patcleaver

[Sarcasm on] Wow, I always thought that Jesus and the 12 Apostles might be a mushroom homosexual orgy cult, but I never knew about Jesus' pedophilia with Peter's son, but that all makes sense in view of all the pedophile priests and homosexual drug snorting evangelical preachers still following that cult. It must be true because its embarrassing. Now that we have the incredible criteria of embarrassment we can really uncover the origins of Christianity. Now we can be sure that the story about the Secret Gosple of Mark is really true.[Sarcasm off].

Solo

But the bad guys were not part of the original "myth" of Paul, were they ?
He loudly proclaimed that he was not ashamed of Jesus, that he met him in as Christ in his resurrected state, because he (Paul) was given wisdom by God that made him see the executed fool and blaspemer 'spiritually'. Paul says that if the powers of the world possessed the wisdom he has they would have not executed Jesus as he was acting accourding to the spirit of God. Figure that, Gerard !

Jiri

aa5874

Paul?
Jesus?

It was Eusebius who was the genius. Before Eusebius teamed up with Constantine, Jesus and Paul were an embarrassment. Christians would worship in secret, were called atheists, were persecuted and prosecuted as criminals, and at one time, thought to be cannibals.

Eusebius changed all that, he got the REAL Saviour, Constantine.

Eusebius was the GENIUS.

patcleaver

The criteria of embarrassment is absurd - it should be an embarrassment to Christian apologists. If it were true then anything in Religious propaganda that was embarrassing would be true. All the things embarrassing to Christians in the non-canonical early Christian writing would be true. All the things embarrassing to Jews in the Jewish literature would be true.

For example, Jesus was a Jew, and misbehavior by any Jew would be embarrassing to Jews. So the following things in the Talmud must be true:

Jesus was sexually immoral, practiced sorcery, and worshiped a brick (Talmud Sotah 43b)

Jesus was excommunicated by a Rabbi; Jesus worshipped a brick; Jesus was a magician and led Israel astray. ( Talmud Sotah 47a)

According to the Talmud, Yeshu was the son of a Jewish woman named Miriam who was betrothed to a carpenter. "Betrothed" means she was legally married to him, but she was not yet living with him or having sexual relations with him. The story says that Miriam was either raped by or voluntarily slept with Pandeira (Pantera, Pandira), a Greek or Roman soldier. Miriam than gave birth to Yeshu, who was considered a "mamzer" (bastard), a product of an adulterous relationship. Yeshu ben Pandeira was also known as Yeshu ha-Nostri. The Talmud describes Yeshu as a heretic who learned sorcery in Egypt and lead the people astray. Later, the Sanhedrin (the Jewish "Supreme Court") ordered Yeshu stoned to death and his dead body was hung from a tree until nightfall after his death, in accordance with the ancient Jewish punishment for heretics.

Since this would obviously be embarrassing to the Jews it must be true.

DCHindley

Pat,

I think you are missing the point.

First of all, propaganda is by definition a neutral term. All promotional media are forms of propaganda. The term took a negative connotation in the early to mid 20th century on account of the claims made in promotional literature, movies, radio programming, etc, produced by the National Socialist and the Communist parties.

Secondly, you are losing sight of who is supposed to be embarrassed. The gospels were originally produced by Christians to explain how the founder of Christianity, Jesus, could have been crucified by the Romans, a fate that was generally reserved for rebels and criminals. It means that Christians were acutely aware that the general public in the Roman empire was aware that Jesus was crucified, and this was embarrassing enough to require explanation. Of course, they blamed it all on the Judean secular authorities, who were no longer around to defend themselves.

When Jews ridiculed Christian gospels and traditions about the founder of Christianity, it really doesn't matter whether they found these stories or traditions embarrassing. They weren't their stories but Christian stories. They make fun of him. He was not a good Jew but a bad Jew. The criterion of embarrassment only applies when your group makes admissions about things relating directly to your own group or founder that others would likely consider negatives.

It is not too hard to determine whether Roman, Hellenic or Jewish culture, in general, would find this or that detail scandalous or salacious. A few posts have noted that there is a changing modern consensus regarding which cultural norms the Gospel writers fit into. What was embarrassing to a Roman, or a Greek, or a Jew (of various shades), might not be embarrassing to one or more of the other groups. In this regard there is room to quibble.

I see you have been reading G R S Mead's _Did Jesus Live 100 BC_.

DCH

mountainman

The reference to cannibals stems from the 4th century pagan parody of the canonical text published by Constantine. An examination of the five books composed in 429 CE by the authodox tax-exempt murderer and christian Bishop of Alexandria Cyril, against the "blasphemies and heresies" of Nestorius yields the following assertion of Nestorius:
Nestorius is today seen as a systematic reporter of what he sees and hears around him in the world, but Cyril does not want any of these things written. Nestorius reports that some of the people imagined Jesus to be bringing in cannibalism. The clever pagan priests were polemicists and seditionists against the agenda of the Constantinian Canonical writings. One of them even went as far to write an entire tractate, entitled The Acts of Andrew and Matthias (Matthew) (from "The Apocryphal New Testament" M.R. James-Translation and Notes, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924) in which Matthew is sent to preach into the Land of the Cannibals:

Cyril & Co were the genii since they censored the historical truth of the fourth century that the new testament literature published (only) by Constantine was simply a tall story sponsored by the Boss. The Greek academics of the eastern empire reacted against the bullshit of bullneck by publishing the apochrypha, the non canonical acts and gospels. However all the literature gradually by the time of Cyril and the christian emperors of the later 4th century had come under the supreme power of the new tax-exempt christian regime started at Nicaea.

It was big business and there were armies fighting for who was to be pope. Since it was big business they did not want the stigma of fiction to remain associated with the new testament christian texts.

Thus Julian's works against the Galilaeans and the works of the ex-archbishop Nestorius were declared to be LIES. Cyril refutes Julian from the high ground of christian pathos, and labels any fiction as . The business of christianity worked better (then and now) if this fundamental historical truth about the fraudulent origin of christianity were to be censored and suppressed.



Best wishes,


Pete