Jesus or Paul?

[Guest guest]

 Jesus or Paul?

 

 

Unfortunately there are a lot of misconceptions about Judaism and the other

Semitic religions, and the groups they have influenced, including the present

Governments and Establishments and academical institutions.

Ignorance, inertia, fear and superficiality in the general people, cleverly

orchestrated misinformation (propaganda) and strongly established cultural

mental patterns (systematically imposed through the educational system and

economical system) contribute to aggravate the situation to an almost hopeless

level.

 

And unfortunately, discussing about these serious defects of

Christianity/Semitic mentality is very dangerous because these people consider

violence and intimidation, falsity, corruption, betrayal and political

maneuvering as commendable means to establish their System. And they ARE

powerful, even if their power is not destined to last long, and even if they

cannot actually conquer completely.

Dharma is always protecting those who protect Dharma, even if good people are

often harassed and persecuted, and even physically eliminated.

 

Certainly people with a Semitic background cannot tolerate vagvada (the proper

Vedic process to accept or reject conclusions) because their faults (both

philosophical and behavioral) would be exposed, and they would lose their grip

on power, both political and financial.

Even by simply reporting the naked facts and truths we become “qualified” as

their enemies to be persecuted and destroyed by all means.

The “funny” thing is that neither Moses nor Jesus or Mohammed appear to have

ever endorsed this mentality.

However, there is so much ignorance among christians, that this point is rarely,

or never brought up.

 

Please consider the following points, taken from King James’ version of the

Bible (the version authorized by the Church!!! not to speak about the

“apocripha”):

 

Jesus Christ was born a Jew, and his preaching was destined TO THE JEWS ONLY

(Matthew 15.24: "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel)",

meant to correct the mistakes of their understanding about God, and not to other

peoples.

Jesus never had any intention of opposing other religions (and certainly not

Hinduism).

The idea of a Christianity seeking to convert other peoples to its faith and to

exert a political control over the world never came from Jesus, who was totally

contrary to these things, as we see from many quotes even from the Church's

Gospels.

Christianity as we know it today (especially the christianity of the

missionaries) has nothing to do with Jesus' teachings, and in fact it is quite

opposite to what Jesus taught.

 

Let us now make a brief list of the original teachings of Jesus as still

contained in the "authorized" Gospels:

(note: Mt stands for Matthew, Mk for Mark, Lk for Luke, Jh for John) :

 

- only preach to Jews and never attempt to convert any other people from other

faiths (Mt 15.24)

- carefully and faithfully follow the Hebraic law (Mt 5.17), which does not

include conversions and proselytism

- be completely non-violent even towards aggressors (Mt 5.39,42, 5.5, Mk

19.18-23, Lk 6.27,36, 9.56); everyone is a child of God so people can show their

love for God by loving one's neighbor (not trying to convert him!)

- be always peaceful, compassionate and just, help others make peace (Mt

5.5,6,7,9,44)

- do not accumulate material assets (Mt 6.19, Mk 10.23, Lk 6.20, 6.24, 12.15)

- do not judge others (Mt 7.1, Lk 6.37,41)

- give charity and lend money and goods to everyone without expecting anything

in return (Lk 6.30,35)

- strictly avoid hypocrisy and deceit, especially in the name of religion (Mt

5.13, 7.21, 21.13, 23.24-26, 29, Mk 7.6, 12.3,39-40, Lk 4.23, Lk 6.41,46,

11.46,52, 12.1, 14.34)

- spiritual life is a private matter and does not need official representatives

or religious authorities (Mt 6.9, 21.13, 23.8, Mk 7.6, 11.7)

- there is no need of churches, because God only accepts love in the heart of

His worshiper (Jh 4.23-24) or in "spirit and truth".

 

Much more is in the Dead Sea Scrolls, that revealed the extent of the original

documents on the genuine teachings of Jesus, systematically destroyed by the

Church during almost 2000 years.

 

Jesus was especially critical of the Hebrew pharisees (priests) and scribes of

his times, who had claimed monopoly over religion and were actually hypocrites,

subtracting money and assets from poor people, imposing difficult rules to

others (but not following themselves), who said "Lord, Lord" but did not follow

God's instructions and rather teached invented doctrines to innocent and

ignorant people by passing them off as God's orders (Mk 7.6).

Therefore Jesus cursed them, "woe to you! you have taken away the key of

knowledge, you entered not yourselves and hindered those who wanted to enter"

(Lk 11.52).

He demanded that the truth be openly given: "there is nothing covered that shall

not be revealed, neither hid that shall not be known" (Lk 12.2)

Another famous quote is: “You will know the truth, and the truth shall set you

free”. This, to me, includes offering open and unbiased information about the

crusades, the inquisition, and the numerous crimes committed by Church

“authorities”.

 

Jesus was particularly angry against priests who exploited people. He stormed

through the temple of Jerusalem, kicking out all those who were “making money

out of religion”. All religious people should live very simply, and use ALL THE

WEALTH they have or receive ONLY for God’s service, not for a personal life of

luxury and material power.

 

According to Jesus’ words in the Bible, those priests "lade men with burdens

grievous to be borne, and you yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your

fingers" (Lk 11.46).

The same tendency was obviously shown by some of Jesus' first followers, as he

tells them, "why do you call me lord, lord, and do not do the things which I

say?" (Lk 6.46).

He also warned them, "beware of the leaven of the pharisees, which is hypocrisy"

(Lk 12.1), "if salt loses flavor, how will it be seasoned? it is neither fit for

the land not yet for the dunghill, but men cast it out" (Lk 14.34).

The main instruction to Jesus to his disciples was to go around Palestine and in

other places where the Jews lived, heal people by imposing their hands, and

preach truth and nonviolence.

He specifically recommended not to bother people who belonged to other

religions, because "he that is not against us is for us" (Lk 9.50).

 

So how did christianity change so much and become exactly the opposite of what

it was supposed to be?

The first two people to betray Jesus' orders and hijack his movement were Peter

and Paul, still considered the "main apostles" by the Church, and their letters

and writings are included as a very important part of King James’ version of the

Bible.

 

We can exchange more information about these points privately or through a

dedicated website, but one thing I can say directly is the list of “changes”

that Paul introduced in Christianity, and which have nothing to do with Jesus’

original teachings (and are inded opposed to his original teachings – enraging

the early Christian dissidents or ‘heretics’):

 

1. Jesus had gone to heaven, but he would be coming back very soon, within the

lifetime of his contemporaries. This "second coming" of Jesus would announce the

"end of the world", a "universal" judgment day and a new mystical kingdom of God

when all the dead people would come back to life.

To prepare for this day, the world had to be "purified" and everyone had to

become "Christian" (a totally new idea, because until then the followers of

Jesus simply considered themselves as Jews). The more "Christians" one would

make, the more “merits” he would get for the upcoming "judgment day".

2. Non-Jews could and should become Christians and there was no need for them to

follow the Hebrew laws; furthermore, non-Jews who became Christians could also

keep whatever beliefs they wanted or were attached to, and "integrate" them into

their "new" Christianity.

Since the original community of Jesus' followers (who rejected Paul) did not

accept non-Jews, Paul could create a larger movement with his "newcomers" and

outnumber the “opposition”.

3. All the Christian communities must form a "political" union or

"centralization of power" (allowing better political control from the top), with

the nomination of "bishops" who became the official and legal authorities of

each community (while previously all members were considered equal). Gradually

this created the division between the congregation and the priests, while the

original Christians had no priests: they were all equal.

4. There must be an "official" doctrine or written collection of teachings for

the new Christianity, approved by “the authority”.

So Paul collected whatever writings he found useful, and personally wrote a

great number of letters with his peculiar teachings, which are still today

considered by the Church as a fundamental part of the Bible!

5. There are no strict ethical rules to be followed by Christians.

Paul taught that one could actually eat and drink anything they wanted, possess

money and properties, live in luxury, work in the government, have a regular job

etc – while the original followers of Jesus were only serving the mass of people

as charitable healers and physicians without asking for any fees, just accepting

food and shelter in return and living very modestly.

6. Not all Christians are same. While Jesus welcomed everyone on the same level

of brotherhood, Paul believed in slavery and social oppression.

A slave named Onesimus, who heard that the Christians were sheltering the poor

and oppressed, ran away to Paul and Paul turned him in to his former owner, to

sure death as this was the punishment for runaway slaves.

According to Paul’s teachings, women should never get any respect or position in

society; they can only serve men: "Let the woman learn in silence with all

subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the

man, but to be in silence." (1 Tim.2:11-15)

The Ebionites, or Nazarines, who were the first Christians, rejected all the

Epistles of Paul and regarded him as an impostor.

It took 300 years for Paul’s and Peter’s followers to firmly establish their

power and monopoly on christianity.

With time, Paul’s and Peter’s successors became even more shrewd and dangerous,

and deeply politicized, as it is shown by the history of Christianity – the

destruction of “paganism”, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the conquest of the

Americas, the systematic exploitation of slavery, etc.

 

These are only a few examples, but there is a wealth of information that has

surfaced in the West in the last 50 years, from the time when the Dead Sea

Scrolls were found.

There has been active opposition to the adharma of the Churches in the West for

all this time – sometimes with more success, sometimes with great hardships and

sufferings.

A large number of historians and researchers has brought to light the “dark

side” of the Church, and many people in the West have evolved past the ignorant

and bigot superstition required to to adharma in the name of religion.

Many of them are being attracted by Vedic dharma or returning to the original

Dharma christians call “paganism”.

There is also a revival of “original Christians” in Europe, still persecuted by

the Establishment Churches.

 

I believe that as Hindus we should respect those who follow the original

teachings of Jesus, which are not contrary to Sanatana dharma, and at the same

time expose and fight against those propounders of adharma who, by exploiting

the good name of Jesus, are creating so much suffering and disasters all over

the world.

Nobody should have reason to say that we are “against religion”.

Every religion is right provided it is genuine, and free from distortions and

hijacking by adharmic/ignorant people who present irreligion in the name of

religion, and religion in the name of irreligion (see Gita, 18.30-32).

 

Our duty is to clarify, for the benefit of everyone, what is religion and what

is irreligion. True religion is always based on universally recognized

principles, and is always valid in all times and circumstances. Whatever is

shown to be false or unethical is not religion, and we have the duty to

eliminate it from ALL religions.

Hindus (from all jatis) have the duty to do so in Hinduism, Vaishnavas have the

duty to do so in Vaishnavism, Christians have the duty to do so in Christianity,

Muslims have the duty to do so in Islam, and the adepts of other groups have the

duty to do so in the group they have chosen to belong to.

 

If they do not do so, we as defenders of Sanatana Dharma have the right to

eliminate irreligion from ALL places and groups by correct presentation of

philosophy, philosophical debate and practical example of behavior, while

respecting the peculiar traditions of each group (which are not against Dharma).

Because Sanatana Dharma includes and respects all religions.

 

In the service of Dharma,

PKD

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

We don't disagree about Jesus versus Paul, and I cover much the same

ground in my own research, but I find the following phrasing highly

problematic and disturbing.

>Certainly people with a Semitic background cannot tolerate vagvada

>(the proper Vedic process to accept or reject conclusions) because

>their faults (both philosophical and behavioral) would be exposed,

>and they would lose their grip on power, both political and

>financial.

 

I know and love plenty of people "with a Semitic background" and none

of this applies to them!

 

There is by the way a comic book now coming out by the late master

Will Eisner that shows the real (gentile conspiratorial) history of

the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

 

P.S. to Maharhadra, thanks for the link on witch hunts.

 

Max

--

Max Dashu

Suppressed Histories Archives

Global Women's History

http://www.suppressedhistories.net

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi there,

 

I don't disagree with everything you've written in your post, and in

fact agree with many of your conclusions, as far as responsibility

for maintaining peace and working against those who would use

religion for political power or social control (as I see it). I am

not a Christian, but I am a scholar. Certainly, the biblical Jesus

was critical of the way the temple priests were conducting business,

and the assumption can be made and argued that he would be critical

of any religion used solely as a means of power over others.

However, I believe you have some misconceptions about many other

things, which is shown by a selective (as opposed to thorough)

reading of the gospels.

 

> And unfortunately, discussing about these serious defects of

> Christianity/Semitic mentality is very dangerous because these

> people consider violence and intimidation, falsity, corruption,

> betrayal and political maneuvering as commendable means to

> establish their System. And they ARE powerful, even if their

> power is not destined to last long, and even if they cannot

> actually conquer completely.

 

This is a mentality not specifically linked to Judeo-Christian

groups, but is a mark of extremist religious fundamentalism. Every

religious group, no matter what its teaching, has its violent

extremists, and while it may not be your intention, this statement

seems to peg these specific groups as the source of this sort of

trouble. So I wanted to comment there.

 

>

> Jesus Christ was born a Jew, and his preaching was destined TO THE

> JEWS ONLY (Matthew 15.24: "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of

> the house of Israel)", meant to correct the mistakes of their

> understanding about God, and not to other peoples.

> Jesus never had any intention of opposing other religions (and

> certainly not Hinduism).

 

This is incorrect. Certainly, according to the gospels, Jesus was

seen as the fulfiller of the prophecies mentioned in Isaiah - the

lamb of god who would be the messiah. He was purported to be the

fulfillment of the Hebrew prophecies. However, Jesus did not exclude

others from his teachings, and in fact there are many examples of

him converting gentiles. Also, at the end of Matthew, he says:

 

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name

of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. 28:19)

 

(And actually, the King James Bible is a poor translation, and most

churches have switched to other, more accurate translations.)

 

This is before the final destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, and

before the final diaspora, and the instruction to "teach all

nations" is in no way ambiguous. This is of course after the

resurrection, and so its validity depends on whether you accept that

story or not. But according to the biblical source, this instruction

did come from Jesus.

 

 

But the specific reference you have chosen is an example of Jesus

testing a Gentile woman who has come to him for help healing her

daughter. If you read a little further, you will see (I am using the

revised standard version here):

 

Matt 15:24 - He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the

house of Israel."

Matt 15:25 - But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help

me."

Matt 15:26 - And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's

bread and throw it to the dogs."

Matt 15:27 - She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs

that fall from their masters' table."

Matt 15:28 - Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith!

Be it done for you as you desire."

 

What he was doing was turning her away as a test, not rejecting the

conversion of Gentiles (e.g. non-Jews).

> Let us now make a brief list of the original teachings of Jesus as

still contained in the "authorized" Gospels:

> (note: Mt stands for Matthew, Mk for Mark, Lk for Luke, Jh for

John) :

>

>From a scholarly standpoint, we speak of "synoptic" and "non-

synoptic." The synoptic gospels are Matthew, Mark and Luke, which

are closely related to each other, and are probably related to a

common source of quotes ("Quelle" [which means 'source'] or "Q" - a

collection that has been lost). John, by comparison, is considered

non-synoptic. The stories and quotations significantly differ from

the first three gospels, and there is clearly an anti-semitic agenda

going on in this book. When compared side-by-side with other

gospels, many texts reveal an anger toward the Jews, such as the

accusation of the Jews being responsible for the crucifixion of

Jesus.

> - only preach to Jews and never attempt to convert any other

people from other faiths (Mt 15.24)

 

* this interpretation has been discredited, see above.

> - carefully and faithfully follow the Hebraic law (Mt 5.17), which

does not include conversions and proselytism

 

* this reference is taken from the sermon on the mount, and in that

specific reference, Jesus claims to be there to fulfill the law, and

says that none of it will be changed or pass away until he has

fulfilled it. Later in the sermon, he changes the law himself (hence

the famous "turn the other cheek" reference), and teaches that love

is the fulfillment of the law, and that to be perfect in the law,

one must love others. This is a radical departure from the

traditional interpretation of the law, which directly contradicts

your interpretation of that verse.

 

I don't disagree with you that what Jesus was teaching was primarily

a peaceful religion, but there was also an element of asceticism,

and he taught gentiles as well as Jews. There are famous stories of

converted Romans and other gentiles. And, as stated before, the last

teaching of Jesus was to "teach all nations."

> Much more is in the Dead Sea Scrolls, that revealed the extent of

> the original documents on the genuine teachings of Jesus,

> systematically destroyed by the Church during almost 2000 years.

>

 

As a religious scholar, I very highly doubt that Jesus was the

figure pointed to in the dead sea scrolls, having read and analyzed

them myself. This is, of course, a matter of some debate. The dead

sea scrolls are primarily a collection of early versions of the

Hebrew Bible, as well as astrological charts and community laws for

a reclusive group of ascetics. Many have speculated that this group

may have been the Essenes (a radical Jewish sect mentioned in

apocryphal texts), but few scholars believe that Jesus was

the "teacher" mentioned in the texts.

 

> He specifically recommended not to bother people who belonged to

other religions, because "he that is not against us is for us" (Lk

9.50).

>

 

Again, this is a selective reading, and a strange interpretation

based on that selective reading. If you actually read this verse in

context, you will see that he is not saying to not bother people who

belong to other religions. In fact, the vast majority of his

teachings show an openness to anyone who wishes to follow him. If

they hear of his message, and decide to follow him, then they may do

so. Luke 9:50 is an admonishment to the apostles to not forbid

anyone who wishes to do things in the name of Jesus, because whoever

does good works in his name is welcome to do so, and is considered a

follower.

> So how did christianity change so much and become exactly the

> opposite of what it was supposed to be?

 

I would argue here that while there are many extremist and

fundamentalist Christian groups who practice violence and whatnot,

the vast majority of those who consider themselves Christian are

fairly tolerant and peaceful... the same can be said of just about

any religious group. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists... all have

their violent extremist groups, and all have a majority of peaceful

practitioners.

 

You give several examples of Pauline doctrine and texts attributed

to him and Peter, which I don't have the time at the moment to

comment on individually as I did above. I don't wholly disagree with

you, though it is important to remember that the biblical Jesus and

the historical Jesus may have been two very different people, and

it's impossible to know the entirety, simplicity or complexity of

his original message. All we have are texts which were written long

after his original followers were dead - at best, hearsay. I would

like to note here the prevalence of pseudepigraphal work (wherein an

author claims the name of a famous apostle in order to lend more

credibility to the work), and also the prevalence of redaction (that

is, editing and addition to a text) in the church. Dr. Bart Ehrmann

of UNC-Chapel Hill has written a great book called _Lost

Christianities_, which gives excellent evidence for the changing of

much of Paul's writings by church authorities as texts were hand-

copied over the centuries. One such example is forbidding women to

teach - Ehrmann argues that this is not original, because a few

verses before, Paul speaks highly of women as equal to men. There is

far more evidence than this, and I highly recommend his book.

 

Modern churches are modeled on the early church. However, many

modern churches are more concerned with self-preservation and power

than they are with the spiritual health of their people. Notice I

said "many" and not "all." Certainly, religious dogma and doctrine

have found their way into all religious traditions in some form or

another. Sacred texts (and really, any single texts) cannot be

relied upon for complete historical accuracy, and all, even the ones

we hold most sacred, are subject to redaction and editing by those

transcribers who have a personal or political agenda.

 

 

jaya jagatambe,

Erin

[Guest guest]

Interesting and thoughtful.

Thank you, Erin.

 

, "Erin/grrlchic"

<erin.johansen@g...> wrote:

>[....] I believe you have some misconceptions about many other

> things, which is shown by a selective (as opposed to thorough)

> reading of the gospels. [analysis snipped]