilliant reply! This is exactly the kind of explanation I've been looking for. The idea that the Catholics were actually the reformers never occurred to me. The more I think about it the more I love this theory! Very creative!

Now here's a question: If the subversive Jesus texts are authentic (or at least come from a time before the papists rose up against the original people of light), is there any evidence to suggest their antiquity? The Waldensian pic there is great but is there more evidence like that specific to the kinds of gospel texts in question. For example, if we could find some kind of old depiction of Jesus clearing the temple it may help establish that this particular gospel story was not manufactured around the time of the reformation but was in fact part of the authentic early Christian movement.

Here's what I'm talking about. I'd love to try to track down the oldest depiction of it. If anyone has info on this please post.

Jesus clears the temple.jpgJesus clears the temple 2.jpg
 

tupperaware

Well-known member
Messages
192
Reactions
498
Thank you so much for the brilliant reply! This is exactly the kind of explanation I've been looking for. The idea that the Catholics were actually the reformers never occurred to me. The more I think about it the more I love this theory! Very creative!

Now here's a question: If the subversive Jesus texts are authentic (or at least come from a time before the papists rose up against the original people of light), is there any evidence to suggest their antiquity? The Waldensian pic there is great but is there more evidence like that specific to the kinds of gospel texts in question. For example, if we could find some kind of old depiction of Jesus clearing the temple it may help establish that this particular gospel story was not manufactured around the time of the reformation but was in fact part of the authentic early Christian movement.

Here's what I'm talking about. I'd love to try to track down the oldest depiction of it. If anyone has info on this please post.

The early authentic Christian movement could have taken place a mere 300 years before the reformation started as in around 1200AD. Any images of Jesus dated by conventional history would need to have a few grains of salt taken with a date around 200AD -which you probably already are considering when you say "early" Christian movement. God save us from the pagans - again!😇
 
OP
EdwinJohnson

EdwinJohnson

Member
Messages
14
Reactions
40
The early authentic Christian movement could have taken place a mere 300 years before the reformation started as in around 1200AD. Any images of Jesus dated by conventional history would need to have a few grains of salt taken with a date around 200AD -which you probably already are considering when you say "early" Christian movement. God save us from the pagans - again!😇
Yes, I understand the concept that "early" Christianity movement could well be only around 800 years ago. I am very interested in any evidence that appears to be from that 300 years between Christ and the reformation.

We have many pictures after 1500AD of the "Cleansing of the Temple" but very few it seems from anytime before. The majority of medieval Christian art seems to be depicting the main events like birth, baptism, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension of Christ and lots of legends of Saints.

I managed to find only 2 old depictions of the cleansing.
One is a mosaic from Monreale Cathedral supposedly from 1200
the other one is by Giotto and is supposedly from 1300

Maybe Dreamtime can weigh in here:
Do these works belong to the early Christian movement (1200-1400's)? If so, the early Christian movement must have been quite developed considering these are on the walls of buildings.
Or perhaps they belong to the early catholic reformers (maybe 1400-1500's)? But this would mean the catholics were actually aware of the subversive side of Jesus and didn't mind showing it.
Or were these done by post-reformation catholics (in the 1600's).... essentially fakes to fill a gap in their iconography once the Bible was finalized and people would be expecting to see some old depictions of this famous gospel story?

monreale mosaic original.jpgGiotto di Dondone 1300s.jpg
 
Last edited:

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
480
Reactions
2,446
Now here's a question: If the subversive Jesus texts are authentic (or at least come from a time before the papists rose up against the original people of light), is there any evidence to suggest their antiquity? The Waldensian pic there is great but is there more evidence like that specific to the kinds of gospel texts in question. For example, if we could find some kind of old depiction of Jesus clearing the temple it may help establish that this particular gospel story was not manufactured around the time of the reformation but was in fact part of the authentic early Christian movement.
That's the big question... I don't have a conclusion on this one. We know so little beyond the fact that the church took control over history, and roughly when they did it...

I found it extremely difficult to find anything from before 1500, and even more difficult to prove it's authenticity. Especially as I often encounter the notion that the supposed primary sources come from the church itself...

When we factor in Iconoclasm - Wikipedia we should expect to not have much left of the original works...

One interesting question is, why look the supposed older art works so primitive, with wrong body proportions, compared to some of the surviving sculptures which show fotorealistic proportions. Hints to the above images being church forgeries. The primitive medieval art that supposedely existed before the "renassaince" is a big red flag imho, it's usually mentioned as one of the signs that the church orchestrated a vast forgery network that spent decades with flooding the world with this low quality pseudo-medieval art and books, making it appear as if people in medieval times were dumb and primitive, while in reality the coherence of primitive art came from the fact that a small number of elite monks was responsible for directing this stuff...

We have the gregorian calendar reform of 1582, we have the destruction of basically all original documents in the 17th Century wich hunts, we have all originals disappearing and copies of the ancient works popping up in the 16th and 17th century.

I always wanted to know what really happened before that time, but its definitely blurry to say the least, the church really did their homework...

I know this is not directly related, but here's an (automatically translated) excerpt from Wilhelm Kammeier's book "The forgery of German History", as I just came across this:
How far in the tremendous work of the Jesuits a safeguard on the part of the church is to be seen, which certainly had legitimate reason to enforce its chronological view of world history, remains open. When you see the panic that was then felt in the Vatican when it was discovered the superiority of Chinese writing culture, and if you the date of the first embassy to Beijing, that Father Ricci's journey in 1583, immediately after the Gregorian calendar reform (October 1582) involving, the idea suggests that here the necessary mental defense was carried into enemy territory in the middle with utmost courage, perseverance and superior intelligence to avert justifiably dreaded storm.

With the definition of history in China, the goal was achieved to override the presumably only lever that existed outside of Catholic historiography.

The Jesuits installed and maintained the Chinese calendar for 170 years.

Ricci's successor had brought Johann Adam Schall, an "extraordinary mathematician and astronomer" from Cologne, "in 1622 to China ..., who became head of the mission in Beijing from 1640 ... At that time, a dispute over the continuation of the calendar work, where Schall, who demonstrated the inability of the Islamic officials by predicting a solar eclipse with great accuracy, became the minion of the Manchu emperor and head of the calendar commission, in which he ordered China's calendars and chronicles according to the latest standards Chinese (and two years later in Latin). "

"For a total of 170 years, the Jesuits were in charge of the Imperial Astronomical Bureau, and in addition to the dissemination of Catholicism they were also engaged in numerous scientific tasks: they became geographers and historians, spread modern technical equipment, and politically exploited the emperors advised on their negotiations with Russia, which gradually became an important neighbor on the northern border. "

"Perhaps the most lasting effect of Jesuit work lay in the redesign of the Chinese chronology and its adaptation to the occidental data." The oldest European publication of a timetable of the Chinese emperors is the "Tabula chronologica Monarchiae Sinicae" by Father Philipp Couplet (1687), re-published 1728 in the improved three-volume edition, now the cyclical ideas of time of the Chinese had become a linear timeline, typical of the church's apocalyptic thinking.
Ages in Chaos:
According to Kammeier, the key goal of this prolonged and massive campaign for the falsification of historical documents had been the concealment, distortion and arbitrary extension of the pre-Christian history, with all the achievements of the pagan epoch ascribed thereto.

One can find the following corollaries made by Kammeier in the course of his research of medieval documents in [g12]:
  • The humanists took part in the massive falsification of history alongside the Catholic clergy striving to create some proof of the historical significance attributed to their church; this process falls on the XV century for the most part.
  • The documents related to the pagan “German” history have been destroyed and replaced by Gallic and Romanic forgeries.
  • The existence of Catholic Pontiffs before the so-called Avignon captivity is of a fragmental nature through and through.
  • Historical events that preceded the XIII century are beyond reconstruction since all of the earlier documents have been destroyed and replaced by counterfeits.
  • The pre-Papal wars between national churches were subsequently presented as a struggle against the heretics and the apostates.
  • “Ancient” literature is as much of a forgery as the medieval documents. One of such fake literary works is “Germany” by Tacitus.
  • The Catholic clergy can be credited with the invention of the New Testament, or at least a radical rearrangement thereof.
  • The church keeps on manufacturing counterfeited “ancient” manuscripts in order to “prove” the authenticity of Evangelical texts and their great age with the aid of the new “findings.”

A New Chronology:
Wilhelm Kammeier 1889 - 1959 [Hannover, Germany] - A school teacher working in Hannover, Kammeier researched since 1923 the German History. In his first book, written in 1926 but only published in 1935, he could show that all diplomas and manuscripts of the Middel Ages are faked. He bases his arguments on a detailed analysis of all known copies and discovers that we never can lay our hand on originals, nor on direct copies of those but only on second or third-hand copies which differ always in certain points... and that seems to be intended. Most of the diplomas mention several dates, but those can never brought into concordance, which is highly suspect.
Kammeiers second work, published first as a series of articles, as book reedited in 1979, showed that the evolution of Christianity cannot have taken place in the way we are told. His work was not recognized by the contemporary scholars and he died in extreme poverty in Thuringia, Germany. It was not until the 1990s, when his books became an important fundament for the critics of chronology.

By @Jef Demolder The history criticism of Wilhelm Kammeier:
Kammeier started his critical work with the analysis of the medieval charters on which German history is founded. From the detailed analysis of content and presentation of the manuscripts, he concluded that they are all false. An enormous work of falsification has been realised. Kammeier came to the conclusion that a joint action of falsification (Grosse Aktion) had been coordinated by theVatican in Rome, and all monastic orders have helped to fabricate ancient and medieval history according to the vision of Rome. The work has taken about hundred years, from the beginning of renaissance, between 1350 and 1450. In the same time, the remains of the real German culture and history have been destroyed. Advancing in his research, Kammeier then comes to the reason of the falsification, which is in the founding of Christianity, in the renaissance, as a new universal religion. The Christian Bible and the corresponding historical perspective have been created to underpin the new universal religion. According to Kammeier, this new religion has been founded in Avignon, and afterwards the popes came to Rome and made Rome the siege of the new universal religion (on this point I do not follow Kammeier, on many others I do).

When about 1991 Hans Ulrich Niemitz started the actual surge in German history criticism, the work of Kammeier was rediscovered, but he has never received the kind of recognition he really deserves. Kammeier has clearly seen the pleasure with which the false historical documents have been produced, and in a complete logic way he concluded to the Joint Action. But precisely by showing rightly the enormous production and purview of the Joint Action, this Joint Action becomes incredible and very difficult to understand. Sure, Christianity has been created in the renaissance, but the foundation of Christianity, this kind of utilitarian arguments, is not sufficient to explain the Joint Action by which history has been created. The real problem, as recognised by Kammeier, is the magnificence and dimensionality of the Joint Action, and the solution of this problem requires more daring hypotheses on humanity and its history, who go far beyond the ideas of Wilhem Kammeier and the whole of clearly meritorious German history criticism.
When I find more quotes from Wilhelm Kammeier that relate to the suppression of early Christian history in Europe, I will add them here.

The above quote may illustrate the time frame of forgery quite well, and shows how deep the entire fogery goes. We are talking about a fundamental change in how people see the world, and I guess the apocalyptic, linear thinking came directly from the Church, and was not present with the Heretic groups.

Kammeier-Wilhelm-Die-Faelschung-der-deutschen-Geschichte : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Kammeier, Wilhelm Die Faelschung Der Geschichte Des Urchristentums : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

In his last epic work "The forgery of the early christian history" he comes to the conclusion that basically all evangelical texts are fogeries and the entire history of early chrstianity is largely forgotten and in the dark. There are simpy no surviving original documents. I am not sure I agree with his conclusion that the entire early Christianity as well as the content of the bible, including Jesus, is a work of fiction.

@EdwinJohnson A friend just sent me the relevant text passages from Wilhelm Kammeier regarding the question of the original christians, including the Waldensians. I'll also look for dicussion around the paradoxical Jesus figure in the bible. I will translate them fully later:

serveimage-1.jpg photo_2019-04-09_18-00-40.jpg photo_2019-04-09_18-00-42.jpg photo_2019-04-09_18-00-43.png photo_2019-04-09_18-00-43 (2).jpg foto5.png foto6.png

Translation:

Anyone who takes a look at the sources of heretical history must immediately notice one thing: Although numerous source material has been preserved, it is without exception written by opponents, i.e. by Catholics! What does that mean? Did the heretics (Cathars and Waldensians) themselves not write anything on paper? "Oh yes," the historians also tell us, and even the opponents of the Cathars report that they wrote a lot. The relativistic researchers have also come to the conclusion that the fact that only Catholic sources have survived means that heretical literature has been destroyed systematically and completely. In principle one admits with it that a systematic action of annihilation had taken place. But so far no thought has been given to how much and what all the written material of the heretics has been removed. The heretics, for example, have written and distributed religious tracts and promotional literature; and it is no wonder that the Inquisition destroyed such literature. But let us consider: Did the heretics write nothing but religious advertising literature? They were organized, had offices and institutions - they had their own public schools and churchyards - and therefore had to write down all kinds of events in community life. So in many places files had to accumulate. But noticeably also these files disappeared! This finding is most strange. For what reason did the persecutors have to exterminate these files down to the last page? One could reply that the Inquisition had the intention to hide any trace of medieval "hereticism" from the eyes of fellow and posterity. But that is not true. The Catholic opponents were by no means anxious to conceal the existence of heretics from posterity; on the contrary, they themselves have sent extensive news about hereticship to posterity in a plethora of their own writings and tracts. So I now ask again: Why then have even innocent acts about the church affairs of heretics been completely destroyed? The most conspicuous thing is that nothing has survived at all, when so much "useless file stuff" has come to us since the 12th century.
Kammeier notes how the church ommits anything that could give us a hint about what the heretics truly believed in.
 
Last edited:

Paracelsus

Well-known member
Messages
316
Reactions
1,313
Modern Christians unwittingly worship Yahweh/Baal and are tricked into servitude by Sabbateans. The Catholics worship Dagon. And Muslims follow a religion given to Muhammed by either a Djinn, or a Demon posing as the Archangel Gabriel.

There is a high probability that the Bible as we know it is a fabrication by Titus Flavius Josephus.
Caesar's Messiah [The Roman Conspiracy To Invent Jesus].pdf (PDFy mirror) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Josephus' Account of Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum

Considering what we're piecing together about the cataclysms that have recently taken place. Who knows how long this current conception of Christianity has existed? Or if it can be trusted whatsoever.

Personally, I've found the only source of infallible information I've ever been able to trust is myself. Whether it is The Dao (personally, the concept of an un-namable force beyond comprehension resonates with me the most) or it is the infinitude of my own soul. My personal view is that no human institution has the authority to dictate the immortal and inconceivable.

"Jesus Christ" never existed as a flesh and blood man, however, the archetype of "The Son of God" certainly does. As the Essene/Gnostic concept that we are all Messiahs goes - I'd buy that.

I AM Jesus Christ.
 

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
484
Reactions
1,297
Personally, I've found the only source of infallible information I've ever been able to trust is myself. Whether it is The Dao (personally, the concept of an un-namable force beyond comprehension resonates with me the most) or it is the infinitude of my own soul.
Me too.
Everything is god.
There is no way to be anything else.
Ding ding, wake up.
 

tupperaware

Well-known member
Messages
192
Reactions
498
Yes, I understand the concept that "early" Christianity movement could well be only around 800 years ago. I am very interested in any evidence that appears to be from that 300 years between Christ and the reformation.

We have many pictures after 1500AD of the "Cleansing of the Temple" but very few it seems from anytime before. The majority of medieval Christian art seems to be depicting the main events like birth, baptism, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension of Christ and lots of legends of Saints.

I managed to find only 2 old depictions of the cleansing.
One is a mosaic from Monreale Cathedral supposedly from 1200
the other one is by Giotto and is supposedly from 1300

Maybe Dreamtime can weigh in here:
Do these works belong to the early Christian movement (1200-1400's)? If so, the early Christian movement must have been quite developed considering these are on the walls of buildings.
Or perhaps they belong to the early catholic reformers (maybe 1400-1500's)? But this would mean the catholics were actually aware of the subversive side of Jesus and didn't mind showing it.
Or were these done by post-reformation catholics (in the 1600's).... essentially fakes to fill a gap in their iconography once the Bible was finalized and people would be expecting to see some old depictions of this famous gospel story?
Yes, I understand the concept that "early" Christianity movement could well be only around 800 years ago. I am very interested in any evidence that appears to be from that 300 years between Christ and the reformation.

We have many pictures after 1500AD of the "Cleansing of the Temple" but very few it seems from anytime before. The majority of medieval Christian art seems to be depicting the main events like birth, baptism, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension of Christ and lots of legends of Saints.

I managed to find only 2 old depictions of the cleansing.
One is a mosaic from Monreale Cathedral supposedly from 1200
the other one is by Giotto and is supposedly from 1300

Maybe Dreamtime can weigh in here:
Do these works belong to the early Christian movement (1200-1400's)? If so, the early Christian movement must have been quite developed considering these are on the walls of buildings.
Or perhaps they belong to the early catholic reformers (maybe 1400-1500's)? But this would mean the catholics were actually aware of the subversive side of Jesus and didn't mind showing it.
Or were these done by post-reformation catholics (in the 1600's).... essentially fakes to fill a gap in their iconography once the Bible was finalized and people would be expecting to see some old depictions of this famous gospel story?
I've noticed that Jesus at times is depicted as a rebellious protestant in the canonical gospels. If the mainstream view is to be trusted and the Gospels are ancient, it means the Catholic church basically showed little to no awareness of this side of Jesus for over a thousand years or deliberately suppressed it. I find it very strange that the Church practiced a religion so contrary to their own holy scripture yet faithfully transmitted that scripture generation after generation without much comment until the reformers could rediscover it and otherthrow them. Is it possible that the reformers had a hand in writing it and that the medieval Catholic Church was genuinely ignorant of the full portrait of Jesus we have today?

Gospel of Matthew Chapter 23 is a good example of what I'm talking about. Pretty much the whole chapter is extremely negative towards the religious authourities. Here are just some points:

Jesus teaches:
-not to call any man father
-we are all brothers
-those that exalt themselves will be humbled

Regarding the religious leaders he says:
-blind guides who shut the kingdom of God to others and don't go in themselves
-serpents who will go to hell
-hypocrites
-that they work hard to make converts who ends up twice as rotten as themselves
-they burden the common people and don't help them
-they love praise and positions of honour
-they are guilty of killing the true prophets

Another example is when Jesus fashions a whip and drives out the livestock and money changers from the Temple. (John 2:15)

Or how about this one:

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it ( Luke 11:27-28).


Who here thinks it is in any way possible that some of these Gospel texts were actually created around the time of the reformation?
If so, how on earth did the reformers dupe the Catholic church into accepting their edition of the Gospel that contained a Jesus who basically condemned their hierarchy, corruption, Marian devotion and many other things?
Written stolen history started in earnest with the arduous but probably very entertaining task of hand scribing falsehoods probably by various Catholic sects. How was that changed by the printing press post 1450? Was it just making thousands of copies of those forged texts or was anything new and novel printed to add to the pre printing press handiwork? In other words is there evidence that any new forgeries started with printing? Did any show up mysteriously in libraries or private collections that were printed? I am referring to books printed as if they were somewhat ancient (older than 1450 though of course) and not political or social propaganda that attempts to falsely write more recent history.

The "Press" did drastically increase the infiltration of hand scribed stolen history but to what extent did it foster the creation of new forgeries?

BTW, here is a good example of where historians are crucial in ferreting out a more true history. Historians and Scholars Produce New Picture of Witches and WitchHunts, but Questions Remain Witch hunting was more a frenzied mob activity and not orchestrated by religious authority. Many fewer than "9 million" which is a relatively popular current number, so called witches, men and women were killed.
 
Last edited:

HulkSmash

Member
Messages
39
Reactions
87
Regarding the religious leaders he says:
-blind guides who shut the kingdom of God to others and don't go in themselves
-serpents who will go to hell
-hypocrites
-that they work hard to make converts who ends up twice as rotten as themselves
-they burden the common people and don't help them
-they love praise and positions of honour
-they are guilty of killing the true prophets

I know this may be off topic EJ, but I found this to be so comparative of all our "leaders" of today. Politicians, doctors, academicians, etc...the Christ consciousness is true and real in my humble opinion.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,230
Reactions
3,750
When people think of Christians these days they include the Catholic Church and the terms are interchangeable. Then I thought AH, they are pushing Catholic = Christian
Yes, and it's very annoying. I'm forever running into people who I tell that I'm Christian immediately go off on a rant about the Inquisition or religiosity or corporate christianity or sex scandals. I'm seldom able to make them understand that what they're ranting about is Catholicism, not Christianity. In most people's minds, the two are synonymous. There are decent and devout Christians caught up in the system of errors known as Catholicism and who self-identify as Christians because they don't know any better. They don't make a Christians' job of separating the two any easier.

As for Jesus timeline, I tend to agree with Fomenko regarding the more probable date of the Jesus figure around the 12th century. It always seemed improbable to me that all the religious fighting would start 1000 years AFTER a new religion began instead of right away. After 1000+ years it seems that any upstart religion, no matter how different, or despised, or whatever would at least be accepted as being "here to stay" and not worthy of killing and dying to eradicate unless something in that religion changed to the point of being war-worthy (reformers?).

Catholicism didn't eradicate paganism-it incorporated it into Catholicism. (James 1:27) "Pure and undefiled religion before the God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their tribulation; to keep oneself unstained from the world." Period. No holy water, no magical crackers, no pomp and ceremony, no cover charge for the "entertainment" (tithes), no indulgences or purgatory, or eternal damnation (or immortality of the soul for that matter), no funny hats, no rosary beads. Just decency and helpfulness to the community.
 

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
484
Reactions
1,297
Where did the terminology come from?
Jesus. Christ. Christianity. God. Pagan/Heathen. Devil. Angel. Bible. Cross. Catholic. Jew. to name the 'main players' we got given to formulate someone else's idea of life around.
My feeling is they were all invented at the same time and written down together by the fakers (cannot come up with a better description).
Same people, probably different generation but maybe not, who handed out the sciences as a way to 'understand the world', or so we are told.

Getting beyond the Roman Catholic barrier does not appear to be easy but it seems to be the key perhaps going around or under is the way to go, in through the side door or in through the exit, the fire escape maybe. Or ignore it completely, accept not knowing and make it all up, which I am coming to feel is actually what living life is.
 

tupperaware

Well-known member
Messages
192
Reactions
498
I am not a Christian but a major Christian sympathizer and its the religion with its new testament that makes the most sense as a useful moral code to me. The old testament not nearly as much. One of my joys in life is when the JW's come knocking at my door. Always a handshake even though I know their main goal is to increase their chances of being the lucky few that get into heaven (only 144,000?) as we all "might" if we say just the right things before we die..

I think one of the competing reasons for the spread of early Christianity was to attempt conversion of or failing that, eradicate pagans that showed any signs of human sacrifice or ritual cannibalism or worse. It did not take long until that reason petered out for the most part and then Christianity sought total domination over people or at least their souls with a few exceptions. For example it was not until around the 1400's that remnants of paganism, practiced everywhere became a mortal sin depending on who was doing the evaluation. Before that it was tolerated for the most part.

Things started getting vicious after this relatively famous book appeared. Rare Manuscript Unveiled at University of Alberta Stated here is again the misconception that witch hunting was State sponsored. More lazy virtue signaling getting in the way of checking sources which can take more than a few minutes. This book appeared right after Gutenberg's printing press made its big splash. The average number of alleged witches killed might have been as low as 40,000 over 300 years and those were due almost entirely to local thugs probably inspired by the Malleus Maleficarum. A nod to one of the members here. My guess is the 9,000,000 number getting more press popular as the number of witches killed by State decree is similar in its meme potency as the number 6,000,000 seen elsewhere.
 

Paracelsus

Well-known member
Messages
316
Reactions
1,313
I am not a Christian but a major Christian sympathizer and its the religion with its new testament that makes the most sense as a useful moral code to me. The old testament not nearly as much. One of my joys in life is when the JW's come knocking at my door. Always a handshake even though I know their main goal is to increase their chances of being the lucky few that get into heaven (only 144,000?) as we all "might" if we say just the right things before we die..

I think one of the competing reasons for the spread of early Christianity was to attempt conversion of or failing that, eradicate pagans that showed any signs of human sacrifice or ritual cannibalism or worse. It did not take long until that reason petered out for the most part and then Christianity sought total domination over people or at least their souls with a few exceptions. For example it was not until around the 1400's that remnants of paganism, practiced everywhere became a mortal sin depending on who was doing the evaluation. Before that it was tolerated for the most part.

Things started getting vicious after this relatively famous book appeared. Rare Manuscript Unveiled at University of Alberta Stated here is again the misconception that witch hunting was State sponsored. More lazy virtue signaling getting in the way of checking sources which can take more than a few minutes. This book appeared right after Gutenberg's printing press made its big splash. The average number of alleged witches killed might have been as low as 40,000 over 300 years and those were due almost entirely to local thugs probably inspired by the Malleus Maleficarum. A nod to one of the members here. My guess is the 9,000,000 number getting more press popular as the number of witches killed by State decree is similar in its meme potency as the number 6,000,000 seen elsewhere.
It was and continues to be the one true Deep State occult war. Rival theological sects battling for control of the material world. Whether it's calling Alchemists evil wizards and warlocks or Nazi physicists mad scientists, it is all just different renditions of the same tune. The Witches Hammer was probably just written by sociopaths who enjoyed torturing and murdering people.

Anyone who was a true "witch" was probably intelligent enough to avoid being tortured to death. Most were probably literate, and probably had intelligence networks to deal with eventualities of occult warfare.

My two cents.
 

Top