If we agree with Hitchen's:
"It's not hard to perceive, due to the vast effort put forth to assert him as the Messiah through manipulation and over statement of alleged prophecies, that there might have been some deluded rabbi who walked the Middle East some 2 000 years ago".
We can conclude on that rabbi that according to the texts pertaining to his last days, he had willingly chosen "Suicide by cops" most likely in the hope of teaching compassion to these bronze age people and their barbaric religion!
It is easy to even conclude that this belief of his was born out of the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, better known as Buddha, due to the extreme similitude in theories and philosophies of the two, and the fact that Buddha did indeed described this kind of death as:
"One who while being beaten and tortured for days and brought to a most violent cruel brutal hateful and horrible death without rekindling the flame of desires or resorting to anger and hatred but remains peaceful loving forgiving and compassionate. That one would have virtue above all and would be the greatest Buddha to ever walked the earth."
Traces of him found in certain Jewish Talmud and in Roman encampment over the following 3 century tends to support claims to his existence.
But then again such tales have always been born out of actual historical figures (Gilgamesh, Abraham, Moses, King David, King Arthur, Robin Hood, etc...) whose stories were later amplified, rendered larger than life, even deified.
As to his alleged resurrection, since through the entire story he makes mention of his death and resurrection, it is not hard to see how the tomb prepared for him could have been built with more than one access.
We are talking here of people who were trying to overtake two apparently distinct, yet closely knitted (since it was the emperor of Rome who decided who was king in Israel), powers.
Struggle which intensified after the death of Herod in 4 BCE.
The Israelite wouldn't follow anyone but THE messiah of god. At Herod's death 4 different and simultaneous revolt, each with its own Messiah wanna be leader, were coiled by the Roman's because people didn't join with them. All (Un named leader in Idumea, Simon of Pereas, Judas of Sapphoris) but 1 (Athrongeus) of those leaders were executed, Athrongeus fled (most likely to Egypt, since the others were killed while trying to escape towards Egypt) but his 3 brothers were captured and executed.
And this would actually seem to fits with the temporal descriptions in Mathew's gospel.
But the temporal descriptions in Luke's would seem to place his gospel at 6 CE.
Utilizing traces of events that followed his death, it is assumed he would have died in 39 CE at age 33. If this was indeed the case then he would indeed have been born around 6 CE.
Now Jews believed that their Messiah was to be a reincarnated prophet such as Zoroastre or Eli and that he had to be of David's blood line.
At the same time there was a 13th tribe in Israel whose main adept were located at the foot of Pereas, around the dead sea, and were named Essene.
These are people who studied all the ancient texts, including those of other religions including Buddha's, in an hyper religious fashion, but were in opposition of the Jewish church on many subject. They also believed that the one they used to call "The Master Of Justice", their first true leader/teacher who was crucified for his teachings, was to return, be reborn.
And if we are to continue in this direction, again without asserting to have found the truth or any such things, this would be where we would find the birth of this "deluded rabbi", as Hitchen called him.
At the crossing of all these, apparently unrelated yet obviously, intertwining events and people.
Because of how intertwined these things seem to be and the religio-political tensions now in place at the time causing the people to desire the arrival of their promised Messiah (to save them) even more, And because of the Jewish belief in the divine Blood line from Adam to Abraham to David to the promised Messiah and their belief that he was to be a reincarnated prophet of ol, to which we add his obsession with the Jonas tale which he related to his own prophecy about his own crucifixion and resurrection three days later, coupled with his alleged authority in his speeches and teachings and their similitude with Buddha's, there is another thing we may attempt to conclude about him:
(pleas forgive this little but very necessary detour)
The Lama Theory!
Arose from one of Siddhartha's student who, though he may have been wise to some extent, taught that Siddhartha's teachings were about reaching eternity in an absolute consciousness form (p.s. Nirvana loosely translated means "Snuffed out" as what one does to the flame of a candle).
Not to sound as if i was a Buddhist but to explain the origins of the "Reincarnated Lama Theory"!
Not having attained this "Enlightened state" that Siddhartha spoke of, he began to fear, not his death, but his "Reincarnation".
He thought that he could control his next life by preventing himself from having to figure everything out all over again.
He thought he could use the "Psychic" powers of his mind to "Impart" himself on to an object and that this would create a spiritual bond between his "soul" and that object that would be so strong that it would cause his soul to recognize it in his next life.
He then instructed his own disciples to take note of the children born within the year(s) after his death and around the 9th year present them with a series of object including the one he "Imparted" himself upon. The child who would seemed fascinated with that particular object, he said, would be him.
He told them to take that particular child and give him all of HIS knowledge and to treat the child as HIM.
Of course we can conclude on this particular person that:
A) If indeed the universe was built on an "Evolving Soul" concept, that concept would have to be based in "Free Will" (it would seem obvious that for a concept such as THE "Soul" to "Evolve" that "Soul" would have to have the ability to make decisions and select its behaviors and actions/reactions based on what would constitute that "Evolution").
B) As such his very action would have denied him that one requirement of "Free Will" and rendered his desire and goal moult.
C) Such an entity would have then become prisoner of an endless cycle of "rebirths" (according to this notion that we have as vehicles of our "Consciousness" a "Soul" that must evolve through cycles of life, which is a concept that Siddhartha himself had referred to as childishly illogical and a misconception of a greater realities of existence), through which he would have been given and re given the washed out theories of Siddhartha, that he didn't understand to begin with and that were then taught back to him by his disciples who understood them even less, causing those teachings to become more and more washed out and diluted through the centuries and millennias .
D) Making him in the end a revered deity lost in the pleasure of the adulation offered by his followers yet un able to free himself from it and/or evolve in any ways/shapes and/or forms, i.e the "Dalai Lama".
[{[
Actually, since we're there, Siddhartha's conception of "souls" was not that there was a continuity of the self after deaths.
Like this Jesus rabbi, he stated often that when you die you return to the dust of the earth from which you came.
But in an almost Quantum fashion he believed that the greater tensions of existence were a bit like notes added to a melody.
And that just like a composer will use notes that, by causing emotions in us will, demand a resolution or second note to remove the tension left hanging by the first, strong emotional events causes a form of entanglement that persist until the resulting tension has been resolved, which is to say "By understanding the events that caused the emotional tension in the first place".
(in QMechanics, an entangled state refers to either an object possessing a dual nature or two objects that behave as one no matters the distance that separates them, as such here it would refer to an emotional event that sort of behave a bit like a temporal anchor with the events, emotions and sensations of that moment, a bit like dragging a frame of time through time. It would then be that emotional anchoring and dragging of time through time that would here be the "tension" and the "resolution" or understanding of it would be the release of that emotionally anchored/dragged time frame.)
And his belief was that within a life a human will have multiple instances of such emotional events, that it be by an un answered desire or by a fatality etc..., that, continuing with the note analogy, would become entangled together forming an individual melody filled with tensions that call for, seek, each their own resolutions.
Like a kind of mess of desires, wants, questions, etc..., entangled together within the universe, or existence.
And this is what he referred to as "Soul", entangled tensions seeking, without consciousness and/or will of their own, resolution.
His belief was that when a human dies so does that human's consciousness but that these unresolved tensions persisted.
What he referred to as "Reincarnation" was his belief that these entangled tensions would then become part of a new life, seeking their resolutions through the life experience of that newly born human consciousness.
(That's what he taught any ways. And though rephrased, is the explanation he gave to the man who one day asked him why were so many people following him around!)
What does this have to do with our "Jesus story" you ask?
THE INTERTWINEMENT!
We speak here of a time of, and a people in, great turmoil. The priesthood is considered corrupt by most. The king is recognized as a pawn of Rome. Rome is perceived as an invader on their "God Give Holy Land". People are impoverished by taxes levied by all three.
A new philosophy from the Essenes, about personal relation with the "Origination" of "Creation" and a stronger relation to life and the present moment, is rising and conquering hearts with prophecies of holy war, returned Messiah and glorious victory.
And, the 4 BCE revolt having failed, the people are in want of their Messiah even more. And, since god promised that he and he alone would lead them, they will follow no others.
These people, who firmly believed in blood line and reincarnated Messiah and who are also aware of the Buddhist philosophy on the subject, would (well might) have tried to engineer their own Messiah through those exact two concepts:
1) Through Blood line manipulation, by having descendants of David's blood line mate, remember that Middle East people used to be able to recount their ancestry sometimes more than 20 generations (which is not hard to understand when you take into account the format of their names:
xxx "ben" (or beni, or ibn, depending on the region) yyy, xxx "son of" yyy, for a boy.
xxx " d' " yyy, xxx "daughter of" yyy, for a girl).
2) Then selecting one of them through a similar method of alleged "Impartment" recognition, through the usage of some ritualistic object of some sorts.
3) Educating that one child throughout his entire life with the knowledge required for him to perceive himself as this promised Messiah, like the Lamas are educated to believe themselves reincarnated Buddhas.
As such this man would have already accepted his own death and could even consider it the most "divine" act that would make him the most virtuous Buddha, because of his act of self sacrifice and absolute compassion.
He might have, due to the same process, actually believed he would be resurrected three days later.
With the possibility that they could have prepared the tomb with a second entrance, an taking in consideration the little time he actually spent on the cross, two conclusion can be drawn from the events that followed his death and led to his alleged resurrection:
1) He didn't actually die on the cross but was in a near death state. Once locked in the tomb they could have healed him before, during, and after, they carried him elsewhere using a secondary entrance.
2) He did die on the cross and once locked in the tomb they simply carried his body elsewhere, through a secondary entrance, for burial.
We must no forget here that the only ones who claim to have seen him post crucifixion, his disciples, all had something to gain by this.
Nor must we forget to ask:
"Why would this man, who has, allegedly, healed and cured people of all sorts of ailments (even rising one from the dead), after resurrecting from death would still have the marks of the crucifixion?"
After all it's not like someone could have impersonated him. And they all saw him be crucified so he didn't need to prove that either.
Wouldn't it have been more logical to heal those as he rose from the dead?
Or is "The Son Of God" to spent eternity with the crucifixion scares?
One thing is for sure though:
After the "Crucifixion" we find nothing but a few words of encouragement to his disciple and then he disappears, never to be heard of again.
Archeologically speaking there is nothing much on his subject to be found Between 39 CE and 79 CE.
But after the 3rd and final Jewish revolt of 66 CE, in which general Vespasian (who would later become Emperor Vespasian founder of the Flavian Dynasty, which ruled Rome from 69 CE to 96 CE) destroyed the Jewish temple, traces of Christianity slowly begins to emerge throughout the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia, etc...
But they also begin to appear in Roman encampments!
And though this, at first, may seem contradictory one can't help but understand the how and why a soldier, whose life is in constant peril, would find comfort in a resurrected god that offers resurrection.
Under Vaspasian the persecution begins.
The Romans were polytheist and they believed that:
Gods incarnate themselves at time.
Gods sometimes mate with humans, generating "demi-gods".
The greatest rulers were/are gods.
Gods demand veneration, sacrifices, and respect.
Gods sometimes fight amongst themselves.
Gods can be defeated.
To refuse to pay tribute to a god can incur his/her wrath/anger/vengeance or denial of service.
As such monotheism was considered to be an affront to the gods and an act of treason against Rome.
Rome's principal deity, their GOD of gods, was Apollo, "The Sun God". The "Sun God" had a son "Sol Invictus", invincible sun, known as "Mithras" and was referred to as the "The Son Of The Sun God" and considered as the intermediary between the havens and the earth.
Mithras was considered as the "Son Of The Sun God" but also as Apollo himself, "The father being the son".
Mithras was born out of a virgin on the winter solstice and died at the Vernal Equinox. He slayed the heavenly bull and feasted. Like all such intermediary of the heavens, he is claimed to have brought all the wonders of civilization, reading, writing, wine, etc...
Tauroctony Scene, Mithras slaying the bull.
The Romans inherited their gods from the Greeks, like their very civilization as a matter of facts.
The religion of Mithras was born out of the Middle East around 2 000 BCE, as the vernal equinox (required to know when to sow the fields) had finished its slip from Taurus to the Ram, and was carried to Greece by deported Hyksos and/or Egyptians during one of their struggles for power over Egypt.
[{[
The Hyksos were the actual ancestors of the Jews referred to as the "Hebrews" in the twisted version of history known as "Exodus"
There are two possible pronunciation for "Hyksos"
The 1st is the short pronunciation of the "i" sound (as in t"ick")
The 2nd being the long form (as in b"ike")
And they translates accordingly to:
H"ick"sos would mean "Captive Shepard"
H"ike"sos would mean "Shepard Kings".}
The Egyptians referred to them as "Barbarian from the East" which makes sense since they came from Mesopotamia.
Archeology as found them to have 1st lived in Avaris, by the Niles Delta, and later to have invaded Egypt and to have enslaved the Egyptians as they ruled over Egypt for around 200 years.
Also traces that they had polluted the Niles River causing a series of infestations and diseases over the entire region were found.
After which the Egyptian reconquered their land with the help of the Ethiopians, (ever wondered why in the Torah the god of the Jews promises severe retribution to the Ethiopians? Because they are the ones who helped the Egyptians chased them out of Egypt, and the Hyksos/Hebrews/Jews never forgave them for it.)
At which point the Hyksos fled with as much of Egypt's treasures as they could carry.
Some setled in Canaan (where it is most likely that they had first settled as they arrived from Mesopotamia and before they resettled in Avaris) and others throughout the Middle East.
One group went east towards India where they waged wars and tried to conquer but failed.
]}]
Around 200 BCE Mithraism had become the main religion of the Roman elite.
The Roman's hated the Jews because:
1) They were monotheist.
2) They didn't all celebrated Easter, a holy Mithraic moment of celebrations in honor of Mithras (the "Vernal Equinox), at the same time,
3) They considered and declared everyone but them to be un holy sinners for whom their "One True God" had promised severe divine retribution.
4) They were of the worst hypocrites claiming everyone should follow their religion and its divinely inspired rules, all the while not really following them themselves.
Since, after the destruction of the temple in 66 CE, the Jews, who were the FIRST actual persecutors of Christians, had lost all their power, the Christians began to teach and preach openly.
It's only after the explosion of the Vesuvius in 79 CE that thing changed. Ain't nothing like a good ol volcano to boost a new religion. Superstitious minds always eager to associate everything with their deities easily fall prey to beliefs born out of fears.
The crucifixion of Jesus, whose story and alleged resurrection is acquiring fame (and embellishment), and the destruction of the temple of the Jewish god are now followed by Pompeii, the "then" considered modern Sodom and Gomorrah, destroyed by fires spewing out of the earth.
To these bronze age people, who didn't even know what a volcano or lava were but believed that things occurred by the will of their gods, there was only one probable explanation for this:
The wrath of an angry deity!
And because of that two things occurred simultaneously:
1) People began to turn to Christianity, including Roman soldiers.
2) Monotheism, with Christianity at the top of the list, was declared officially an act of treason against Rome and punishable by death.
And that's when the true Roman persecution of Christians began!
“Alexamenos worships his god”.
A graffito dating to shortly after 200 CE, taken from the walls of the Roman Palatine. It's a drawing of a crucified donkey [an ass]; a mockery of a Christian prisoner who worships Christ. One can easily imagine how amused some Romans would have been if indeed Christians worshiped some man whom they had executed by crucifixion. And they continued until Constantine in 325 at which point the story acquires its final twist, as the Roman Emperor removed his imperial robes and put on the Papal Robes.
He achieved this through simple manipulation of the arrogance of the Bishops of the sect who had decided to define the "Substance" of "Christ". A bunch of humans, abject mortals under these religious terms, claiming of definitions in the absolute of the very essence, the very fabric of an alleged god.
Position of Arius (Arianism): Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature, made from nothing; and that he was God's First Production, before all ages. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. Thus, said the Arians, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; and therefore there was a time that he had not existence. Arius believed the Son Jesus was capable of His own free will of right and wrong, and that “were he in the truest sense a son, he must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being,” and was under God the Father. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: “the Father is greater than I”, and also Colossians 1:15: “Firstborn of all creation.”
Position of St. Alexander (Homoousianism): Homoousians countered the Arians' argument, saying that the Father's fatherhood, like all of his attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a father, and that the Son, therefore, always existed with him. Homoousians believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead, and made the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures (“I and the Father are one”; John 10:30). Further on it says “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me”; John 17:21.
As Constantin conquered Rome from the West to the East he began to encounter more and more Christians amongst the Romans and the soldiers. Persecution being costly, dead people can't fight your wars, build your monuments and/or pay taxes, this division offered this leader of men, formed in the art of diplomacy to be an emperor involved in senatorial debates, an unprecedented opportunity for assimilation of the Christians into the Roman Empire.
So he invited all these persecuted Bishops, poor,amputated, etc..., from all over the world and he brought them all into a week of celebration through which he wined them and dined them, making show of the opulence brought on by power. Then as they sat in wait for him, these poor men dressed in torn and old clothes, he entered "Dressed as a radiant ray of light" to quote is good buddy Eusebius.
He then led them into reforming their sect:
First Council of Nicea (325):
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father (the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
By whom all things were made (both in heaven and on earth);
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;
He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
And in The Holy Ghost. (But those who say: “There was a time when he was not;” and “He was not before he was made;” and “He was made out of nothing,” or “He is of another substance” or “essence,” or “The Son of God is created,” or “changeable,” or “alterable”—they are condemned by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.)
Since the Jews refuse Jesus and could therefor not be assimilated he began to slander them and declare them inferior and vile in every ways. The persecuted had become the persecutors and the Jews the target of the unleashing of their anger and hatred, the guilt of Rome for the persecutions wiped on the back of the Jews.
Over the following years and decades the simple "Equilateral Cross" began being supplemented by iconography born out of Mithraism.
Like the rays of light around Mithras' head!
or the three Mithraic maji bearing gifts becoming the three wise men!
To the point of a Christ dressed as a Roman Emperor ready for military campaign!
After that victory an "Arch Of Triumph", "The Arch of Constantin", was built and dedicated in 315 to commemorate his victory. So if this is true it should be represented in this arch of triumph of his, shouldn't it?
There should be a testament to this god who attributed him with this victory, as he claims, shouldn't there?
One can't help but ask "Why would a Christian Emperor wanna recycle these 3 frescos in his arch!'
Hadrian was a Christian persecutor.
Marcus Aurelius was a Christian persecutor.
Trajan was a Christian persecutor.
Or why would he wanna build his arch amidst the Flavian monuments?
Or why would he wanna build his arch amidst the Flavian monuments?
And how about the 8 Mithraic Maji surrounding/guarding the arch?
As you arrive in the distance, you see this giant head of the statue of Apollo. Coming nearer you see that the arch perfectly frames Apollo. On top of the arch, in front of Apollo, is Apollo's chariot gloriously ridden by Constantin.
While in Rome he had a 40++ meters statue of him built. Later he built his own city to which he gave his name, Constantinople. In Constantinople he erected a giant statue of Apollo perched on a column to which he gave his very own face.
And Christian churches are built with a Mithraic temple beneath.
Like this one under the Santa Prisca Church.
Probably even as a divine incarnation of the Messiahs of both sides, simultaneously the reincarnation of Jesus and Mithras. As the "Sun God" himself.
But the one thing we can conclude on is that he was never "A Christian"!
And here is where we find one of the most interesting question there is!
And here is the premiss:
Constantin, like all good Roman emperor, did not deny scientific advancement, rather he relied on it. It's later that knowledge became prohibited by the Christian sect's authorities.
Imagine that instead of choosing his "Suicide By Cop' destiny our deluded rabbi would have fled.
Christianity would never have existed!
The Romans would still have destroyed the Jewish temple and nation in 66 E.
Constantin would still have become emperor of Rome and of the known world of his days.
But, without Christianity to get in the way, scientific evolution and advancement would have continued to move forwards. Knowledge that we couldn't begin to acquire before 500 years ago would have been discovered more than a thousand years ago. The fact that the Roman gods were not totalitarian dictators who demanded absolute submission would have allowed, through acquired knowledge, science to slowly push them back without resistance.
Eventually, the gods would have become completely obsolete, as scientific knowledge would have allowed people to be able to explain more than 500 years ago things we can't explain today.
The question does become clear doesn't it?
What would the world be like without the 17 centuries of Christian barbarism, genocides, rapes, manipulations of kings, political leaders and nations, the slaughtering of brilliant scientists, misogyny, homophobia, racism and imposed ignorance?
How advanced would humanity be and how much more compassion would there be in the world had Christianity never existed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments are always welcome, no matter how brief!
So why not leave yours?
Wishing you peaceful but event filled lives!
No comments:
Post a Comment