Buddhism and Gnosticism

clapyourhands

“Happy heresy my beloved truth seekers.” ~ Aeon Byte

From Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio

A tour to the East to one of Gnosticism’s distant cousins. We dispel many of Zen Buddhism’s misconceptions—at the same understanding its origins, theology and philosophy that are a radical departure from mainstream Buddhism and all other Eastern faiths. We also parallel the similarities and differences between Gnosticism and Zen Buddhism (and traditional Buddhism). Lastly, we reveal steps to gain Gnosis through the practice of Zazen (meditation). In the end, we discover that the figure of Buddha was as radical a dualist and world-hater as Mani himself.

Astral Guest—Brad Warner, author of Hardcore Zen and Sit Down and Shut Up and Nathaniel Merritt, author of Jehovah Unmasked.

 

From Zeitgeist:

THE FABRICATION OF THE GALILAEANS

if-you-could-reason-with-religious-people
I have become convinced that the Pagan Mystery Schools in pre-Christian times had a firm grasp on the Truth and Nature of Reality. Those teachings were stolen and were slowly phased out to common folks, to prevent them from KNOWING that they themselves were indeed Divine Immortal Beings that contained within and without them the spark of Consciousness that has become known by the word God. No one can pass this knowledge on to others. It is an Intuitive Truth that must be personally experienced. Otherwise you will ”believe” in someone else’s experience (or someone else’s deception, as is proven by Joe Smith’s Book for Morons, Scientology by Ron L Hubbard or Christianity by Constantine. Everyone has before them the blue pill and the red pill, or in other words, a choice: however freedom is not a gift to those who prefer slavery. The following notes were for my own use and not sourced as should be for public consumption. But what the hell,  I think a lot of the material is from mountainman.com, an excellent website. I do not debate ”believers.” Belief closes the mind and takes the place of truth. One cannot argue with this kind of ignore-ance.  To worship the exoteric that passes as history is to ignore the esoteric and miss the mystical Truth and symbolic meaning that for most remain hidden in the Canonized adulterated/mutilated scriptures. Jesus is so obviously symbolic of the sun, and the sun is symbolic of the attributes of ‘god.’ To miss this is to live an entire life enslaved in a fictional reality as a fictional ego based person. (Person, from the Roman-Greek word Persona, a fictional human, masked, actor). Emperor Julian, who with first hand knowledge of what his Uncle Constantine did, wrote down only 40 years later the following:

”It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.
”It is worth while to recall in a few words whence and how we first arrived at a conception of God; next to compare what is said about the divine among the Hellenes and Hebrews; and finally to enquire of those who are neither Hellenes nor Jews, but belong to the sect of the Galilaeans, why they preferred the belief of the Jews to ours; and what, further, can be the reason why they do not even adhere to the Jewish beliefs but have abandoned them also and followed a way of their own. For they have not accepted a single admirable or important doctrine of those that are held either by us Hellenes or by the Hebrews who derived them from Moses; but from both religions they have gathered what has been engrafted like powers of evil, as it were, on these nations – atheism from the Jewish levity, and a sordid and slovenly way of living from our indolence and vulgarity; and they desire that this should be called the noblest worship of the gods.”

Flavius Claudius Julianus (331-363 CE)

Against the Galilaeans

 
It is imperative for the students of life to understand that it is only by inference that it has been believed that there were in fact christians in existence on the planet Earth prior to the fourth century. The inference that christianity existed at all in the first three centuries leans implicitly and exclusively upon the literature of Eusebius of Caesarea, as its foundational corner stone.
The literature of Eusebius is imperially sponsored literary calumny and genuinely cannot be vested with any integrity. An alternative theory of the history of antiquity considers that the prime Eusebian objective was to create as much distance as possible between the planned implementation (312-324 CE) of christianity under Constantine, and the council of Nicaea.
The very contemporary author, the first century Jewish historian Josephus had his work interpolated for this prime objective.
Constantine was going to promote this “Fabrication of the Galilaeans” as the officially supremely sanctified religion by which he was to tax, administer and otherwise obtain revenue from his newly acquired territories of the empire.
This fiction has fooled the world ever since.
Julian saw Christianity – which within a generation had ceased to be a persecuted belief and had become the official religion persecuting others – as a sickness within the body politic, and felt deep revulsion toward it from an ethical-religious viewpoint. His Uncle Constantine remained loyal to Mithraism (despite the fable of his death bed conversion). Julian’s writings reveal his knowledge of the Bible and the New Testament. He chides Christianity for having adopted the worst aspects of paganism and Judaism, and for having broken away from Judaism; he writes that the beliefs of the Jews are identical with or only slightly different from those of other nations. He compared the myths of Genesis with the Homeric epic and the Platonic cosmogony, and argued that paganism’s religious tradition and view of godhood is superior.
Everything that Julian undertook must be judged in the light of his initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries see: https://www.rosicrucian.org/publications/digest/digest2_2009/04_web/07_keller/07_keller.pdf (and history has been at great pains to misrepresent his actions in every possible way). In order to form a true estimate of such a personality as Julian we must give due weight to the effects of this initiation. What spiritual benefit had Julian derived from his initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries? Through direct spiritual perception he learned the secrets of cosmic and world evolution, the spiritual origin of the world and how spiritual forces operate in the planetary and solar systems. He learned to understand certain things which were quite incomprehensible to his contemporaries (with the exception of a few Greek initiates), namely, the relation of solar influences and the Being of the Sun to the old Hermes-Logos. He understood the meaning of the Pythagorean maxim: “Thou shalt not speak against the Sun!” This does not refer, of course, to the physical sun but to the Spirit which is concealed behind the Sun. He knew that the ancient sacred traditions ascribed the origin of the world to the spiritual Being of the Sun and above all that man must recover his relation to the spiritual Sun if he is to penetrate to the source of his existence.
 
(In Constantine we have a personality who had to abandon the former coercive measures practiced by the majority of the earlier emperors when they sought initiation into the Mysteries. To compensate for this he therefore did everything in his power to advance the cause of exoteric Christianity in the Empire.) He himself was a dedicated life long Pagan initiate, despite the fable of his death bed conversion.
Julian therefore was aware of the ancient Sun-Mystery. He realized that the physical sun is but the external form of a spiritual Sun which can be awakened in the soul of man through initiation, and when awakened can reveal to him the intimate connection between the universe and the historical life of man on Earth. It was clear to Julian that the world can never be ordered on a basis of rationalism, that only those who are able to be in touch with the Sun Logos are in any way fitted to have a voice in the ordering of the world. He had to recognize that the movements of the celestial bodies and the great historical movements of mankind are governed by a common law.
Remember that up to the time of Constantine, in large sections of the population the last remnants of ancient cults had been preserved. Today the question of miracles is a real thorn in the side of Biblical exegesis, because people refuse to read the Gospels from the standpoint of the age to which they, the Gospels, belong. The question of miracles raised no problems for the contemporaries of the Evangelists, for they were aware of the existence of rites and ceremonies from which men derived spiritual forces which they were able to control.
Whilst, on the one hand, Christianity was introduced as a political measure which culminated in Constantine’s edict of toleration, so attempts were made on the other hand, to suppress the ancient pagan rites. Endless laws were promulgated by Rome which forbade the celebration of rites which derived their power from the spiritual world. These laws, it is true, declared that the old superstitions must cease, that no one may practice ritual magic in order to injure others and no one may communicate with the dead, and so on, but these were only pretexts. The real purpose of these laws was to eradicate root and branch any traces of pagan cults which had survived from ancient times. Wherever possible, history has endeavored to hush up or to conceal the real facts of the situation. But our earliest historical records were the work of priests and monks in the monasteries (a fact which modern science, which claims to be “objective and to accept nothing on authority”, studiously ignores). The avowed object of the monasteries (i.e. priests and monks) was to suppress all knowledge of the true character of antiquity and to prevent the essential teachings of the pagan Mysteries from being transmitted to posterity.
Constantine inaugurated the exoteric side of Christianity and Julian the Apostate took up the struggle against the exoteric side of Christianity. It is a curious phenomenon that if anyone with a real knowledge of occult facts that can still be found in ancient writings — makes a study of Christian dogma, for example, if we inquire into the origin of the Mass, or if ritual and dogma are studied in the light of occult knowledge derived from ancient writings, we discover the most extraordinary things. What lies behind these dogmas and cult acts?Countless authors who have studied these questions have come to the conclusion that in ritual and dogma a large residuum of paganism has been preserved or has survived. An attempt was made by the French writer Drach, an authority on Hebraism, to demonstrate that the dogma and ritual of the Catholic Church were simply a revival of paganism. And others attempted to show that certain people were at pains to conceal from the faithful the fact that the dogmas and ritual of the Church were imbued with paganism.
Julian’s polemic against Christianity musters every kind of argument against Christianity, against the historical Jesus and certain Christian dogmas, with passionate sincerity. And when we compare these arguments with the objections raised by the liberal theology of the nineteenth century and the later theology of the adherents of Drews against the historicity of Christ, when we consider the whole field of literature of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries which reveals most careful, painstaking and thorough philological investigation, there are endless repetitions, so that one has to consult whole libraries — we find that we can piece together certain guiding principles. The leading critics began to undertake a comparative study of the Gospels and found many discrepancies in the texts. But all these critical methods were already anticipated by Julian. The nineteenth-century criticism offered nothing new that was not already known to Julian. Julian spoke out of a natural creative gift whilst the nineteenth-century criticism displayed enormous industry, great erudition and downright theological sophistry.
“It was”, thought the Emperor Julian c.362 CE,”expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which he was convinced that the fabrication of the Christians was a fiction of men composed by wickedness”. http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/thesis.pdf
The Eusebian fiction postulate may be stated thus:
Eusebius in the fourth century was sponsored by the supreme emperor Constantine to write a history for a new and strange religion that Constantine wishes to implement as a method of administration for his newly acquired empires. Manuscripts of prominent Roman and Jewish historians were perverted, false communications between non- existent bishops were fabricated, manuscripts of other writers were interpolated by Eusebius, and Eusebius uses the names of unknown writers to publish his own fictitious literature.
The entire purpose is to establish a priority date for the new and strange religion of Constantine which is as far away from the date of the Nicaean council as is possible.
The Eusebian Fiction postulate is that Constantine and Eusebius were two of the “wicked men” who composed the “fabrication of the Galilaeans” in accordance to the opinion of the Roman Emperor Julian, speaking from within 40 years of the perpetration of the fiction, at Nicaea.
The Eusebian fiction postulate is that the new and strange testament was also written by Eusebius under the sponsorship of Constantine.
The first implication of considering the historical consistency of the Eusebian fiction postulate is that there necessarily must have been another reality of antiquity, in which for the first 300 years, the tribe of christians did not physically exist.
AGAINST THE GALILAEANS
THE WORKS OF THE EMPEROR JULIAN
Letters 1 – 73

5 Reasons to Suspect Jesus Never Existed

belief--

Question EVERYTHING!” ~ George Carlin

Valerie Tarico, AlterNet

A growing number of scholars are openly questioning or actively arguing against whether Jesus lived.

Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are “mythologized history.” In other words, they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provided the seed that grew into Christianity.

At the same time, these scholars acknowledge that many Bible stories like the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and women at the tomb borrow and rework mythic themes that were common in the Ancient Near East, much the way that screenwriters base new movies on old familiar tropes or plot elements. In this view, a “historical Jesus” became mythologized.

For over 200 years, a wide ranging array of theologians and historians—most of them Christian—analyzed ancient texts, both those that made it into the Bible and those that didn’t, in attempts to excavate the man behind the myth. Several current or recent bestsellers take this approach, distilling the scholarship for a popular audience. Familiar titles include Zealot by Reza Aslan and How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman

But other scholars believe that the gospel stories are actually “historicized mythology.” In this view, those ancient mythic templates are themselves the kernel. They got filled in with names, places and other real world details as early sects of Jesus worship attempted to understand and defend the devotional traditions they had received.

The notion that Jesus never existed is a minority position. Of course it is! says David Fitzgerald, author of Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at AllFor centuries all serious scholars of Christianity were Christians themselves, and modern secular scholars lean heavily on the groundwork that they laid in collecting, preserving, and analyzing ancient texts. Even today most secular scholars come out of a religious background, and many operate by default under historical presumptions of their former faith.

Fitzgerald is an atheist speaker and writer, popular with secular students and community groups. The internet phenom, Zeitgeist the Movie introduced millions to some of the mythic roots of Christianity. But Zeitgeist and similar works contain known errors and oversimplifications that undermine their credibility. Fitzgerald seeks to correct that by giving young people interesting, accessible information that is grounded in accountable scholarship.

More academic arguments in support of the Jesus Myth theory can be found in the writings of Richard Carrier and Robert Price. Carrier, who has a Ph.D. in ancient history uses the tools of his trade to show, among other things, how Christianity might have gotten off the ground without a miracle. Price, by contrast, writes from the perspective of a theologian whose biblical scholarship ultimately formed the basis for his skepticism. It is interesting to note that some of the harshest debunkers of fringe Jesus myth theories like those from Zeitgeist or Joseph Atwill (who tries to argue that the Romans invented Jesus) are from serious Mythicists like Fitzgerald, Carrier and Price.

The arguments on both sides of this question—mythologized history or historicized mythology—fill volumes, and if anything the debate seems to be heating up rather than resolving. A growing number of scholars are openly questioning or actively arguing against Jesus’ historicity. Since many people, both Christian and not, find it surprising that this debate even exists—that credible scholars might think Jesus never existed—here are some of the key points that keep the doubts alive:

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.

In the words of Bart Ehrman:

“What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” (How Jesus Became God pp. 56-57)

2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts.

Paul seems unaware of any virgin birth, for example. No wise men, no star in the east, no miracles. Historians have long puzzled over the “Silence of Paul” on the most basic biographical facts and teachings of Jesus. Paul fails to cite Jesus’ authority precisely when it would make his case. What’s more, he never calls the twelve apostles Jesus’ disciples; in fact, he never says Jesus HAD disciples –or a ministry, or did miracles, or gave teachings. He virtually refuses to disclose any other biographical detail, and the few cryptic hints he offers aren’t just vague, but contradict the gospels. The leaders of the early Christian movement in Jerusalem like Peter and James are supposedly Jesus’ own followers and family; but Paul dismisses them as nobodies and repeatedly opposes them for not being true Christians!

Liberal theologian Marcus Borg suggests that people read the books of the New Testament in chronological order to see how early Christianity unfolded. “Placing the Gospels after Paul makes it clear that as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product. The Gospel — the good news — of and about Jesus existed before the Gospels. They are the products of early Christian communities several decades after Jesus’ historical life and tell us how those communities saw his significance in their historical context.”

3. Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts.

We now know that the four gospels were assigned the names of the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not written by them. To make matter sketchier, the name designations happened sometime in second century, around 100 years or more after Christianity supposedly began. For a variety of reasons, the practice of pseudonymous writing was common at the time and many contemporary documents are “signed” by famous figures. The same is true of the New Testament epistles except for a handful of letters from Paul (6 out of 13) which are broadly thought to be genuine.  But even the gospel stories don’t actually say, “I was there.” Rather, they claim the existence of other witnesses, a phenomenon familiar to anyone who has heard the phrase, my aunt knew someone who . . . .

4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.

If you think you know the Jesus story pretty well, I suggest that you pause at this point to test yourself with the 20 question quiz at ExChristian.net.

The gospel of Mark is thought to be the earliest existing “life of Jesus,” and linguistic analysis suggests that Luke and Matthew both simply reworked Mark and added their own corrections and new material. But they contradict each other and, to an even greater degree contradict the much later gospel of John, because they were written with different objectives for different audiences. The incompatible Easter stories offer one example of how much the stories disagree.

5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

They include a cynic philosopher, charismatic Hasid, liberal Pharisee, conservative rabbi, Zealot revolutionary, nonviolent pacifist to borrow from a much longer list assembled by Price. In his words (pp. 15-16), “The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage.  But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time.” John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar grumbles that “the stunning diversity is an academic embarrassment.”

For David Fitzgerald, these issues and more lead to a conclusion that he finds inescapable:

Jesus appears to be an effect, not a cause, of Christianity. Paul and the rest of the first generation of Christians searched the Septuagint translation of Hebrew scriptures to create a Mystery Faith for the Jews, complete with pagan rituals like a Lord’s Supper, Gnostic terms in his letters, and a personal savior god to rival those in their neighbors’ longstanding Egyptian, Persian, Hellenistic and Roman traditions.

In a soon-to-be-released follow up to Nailed, entitled Jesus: Mything in ActionFitzgerald argues that the many competing versions proposed by secular scholars are just as problematic as any “Jesus of Faith:” Even if one accepts that there was a real Jesus of Nazareth, the question has little practical meaning: Regardless of whether or not a first century rabbi called Yeshua ben Yosef lived, the “historical Jesus” figures so patiently excavated and re-assembled by secular scholars are themselves fictions.

We may never know for certain what put Christian history in motion. Only time (or perhaps time travel) will tell.

About the Author

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington and the founder of Wisdom Commons. She is the author of “Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light” and “Deas and Other Imaginings.” Her articles can be found at Awaypoint.Wordpress.com.

Alan Watts On Buddhism / website jesusneverexisted.com

Belief verses gnosis. Truth verses lies. Alan Watts on the religion of no religion. A wonderful 12 minute video clip that much better articulates my thoughts that the literalism of jesus is the foundation of ignorance. It’s the the lie upon which all other lies have been built upon.

 

 
PS:
I won’t apologize that good historical studies points to a mythical Jesus, all the real evidence points to this as the truth. Now to some this is not earth shattering news, but I did get a couple comments that I wasn’t able to reply correctly to, and I’m still short on time so ignore typos and ommissions. Yes, if a drunk is able to stop drinking by believing in an historical Jesus he has switched to one self destructive crutch to another crutch, but it’s still a crutch. He still BELIEVES a falsehood and misses the Gnostic message that the Church tried to destroy for 1,000 years or more. It’s the first and worse lie ever forced upon mankind using the most inhumane methods (avenge Hypatia). (I’d recommend The Dark History Of The Church for further reading). Look, I don’t like taking a cripple’s crutch from him. My mother is under the delusion of this mass hypnosis. It has been forced on us for so long it has possibly damaged our DNA. It is the worse disinformation and absolute silliest load of crap I’ve ever seen. So please don’t read further if you’re a cripple. Or ‘pick up your mat and walk again’ by KNOWING the truth! Why be a follower? The truth is within you. (”Don’t follow leaders, watch your parking meters” – Bob Dylan).

I should mention also that the Founder of AA, Bill Wilson, experimented with LSD to have a direct experience and entertained the idea that it would help drunks and addicts. It dissolves the ego boundaries and makes one see the big picture and inter connectedness of Gaia, Consciousness and what some call god. Too bad the government made even studying LSD illegal. The AA steps, designed to create a spiritual experience, emphasizes a higher power, or god as you understand him/her/it. AA is not affiliated with any religion. Would I force this gnosis on my mother? No, it can’t be forced on anyone. Religion can be forced on people, but not gnosis. I tried to talk to her and she shut down. It’s certainly not good to be so closed minded because of a lie, but like most she is so plugged into the matrix it’s impossible to have a discussion that’s goes deeper than talk of a TV game show. That’s what belief does. It fills in the knowledge void and then becomes “knowledge” to the “believer.” Believer verses Knower. I see nothing good in what happened to this religion. I would prefer to die like Aldous Huxley, with injections of LSD (which was given him by his loving wife), rather than hope I go to zombie heaven to see family members I really didn’t even like that much. I do know enough to know I can hit them on the head and kill them with my harp should they invade my cloud. (I’m kidding, I believe they’re down there smiling up at us right now). I prefer direct experience, it’s knowable at a deep intuitive level. I trust my own experiences, not someone else’s. Especially with something as corrupt as religion, and especially the most corrupted religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the religions of hate and war. Removing reincarnation from the bible was a direct order of Emperor Constantine. If you want to follow Constantine’s doctrines, go for it. I refuse to consume the flesh of that swine. Do I sound angry? I really hope not. I just prefer the truth. I’m so tired of being lied to by super-wealthy elites with an agenda to suppress mankind into being their servants. But I realize that they are only doing what we allow them to do. So much for faith in the masses. Remember the Roman Legal Maxim: “Let him who wants to be deceived, be thus deceived.” Truth never mattered to rulers, and this world is Rome 2.0. Scattered throughout the bible are golden nuggets of gnosis if you know how to find it. It’s poetry, the language of the ancients trying to describe an experience in order to share it.

Why even bring this up? Because it’s damn important! Belief is de-evolution of the human race! We need to cooperate with each other through gnosis of Love and compassion from a place of knowing. That’s very important! The mind control has to stop so we can evolve, so Consciousness can evolve and we don’t annihilate ourselves through lazy ignorance (ignore-ance, willfully letting ourselves be dumbed down. To be lied to by mainstream news (another example of belief based on something (propaganda) someone else said). To feel unhappy unless we buy stuff. To give up our freedoms and let our thoughts be spied on). Brave New World…get stuff, protect stuff from those without stuff. He with the most stuff in the end wins. Barf!

Gnosticism is supposed to work like this. The mythical Jesus (which is a symbol of the sun, the 12 opossums the 12 months, the 4 gospels the 4 seasons, blah blah blah) was introduced to Initiates as an historical person (like Santa Claus). They then got of the tit and stopped drinking infant milk and matured to have a spiritual/mystical personal experience with Consciousness. (It took much longer than a short 40 minutes a week in a brick church listening to someone else’s personal views. This was ancient physicists working hard with the only language available to them, poetic midrash).

It certainly got out of hand!

I would highly recommend interested people to take a look at the following:

 

Welcome to Enlightenment! – Religion: the Tragedy of Mankind. Articles by Kenneth Humphreys

Great Website:  Welcome to Enlightenment! – Religion: the Tragedy of Mankind. Articles by Kenneth Humphreys.

There NEVER Was A Jesus Christ

religulous5

This is not an attack on anyone’s personhood. If your personhood is tied to this myth, your ego will react in defense mode, as that is what the ego does. How many people will this piss off? Since when did what people believe become politically correct? What people believe has always been the problem. I find it amazing (and at times amusing) that Christians are so many in number and so sold on a lie they themselves won’t/can’t honestly investigate open mindedly. I’m truly amazed that they take offense at the true origins of a belief system invented by political men to control the population, and take offense when someone disagrees with them, not to mention their circular arguments that the facts are all wrong. This is ego based, not spiritual. Why do we call them Apologists instead of liars? That a ‘human’ can live an entire life believing a 2,000 year old lie just blows my mind. Christianity is heavily plagiarized from earlier doctrines/sources, and Jesus Christ was completely made up from other god-myths and human beings. That is an historical fact! The words put in Jesus’s mouth can be traced to earlier sources! Truth is that Constantine ordered his new bible should be (in his own words) made to “astound,” obviously in order to steal the hearts and minds of the masses, or propaganda, which is nothing new and an art form even in early Rome. AND IT’S STILL WORKING. I’m all for spiritual seeking and Jesus as an idea, but not through a religion completely fabricated by Roman elite politicians to placate the crowds. Same goes for Islam, Judaism, any Literalism, ism-ism. Dadaism. Ism Schism. THE KINGDOM OF ROME’S JESUS WAS CALLED THE DARK AGES! When science and spirituality come together a new paradigm will emerge. The sleepers will awake or disappear and propaganda will no longer work. Rome never fell, it still exists today as the Vatican. We need to strip away beliefs and re-member our Divine True Nature. Since X-tianity took away over 10 years of my life, I’m starting with that bullshit story. While we can appreciate the mythology, literary beauty and wisdom stolen from others and placed in the mouth of the Hesus Krishna character, or Hey Zeus or whatever (later known as jesus christ in the 4th century, courtesy of Rome), nothing is better than letting go of false beliefs and meditating to your own higher Self, directly communing with Oneness and the True nature of Reality. Christian Literalism is a lie. There was no Jesus. There is no Santa, Easter Bunny, or Humpty Dumpty. If you can’t handle that don’t read this. Talking/Praying to a made up invisible friend is childish and aimless, but I will live and let live … (You might find fault with some of what I say, but most of this is sourced from historical records). Please refer to recommended reading at the end!

bible_fraud01

The smooth generalization, which so many historians are content to repeat, that Constantine “embraced the Christian religion” and subsequently granted “official toleration”, is “contrary to historical fact” and should be erased from our literature forever (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. iii, p. 299, passim). Simply put, there was no Christian religion at Constantine’s time, and the Church acknowledges that the tale of his “conversion” and “baptism” are “entirely legendary” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).

Constantine “never acquired a solid theological knowledge” and “depended heavily on his advisers in religious questions” (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. xii, p. 576, passim). According to Eusebeius (260-339), Constantine noted that among the presbyterian factions “strife had grown so serious, vigorous action was necessary to establish a more religious state”, but he could not bring about a settlement between rival god factions (Life of Constantine, op. cit., pp. 26-8). His advisers warned him that the presbyters’ religions were “destitute of foundation” and needed official stabilization (ibid.).

Constantine saw in this confused system of fragmented dogmas the opportunity to create a new and combined State religion, neutral in concept, and to protect it by law. When he conquered the East in 324 he sent his Spanish religious adviser, Osius of Córdoba, to Alexandria with letters to several bishops exhorting them to make peace among themselves. The mission failed and Constantine, probably at the suggestion of Osius, then issued a decree commanding all presbyters and their subordinates “be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public, and travel to the city of Nicaea” in the Roman province of Bithynia in Asia Minor.

They were instructed to bring with them the testimonies they orated to the rabble, “bound in leather” for protection during the long journey, and surrender them to Constantine upon arrival in Nicaea (The Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1917, “Council of Nicaea” entry).

Their writings totaled, “in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviors, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them” ~ (Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518).

Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time (Disjointed, incoherent idiocy). It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate.

About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was “held in a hall in Osius’s palace” (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598).

In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said,

“Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing” ~ (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).

It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the theological creation of Jesus Christ.

Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Savior-god, Krishna, and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god. Another theory is the name Christ came from Helios Christos, a Roman sun god. We know there was a sect that called themselves Chrestians (Chrestians means ‘the good ones”). They used oil to baptize or anoint each other and never heard of a Jesus Christ. My own thought is that a sect of Jewish mystics took to write a new ‘belief’ in a spiritual Messiah after the destruction by Rome fell upon them. This group was splintered (A reason given by Constantine to create a new “unified” religion) and  when the leaders (about 600) of the new religion were gathered at the Council of Nicaea they were ordered to bring their ‘fragmented’ artifacts with them. These were used to write the New Testament, and were then destroyed.  There may have been a Yeshua used later as a character myth, or possibly, but unlikely, a real Rabbi. It’s possible that Jesus Pandera (100 bc) was the basis for the original character. Or he was invented from Old Testament stories (which is the most likely in my opinion). The point here is that the Jesus described in the bible (the only one we can possibly know anything about) did not exist as a person or entity in history. One may feel the need to think of Jesus as an idea, or as some of the Gnostics did as a reference to oneself (as an Initiate), but remains a STORY. That’s kind of my disclaimer to any Literalist who might read this. Any regular reader knows my position is belief = ignorance. Knowledge voids are filled in with beliefs. Beliefs close the mind and stagnate not just the person but the human race from gorwing and evolving. …. Imagine no religion. ~ JL

NO JESUS CHRIST UNTIL THE 4TH CENTURY

It has often been emphasized that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical realities. (This position is not new and goes back to Christianity’s inception).

The Church agrees, saying: “Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)

The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings,

“the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled” (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels “do not go back to the first century of the Christian era” – (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).

This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ.

In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that,

“the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD” – (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).

That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history. There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time.

A new god was proclaimed and “officially” ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite.

That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire’s new religion; and because there was no letter “J” in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into “Jesus Christ”.

GOSPELS (The New Testicles)

Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council.

His instructions were:

“Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions’ sake.” (God’s Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

“Make them to astonish” said Constantine, and “the books were written accordingly” – (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39).

Eusebius amalgamated the “legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one”, using the standard god-myths from the presbyters’ manuscripts as his exemplars.

Sinai Bible

When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified. These amendments can be recognized by a simple comparative exercise that anybody can and should do. Serious study of Christian origins must emanate from the Sinai Bible’s version of the New Testament, not modern editions

Modern Bibles are five removes in translation from early editions, and disputes rage between translators over variant interpretations of more than 5,000 ancient words. However, it is what is not written in that old Bible that embarrasses the Church, and this article discusses only a few of those omissions.

It is apparent that when Eusebius assembled scribes to write the New Testimonies, he first produced a single document that provided an exemplar or master version. Today it is called the Gospel of Mark, and the Church admits that it was “the first Gospel written” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 657), even though it appears second in the New Testament today. The scribes of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were dependent upon the Mark writing as the source and framework for the compilation of their works. The Gospel of John is independent of those writings, and the late-15th-century theory that it was written later to support the earlier writings is the truth (The Crucifixion of Truth, Tony Bushby, Joshua Books, 2004, pp. 33-40). Thus, the Gospel of Mark in the Sinai Bible carries the “first” story of Jesus Christ in ”history,” one completely different to what is in modern Bibles. It starts with Jesus “at about the age of thirty” (Mark 1:9), and doesn’t know of Mary, a virgin birth or mass murders of baby boys by Herod. Words describing Jesus Christ as “the son of God” do not appear in the opening narrative as they do in today’s editions (Mark 1:1), and the modern-day family tree tracing a “messianic bloodline” back to King David is non-existent in all ancient Bibles, as are the now-called “messianic prophecies” (51 in total).

The Sinai Bible carries a conflicting version of events surrounding the “raising of Lazarus”, and reveals an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ and his ascension into Heaven. No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).

The resurrection verses in today’s Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying,

“the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine … almost the entire section is a later compilation” – (Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading “The Evidence of its Spuriousness”; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading “Canons”).

Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity.

The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues. The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus‘ resurrection to his disciples.

The Church admits: “The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel” – (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), “Gospel of John”, p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).

Narratives from the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, appear verbatim in the Gospels today (e.g., Matt. 1:25, 2:11, 8:1-4, 9:1-8, 9:18-26), and why passages from the Phenomena of the Greek statesman Aratus of Sicyon (271-213 BC) are in the New Testament.

Extracts from the Hymn to Zeus, written by Greek philosopher Cleanthes (c. 331-232 BC), are also found in the Gospels, as are 207 words from the Thais of Menander (c. 343-291), one of the “seven wise men” of Greece. Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek poet Epimenides (7th or 6th century BC) are applied to the lips of Jesus Christ, and seven passages from the curious Ode of Jupiter (c. 150 BC; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament.

Tischendorf’s conclusion also supports Professor Bordeaux’s Vatican findings that reveal the allegory of Jesus Christ derived from the fable of Mithra, the divine son of God (Ahura Mazda) and messiah of the first kings of the Persian Empire around 400 BC. His birth in a grotto was attended by magi who followed a star from the East. They brought “gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh” (as in Matt. 2:11) and the newborn baby was adored by shepherds. He came into the world wearing the Mithraic cap, which popes imitated in various designs until well into the 15th century.

Mithra, one of a trinity, stood on a rock, the emblem of the foundation of his religion, and was anointed with honey. After a last supper with Helios and 11 other companions, Mithra was crucified on a cross, bound in linen, placed in a rock tomb and rose on the third day or around 25 March (the full moon at the spring equinox, a time now called Easter after the Babylonian goddess Ishtar). The fiery destruction of the universe was a major doctrine of Mithraism – a time in which Mithra promised to return in person to Earth and save deserving souls. Devotees of Mithra partook in a sacred communion banquet of bread and wine, a ceremony that paralleled the Christian Eucharist and preceded it by more than four centuries.

Christianity is an adaptation of, Mithraism welded with the Druidic principles of the Culdees some Egyptian elements (the pre-Christian Book of Revelation was originally called The Mysteries of Osiris and Isis) Greek philosophy and various aspects of Hinduism.

A JESUS CHRIST NEVER EXISTED

We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century.” (Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:

The construct (fabrication) of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a “fable.” – (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters…, op. cit.).

Source: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/

Recommended Reading: (For those interested in more scholarly essays and historical references)

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/thesis.pdf

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Witnesses_to_the_historicity_of%20Jesus_AUTHUR_DREWS_1912.htm

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/index.html

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/Julian_Against_the_Galilaeans.htm

http://www.evilbible.com/

http://www.thechristmyth.com/

http://beyondallreligion.net/2012/01/21/how-christianity-was-invented/

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/index.htm#THESIS_2

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_temas2a.htm#misticismo

http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/dr_george_lamsa_bible.htm

http://nazirene.org/secret_doctrine.htm

 

Attis and Jesus

670x510_1601_vignette_Famars_Apccueiljpg

The Pagans argued that their God was older and therefore original. The Christians admitted Christ came later, but claimed Attis was a work of the devil whose similarity to Christ, and the fact he predated Christ, were intended to confuse and mislead men.  This was apparently the stock answer — the Christian apologist Tertullian makes the same argument.

The following are some of the similarities between Attis and the Christian story of Jesus:

  1. Attis was born on December 25th of the Virgin Nana.

  2. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind.

  3. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers.

  4. His priests were “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.”

  5. He was both the Divine Son and the Father.

  6. On “Black Friday,” he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth.

  7. He descended into the underworld.

  8. After three days, Attis was resurrected on March 25th (as tradition held of Jesus) as the “Most High God.”

  9. It is recorded that Attis was represented as a “a man tied to a tree, at the foot of which was a lamb, and, without doubt also as a man nailed to a tree…”

  10. Itis reported  that on March 22nd, a pine tree was felled and “an effigy of the god was affixed to it, thus being slain and hung on a tree…” Later the priests are supposed to have found Attis’ grave empty.

Birth Attis  of Phrygia was born of the Virgin Nana on December 25th. He was both the Father and the Divine Son.

The Festival of Joy — the celebration of Attis‘ death and rebirth


On March 22 a pine tree (origins of the christmas tree?) was brought to the sanctuary of Cybele, on it hung the effigy of Attis. The God was dead.  Two days of mourning followed, but when night fell on the eve of the third day, March 25th, the worshippers turned to joy. “For suddenly a light shone in the darkness; the tomb was opened; the God had risen from the dead…[and the priest] softly whispered in their ears the glad tidings of salvation.  The resurrection of the God was hailed by his disciples as a promise that they too would issue triumphant from the corruption of the grave.” [for more see Frazer, Attis, chapter 1]

Attis‘ worshipers had a sacramental meal of bread and wine. The wine represented the God’s blood; the bread became the body of the savoir. They were baptized in this way: a bull was placed over a grating, the devotee stood under the grating.  The bull was stabbed with a consecrated spear.  “It’s hot reeking blood poured in torrents through the apertures and was received with devout eagerness by the worshiper…who had been born again to eternal life and had washed away his sins in the blood of the bull.” [for more see Frazer, Attis, chapter 1]

Attis was called “the Good Sheppard,”  the “Most High God,” the “Only Begotten Son” and “Savior.”

[In Rome the new birth and the remission of sins by shedding of bull’s blood took place on what is now Vatican Hill, in our days the site of the great basilica of St. Peter’s]

 

References

The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, Penguin Books, 1993, page 24

Dionysus: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, Killed and Resurrected after Three Days

111009-417x288-Dionysus
Dionysus is another solar hero, born of a virgin on “December 25th” or the winter solstice, performing miracles and receiving divine epithets, being killed, giving his blood as a sacrifice, resurrecting from the dead after three days in Hades/Hell, and ascending into heaven.
The Greek god of wine, Dionysus or Bacchus, also called Iacchus, has been depicted as having been born of a virgin mother on December 25th; performing miracles such as changing water into wine; appearing surrounded by or one of 12 figures; bearing epithets such as “Only Begotten Son” and “Savior”; dying; resurrecting after three days; and ascending into heaven.

Dionysus was the son of the god Zeus and the mortal woman Semele. In the Cretan version of the same story, which the pre-Christian Greek historian Diodorus Siculus follows, Dionysus was the son of Zeus and Persephone, the daughter of Demeter also called Kore, who is styled a “virgin goddess.”
In the common myth about the birth of Dionysus/Bacchus, Semele is mysteriously impregnated by one of Zeus’s bolts of lightning–an obvi­ous miraculous/virgin conception. In another account, Jupiter/Zeus gives Dionysus’s torn-up heart in a drink to Semele, who becomes pregnant with the “twice born” god this way, again a miraculous or “virgin” birth.

“The virgin conceived the ever-dying, ever-living god of bread and wine, Dionysus.”

”While the maiden goddess sat there, peacefully weaving a mantle on which there was to be a representation of the universe, her mother contrived that Zeus should learn of her presence; he approached her in the form of an immense snake. And the virgin conceived the ever-dying, ever-living god of bread and wine, Dionysus, who was born and nurtured in that cave, torn to death as a babe and resurrected…” – Joseph Campbell

”Dionysus, son of Zeus, is born of a mortal virgin, Semele, who later became immortalized through the inter­vention of her divine son; Jesus, son of God, is born of a mortal virgin, Mary… such stories can be dupli­cated over and over again.”. – Sir Dr. Edmund Ronald Leach

logofinal

Turning water to wine.

This story is really the Christian counterpart to the pagan legends of Dionysus, the Greek god of wine, who at his annual festival in his temple of Elis filled three empty kettles with wine-no water needed! And on the fifth of January wine instead of water gushed from his temple at Andros. If we believe Jesus’ miracle, why should we not believe Dionysus’s? – Dr. A.J. Mattill

“Dionysus’s blood is the wine of the sacrifice.”

”Dionysus-Bacchus-Zagreus-or, in the older, Sumero-Babylonian myths, Dumuzi-absu, Tammuz-…whose blood, in this chalice to be drunk, is the pagan prototype of the wine of the sacrifice of the Mass, which is transubstantiated by the words of consecration into the blood of the Son of the Virgin”. – Campbell

Dionysus is ‘first-born,Savior’ and ‘Father.

dionysus1

”The title “King of Kings” and other epithets may reflect Dionysus’s kinship with Osiris: During the late 18th to early 19th dynasties (c. 1300 BCE), Osiris’s epithets included, “the king of eternity, the lord of everlastingness, who traverseth millions of years in the duration of his life, the firstborn son of the womb of Nut, begotten of Seb, the prince of gods and men, the god of gods, the king of kings, the lord of lords, the prince of princes, the governor of the world whose existence is for everlasting.” – Budge

”Dionysus’s death and resurrection were famous in ancient times, so much so that Christian father Origen (c. 184-c. 254) felt the need to address them in his Contra Celsus (IV, XVI-XVII), comparing them unfavorably, of course, to those of Christ. By Origen’s time, these Dionysian mysteries had already been celebrated for centuries. Dionysus/Bacchus’s resurrection or revival after having been torn to pieces or otherwise killed earned him the epithet of “twice born.” – DM Murdoch

Dionysus/Bacchus “slept three nights with Proserpine (Persephone),” referring to the god’s journey into the underworld to visit his mother. Like Jesus, the god is claimed also to have “ascended to heaven,” such as by Church father Justin Martyr (First Apology, 21; I, 170). Note that Dionysus is depicted here as an adult, rising out of the underworld after death, with a horse-driven chariot so typical of a sun god. One major astrotheological meaning of this motif is the sun’s entrance into and exit from the cave (womb) of the world at the winter solstice. – Classical Journal

In an Orphic hymn, Phanes-Dionysus is styled by the Greek title Protogonos or “first-born” of Zeus, also translated at times as “only-begotten son,” although the term Monogenes would be more appropriately rendered as the latter. He is also called “Soter” or “Savior” in various inscriptions, including a bronze coin from the Thracian city of Maroneia dating to circa 400-350 BCE. Like Jesus in his aspect as the Father, Dionysus is called Pater, or “father” in Greek. – Wright/Adrados