Postcards to say something: 013 – The Mammonary Glands

Giving the theologians a rest, and letting the economists loose for a moment. The Purple Economy would be a good jumping-in point.

Money for anybody’s good works may be justified, but tax exemptions, subsidies and other breaks, for the purpose of spreading the brain-virus further? It’s so patently dishonest, the first thing that one sees is generally apologists yawping about the “good works”.

Would churches be prepared to let all charities be subject to the same rules for funding and taxation, and “charities” to be defined in a way that didn’t include proselytising?

Would the carpetbagging Hinn-jet and the Houston family property portfolio, for example, suffer under such arrangements?

What of the property portfolios of some of the more “traditional” churches, asset-rich with dwindling, ageing congregations?

How much would actual charities like the Bob McGuire Foundation be able to disburse if there was a tie between funding and works?

Well, let your mind boggle… nobody’s lifting the veil of secrecy from that one while there’s a buck to be salted away or diverted to propaganda purposes.

Postcards to say something: 012

There is nothing more annoying than hearing the same tired “proofs” and having, yet again, to tell yet another zealot that, no, that one has been disproved, discredited, or (worst of all!) that even those Answers in Genesis guys are sidling away from that particular argument as it makes its wielder look silly.

Now I’m prepared to allow that many of our faith-afflicted readers cannot tell the difference between a site set up to comment on the “Jeebus – Don’t Say Anything About The Churches (but really that’s what we’re plugging)” campaign and an attack on their religion, person, and loved ones… after all, most of the great christian thinkers are dead, and the new lot don’t seem keen to read their writings… but I reserve the right to delete your unapproved comment if it doesn’t deal, even obliquely, with one of these:
∙ the JAAL campaign;
∙ actual content of a post here;
∙ something of even nugatory interest;
∙ other devious christian selling tactics.

Oh: unless it’s worthy of comment due to egregious stupidity. (Hi, “bob” from Burwood!)

Christians parroting the party line is just YAWN – Josephus FAIL

You know what’s annoying? Tiring? We get so many emails and responses telling us there is all this historical evidence for this jesus literary construct. Do any of you actually search for the information you present as fact or research it? Do you just dogmatically accept it as it’s labelled ‘Jesus’(tm)?

Is your faith that blind?

Do any of you actually read the ‘About Jesus’ page? For sure I summed up a lot of information on it, however I HAVE researched the topic, and it gets a bit tiring getting multitudes of emails from christians telling me I should do more reading, that if only I studied the bible I would understand. I am sick to death of trying to write original pieces on this all the time for people too ignorant over how to actually critically think for themselves.

I have studied the bible for over 30 years, indeed I know it better than most of the christians that quote material to me as ‘answers’, as they can’t use their own brain for some reason to come to a decision themselves. They do not use their own ‘GOD GIVEN BRAIN’ (had to say that, it’s ironic really) but parrot that of other people.

You wonder why I get frustrated It’s this lack of critical thinking and just thrusting all their brain into a concept without really thinking about it. For sure there are those that do, but hey, I rarely if ever come across them.

Come on people, if you have some evidence, please look around and see what validity it has, don’t just accept the words of others because they label it with ‘Jesus’. If your just pulling information to try and win a point, without actually knowing it, your just lying for your jesus.

Here’s an example from ‘Graham’ from NSW :

@Gee Suss have you examined the evidence for Jesus existence? It’s widely held amongst historians that there is more evidence for his existence than Julius Caesar. Also there is an ancient document written in the time of Jesus by a Jewish historian named Josephus, who was not a Christian and did not profess any affiliation with Jesus, but he records him in his writing.

The amount of times I have heard this about Josephus is ridiculous.

Have you actually read Josephus work, let alone the section that ‘mentions Jesus’?

Here’s the quote for those interested (I’m sure you all are, and will love it! It’s so christian!) you can also read it in place here :

“Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day” (Book XVIII, Chap. iii, sec. 3)

Now rather than just read that section. 3, read chapter 3 section 2, 3 and 4.

John E Remsberg put it so succinctly I don’t think I can better it. (yes indeed, so many others have to deal with this ignorace and rhetoric from christians that just grasp at anything branded with the name ‘jesus’ ™

Its language is Christian. Every line proclaims it the work of a Christian writer. “If it be lawful to call him a man.” “He was the Christ.” “He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” These are the words of a Christian, a believer in the divinity of Christ. Josephus was a Jew, a devout believer in the Jewish faith — the last man in the world to acknowledge the divinity of Christ. The inconsistency of this evidence was early recognized, and Ambrose, writing in the generation succeeding its first appearance (360 A.D.) offers the following explanation, which only a theologian could frame: “If the Jews do not believe us, let them, at least, believe their own writers. Josephus whom they esteem a very great man, hath said this and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner; and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart, and his perfidious intention.”

Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus’ work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly forty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines.

It interrupts the narrative. Section 2 of the chapter containing it gives an account of a Jewish sedition which was suppressed by Pilate with great slaughter. The account ends as follows: “There were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded; and thus an end was put to this sedition.” Section 4, as now numbered, begins with these words: “About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder.” The one section naturally and logically follows the other. Yet between these two closely connected paragraphs the one relating to Christ is placed; thus making the words, “another sad calamity,” refer to the advent of this wise and wonderful being.

The early Christian fathers were not acquainted with it. Justin Martyr, Terullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all would have quoted this passage had it existed in their time. The failure of even one of these fathers to notice it would be sufficient to throw doubt upon its genuineness; the failure of all of them to notice it proves conclusively that it is spurious, that it was not in existence during the second and third centuries.

As this passage first appeared in the writings of the ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius, as this author openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the church, as he is known to have mutilated and perverted the text of Josephus in other instances, and as the manner of its presentation is calculated to excite suspicion, the forgery has generally been charged to him. In his Evangelical Demonstration, written early in the fourth century, after citing all the known evidences of Christianity, he thus introduces the Jewish historian: “Certainly the citations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness” (Book III, p. 124).

Chrysostom and Photius both reject this passage. Chrysostom, a reader of Josephus, who preached and wrote in the latter part of the fourth century, in his defense of Christianity, needed this evidence, but was too honest or too wise to use it. Photius, who made a revision of Josephus, writing five hundred years after the time of Eusebius, ignores the passage, and admits that Josephus has made no mention of Christ.

So now we come to your modern christian scholars, and what they think about it :

Modern Christian scholars generally concede that the passage is a forgery. Dr. Lardner, one of the ablest defenders of Christianity, adduces the following arguments against its genuineness:

“I do not perceive that we at all want the suspected testimony to Jesus, which was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius.

“Nor do I recollect that Josephus has anywhere mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works; except the testimony above mentioned, and the passage concerning James, the Lord’s brother.

“It interrupts the narrative.

“The language is quite Christian.

“It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text.

“It is not quoted by Photius, though he has three articles concerning Josephus.

“Under the article Justus of Tiberias, this author (Photius) especially states that the historian [Josephus], being a Jew, has not taken the least notice of Christ.

“Neither Justin in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors, nor Origen against Celsus, has ever mentioned this testimony.

“But, on the contrary, in chapter xxxv of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ” (Answer to Dr. Chandler).

Again Dr. Lardner says: “This passage is not quoted nor referred to by any Christian writer before Eusebius, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century. If it had been originally in the works of Josephus it would have been highly proper to produce it in their disputes with Jews and Gentiles. But it is never quoted by Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, nor by Tertullian or Origen, men of great learning, and well acquainted with the works of Josephus. It was certainly very proper to urge it against the Jews. It might also have been fitly urged against the Gentiles. A testimony so favorable to Jesus in the works of Josephus, who lived so soon after our Savior, who was so well acquainted with the transactions of his own country, who had received so many favors from Vespasian and Titus, would not be overlooked or neglected by any Christian apologist” (Lardner’s Works, vol. I, chap. iv).

Bishop Warburton declares it to be a forgery: “If a Jew owned the truth of Christianity, he must needs embrace it. We, therefore, certainly conclude that the paragraph where Josephus, who was as much a Jew as the religion of Moses could make him, is made to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, in terms as strong as words could do it, is a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too” (Quoted by Lardner, Works, Vol. I, chap. iv).

The Rev. Dr. Giles, of the Established Church of England, says:

“Those who are best acquainted with the character of Josephus, and the style of his writings, have no hesitation in condemning this passage as a forgery, interpolated in the text during the third century by some pious Christian, who was scandalized that so famous a writer as Josephus should have taken no notice of the gospels, or of Christ, their subject. But the zeal of the interpolator has outrun his discretion, for we might as well expect to gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles, as to find this notice of Christ among the Judaizing writings of Josephus. It is well known that this author was a zealous Jew, devoted to the laws of Moses and the traditions of his countrymen. How, then, could he have written that Jesus was the Christ? Such an admission would have proved him to be a Christian himself, in which case the passage under consideration, too long for a Jew, would have been far too short for a believer in the new religion, and thus the passage stands forth, like an ill-set jewel, contrasting most inharmoniously with everything around it. If it had been genuine, we might be sure that Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Chrysostom would have quoted it in their controversies with the Jews, and that Origen or Photius would have mentioned it. But Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian (I, 11), is the first who quotes it, and our reliance on the judgment or even honesty of this writer is not so great as to allow our considering everything found in his works as undoubtedly genuine” (Christian Records, p. 30).

The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, in his Lost and Hostile Gospels, says:

“This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (fl. A.D. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but it was unknown to Justin Martyr (fl. A.D. 140), Clement of Alexandria (fl. A.D. 192), Tertullian (fl. A.D. 193), and Origen (fl. A.D. 230). Such a testimony would certainly have been produced by Justin in his apology or in his controversy with Trypho the Jew, had it existed in the copies of Josephus at his time. The silence of Origen is still more significant. Celsus, in his book against Christianity, introduces a Jew. Origen attacks the argument of Celsus and his Jew. He could not have failed to quote the words of Josephus, whose writings he knew, had the passage existed in the genuine text. He, indeed, distinctly affirms that Josephus did not believe in Christ (Contr. Cels. i).”

Dr. Chalmers ignores it, and admits that Josephus is silent regarding Christ. He says: “The entire silence of Josephus upon the subject of Christianity, though he wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, and gives us the history of that period in which Christ and his Apostles lived, is certainly a very striking circumstance” (Kneeland’s Review, p. 169).

Referring to this passage, Dean Milman, in his Gibbon’s Rome (Vol. II, p. 285, note) says: “It is interpolated with many additional clauses.”

Cannon Farrar, who has written in ablest Christian life of Christ yet penned, repudiates it. He says: “The single passage in which he [Josephus] alludes to him is interpolated, if not wholly spurious” (Life of Christ, Vol. I, p. 46).

The following, from Dr. Farrar’s pen, is to be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica: “That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe.”

“There are, however, two reasons which are alone sufficient to prove that the whole passage is spurious — one that it was unknown to Origen and the earlier fathers, and the other that its place in the text is uncertain” (ibid).

Theodor Keim, a German-Christian writer on Jesus says: “The passage cannot be maintained; it has first appeared in this form in the Catholic church of the Jews and Gentiles, and under the dominion of the Fourth Gospel, and hardly before the third century, probably before Eusebius, and after Origen, whose bitter criticisms of Josephus may have given cause for it” (Jesus of Nazara, p. 25).

Concerning this passage, Hausrath, another German writer, says it “must have been penned at a peculiarly shameless hour.”

The Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, of Holland, says: “Flavius Josephus, the well known historian of the Jewish people, was born in A.D. 37, only two years after the death of Jesus; but though his work is of inestimable value as our chief authority for the circumstances of the times in which Jesus and his Apostles came forward, yet he does not seem to have mentioned Jesus himself. At any rate, the passage in his ‘Jewish Antiquities’ that refers to him is certainly spurious, and was inserted by a later and a Christian hand” (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 27). This conclusion of Dr. Hooykaas is endorsed by the eminent Dutch critic, Dr. Kuenen.

Dr. Alexander Campbell, one of America’s ablest Christian apologists, says: “Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the Apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion.

“Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to until the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted spurious” (Evidences of Christianity, from Campbell-Owen Debate, p. 312).

So, then let’s look at the actual writings of Josephus, a bloke that was extremely thorough with recording information accurately. you can read the whole thing here if you like

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Now have a look at it, and tell me this is your ‘jesus’. The bit that says “who was called Christ,” is also regarded as an addition by a christian scribe. However, even if you stuck our fingers in your ears over that, usually christians leave out the bit about how he was the son of Damneus, and brother to James, and that he was made high priest.

But then again, most christians using the ‘Josephus Party line’, probably haven’t read it, just grabbed onto it as you do with your whole faith, and BELIEVE.

Who said faith isn’t blind?

‘Black’ put it well in a small scribing a mate of his passing me that he posted on a forum? (from memory .. actually after a while it gets to be pretty repetative pointing all this stuff out .. I leave that to those who wish to bash their brain on christian mindlessnesses brick wall to forumunate) :

Josephus has been disputed, even by christian scholars, as far back as Origen.

The Codex Sinaiticus contains a significant number of additions, omissions and variants. Your favourite work of fiction has had a few happy endings and “lived happily ever after”s added over time.

Actually, apart from Bart Ehrman’s work “Jesus, Interrupted“, which deals with the forgeries, I’d also recommend his “The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew” where christian writings and beliefs which didn’t make the evolutionary cut, such as the Gospel of the Egyptians:
It’s fascinating stuff, and one gains a picture of the various mutations of the original meme, branching, dying, flourishing and changing through time.

Postcards to say something: 009

When I had a Jesus, he was looking out for the little guy, standing up against mercenary, heartless authoritarians.

Other people have a stern Jesus with a stick, making everybody do his bidding or else. Rich Jesus and Pharisee Jesus seem to be the Malibu Barbie of accessorised deities.

Part of the fun is that you can dress up Jesus just like your fantasies!

Postcards to say something: 006

Real estate, motorcycles, flash cars, Lear jets: use of the church’s this or that (even the this or that which was especially purchased for your use). The anointing greases the palm.

God wants you to have more money. (Actually, Bob McGuire can keep the poor people as long as the archbishop gets the Money!)

It’s a great lurk. The blokes in Acts, who used to serve in distributing to the needy, have been replaced by those who are ready to see their own wants as “needs”, and see to them pretty swiftly.

Government slaves to work on your house? No problem!

And if you’re the shepherd, who gets to say how you spend the wool-cheque, or tell you off for taking a ewe or little lamb to keep you warm at night?

No wonder the campaign points away from the churches, while trying to get people to connect with those churches. You’d be mad to point out the truth.

Religious bigotry in Victoria being made legal

THE Victorian government is expected to announce today that religious groups will be allowed to discriminate against gays and single mothers in a controversial compromise reached on workers’ rights.

Poor Christians!

Would these religious groups think it fair that it was enshrined in law, that one was able to discriminate against those with faith, based on the fact it undermines lack of belief?

I think not!

This is just plain bigotry.

Postcards from our friends: 001

Thanks to our friends who contribute postcards and comments: here’s the first few in an ongoing series.

We promise they won’t jump all over your screen or choke the household bandwidth like the other guys. (Also, contains no hot chips!)

More to come, and a big welcome to Gee Suss’s brother Mo Suss, who’s joing the Legion editorial cadre.

Religion wants to maintain a monopoly on ethics in Australia

Religious groups have traditionally found their power in maintaining that only through belief, and usually THEIR belief, are morals maintained.

The State Government’s religious education advisory panel is going to fight a pilot program that offers ethics classes to primary school students who have opted out of scripture classes.

We know whats best for your children

They are fighting against critical thinking. It’s dangerous to religion as they want people to believe that only their particular god defines what is moral. Bigots.

Are they saying, that without their belief in their god, they would run around raping and pillaging, murdering and abusing? How interesting. Morals and ethics can completely be explained with science, and are not the total domain of religion. Evolutionary biology and sociobiology. I find it degrading that religion passes this basic fundamental humanistic quality off to their god. Recently, the concepts of ethical evolution has become a major area of study in scientific circles, due to the overwhelming observable evidence.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzAuXwwEZCo[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIYQ4zK2HUA[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo3be0F7sE8[/youtube]

The only controversy over it comes from the religious. But then again, it happens to everything that does not fit their world view.

Our morals came about from the fact we are a social animal, we have highly advanced social morals that are very well explained by science.

Indeed Darwin brought it up in Descent Of Man, it’s nothing new :

“any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man.” (ch. 4)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics

Blatant assumptions of the total nature of everything being attributed to a god is degrading to the sheer enormity and brilliance of life. Always the ‘magic man’ did it for them.

Postcards to say something: 005

Oh, you’d believe god works in the stirrings of the regal codpiece, his blunders to perform? Church and state in a marriage of  convenience for convenience of marriage? If it wasn’t so equal-opportunity, what with the occasional atheist or agnostic among the  bishops and archbishops, we’d be wondering what was going on.

There are rumours the sherry aficionado group took power in a bloodless coup some time during the Beatles era.

Postcards to say something: 004

Like the families and lovers of characters in TV detective dramas are always getting killed. arrested and so forth, it seems that hanging around with Jeebus will get you into all kinds of trouble. That car accident that killed half-a-dozen, “and God spared me”…. hey, doesn’t that mean he was a complete turd-croquette to the other six?

Or maybe shit just happens, and we think we’re important. What do you think, O Unique and Preshus Snowflake? (This is a rhetorical question.)