25 - the invention of jesus

this allows to put in perspective the conceptual existence of this character, concept-jesus, as any other conceptual figure featured in presocratic philosophy: like the fire of Heraclites or the sphere of Parmenides or the friendship of Empedocles: operating concepts permitting to think, to figure a thought; so is structured a thought round that famous "jesus".

It's an invention answering a problem of political resistence to the violent roman ocupation of the territory. Occupied people living in the mediteranean area were absolutely powerless , having nothing to oppose military cohort but words, divine millenarism, god stuff to the rescue, to get them out of the political mess they were in: so this is a metaphysical ambiance of fear, angst, worry, making a favorable terrain to the making of a chritic figure.

Most of the time, illuminated idndividuals were claming themselves from the ancien testament: they were announcing the good news, gnostic, millenarists, apocalyptics were killed by romans who were not joking around about this. little know fact; a considerable number of individuals were announcing prophecies. Capable of opening rivers with sticks and words to let their people go thru! : apparently lot of people were capable of that during the first and second century after jc...

We can say jesus as a conceptual character names and crystalizes this epoch and this hysteria. Just looking at the aramean text, etymologically speaking its a hyper coded text : the word jesus itself plainly mean "god saves, saved and will save". hi how are you?
the name says a lot: history is already written, in ancient testament, and what arrives is already written, its not a materialist conception of history saying hisotry is made with the will of mens, this is a done deal, it's in the wonderful, the mythological. I'll report later how this name "jesus", as conceptual character, is to be understood with the logic of the performative.

No need to separeate texts of the antiquity and sacred text: Onfray proposes to read em not as revealed text but as historic texts,
by doing so he observes that every literary tricks of antiquity concerning the "wonderful" is found in testamentary texts. It's a story made as a great lyrical story , he puts in perspective writing of Diogenes Laertius and new testament to see how it's operating on that register.

The first who named him, and others took that story, at face value, and went from there. The first to name him is Mark round 70 after jc:
he never knew jesus ; no evangelist did or frequented him, only heard bout him thru oral transimissions.

Mark was accompagnateur of Paul of Tarsus , I'll explain later how he created christianism (it ain't perty), and how that little sect was boosted by emperor constentine.

So Mark is the first to make the story, its a text made to convert, the evangile works as propaganda: he needed stories to tell to people living round tthe mediterranean sea, people believing in pagan gods, he thought needed to replaced with a unique god. Modest simple people, fishermens, carpenter, he wanted to bring em to the truth of the gospel.

The wonderful stuff works: telling simple things to simple people doesnt work, but a magnific wonderful individual capable of supernatural stuff wow!

Let's make a comparative lecture of Diogenes Laertius et and gospel to see the wonderful working in christian txt:
Diogenes Laertius 3s bc: Lives of the Philosophers and their thesis (Philosophoi Biol). (important book permitting history of philo).

So...extrarodinary people cant be born, live and die like normal folks, so a way to start things in the logic of the wonderful is to be born from virginity: under extraordinary sign jesus was born from virgin mary.. Lo! Diogenes Laertius said the same thing happened with plato! That idealist was born from an old virgin, that was used to convert to platonism, the same as later it was used to convert people to christianity.
Extraordinary people born from a mother that is a non mother, evacuating women, evacuating feminity; the invention of the virgin was recycled by christianism, platon is a witness to that.

Paintings relayed the story of the announcement to mary: archangel gabriel announce the good news to mary. Same thing happened to Plato: apollo himself announced the birth of plato,with a virgin mother.

Mary lerned her destiny thrua dream, that also existed in antiquity:
socrates dreamt the sign of a bird then met plato the next day; fell in for eachother on agora athene.

Jesus is son of god: same thing for pytagoras: also from divine origin and birth: he's the son of apollo who came from hyperborea.

On miracles: jesus healed the blind, paralytic, resurect deaths:
people think he is the only one who could do that kind of thing but it aint so: Empedocles, presocratic philosopher, was capable of resurecting deaths!!!!!1111!

On predictions, philosopher anaxagoras could also announce things that will come in the future ex: meteor but appolonos de tiane debunked that a long time ago, explained
that people capable of rationality more subtle than others can put in perspective facts permitting to explain things, what people think is miraculous predictions is explainable with rational causalities.

Jesus thinks as inspired by god, doesnt talk bout himself but of god:
same thing for Socrates: his daemon was the superior force to himsilf that inspired him (except it was not tllimg him what to do but what not to do)

Jesus was a good public speaker able to convert the public convert dissiples, like all antic philosophers: all had their charismatic figure capable of capting audiences, and the energy of crouds, getting people and schools behind em: stoics had portic, epicurian had garden cynics had cynosarges.

If Peter was favorite dissiple of jesus, Epicurus had metrodorus whom got the key of the garden, similar transmission of power (upon this rock I will build my church). What comes next is you (making think of an epicurian church...nice...)

jesus was always in the logic of metaphor and symbol: only eating symbol: epicurus too with his cheese, pytagoras with beans,

jesus didnt write , socrates either, buddah either.

Jesus died for his ideas, socrates too

existential hapax: jesus had nite of Jetsemani, socrates had nite potidée: a maximal inspiration that determinse most of the destiny of the character.

Exceptional body of the philosopehr: if their are born and die exceptionally, they gots to be living exceptionally too eh?
jesus doesnt shit, only eat and drink symbol as it's been said. Socrates had the plationician "anti-body": in apology we see everyone gets drunk , socrates drinks too but is immune to alchool, all eventually gets tired but not him: he's thinking, all got hangover next monring but we see him meditate: he doesn't need to sleep.

The belief in life after death and an immortal soul is a pytagorician idea recylclaed from oriental thoughts then recylced by plato.

jesus resurected after the 3 day, pytagoras did beter! and did it 207 years after! just comes to show philosophers are clearly more talented!

So tht lil revue puts in perspective gospel and Diogenes Laertius ,
reading pagan txt and sacred txt with a same eye, a method showing that when the wonderful is used, it always ignores history. Rain of anvils@!,history is not taken in consideration when talking about people resurecting the deads, making miraculous healings etc: it's a thought that thinks the world in allegories, metaphors, and figures of style.

What's hidden: jesus must be an extraordinary character kuz of the relation with what's bigger than him making him god on earth...

John Langshaw Austin in "How to do things with words"
is showing examples when the things said are making em true, suppose a logic of saying is doing ex: the priest say "I declare you united by marriage" : this is performatif that is enunciated; the enunciation brings the truth: they are married.
same thing when kids or ships gets baptized, or when people are making a promise etc, these peculiar enunciates are making by their very proferation what they are signifying, austin name em performatives.

the sacred texts doesn't care about the truth,it aims to seduce, to please and to convert: the bigger the story the easier it passes.
The logic of propaganda works the same today in some ways.
Evangelists are not creating lies: they are not in the logic of lies, they think of a truth, believe what they are saying, say what they believe and think it is the truth, so it's not a logic of the lie: where one say something that is false and knows it's false, to create effects; they are wrong without realizing yet wilfully, we can forgive em because they didn't kew what they were doing,
By telling stories they thought true and right, but it's by telling em that they were making the truth of these stories. By telling em, they were becoming true: by creating a myth they were giving consistency to this myth.

That explains why none is telling facts and actions that they never saw: it's ok kuz jesus never existed! They can only give figure, to that millenarist energy: they had enough of the romans power and wanted to get rid of this, to realize the prophecy of the ancient testament here on earth, making the new world here and now.

Let's see some examples in the gospels to explain this christian forgery (ps Guignebert ,Prosper Alfaric , vaneigem
also denies the historical existence of jesus)

Onfray observes how the sacred text is full of contradictions, how and why it works.
a considerable amout of texts on millenarist questions were written, in many languages, so there are not an unique truth possible in all those contradictions, there was also the problem of copysts making errors, the church wanted to make some order in that considerable corpus, during the 4th century they created a corpus with a council, regulatrice instance of the church decided what will be kept and what will be put on the side thus the creation of the synoptic gospels and
the apocryptic gospel. Theoreticaly speaking the 4 synoptic when put side by side are all saying the same thing (well see it aint so)
the others were compimitting so were rejected: thomas gospel or apocryptic, interestingly enough, presents another jesus, a bit too much magician,... they deleted the stories a tad too "tall"

In the text that were rejected we can see a vegetarian jesus... that's a bit too human... they didn'T want to talk about a body too similar to humans.

In apocryptic gospel, we learn that jesus resurected a cooked rooster (in it's sauce) at a banquet!!!!lol

Jesus was strangling little birds to resurect them, sympatic to resurect but less sympatic to strangle em (hee hee) so they left that out.

Jesus made little figurines of clay and blew on em, they became real little birds and flew away.

He could control rivers with his voice.

He could heal snake bites by blowing on em.

He could ROFFLE. The jesus they kept smiled but never laughed (only the devil laughed to em). When jesus ROffles, it makes him too human, not enough divine...

So they fabricated jesus's biography in a way that it went in the direction they wanted the story to go, not about the past story of a man but as the future of a religion.

As mentionned, synoptic gospel put side by side are made to be saying the same thing but in reality it's full of contradictions! (hihi!)

ex: that titulus thing, txt above the head of jesus in paintings of him on the cross, gospel of john says it's above the head of jesus, in Luke it says it's around it's neck?! That was held as truth by the church?! It's contradictionary position! It's ok kuz of the impossibility to note a truth in person so they fictionalize that detail!

He tries to see how this forgery is working.

What does it is saying, that titulus?
4 gospels say 4 different things.
Mark Luke Matthew John got 4 different texts.

Bearing of the cross: john say jesus was alone. the 3 others are saying simon of sirene was there to help him out.

The post mortem resurection: it's said he appeared to only one person, the others are saying he appeared to many, in different places. again contradictions.

Guignebert notes other incoherences more subtle ex: nazareth only existed 2 centuries after jc.

other impossible things: john says jesus talked to Pontius Pilatus
but jesus talked aramean and ponce talked latin.
Also, the social standing of Pontius Pilatus would not have him talk to jesus.
Also, it's said Pontius Pilatus was procurator but that title only existed 50 after jc: procurator of judee is impossible.
Pontius Pilatus is shown being gentle with jesus but historians are saying he was a violent and sadistic guy, a colonialist not very respectuous with a taste for repression. But the gospels were written to please to the romans! The naissant christianism, composed with the empire, avoided to piss it off, pleased the romans and went hand in hand with naissant antisemitism : prefering to displease the jews by saying they killed jesus than to displease the romans by saying that they are the ones who killed him.

Also, crucifixion was only meant for people dangerous to the roman state. There was so many discourses out of sects it's not possible they would be pissed about that particular one, anyway it's lapidation that was reserved for these cases.

There was no 2 meters high crosses, and bodies were left there then later dumped in a communal pit: no tombs in those cases.

It's said joseph of arimatie took care of the body of jesus: this name plainly means "joseph undertaker": again it's a fiction that works in the performative: says what happens/ says and it happens.

Why the dissiples are not there? Why are they taking back their jobs without continuing his teachings?

Eviction and election of documents created christianism, for an ideological interest it kept and dismissed , invented, approximated, fabulated, accepted contradiction and impossibilities because a fine lecture was not needed , they were after a lyrical lecture, imprecise, for a lyrical and militant construction of jesus. The individual fabricated by those who name him, write and tell without having known him, crystalyze, synthetize the millenarist aspirations and apocalyptic feeling of the epoch, kind of energy, recycle the wonderful, fabric some performative, build a conceptual character; gospel are not telling the past of a man but the future of a religion; create myth and are created by the myth, inventing a creature and believing in it then making a cult to it: the definition of alienation.

Church forbids during centuries to read sacred txts as anyother historical txts, for a reason. He gives good indications for a deconstruction of this fiction.

Then went on to explain how this conceptual character, that figure was sublimated by a hysteric, Paul of Tarsus , and how that hysteria got in power with constentin, that converted himself then the empire , to that hysteria. I'll start another thread on the invention of christianity about it.

The Catholic Encylopedia 1910, dated as it is, provides a stark contrast to your view . Ill let others decide on the position holding more truth in it.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm

Im not an expert at all in Church history and I havent read anything beyond Russell's History of Western Philosophy, yet your position to me seems extreme and on the fringe of credibilty. In the interests of balance I will ask a freakishly intelligent and well read Catholic clergyman to offer a reply to your claims.

I am more interested in Michel Onfray- excuse my ignorance but can you provide a basic outline of his influences (Nietzsche?) /contributions in simple terms please.

Peace!

Im quite able to read your arguments objectively, but the real point is I dont think youre "objective" at all and neither would most scholars, atheist or theist. I question your real intent and goodwill.An open mind and honest search for the truth? I think not.

I think youre working backwards (in a remarkably narrow blinkered fashion), trying to manufacture evidence to support a faulty preconceived conclusion.

I am unable to refute you though, as Im not familar with any ancient languages or the source documents you refer to-it would take me hours and hours of research but hopefully Ill get a helping hand in this, if you dont object.

Im well aware of the many abuses of power that evil men carried out in the name of the Church. Yet I reject your claim that the Church, when teaching on matters of faith and morals, does not place the highest value on truth.

Peace!

I welcome this of course

Yet I reject your claim that the Church, when teaching on matters of faith and morals, does not place the highest value on truth.

they burned many libraries and destroy many "rival" temples, you can't deny that, that's an example that their highest value is truth, *their truth*; for a very long time they didn't want to share anything with anyone on that level. Now that we are in the age of information they just can't afford to be that arrogant anymore. I have to say I resent "I question your real intent and goodwill" as much as another poster mentionned the expression "conspiracy theory" at the difficulties of making materialist history. My intent is libertarian, what do you think my intent and good will is? Do you think I'm into gotcha politics? Do you think I haven't seen something wrong, that isn't backable with rationality?

We must obviosly consider time and place when consdering the moral actions of others and remember that while men judge other men on their actions, God judges men on the moral choices they make. WHile this may sound relativist in nature but it is a little more complex than that as Im sure youre aware, but we need to distinguish between advancements in knowledge/facts and advancements in morality. re For surely the reason we dont burn witches any more is that we dont BELIEVE that they exist!

Men acting int he name of the church have carried out many many evil actions yet you cannot and will not find an infalllible declaration from the Catholic church that will show you the church supported or taught the burning of temples etc. Certainly at lower levels of teaching which are not as binding on the faithful and have less certainty attached to them the church has erred many many times, indeeed Ive read papal Bulls proclaining the "burning of hertics as pleasing to God"!

As for the good Deacon it looks like he has declined to join the debate, Ill try and piece somehting together if I get time to give a bit more balance.

Peace!

With all due respect, this simply isn't true; on the construction of christianism thread I mention a few examples