X-post
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Nov 26 2007, 02:22 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Nov 26 2007, 02:22 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The immediate parallel to the "Sermon on the <i>Mount</i>" is the "Sermon on the <i>Plain</i>" found in Luke (which is of Roman extraction). Clearly, the intention is to sound a line to Jews to meekly cooperate with the Roman (Western) rule in Judea.
Atwill:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Onias:
The `Sermon on the Mount' is a spoof of Moses where `Jesus' gives the
exact platitudes the Caesars wished the Jews to follow. Of course it
relates to the Flavians.
Matt 10: 5-6 is just a routine Flavian falsification of history in
which the `Maccabees' promote `Jesus' to the `lost sheep'. In the
context of Matt 10 the `lost sheep' can only be the zealots that
rebelled from Rome. As I said, there is no coherent interpretive
framework for Matt 10 other than the coming war.
The Flavians used the Gospels to obfuscate the history and genealogy
of the real messianic family. The Romans first tried to `graft' onto
the Maccabees in fact, by having their surrogates the Herods breed
with them, but when that failed they produced the Gospels with the
various Simons, Matthews, Eleazars, Judas and Johns to try blur
everything as much as possible.
`Josephus', the self purported Maccabee, was part of the obvious
fraud. Simply carefully compare the names of the individuals he cites
as family members in Life 1, 1-8 with the `replacement apostles' in
Acts 1:23. It's clear enough.
Joe<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]75593[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Post 186 (South African christians mythologising further about their jesus):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Should we completely discard imagery, create new and diverse images, or seek to develop historic portrayals in regard to race and culture?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Finally an indirect confirmation from the faithful that jesus never existed.
Non-existent jeebus may well have looked "Northern-European" or "African" or Japanese or martian (when the time comes for that transformation). It's all equally likely, as they admit, and his looks are up for grabs/whatever's popular/whatever appeals to sheep who need to be retained or appeals to people who need to be converted into sheep.
(Even though the gospel inventors were making the fictional jesus character out to be Jewish and therefore ME - and therefore neither N-European nor African looking.)
A few years ago there was a South African movie where the director - of European descent - had an African (non-ME) actor play jesus. It was reviewed well. Why do people - let alone African people - keep lapping up the lies when only yesterday they were terrorised for supposedly being "cursed sons of Ham" meant for "slavery". Does the movie mean to imply that they are now promoted to sons of Shem or merely that jesus was a son of Ham? :confused <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(Perhaps the more important question is, why am I even <i>trying</i> to understand the inconsistent ways of christianism. Christianism is inconsistent but its motivations are very predictable: whatever is the in-thing goes.)
<b>ADDED:</b> the same christian Japhetic-Hamitic-Shemitic belief-system bothers its believers to further extremes when an Indian hero in Mahabharata is played by an African actor. Apparently the Oryan-believers believe the Mahabharata to be peopled with the imaginary Japhetic/Oryan kreaturs instead of Indians, and therefore they think that an African actor (recently allowed to play the imaginary jeebus - what a prize) "may not play" an <i>Indian Hindu Pandava</i> even though the other Pandavas were played by European actors (who are just as non-Indian as Africans)!
(Some quote-characters corrected below
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/downl...ks/aid.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->An unquestioning faith in the AIT, not in some sophisticated or sanitized modern form but in its unadulterated racist version, is still in evidence in ultra-Rightist fringe groups. Consider the following lament by a Belgian critic of Peter Brooke's theatre version of the Mahabharata: "Incomprehensible and shocking is that some major roles have been played by actors of African origin. It is certainly commendable to include Italians, Englishmen etc. , but Africans? Nothing in the epic permits such a deviation. Let there be no mistake about it: the Mahabharata is not an epic written for some entity called humanity. It is a narrative by and for the Aryas as an Indo-European caste which had imposed its authority in India". (29) The man seems unaware that "Aryan" Mahabharata protagonists like Krishna and Draupadi, as well as some of the Vedic rishis, are explicitly described as dark-skinned while nearly all upper-caste Hindus are at least black-haired, a far cry from the Blond Beast (to borrow Friedrich Nietzsche?s sarcastic term) which was the white racists' idea of the Aryan Superman.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not to mention that Arjuna - a <i>Pandava</i> - is described as dark too.
(Meanwhile either Nakula or Sahadeva was described IIRC as "cloud-complexioned", but such extremes run in many an Indian family whether N or S.)
I've caught Peter Brooke's Mahabharata on tv. I'm surprised these Oryanists didn't have a heart-attack when they saw an <i>Indian</i> (dark too by golly! how dare those Hindoos!) playing Krishna. Expect more of their lame "nothing in the epic permits such a deviation"...
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Nov 26 2007, 02:22 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Nov 26 2007, 02:22 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The immediate parallel to the "Sermon on the <i>Mount</i>" is the "Sermon on the <i>Plain</i>" found in Luke (which is of Roman extraction). Clearly, the intention is to sound a line to Jews to meekly cooperate with the Roman (Western) rule in Judea.
Atwill:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Onias:
The `Sermon on the Mount' is a spoof of Moses where `Jesus' gives the
exact platitudes the Caesars wished the Jews to follow. Of course it
relates to the Flavians.
Matt 10: 5-6 is just a routine Flavian falsification of history in
which the `Maccabees' promote `Jesus' to the `lost sheep'. In the
context of Matt 10 the `lost sheep' can only be the zealots that
rebelled from Rome. As I said, there is no coherent interpretive
framework for Matt 10 other than the coming war.
The Flavians used the Gospels to obfuscate the history and genealogy
of the real messianic family. The Romans first tried to `graft' onto
the Maccabees in fact, by having their surrogates the Herods breed
with them, but when that failed they produced the Gospels with the
various Simons, Matthews, Eleazars, Judas and Johns to try blur
everything as much as possible.
`Josephus', the self purported Maccabee, was part of the obvious
fraud. Simply carefully compare the names of the individuals he cites
as family members in Life 1, 1-8 with the `replacement apostles' in
Acts 1:23. It's clear enough.
Joe<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]75593[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Post 186 (South African christians mythologising further about their jesus):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Should we completely discard imagery, create new and diverse images, or seek to develop historic portrayals in regard to race and culture?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Finally an indirect confirmation from the faithful that jesus never existed.
Non-existent jeebus may well have looked "Northern-European" or "African" or Japanese or martian (when the time comes for that transformation). It's all equally likely, as they admit, and his looks are up for grabs/whatever's popular/whatever appeals to sheep who need to be retained or appeals to people who need to be converted into sheep.
(Even though the gospel inventors were making the fictional jesus character out to be Jewish and therefore ME - and therefore neither N-European nor African looking.)
A few years ago there was a South African movie where the director - of European descent - had an African (non-ME) actor play jesus. It was reviewed well. Why do people - let alone African people - keep lapping up the lies when only yesterday they were terrorised for supposedly being "cursed sons of Ham" meant for "slavery". Does the movie mean to imply that they are now promoted to sons of Shem or merely that jesus was a son of Ham? :confused <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(Perhaps the more important question is, why am I even <i>trying</i> to understand the inconsistent ways of christianism. Christianism is inconsistent but its motivations are very predictable: whatever is the in-thing goes.)
<b>ADDED:</b> the same christian Japhetic-Hamitic-Shemitic belief-system bothers its believers to further extremes when an Indian hero in Mahabharata is played by an African actor. Apparently the Oryan-believers believe the Mahabharata to be peopled with the imaginary Japhetic/Oryan kreaturs instead of Indians, and therefore they think that an African actor (recently allowed to play the imaginary jeebus - what a prize) "may not play" an <i>Indian Hindu Pandava</i> even though the other Pandavas were played by European actors (who are just as non-Indian as Africans)!
(Some quote-characters corrected below
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/downl...ks/aid.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->An unquestioning faith in the AIT, not in some sophisticated or sanitized modern form but in its unadulterated racist version, is still in evidence in ultra-Rightist fringe groups. Consider the following lament by a Belgian critic of Peter Brooke's theatre version of the Mahabharata: "Incomprehensible and shocking is that some major roles have been played by actors of African origin. It is certainly commendable to include Italians, Englishmen etc. , but Africans? Nothing in the epic permits such a deviation. Let there be no mistake about it: the Mahabharata is not an epic written for some entity called humanity. It is a narrative by and for the Aryas as an Indo-European caste which had imposed its authority in India". (29) The man seems unaware that "Aryan" Mahabharata protagonists like Krishna and Draupadi, as well as some of the Vedic rishis, are explicitly described as dark-skinned while nearly all upper-caste Hindus are at least black-haired, a far cry from the Blond Beast (to borrow Friedrich Nietzsche?s sarcastic term) which was the white racists' idea of the Aryan Superman.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not to mention that Arjuna - a <i>Pandava</i> - is described as dark too.
(Meanwhile either Nakula or Sahadeva was described IIRC as "cloud-complexioned", but such extremes run in many an Indian family whether N or S.)
I've caught Peter Brooke's Mahabharata on tv. I'm surprised these Oryanists didn't have a heart-attack when they saw an <i>Indian</i> (dark too by golly! how dare those Hindoos!) playing Krishna. Expect more of their lame "nothing in the epic permits such a deviation"...