The ‘historical Jesus'

The best proof for the existence of an actual living historical figure behind the ‘Jesus' legends is the nonsensical nature of Christian theology. What we have become familiar with as ‘Christian religion' and ‘salvation' was actually a reactionary response to a revolutionary movement.

This is best illustrated by considering the fact that in order to turn a revolutionary into a right wing reactionary requires one to do the impossible. Now if one is going to invent out of whole clothe a mythological religious figure it would not be required that one be found to be twisted into knots while attempting to do the impossible. Therefore those church fathers and theologians who invented ‘Christianity' were forced to become the doers of impossible deeds. If they were inventing something out of nothing they would have been free to invent something less nonsensical than the ‘Christian religion' which demonstrates that they were reactionaries who were determined to destroy something that had arisen in their midst, something that was real and external to theology. We can then see that there true agenda was to save Caesar and save Roman imperialism.

The ‘Christian religion' is a form of imperialist propaganda. Originally it was intended to salvage and then buttress the imperialism of ancient Rome, since the church fathers and theologians were themselves imperialists, as their doctrine illustrates. That Christianity remains an imperialist apologetic is best demonstrated by the fact that the third world is a creation of that form of armed robbery known as imperialist colonialism. This armed robbery of the poor and the defenseless continues to this day, with the most nakedly aggressive example of this sort of thing seen in the robbery of Iraq's oil wells, and the shattering of just about every single one of the International War Crimes laws, which were intended to bring that form of armed robbery known as imperialism to an end. The type of person created by ‘Christianity' remains completely unmoved by the gross injustice of the world, and thus you never find such ‘Christians' fighting to defend the victims of these robbers and killers, you never find such ‘Christians' fighting for justice.Good Christians will not be found fighting to set the poor and oppressed free, but rather they will be found creating ‘good citizens' of the imperial empire. Christian theology was designed to produce exactly this result. Their contributions to the betterment of humanity will consist of convincing John to stop drinking alcohol, which will then be celebrated as just one more example of the power of ‘Jesus' to ‘change lives'. The end result of being ‘born again' is the production of a good imperialist, who is only concerned with the tidiness of the empire, taking on petty little causes while cleaning up the streets. This will be their ‘righteousness' and it is a pretty thin gruel, as they will become the type who are a partner in crime in the oppression of the poor by refusing to give the victims of imperialist domination their freedom. (So then the type of person produced by ‘Christianity' is the type of person to whom one must say, "let my people go," in short an imperialist slave driver).

It was exactly this type of person, the creation of preachers and priests, who destroyed the Indians and stole their land in an act of naked imperialist aggression, and it was this ‘Christian' type who invaded the entire third world and robbed them blind, and who continue to turn a blind eye to the ongoing robbery right to this very day. It was this type of ‘Christian' who became slave drivers in the old Egyptian style after invading black Africa. This is the type of person Christian theology was intended to produce, since small children are not born that way, but rather the supporter of imperialism and all its horrible crimes is a personality type which must be deliberately formed and shaped. This was the historical task of Christian Religion, and it remains so today.

Now it has been said that ‘the truth will set you free.' It must also be the case then that the lie will enslave you. Since the goal of ‘Christian soul saving' is the maintenance of imperialism and all the enslavement that goes along with it, it then follows that the goal of the ‘Christian evangelist' must be the transformation of a typical human being who for the most part does not condone liars into the sort of hypocritical liar that will then accept the confused doctrines that evangelists peddle. This is the first and most obvious of the impossible deeds attempted by Christian theologians, for this devious perjury must masquerade as the truth, which is impossible, since a deviously hypocritical lie cannot be true. Just as darkness perishes in the light, so the lie perishes in the presence of the truth. Theology must create darkness so that the lie can survive, disguising imperialist oppression as ‘freedom from bondage'.

The apostle Paul was a hypocrite and a right wing hawk, and like all reactionaries we find his thought style riddled with ridiculous contradictions as a reactionary attempted to do the impossible by converting a revolutionary into a reactionary as well. We find that Paul insisted that God ordained Caesar, and to rebel against Caesar was to rebel against God, for God had given Caesar the right to use the sword on all rebels. Ironically, I have found, if you take up the cause of a Jewish prophet you will stir up some Christian preacher quoting Paul, since it turns out that Paul condemned the Jewish prophets, and if you want to be condemned by both Paul and some preacher you can take up the practice yourself, and condemn the powerful. Paul did not condmen the powerful. Paul condemned prophets, which is why you find nothing of the prophets in Paul. Paul also condemned the Jesus figure, for if God gave Caesar the right to hack people with the sword thendid not God also give Caesar the right to torture people to death on crosses as well. Therefore, the Jesus figure got exactly what he deserved, for Caesar only tortured rebels to death, while good citizens, as Paul reminds us, had nothing to worry about. Only those who defied Imperial Rome need be concerned about getting chopped or nailed.

Now given how Paul was some right winged hawk and an imperialist who admired Roman Imperialism and its violence and insisted on ‘obedience' (one of his favorite words) this was going to create one of those impossible problems for Paul when it came time for Paul to become glorified as the greatest of all theologians. It would then become necessary for Paul to come up with some idiotic theory to explain how it could be the case that Caesar could be the right hand of God while at the same time the Jesus figure wound up being tortured to death by Caesar. This theological puzzle could be solved by becoming a bald faced liar and a hypocrite.

Jeremiah was a dissident priest in ancient Israel. According to his testimony his fellow priests of Israel were forgers, much in the tradition of those notorious forgers of the Catholic church, who became famous for that sort of thing, since apparently, as far as priests go, the more things change the more they stay the same. Jeremiah testified that his fellow priests were forging documents and then trying to pass those forgeries off as the work of Moses. He wrote, ‘Burn your whole offerings and eat the flesh yourselves, for on the day that I brought your ancestors out of Egypt I gave them no instructions or commands concerning whole offerings and sacrifice...now truth has perished from their lips and it is no longer heard in the land...how can you say ‘we are wise, for we have the Torah (the law of God), when, actually, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.' The same theme was picked up again and again by other Jewish prophets and is also echoed in protest psalms ridiculing the doctrine of ‘feeding a god' with roast beef found in that priestly document of Leviticus.

Now at the very start we can see here that one of the Big Lies, and one of those impossible deeds, one of the notorious bits of perjury peddled by theologians is that the Bible is ‘infallible and without error.' Obviously it is not. Even if we do as the hypocrites do, and just ignore Jeremiah, nullifying the prophet for the sake of some traditional doctrine, it still remains a self evident truth that the Bible contains contradictions. Therefore either Jeremiah is not ‘infallible' and thus this is not the word of God, in spite of the fact that it is found in the Bible, or Leviticus is a fraud and a forgery cooked up by some scheming priests, in which case Leviticus is not infallible.

One way around this problem is to mistranslate the passage, just as it is deliberately falsified in the New International Version, a translation prepared for the world by evangelical fundamentalists, and due to aggressive promotion, now the most popular translation in the world. So as we can see, those scribes continue to wield the lying pen, once again proving that the more things change some things just stay the same. This is one piece of evidence to suggest that it was Jeremiah who told the truth, since when we still have scribes wielding lying pens today and doing so on the same subject matter as they did in Jeremiah's day, it does lend credibility to Jeremiah. The fact that it is ridiculous for a god to eat roast beef, therefore making those dietary menus in Leviticus utterly ridiculous is one more piece of evidence to support the fraudulent nature of Leviticus, which is the argument made by the Psalmist (‘Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?").

When we see such blatant hypocrisy being practiced by those scribes who mistranslated Jeremiah, we need to ask why it would be so important that this particular prophet be nullified, and the answer to that question is that they nullified the prophet for the sake of their traditional reactionary ‘Christian' dogma, and they also do many other things just like that. It turns out that Paul did the same thing, for both Paul and his inheritors are imperialist oppressors, and thus they share a common agenda, and so it is no surprise to find both that fraudulent apostle Paul and fraudulent theologians and preachers and scribes having this one thing in common. Given a choice between nullifying Paul and Leviticus or nullifying the prophet, they choose to nullify the prophet, for to do otherwise would destroy ‘Christianity' as a pillar of support for imperialism, and given that these people are imperialists, that option is rejected.

Anyone who is familiar with ‘evangelism' will recall that ‘Jesus died on the cross for your sins.' For you see, it was obvious that the Jesus figure died on a cross, and since we aren't going to be blaming Caesar for it, thus destroying imperialism, we will have to find some other reason why he might have been found hanging there, thus saving both Caesar and imperial Rome. For you see, Rome was a slave driving society, and it would be impossible for Rome to survive if Caesar was not allowed to practice terrorism. Similarly, today it would be impossible to hang onto the third world without death squads and military oppression. Crosses are required if imperialism is to survive.

However, keep in mind here that we are going to be reactionaries, who don't give a damn about the suffering of our victims, so therefore a cross cannot be described as a tool or terror and oppression, but a cross has to be about something, otherwise there would this vacuum, and so Paul, that great genius of theology, decided that a cross must be about a sacrifice for sin. You see, it turned out that those lovely cow sacrifices used to feed that god in Leviticus was actually a kind of ‘prefiguring' of Jesus. The true story of the Jesus figure was cleverly hidden by God in that cow sacrifice, as Paul so wisely explains, only to be revealed to us all after the crucifixion in all its hidden glory. It turns out that God crucified Jesus as a substitute for my sin and your sin, since it was obvious that someone was going to have to hang.

Paul also tells us that God authorized Caesar to whack people with the sword, which is handy, if you are a tyrant and are trying to hold together an imperialist empire, which would be impossible to create and then impossible to maintain without lots of sword chopping, something Paul so obviously clearly understood, which explains why he was in favor of the idea, and also explains why ‘Christians' remain militarists to this very day.

Everyone deserves to be crucified, that is, if they got lucky, for as Paul tells us, everyone actually deserves to burn a hell of a long time in hell, having been born in sin because of the sinful sperm of some guy named Adam, through whom sin became hereditary in the human race. Which is a death penalty offense. Which explains why you would see the Jesus figure hanging from some cross. Somebody had to die for sin, and so therefore God crucified Jesus, and really you don't even have to mention Caesar or even think about Caesar when you think of a cross, which is handy if you happen to be Caesar and you are not interested in getting blamed for that act of torturing someone to death. This dodge worked real well, in that right to this day, no Christian ever thinks of Caesar and all the slaves Caesar tortured to death to hold together that oppressive Roman Empire, but instead Christians continue to blame God for that gruesome death, forgetting about Caesar's victims, just as they forget about all the victims of their own imperialist empire, which turns out to be just as convenient for imperialism today as it was in Paul's time I am sure.

So then to summarize the point so far, to be a ‘good Christian' and thus become ‘saved' and ‘born again' it is required that you first believe the Big Lie about the ‘infallibility of the Bible', since without that dead cow of Leviticus, there won't be any excuse to use for that crucifixion, which would then ruin imperialism, which would then ruin Paul who invented that idiotic argument and then instead of creating unconcerned imperialists evangelism might wind up creating the wrong type of person, which will not do. Therefore, the first impossible deed that a theologian must accomplish is to convince people that the Big Lie will set you free, since apparently theologians and evangelists and preachers are convinced that God is a hypocritical liar, just like they are.

All this is strong evidence that there was someone hanging on that cross, that the roots of the Christian story are found in history and not myth, as is indicated by the torturous arguments theology must create to deal with the problem, something not required if they were given the much easier, much less impossible task of creating something out of nothing, which would have been a hell of a lot easier, and not require our theologians and evangelists and preachers to go through the heavy work of becoming the doers of impossible deeds.

Christian theology and Christian religion are built upon a foundation stone which is found to be an incorrigible lie, which explains why the NIV Bible was mistranslated by those lying scribes, which is another fine example of an impossible deed, since there are already piles of correctly translated Bibles. As apologists like to point out, there are literally thousands of ancient copies of these texts which have survived, but then I suppose they thought they could do the impossible if they sold enough copies .

Given that theology is based upon a liar named Paul who began his construction work for Caesar and Rome by building upon a foundational lie, the whole thing just becomes more contradictory and confused the deeper you delve into that imperialistic mumbo jumbo.

We are told that God is all powerful and that God is all knowing. Therefore, it must have been the case that God knew all about sin before there was sin, although Paul and preachers continue the impossible task of trying to blame ‘sin' on Adam. Now it must have been the case that God knew before hand that Adam would sin, and yet God created Adam to sin, as you can tell, since God did nothing to prevent Adam from sinning, and therefore it could only have been God who was the original sinner and not Adam, since if you are both all powerful and all knowing it then follows that you can only be completely responsible. You do not blame an ant eater for eating ants.

This makes a God a hypocrite for damning Adam and ‘Adam's seed' to a flaming hell. It also makes nonsense of Christian claims that you must ‘choose Jesus' to be saved and the choice is entirely up to you whether or not you go to heaven or hell. For God already knew you were going to heaven or to hell, therefore it was the will of God that go to hell if you go to hell and it certainly has nothing to do with you. For God could have created the world in such a way that no one went to hell, but God chose to create the world in such a way that you would go to hell, and God knew you were going to hell, therefore God destined you to go to hell, and in that sense you really have no choice.

All this nonsense will be necessary if you are going to be saving people from something, and if you are not going to save the slaves of imperialism, you will then have to save people from something else, and that something else will be sin.

Sin is so useful to imperialism. If we look around at the poverty and the misery in the world we could blame the sorry state of the world on that form of continual armed robbery known as imperialist colonialism. When we saw a liberation theology priest or nun, or human rights worker, or a union organizer gunned down by the death squads of the third world, we could see Jesus in them, for they too were found hanging on Caesar's cross. Or then again, if we don't want to see that, thus keeping robbery and enslavement going on and on and on, we could instead see a world full of sinners, thus explaining the problem, and then we could set out to ‘save the world' by ‘converting sinners' by ‘giving them Jesus', thus saving the world one sinner at a time. Now it is note worthy that when we save some third world sinner, they don't wind up any better off than before, but happily, they won't mind, because they will know for sure that they will get pie up in the sky when they die, which means that they don't need any revolution right now down here. This is especially true when you realize just how God ordained the imperialist governments, just as God ordained the third world governments, and if anyone rebels well then they deserve to get nailed by the death squads for they have rebelled against God.

Yes, that doctrine of ‘sin' is so damned useful to the imperialist colonialists. One can understand why they never shut up about it.

You often hear evangelists say that the best evidence for the truth of Christian doctrine is the ‘changed lives' which are the result of the ‘power of Jesus'. I thought I would turn that argument around, and say that I also know something about ‘changed lives' the biggest change in my life taking place when I finally washed off every trace of that ridiculous nonsense of doctrine, in particular that harmful doctrine of ‘being born in sin.' It turns out that if you want to be a successful activist and change the world, you must always remember that everyone was once a little child, and with this in mind you can begin to speak to the child, or what remains of the child, for truly it was said, that unless people become once again like this little child they cannot be ‘saved'.

Those who blame the world's problems on ‘being born in sin' are always found condemning the innocent while letting the guilty go free. They blame the unemployed for being lazy, rather than victims of a system that deliberately works to create poverty (the so called ‘ideal unemployment rate' which is required to keep wage pressures down). They blame the wrong people, blaming slaves for their enslavement instead of blaming Caesar, for it turns out to be the case that the love of money is the real root of every evil thing on the face of the earth, and this is the only sin we need to be concerned about, which then explains why all the sin in the world comes spewing out from the richest and most powerful people on earth.

It is ironic that Christian doctrine numbs people to sin, and in the end they become tolerant of sin, and thus are never found to be doing much about it. They fuss and stew over genitals, when really they should consider complaining to the manufacturer, which would make more sense. It turns out that you can participate in systems of cruel oppression and evil injustice, crushing the poor of the third world under your boots, robbing them blind, and that isn't a problem, since no one who is concerned with original sin is ever found doing much to fix the problem. No, the crucial thing is to get Jesus into the hearts of people, and apparently whatever monstrous system they are a part of after that is of no consequence for at least they won't be going to hell.

Yes, that doctrine of sin causes you improperly analyze the situation, thus coming up with wrong prescriptions and blaming the wrong people, which is only handy for imperialists, but not very handy for activists who were hoping to change the world. As I said, I know this from my own ‘changed life' which took place when I yanked out by the roots the very last trace of that church Jesus, a fine example of the true ‘powers' of that imperialist fiction.

As we know Christian theologians were notorious for sending unbaptized babies to burn in hell. Such is the price for being ‘born in sin'. Now if you were to purchase a faulty toaster, you might want to complain to the vendor. Similarly, if babies were ‘born sinful' or if somehow they got sin into their DNA because of some guy named Adam, well that would be the fault of the designer, since no one has any control over their own DNA, and thus the system must have been designed that way from the start. Therefore, God is unjust, and the attempt Paul makes to declare that somehow all this damning people for things they did not do and could not be responsible for was somehow a ‘display of divine justice' is just one more example of one of those torturous impossible deeds which are required if somehow we are going to find some story to tell about Caesar's cross which will not ruin imperialism.

At the end of it all, the best evidence for the existence of an ‘historical Jesus' is Christian theology, with its impossible tortured contradictions and its doctrine of the Big Lie, which as I pointed out is only required if you are a reactionary and is not required not if you are spinning tales. That Christianity is a form of reactionary rebellion is best proved by Christians themselves, who although they never stop fretting about sin have never been found doing anything about sin, being to damn busy sinning all the time and supporting the sins of war and robbery such as what we see in Iraq, or cruelly bringing ‘salvation' to the third world, which is no salvation at all. Truly, the ones who most need saving are those blind Christians, the victims of one the biggest scam jobs in history.

Relat ed Page : Paul on the Doctrine of Sin

A Unified Field Theory

The Unified Field Theory
is also available as a zip file -> unified.zip

Introduction :The Pioneer Effect and the New Physics. A brief description of the new physics required to explain the 'Pioneer Effect', which is the constant deceleration of space craft as they fly through space.

Principles of Evolution: A Study in the Evolution of Bedbugs