• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Historicity of Jesus - 2
<!--QuoteBegin-Shambhu+Nov 7 2008, 09:06 AM-->QUOTE(Shambhu @ Nov 7 2008, 09:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Some researchers say the OT was written as a retrofit to the NT....

Please provide details. The destroyed temple was itself Herodian-built (ie Roman). Multiple narratives of captivity (Babylonian, Egyptian) were conjured up as 1) you have always been slaves 2) others have done the same to you (First temple destroyed by Babylonians). Same thing was attempted in India with AIT.
We shall not cease:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For the moment, relevant to my concerns is the conception of rights prevalent in the tradition of the natural rights theories. Very broadly speaking, there are two ways in which rights are conceptualized: as “passive” and as “active” rights. Both these ways of conceptualizing rights, if not their names, are as old as the doctrines of natural rights themselves: anywhere between five to six hundred years old. <b>(It is even older than that, if one takes Roman Laws of Property into consideration.)</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Egyptian strictures are given in evaluative mode (rather than normative mode seen with Orthodoxy and religions). The first minute of Zeitgeist video for how such ME strictures were transformed into theology:

'I have not stolen' becomes 'Thou shall not steal'
'I have not killed' becomes 'Thou shall not kill'
'I have not told lies' becomes 'Thou shall not bear false witness'.

Egyptian book of the dead:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->THE NEGATIVE CONFESSION

Hail, Usekh-nemmt, who comest forth from Anu, I have not committed sin. Hail, Hept-khet, who comest forth from Kher-aha, I have not committed robbery with violence. Hail, Fenti, who comest forth from Khemenu, I have not stolen. Hail, Am-khaibit, who comest forth from Qernet, I have not slain men and women. Hail, Neha-her, who comest forth from Rasta, I have not stolen grain. Hail, Ruruti, who comest forth from heaven, I have not purloined offerings. Hail, Arfi-em-khet, who comest forth from Suat, I have not stolen the property of God. Hail, Neba, who comest and goest, <b>I have not uttered lies. </b>Hail, Set-qesu, who comest forth from Hensu, I have not carried away food. Hail, Utu-nesert, who comest forth from Het-ka-Ptah, I have not uttered curses. Hail, Qerrti, who comest forth from Amentet, I have not committed adultery, I have not ..<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->However, one of the notorious differences between both normative [?] texts is their extension, where <b>the Code of Hammurabi has 281 particular clauses, many more than the Twelve Tables.</b>

This leads us to a second difference related to the first but more important as it refers to its content. <b>The articles in the Code are much more specific than in the Tables. There are many hypothetical situations described, in which procedures, punishments or compensations are stipulated, </b>including measures and currency or ways of payment.

<b>Mostly, the Twelve Tables establishes procedures and general instructions applicable to types of situations, rather than very specific ones.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Nov 8 2008, 07:48 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Nov 8 2008, 07:48 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Shambhu+Nov 7 2008, 09:06 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shambhu @ Nov 7 2008, 09:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Some researchers say the OT was written as a retrofit to the NT....

Please provide details. The destroyed temple was itself Herodian-built (ie Roman). Multiple narratives of captivity (Babylonian, Egyptian) were conjured up as 1) you have always been slaves 2) others have done the same to you (First temple destroyed by Babylonians). Same thing was attempted in India with AIT.

I remember reading about the retrofit in the CM forum 6 months ago....could have been speculation fro, someone there..
x-post, Swami Devananda

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Christianity practiced today was the invention of the 218 bishops who gathered at Nicaea in 325 AD and persuade the Roman emperor Constantine to make their guru cult--in Hindu terms Jesus is no more than an acharya guru--into the state religion. They promised him all political support for his effort and they all bowed down to his feet. Constantine remained to the end of his days Pontifex Maximus, i.e. Pope, and it is only after his death that the Bishop of Rome inherited the title. So there was no St. Peter in Rome to get crucified upside down as Deivanayakam and his disciples suggest.

The first question to be decided by the Council was whether Jesus was a god or not. Two bishops from Libya dissented and were assassinated that night. The vote the next day was a unanimous 216 for deifying Jesus.

Prior to the Council of Nicaea, there was neither Bible nor cross nor a Virgin Mary cult. Some historians will state that the Roman cross used as the identifying mark of Christianity did not come into popular use until the seventh century. It probably came into use a little earlier, say fifth century, but certainly there was no Christian cross in the first century.

The whole of Christianity that is known today is a creation that came after the fourth century. The Bible itself was edited, rewritten, and collated by Constantine's bishops a year after the Council of Nicaea, in 326 AD.

In the first century BC/AD Alexandria was the intellectual center of the Roman Empire. It was a world academic center with a famous library and university. As Alexander himself had established the city and had later travelled to India, there is historical evidence to show that Buddhist monks and Brahmin pundits were in Alexandria during the period that Christianity was being formed by the Church fathers in the first three centuries.

Christianity shows very profound Buddhist and Hindu influences. The glaring example is the Sermon on the Mount which all historians agree is not a Christian text. Some say it is Buddhist, others say it is Neo-Platonist. All agree it is not Christian and a later interpolation into the New Testament.

Except for the invention of the concept of eternal damnation, which he threatened his critics with, Jesus contributed absolutely nothing new to the vast religious and philosophical literature of the world at that time.

It is Christianity that has copied the world's religions, not the other way round. Its early theologians copied Buddhist and Platonist ideas, but <b>they finally settled for Aristotle's philosophy as they could use it to reconciled their material interests and push for political power and world empire. </b>Christianity is a political ideology that claims divine sanction. That Hindus believe it is a religious system of service and sacrifice only shows up their own ignorance.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Nov 6 2008, 05:33 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Nov 6 2008, 05:33 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Nov 5 2008, 07:35 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(acharya @ Nov 5 2008, 07:35 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Obama’s ‘Race Speech’ as Neoslave Narrative</b>[right][snapback]89774[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Actually, the Obama phenomenon is a case study in the genesis of Prophetism. The <b>monotheistic messiah always advocates capitulation to the colonial power and normalizes any dissonance stemming from the colonial project.</b>[right][snapback]89810[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Tangentially related perhaps.

There were (American) people referring to Obama's election as him being the first 'black' president. This is both untrue and shows how nothing's ulimately changed in the US.

The man's bi-ethnic (or to use a deprecated term, bi-racial). But America's colour parlance is about black and white (and, when they remember the native Americans, the 'coloured'). The definition of 'black' in AmeriKKKa has its closest correspondence in what the nazis of Germany later created with their 'Aryan Paragraph. If any don't know: the Oryan Paragraph was that any German (christian) who had any Jewish grandparent or was it great grandparent was Jewish, non-Oryan and hence untermensch/subhuman. The Amerikkkan 1 Drop Rule holds that if a person had a drop of African ancestry (usually translated as I think 1/8th African) they were 'black'. It barred them from a lot of rights in the past, and of course brought along all the social stigma associated with being black in a slavers' world.

While no one is literally black or literally white, in America's terms it does not mean African or European either, since Obama's ancestry would then be African-European. So when they say that bi-ethnic Obama is 'black', Americans are still actually subscribing to the nazi Oryan Paragraph - what am I saying, of course I mean the racist One Drop Rule. As a Hindu (or any non-American) looking in, I find the American mindset vastly intriguing. So much loaded terminology, so many alien and unnatural concepts, so many layers upon layers of christoconditioning, that even when they think they are now much more open-minded, they aren't really.

Now back to Dhu's statement: "Actually, the Obama phenomenon is a case study in the genesis of Prophetism. The monotheistic messiah always advocates capitulation to the colonial power and normalizes any dissonance stemming from the colonial project."
The dialogue between America's 'blacks' and 'whites' is fascinating in this respect too, that while the 'whites' are still continuing the same monolgue as their christo ancestors, the response of the 'blacks' actually doesn't in any way represent their African ancestors. My mother told me after watching the news of the American election that Colin Powell apparently went 'teary-eyed' when Obama made it as president. The Republican was moved that he lived to see a 'black' man be president. It's a very superficial identification on his (and many other Americans') part: only the exterior is taken into consideration, even though Obama is supposed to be a Democrat and therefore is expected to have some objectives that are in conflict with Republican Powell's. Powell's response to Obama being president is an example of the other half/part of the same christodialogue as that of the christomasters. People like to make a lot of Obama's candidacy and election on the grounds of his exterior, and that it supposedly implies what he represents. Their view is very skewed: it's not a representative of/speaker for Africa or of African traditions (or of any remnants thereof in America) that has ascended to this rank, it is only a 'colour' that has ascended. And it is oddly enough for his *colour*, that others of African origin in America like Colin Powell are glad (that is because identification with mere colour has replaced identification with their origins/natural traditions). Yet inside Obama may be anything (democrat, republican, or leftist even - but all are western christian WASPCyness). Even if he deviates from his predecessors, if he lives/thinks in the same box, he will not move outside it but just shift within it. So how does he represent anything more than the existing American ideals and status quo? How does he represent Africa or Africans (which are supposedly other connotations for 'black')?

Only the heathen does. And only heathens are interested. See, for instance, how the traditional Greeks - the Hellenes of ysee.gr - took the trouble of devoting a page on their site to how christianism is destroying Africa. They care about African identity - since only traditional African identity is African. Similarly it is Hindus who are standing up for other Natural Traditionalists' identity and continued existence, even as we stand for our own.

The American christodialogue will put the Hellenes in the 'white' box - even though the Hellenes themselves do not play that game (they identify themselves as no more and no less than the ethnic Greeks=traditional Greeks, who follow their Gods and their Old Ways). Similarly, Hindus are seen by Americans as either coloured, black or oryan-dravidiods, even when our sense of our own identity is vastly different: we see ourselves as ethnic Indians, Hindus. Not in any colour terms. Like the Hellenes, we are not christians, so the christian black-white pastime is lost on us.

From tbe Hindu POV, since we don't get the whole 'black and white' dialogue and have learnt that an exterior match is no assurance (that is, we know that people who look Indian can be hyper anti-Hindus), Hindus don't really know <i>who</i> has ascended to presidency in America - what Obama's identity is. Because Hindus don't see it in the way Colin Powell sees this event. Some Hindus - those who still think that anyone who looks Indian and has a Hindu name 'must be' Hindu, even though they might actually be crypto instead - may see Obama as a person that marks the end of colonialism in the Americas. But they are naive, ignorant. American reality is very complex - very pedestrian and petty, but a muddle of predictable complexity (predictable if you know the values of the unknown variables).

I don't yet know whether the current president is but another one like Condoleeza Rice - an imperialist White Anglo-Saxon Protestant/Catholic (WASPC) trapped in an African woman's body, since her exterior says nothing: in essentials, she coincides with the other male Vulcans of the Bush administration. (In case anyone wasn't too sure, 'Vulcans' is the term political analysts use for the imperialist members of the Bush administration 'War cabinet': Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Cheney, Rove, Armitage and a bunch of other WASPCy dudes.) And in this external-internal contradiction, both Powell and Rice fit the pattern of "advocating capitulation to the colonial power and normalizing any dissonance stemming from the colonial project" in their smaller way. <i>If</i> Obama is the same, then he would indeed be the "monotheistic messiah" of Dhu's statement, which would make him another WASPCy-facilitator on the inside though with the deceptive plumage of familiarity on the outside which is used to pacify and assure the dissenting crowd (people of African and Hispanic origin in the US and maybe even christianised native Americans). The combination of inside and outside is what would get the <i>rest</i> of America's hierarchy to willingly submit itself to the powers that be: the WASPCy order.

Similarly, don't know whether Obama is otherwise red (communist), black theology (the black half of western christodialogue), or whether he is something else. A note on black theology or black assertion or whatever it is called these days: the black-white dichotomy from either perspective is only a continuation of the christian worldview. The black side is the reactionary side to western christo imperialism and slavery. But both sides of the dialogue are invariably christian, both sides believe in the same fundamentals, they just have different views on who the antagonists and protagonists are (which is in a similar vein to the christodialogue of conflict which Dhu pointed out on the Real America and by extension Not Real America that the Christian Right of the US like Palin are into).
And since both the WASPCies and 'black theology' are playing by the same rules in their interaction, we know beforehand that the side which has been dealt the worst cards - the 'black' side - is going to lose when they insist on playing this game. That's because they have accepted the prescribed identity given them and are playing within the (christian) parameters defined for them. Most people of African origin in America are cultural orphans. They are either abused by the christos or they're raised to conform and then used to abuse others, just as the German nazis used some Jews to terrorise their own people.
American meltingpotism is strange, funny/laughable (in a morbid sense) and repugnant. It is also the death of all real identity. Their meltingpotism is the friendly term for brutal but subconscious assimilation into their christodialogue, after which people will be living on their (US' WASPCy) terms of existence, within their hierarchy, their rules of what is done and not done, their rules of what in the status-quo can be questioned and what can't be. If accepted, their manufactured identity is worse than a half-life or a life of shadows.

I shudder to think how christos and cryptos in India and their nursery in their 'Dalit theology' schools tend to effortlessly osmose into the christo black-white dialogue and no doubt see in Obama a 'black' president, instead of an American with bi-ethnic ancestry who may be fuelled by whatever motivations he may have. Christos in India heralding him as a sign that christianism is open-minded, that the christowest (which in this case is US in particular) is morally superior for electing a 'black' man is no more than self-delusion, when the very fact that they perceive him as 'black' - just as the Americans even today perceive him as 'black' - follows the American christian mindset and US' One Drop Rule. Alien <i>racist</i> thinking has entered into India, into Indian christians' mindset, even as they congratulate themselves on their (and US') supposed non-racism.
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Nov 8 2008, 07:48 PM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Nov 8 2008, 07:48 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Shambhu+Nov 7 2008, 09:06 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shambhu @ Nov 7 2008, 09:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Some researchers say the OT was written as a retrofit to the NT....[right][snapback]89862[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Please provide details.[right][snapback]89914[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hmmm, I've come across something like this before as well. Wasted way too much time today looking for where it was I thought I'd seen it, and have given up now.
Could it have been here on IF, though? But don't know what keyword to search IF on...

Meanwhile, during my search for the above, I found something else. Since Hindus aren't allowed to protest when others monotheistically usurp our right of speaking for our own traditions, we can refer to this instead:
Under the section <b>Amateur Scholarship</b> on the Pagan Origins Of Christ site
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Wild ideas from well meaning people 
Not all scholarship is serious scholarship
Beware the crazies.</b>

The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold
by Acharya S

<b>A shrill and unreliable romp</b> through scholarly and wacko theories of Christianity's Pagan origins. <b>Amateur scholarship all the way.</b>  I'm including it because people like it, not because I think it's worth your time.  Go nuts.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There. The mal-reviewed author - who apparently likes to yell "tormented by Hindooootva" whenever Those Wretched Hindoos seek to correct her on her 'grand discovery' that "Krishna was born on 25 December to a virgin mother, blablabla, yet Hindoos don't know any of it" - will hopefully leave us alone, but that probably means she'll take it out on the unfortunate owner of the POCM site instead, for having dared to say this of her book. Good luck to him and hope he makes it out alive.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->No, you are incorrect.
Jesus was probably like Muhammad, but the Bible is a bunch of lies. It was written 300 years after Jesus died. Their are 11 gospels, but church only uses 4 because the other 7 tell how many sins Jesus did. <b>one gospel talks about Jesus killing people! but church never talks about these.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

anyone know this missing gospel referring to a homicidal christ.
Here's one. The violence of non-existent jeebus started early in his alleged carreer with murdering kids. Later he decided that wasn't gruesome enough and traded it in for sentencing people to 'eternal damnation in hell'.

<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Nov 21 2007, 07:07 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Nov 21 2007, 07:07 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b> "Gospel of Infancy of Jesus" - the one where charming young jeebus goes around striking other kids dead:</b>
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/...4/4devol94.html via
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As a boy, Jesus was playing on a river bank on the Sabbath. Another boy came along and saw young Jesus making fish pools and became righteously indignant over Jesus' breaking of the Sabbath laws. The boy set about destroying the pools, whereupon Jesus struck him dead. In the same chapter, Jesus struck another boy dead for bumping into him while running in the street (I Infancy 19).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->[right][snapback]75480[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Click on 'Extrabiblical' (refers to apocryphal christo texts) then on the Gospel of Infancy (of Jesus by) Thomas:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The Gospel of Infancy Thomas</b>

as translated by Harold Attridge & Ronald F. Hock in the book
The Complete Gospels, Harper Collins, ©1992

<b>Boyhood deeds of our Lord Jesus Christ</b>

1 I, Thomas the Israelite, am reporting to you, all my non-Jewish brothers and sisters, to make known the extraordinary childhood deeds of our Lord Jesus Christ - what he did after his birth in my region. This is how it all started:
(Interesting, the mindvirus is targetted to non-Jews. Every gospel was written for a particular target population after all. This one is quite general, must say.)

2 When this boy, Jesus, was five years old, he was playing at the ford of a rushing stream. (2) He was collecting the flowing water into ponds and made the water instantly pure. He did this with a single command. (3) He then made soft clay and shaped it into twelve sparrows. He did this on the sabbath day, and many other boys were playing with him.
(4)But when a Jew saw what Jesus was doing while playing on the sabbath day, he immediately went off and told Joseph, Jesus' father: "See here, your boy is at the ford and has taken mud and fashioned twelve birds with it, and so has violated the sabbath."
(5)So Joseph went there, and as soon as he spotted him he shouted, "Why are you doing what's not permitted on the sabbath?"
(6)But Jesus simply clapped his hands and shouted to the sparrows: "Be off, fly away, and remembe' me, you who are now alive!" And the sparrows took off and flew away noisily.
(7)The Jews watched with amazement, then left the scene to report to their leaders what they had seen Jesus doing.

3 The son of Annas the scholar, standing there with Jesus, took a willow branch and drained the water Jesus had collected. (2)Jesus, however, saw what had happened and became angry, saying to him, "Damn you, you irreverent fool! What harm did the ponds of water do to you? From this moment you, too, will dry up like a tree, and you'll never produce leaves or root or bear fruit."
(3) In an instant the boy had completely withered away. Then Jesus departed and left for the house of Joseph. (4)The parents of the boy who had withered away picked him up and were carrying him out, sad because he was so young. And they came to Joseph and accused him: "It's your fault - your boy did this."

4 Later he was going through the village again when a boy ran and bumped him on the shoulder. Jesus got angry and said to him, "You won't continue your journey." (2)And all of a sudden, he fell down and died.
(3)Some people saw what had happened and said, "Where has this boy come from? Everything he says happens instantly!"
(4)The parents of the dead boy came to Joseph and blamed him saying, "Because you have such a boy, you can't live with us in the village, or else teach him to bless and not curse. He's killing our children!"

5 So Joseph summoned his child and admonished him in private, saying, "Why are you doing all this? These people are suffering and so they hate and harass us." (2)Jesus said, "I know that these are not your words, still, I'll keep quiet for your sake. But those people must take their punishment." There and then his accusers became blind.
(3)Those who saw this became very fearful and at a loss. All they could say was, "Every word he says, whether good or bad, has became a deed - a miracle even!" (4)When Joseph saw that Jesus had done such a thing, he got angry and grabbed his ear and pulled very hard. (5)The bot became infuriated with him and replied, "It's one thing for you to seek and not find; it's quite another for you to act this unwisely. (6)Don't you know that I don't really belong to you? Don't make me upset."

6 A teacher by the name of Zacchaeus was listening to everything Jesus was saying to Joseph, and was astonished, saying to himself, "He is just a child, and saying this!" (2)And so he summoned Joseph and said to him, "You have a bright child, and he has a good mind. Hand him over to me so he can learn his letters. I'll teach him everything he needs to know so as not to be unruly."
(3)Joseph replied, "No one is able to rule this child except God alone. Don't consider him to be a small cross, brother."
(4)When Jesus heard Joseph saying this he laughed and said to Zacchaeus, "Believe me, teacher, what my father told you is true. (5)I am the Lord of these people and I'm present with you and have been born among you and am with you. (6)I know where you've come from and how many years you'll live. I swear to you, teacher, I existed when you were born. If you wish to be a perfect teacher, listen to me and I'll teach you a wisdom that no one else knows except for me and the one who sent me to you. (7)It's you who happens to be my student, and I know how old you are and how long you have to live. (8)When you see the cross that my father mentioned, then you'll believe that everything I've told you is true."
(9)The Jews who were standing by and heard Jesus marveled and said, "How strange and paradoxical! This child is barely five years old and yet he says such things. In fact, we've never heard anyone say the kind of thing this child does."
(10)Jesus said to them in reply, "Are you really so amazed? Rather, consider what I've said to you. The truth is that I also know when you were born, and your parents, and I announce this paradox to you: when the world was created, I existed along with the one who sent me to you."
(11)The Jews, once they heard that the child was speaking like this, became angry but were unable to say anything in reply. (12)But the child skipped forward and said to them, "I've made fun of you because I know that your tiny minds marvel at trifles."
(13)When, therefore, they thought that they were being comforted by the child's exhortation, the teacher said to Joseph, "Bring him to the classroom and I'll teach him the alphabet."
(14)Joseph took him by the hand and led him to the classroom. (15)The teacher wrote the alphabet for him and began the instruction by repeating the letter alpha many times. But the child was quiet and did not answer him for a long time. (16)No wonder, then, that the teacher got angry and struck him on the head. The child took the blow calmly and replied to him, "I'm teaching you rather than you're teaching me, and your condemnation is great. To you these letters are like a bronze pitcher or a clashing cymbal, which can't produce glory or wisdom because it's all just noise. (17)Nor does anyone understand the extent of my wisdom." (18)When he got over being angry he recited the letters from alpha to omega very quickly.
(19)Then he looked at the teacher and told him, "Since you don't know the real nature of the letter alpha, how are you going to teach the letter beta? (20)You impostor, if you know, teach me first the letter alpha and then I'll trust you with the letter beta." (21)He began to quiz the teacher about the first letter, but he was unable to say anything.
(22)Then while many were listening, he said to Zacchaeus, "Listen, teacher, and observe the arrangement of the first letter: (23)How it has two straight lines or strokes proceeding to a point in the middle, gathered together, elevated, dancing, three-cornered, two-cornered, not antagonistic, of the same family, providing the alpha has lines of equal measure."

7 After Zacchaeus the teacher had heard the child expressing such intricate allegories regarding the first letter, he despaired of defending his teaching. (2)He spoke to those who were present: "Poor me, I'm utterly bewildered, wretch that I am. I've heaped shame on myself because I took on this child. (3)So take him away, I beg you, brother Joseph. I can't endure the severity of his look or his lucid speech. (4)This child is no ordinary mortal; he can even tame fire! Perhaps he was born before the creation of the world. (5)What sort of womb bore him, what sort of mother nourished him? -I don't know. (6)Poor me, friend, I've lost my mind. (7)I've decided myself, I who am wholly wretched. I strove to get a student, and I've been found to have a teacher. (8)Friends, I think of the shame, because, although I'm an old man, I've been defeated by a mere child. (9)And so I can only despair and die on account of this child; right now I can't look him in the face. (10)When everybody says that I've been defeated by a small child, what can I say? And what can I report about the lines of the first letter which he told me about? I just don't know, friends. For I don't know its beginning or its end. (11)Therefore, I ask you, brother Joseph, take him back to your house. What great thing he is - god or angel or whatever else I might call him - I don't know."

8 While the Jews were advising Zacchaeus, the child laughed loudly and said, "Now let the infertile bear fruit and the blind see and the deaf in the understanding of their heart hear: (2)I've come from above so that I might save those who are below and summon them to higher things, just as the one who sent me to you commanded me."
(3)When the child stopped speaking, all those who had fallen under the curse were instantly saved. (4)And from then on no one dared to anger him for fear of being cursed and maimed for life.

9 A few days later Jesus was playing on the roof of a house when one of the children playing with him fell off the roof and died. When the other children saw what had happened, they fled, leaving Jesus standing all by himself.
(2)The parents of the dead child came and accused Jesus: "You troublemaker you, you're the one who threw him down."
(3)Jesus responded, "I didn't throw him down - he threw himself down. He just wasn't being careful and leaped down from the roof and died."
(4)Then Jesus himself leaped down from the roof and stood by the body of the child and shouted in a loud voice: "Zeno!" - that was his name - "Get up and tell me: Did I push you?"
(5)He got up immediately and said, "No, Lord, you didn't push me, you raised me up."
(6)Those who saw this were astonished, and the child's parents praised God for the miracle that had happened and worshipped Jesus.

10 A few days later a young man was splitting wood in the neighborhood when his axe slipped and cut off the bottom of his foot. He was dying from the loss of blood.
(2)The crown rushed there in an uproar, and the boy Jesus ran up, too. He forced his way through the crowd and grabbed hold of the young man's wounded foot. It was instantly healed.
(3)He said to the youth, "Get up now, split your wood, and remember me."
(4)The crowd saw what had happened and worshipped the child, saying, "Truly the spirit of God dwells in this child."

11 When he was six years old, his mother sent him to draw water and bring it back to the house. (2)But he lost his grip on the picture in the jostling of the crowd, and it fell and broke. (3)So Jesus spread out the cloak he was wearing and filled it with water and carried it back to his mother.
(4)His mother, once she saw the miracle that had occurred, kissed him; but she kept to herself the mysteries that she had seen him do.

12 Again, during the sowing season, the child went out with his father to sow their field with grain. While his father was sowing, the child Jesus sowed one measure of grain. (2)When he had harvested and threshed it, it yielded one hundred measures. (3)Then he summoned all the poor in the village to the threshing floor and gave them grain. Joseph carried back what was left of the grain. (4)Jesus was eight years old when he did this miracle.

13 Now Jesus' father was a carpenter, making ploughs and yokes at that time. He received an order from a rich man to make a bed for him. (2)When one board of what is called the crossbeam turned out to be shorter than the other, and Joseph didn't know what to do, the child Jesus said to his father, "Put the two boards down and line them up at one end."
(3)Joseph did as the child told him. Jesus stood at the other end and grabbed hold of the shorter board, and, by stretching it, made it the same length as the other.
(4)His father Joseph looked on and marveled, and he hugged and kissed the child, saying, "How fortunate I am that God has given this child to me."

14 When Joseph saw the child's aptitude, and his great intelligence for his age, he again resolved that Jesus should not remain illiterate. So he took him and handed him over to another teacher. (2)The teacher said to Joseph, "First I'll teach him Greek, then Hebrew." This teacher, of course, knew of the child's previous experience (with a teacher) and was afraid of him. Still, he wrote out the alphabet and instructed him for quite a while, though Jesus was unresponsive.
(3)Then Jesus spoke: "If you're really a teacher, and if you know the letters well, tell me the meaning of the letter alpha, and I'll tell you the meaning of beta."
(4)The teacher became exasperated and hit him on the head. Jesus got angry and cursed him, and the teacher immediately lost consciousness and fell facedown on the ground.
(5)The Child returned to Joseph's house. But Joseph was upset and gave instruction to his mother: "Don't let him go outside, because those who annoy him end up dead."

15 After some time another teacher, a close friend of Joseph, said to him, "Send the child to my schoolroom. Perhaps with some flattery I can teach him his letters."
(2)Joseph replied, "If you can muster the courage, brother, take him with you." And so he took him along with much fear and trepidation, but the child was happy to go.
(3)Jesus strode boldly into the schoolroom and found a book lying on the desk. He took the book but did not read the letters in it. Rather, he opened his mouth and spoke by (the power of) the holy spirit and taught the law to those standing there.
(4)A large crowd gathered and stood listening to him, and they marveled at the maturity of his teaching and his readiness of speech - a mere child able to say such things.
(5)When Joseph heard about this he feared the worst and ran to the schoolroom, imagining that this teacher was having trouble with Jesus.
(6)But the teacher said to Joseph, "Brother, please know that I accepted this child as a student, but already he's full of grace and wisdom. So I'm asking you, brother, to take him back home."
(7)When the child heard this, he immediately smiled at him and said, "Because you have spoken and testified rightly, that other teacher who was struck down will be healed." And right away he was. Joseph took his child and went home.

16 Joseph sent James to tie up some wood and carry it back to the house, and the child Jesus followed. While James was gathering the firewood, a viper bit his hand. (2)And as he lay sprawled out on the ground, dying, Jesus came and blew on the bite. Immediately the pain stopped, the animal burst apart, and James got better on the spot.

17 After this incident an infant in Joseph's neighborhood became sick and died, and his mother grieved terribly. Jesus heard the loud wailing and the uproar that was going on and quickly ran there.
(2)When he found the child dead, he touched its chest and said, "I say to you, infant, don't die but live, and be with your mother."
(3)And immediately the infant looked up and laughed. Jesus then said to the woman, "Take it, give it your breast, and remember me."
(4)The crowd of onlookers marveled at this: "Truly this child was a god or a heavenly messenger of God - whatever he says instantly happens." But Jesus left and went on playing with the other children.

18 A year later, while a building was under construction, a man fell from the top of it and died. There was quite a commotion, so Jesus got up and went there. (2)When he saw the man lying dead, he took his hand and said, "I say to you, sir, get up and go back to work." And he immediately got up and worshipped him.
(3)The crowd saw this and marveled: "This child's from heaven - he must be, because he has saved many souls from death, and he can go on saving all his life."

19 When he was twelve years old his parents went to Jerusalem, as usual, for the Passover festival, along with the their fellow travelers. (2)After Passover they began the journey home. But while on their way, the child Jesus went back up to Jerusalem. His parents, of course, assumed that he was in the traveling party. (3)After they had traveled one day, they began to look for him among their relatives. When they did not find him, they were worried and returned again to the city to search for him.
(4)After three days they found him in the temple area, sitting among the teachers, listening to the law and asking them questions. (5)All eyes were on him, and everyone was astounded that he, a mere child, could interrogate the elders and teachers of the people and explain the main points of the law and the parables of the prophets.
(6)His mother Mary came up and said to him, "Child, why have you done this to us? Don't you see, we've been worried sick looking for you."
(7)"Why were you looking for me?" Jesus said to them. "Don't you know that I have to be in my father's house?"
(8)Then the scholars and Pharisees said, "Are you the mother of this child?"
(9)She said, "I am."
(10)And they said to her, "You more than any woman are to be congratulated, for God has blessed the fruit of your womb! For we've never seen nor heard such glory and such virtue and wisdom."
(11)Jesus got up and went to his mother, and was obedient to his parents. His mother took careful note of all that had happened. (12)And Jesus continued to excel in learning and gain respect.
(13)To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Posted by acharya in christian missionary thread:


In this highly controversial and explosive book, archaeologist, historian, mythologist and linguist <b>Acharya S</b> marshals an enormous amount of startling evidence to demonstrate that Christianity and the story of Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies, mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion. In making such a fabrication, this multinational cabal drew upon a multitude of myths and rituals that already existed long before the Christian era, and reworked them for centuries into the story and religion passed down today.

Is this the same Acharya S who says Hindus then based Krishna on the jesus story?
Husky your post on US election results is a masterpiece of understanding the situation. Can you make it readable to non cogniscenti folks aka general public who are not familiar with our discourse?
<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Nov 10 2008, 07:23 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Nov 10 2008, 07:23 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Husky your post on US election results is a masterpiece of understanding the situation. Can you make it readable to non cogniscenti folks aka general public who are not familiar with our discourse?

I want a full edited version which I will post on scribd

That needs full wide viewing

The rise and development of Christianity

3.0) Prologue.
3.1) Rome and Judea; Jews await a Messiah.
3.2) The sources of information.
3.3) Yehoshua ben Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph).
3.4) From a Jewish sect to a Greco-Roman religion; Early Christians.
3.5) Constantine takes Christianity to a state religion; Destruction of Pagan Rome.
3.6) Christianity splits with Judaism: roots of anti-semitism.
3.7) The Greco-Roman split.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->3.4) Towards a Greco-Roman Religion; Early Christians:

The principle character of early Christianity is a very fundamental transformation. It transformed from being exactly an intra-Jewish reform movement into an official state religion of the Roman Empire, and later into a world view. But underlying this phenomenonal growth were two critical paradigm shifts. The first was a radical change in Christianity: the figure of Jesus was relegated into a abstract background and that of Paul would take its place, resulting in a completely new  version of Christianity. The second, perhaps of far more serious geo-politcal impact, was the opening up of this new "Pauline" Christianity to non-Jews. We shall discuss these two issues here. First we shall outline the rise of Pauline Christian theology. This will be followed by patterns of early Christian evangelism. The latter would set the stage for the Christian takeover of Rome.

The church would now effectively break: into the church of Jerusalem under James (brother of Jesus) and the church of Paul. The former would soon die out, the latter would survive. James would be stoned to death in 62 AD, and in 70 AD Jerusalem would be destroyed by the Romans. The followers of the physical Jesus broke into splinter groups and finally vanished. The last reference to them in history was early in the 4th century AD when a group of descendants of Jesus’ family visited Rome and asked the pope to recognize them as bishops in their area of the near east, because of their relation to Jesus: "In our churches only those of his family have held authority, from the time of his brothers James and Simeon. We are willing to recognize your authority as pope. Recognize our authority as belonging to his family". The pope refused (had he agreed, he would have lost guardianship of the Church). The group went into the background and it is likely that subsequent events of geopolitics could be traced to having some roots to this rejection.

The most important figure responsible for this transformation was Paul of Tarsus (earlier Saul of Tarsus, in today's Turkey). He claimed to be an orthodox Jew, a Pharisee (although this claim is doubted). There are also other opinions that he was not born a Jew, but converted to one for political reasons. He was raised in a Greek culture, and was formerly an enemy of Christianity to which he converted in 34 or 35 AD. Before his conversion, he was used as a spy and thug by the Sadduccees in their political intrigues, to report on and arrest early Christians and also against the Pharisees. He was being used by the Romans in a similar role. Paul never actually met Jesus, he claimed visions of Jesus which he used to create a new mystery cult, as it were. Although Jesus may be a central core of Christianity, it was Paul who provided the cosmic explanations surrounding him and tried to fit Jesus into a grand scheme of god.

Christianity would now break from the teachings of Jesus, into Christianity as the teachings of Paul and approximately as known in the New Testament today. This break was not a clean one. Paul laid claims to revelations and visions, and claimed to have understood the real Jesus in all his splendour. It is speculated that Paul had a severe mental conflict between his failed hopes of religious greatness and the vileness of his career as a spy and hired thug. This eventually caused a psychological collapse and hallucination while on the road to Damascus, where he claimed revelations or visions of the divine Jesus. In conjunction with his background of the Greek cults, where the violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates, he created his version of the mysterious religion with Jesus dying and resurrecting to save a helpless mankind. He also initiated the Eucharist, one of the key sacraments of modern Christianity. The out-of-place insertion of eucharistic material based on  Corinthians 11:23-26 into the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels, is clearly indicative of his fraud, since the Jerusalem church did not practise the Eucharist. The story of the resurrection of Christ is owed to the workings of Paul's mind, and was not known elsewhere. Effectively, he tried to create what might be termed a new mystery cult, claiming at its center a real but divine being (Christ) who died for the sake of mankind. He incorporated into this cult several aspects of Gnosticism, another ascetic philosophy of the time. Where possible, he tried to make the other apostles seem unworthy, and make himsef the hero in both his own letters and in the Acts of the Apostles. Of course, this was best done when preaching to Gentiles, far from Jerusalem. Thus, Christianity of the New Testament is essentially the use of Christ by the mind of Paul, with his conflicts, hallucinations and complex background.

It is estimated that after starting his mission in 44 AD in Antioch, he travelled more than 8000 miles on foot, touring Cyprus, Asia Minor, Corinth, Ephesus. (The security and comfort for this journey is owed to the Roman empire, which did not interfere in religious affairs of the subjects.) A key accomplishment of major political ramification was taking Christ's message outside the confines of Jewish believers. The apostle Peter claimed a revelation that the Gentiles were to receive the Gospel. Thus Peter, Paul, and the other apostles started preaching to people who were not Jews. Of course, this was not without problems. Were the Gentiles who entered the fold expected to circumcise in the ancient manner of the Jews? Were they expected to follow the other rituals of the Jews? A council was held in Jerusalem to keep Jewish converts and non-Jewish converts in harmony. In particular,  circumcision was not a requirement for those who wished to enter the Church.

Having now seen the basic theological change in Christianity and its initial transition to a world view, let us glimpse at its early spread.

In the early days, the Christians were referred to as "non-traditional Jews". In fact, the Romans viewed these early Christians as a Jewish sect, perhaps with some suspicion. As a Jewish sect, the primitive Christian church shared the protected status of Judaism in the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, if our reader were to take the standpoint of a Christian during these times, it would not surprise him to know that the early Christians were very secretive in their activities, out of fear of ridicule by both orthodox Jews and Romans.  In order to steer clear from the government, they formed inner city groups with their own internal governments under overseers called bishops. The bishops stayed in touch with each other through letters, secret meetings, and by keeping the records of the faith in secret books (bible  is just "book").

Expansion was now inherent to Christianity. The early Christians were intolerant fundamentalists, filled with a spirit of evangelization. They were unwilling to let others follow their own faiths,  ridiculed their beliefs and tried to convert them to the Christian worldview. Zealous proselytization followed, making good use of Christianity's appeal to the downtrodden masses. Menial workers, prostitutes, uneducated folk, slaves, fishermen, and the like were described as being beloved of Jesus and as his companions. Larger sections of the oppressed classes saw Christianity as a faith that viewed them kindly and favorably and offered them hope of a better after-life, even if it was in an unknown heaven. It is likely that across the empire, Christianity seems to have had the first and easiest path through the Jewish communities who lived in the cities. The Jews labored at the less attractive industries such as tanning leather, tent making, bottling olive oil, shoe-making etc. They lived in crowded and industrial sections of the city, and that is where the first Christian communities arose. Christianity was thus, in a sense an religion of the lowest but urban classes; residents of the surrounding countryside, or pagus were called "pagans". It grew slowly but steadily, and subsequently began to penetrate the urban middle class and even the army and Christian communities would soon take root in all important cities of the Roman empire.

Once they had accquired a degree of strength the Christians could come out with their agenda in the open. In a manner even more extreme than that of the Jews, the Christians refused to participate in any of the Roman ceremonies. This was a behavior hitherto reserved only for "bad citizens" of Rome. This attitude of the Christians was thus quite at odds with Roman imperial policy, which attempted to respect all other religions and even to integrate them into official state religious observances. (For good example, we mention in particular that the Roman administration had recognized the authority of Bishops at least by 185 AD.) The Christians refused to recognize non-Christian authority in Rome and continually flouted imperial laws.

Note also, that the early Christians being mainly Jews sounded very similar to those who were expecting the Messiah to destroy the Roman Empire. This mixing and similarity of Judeo-Christian signals led Romans to associate Christians, who initially were all Jews, with the Zealots who engaged the legions of Rome in open insurrection. Furthermore, from a Roman perspective, it would appear that while the Jews were becoming increasing rebellious, they wanted Rome to convert--and convert  not to Judaism but to a pacific version of it, going by the name of Christianity. Of course that would undermine the patriotic spirit of the Romans. At this early stage, this subtle distinction between Judaism and Christianity was not too obvious to the pagan Romans. From this perspective, it is possible to understand why Roman Emperors saw Christianity as Jewish subversion. They percieved the Christians were traitors, new Jewish recruits in the internal war against Roman civilization (in much the same way as many Hindus correctly perceive the Sufis as agents of imperialistic islam). One result of this mix, was the targetting of Christians in the uprising against the Jews during the reign of Caligula around 38 AD. The Jews were perceived as being disloyal despite the privileges granted to them.

But although they were now being more clearly recognized as subversives, traitors and anarchists, the Empire did not recognize the magnitude of the problem facing them. Harassment occurred only when Christians publicly declared a lack of patriotism and lack of allegiance to the state. There were also occassions of intrigue: for example Romans using the hatred early Christians had for Jews to hunt down the Jewish resistance. The Roman response to this growing threat was largely indecisive. They did not as a rule take definite actions against Christian groups, although this did happen intermittently. Thus, contrary to common perception, harrassment of Christians in Rome had been relatively infrequent. We shall nevertheless provide our readers a few instances of relatively major conflict.

Rome came under the rule of Emperor Nero in 54 AD, and he reigned until driven to suicide in 68 AD. The decline of Rome had already begun. It was accompanied by the rise of Christianity. A police action against Christians followed the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, that raged for many days, destroying almost the entire city, or only its non-Christian area, according to some historians. (It is likely that Paul, who was at this time a well-treated prisoner in Rome, was killed in this police action. It is also thought possible that Paul and Peter, who was in Rome at the time, had very secretly conspired to start this fire). It is not known for certain how the fire started. Nero accused the Christians. The Roman historian Tacitus accused Nero of starting the fire. But Tacitus did this years later when Nero was dead, further he had no hard evidence for his case. Recent historians have put together observations with which to speculate that a few Christians may actually have started the fire. There were in Nero's time, sufficient radical Christians who equated Rome with evil and would have believed they were doing the Lord's work by setting fire to Rome. It is known that Christians circulated vengeful texts in the poorer districts of Rome, predicting Rome being burned to the ground by a raging inferno. A constant theme among these Christians, was an Egyptian prophecy of such a fire. Certainly the Christians were willing to help the prophecy by doing the Lord's work. If the Christians did not actually start the main fire it is likely that they lit additional fires to help the prophesies. At any rate, it is certain that they did nothing to help contol the fires.

After Nero, it was not until 96 AD that emperors of any significance would control the empire. The Emperor Trajan (99-117 AD), although aware that Christianity was growing, did not mind it as long as it did not create any other problems. He took special care to see that Christians were not unduly punished and instituted a strict requirement of proper trials in cases where they were charged with creating disturbances. Emperor Marcus Aurelius reigned from 161-180 AD. He was a stoic philosopher and took several steps to improve the general condition of the Empire. He had in fact sold away several of his personal possesions to help the populace, devastated in 165 AD by an epidemic of plague, which also decimated the Roman army. He was perhaps the first to noticeably launch disciplinary action against Christians, for he recognized them as a threat to the well-being of the Empire. By the time of his own death from the plague in 180 AD, the Roman Empire was on the defensive, struggling to secure its outer borders and internal security.

But the Romans did not clamp down hard enough and the color of the situation was soon to change. By 300 AD, the Christians had also succeeded in converting a sizeable section of the populace in Rome, where they were now growing into an arrogant political force. Moreover the Christians had, at least in their efforts to study the scriptures, learnt to read and write. This gave them indispensable positions in the government. Christians were serving in Rome's armies, and they were working as civil servants in local government or in lowly positions on the imperial staff.  Outside Rome, they  had converted about twenty percent of the Greek population in the Eastern empire as well as most of North Africa. The Christian evangelists had taken the trouble to learn the Coptic and Berber languages of North Africa, as well as Syrian, Thracian and Celtic. Averaging across the empire, they were now more than ten percent of the population,  their number having doubled in about fifty years. Two kings had been converted: the king of Osroene in northeastern Mesopotamia and the king of Armenia.

A major confrontation brewed again during the reign of Emperor Diocletian who ruled from 303AD to 311 AD. It was started by Christians during a religious ritual performed in the presence of Diocletian. One or more of Diocletian's Christian courtiers made a sign of the cross to ward off what they thought to be the demonic influences of the ritual. The officiating priests complained to Diocletian who ordered everyone in the palace to worship the gods. Diocletian's vice-emperor in the East, Galerius, pursued the attack against Christians, demanding that the army there purge itself of all Christian officers. The Christians were accused of setting ablaze Galerius' palace. Galerius persuaded Diocletian to launch a drive to regulate Christianity, believing that he and Diocletian could succeed where the previous Emperors, Decius and Valerius, had failed. The attempts by the state to regulate the Christians slowly and intermittently dragged on into the year 305 AD, when Diocletian retired because of ill-health.  But by 311 AD the next emperor, Galerius, recognized that outright  conflict with the Christians had failed and was actually backfiring on the Romans. Further by this time, Christianity had already taken deep root.

3.5) Constantine takes Christianity to a state religion; Destruction of Pagan Rome.

The final triumph of Christianity owes to political considerations, and as a first step the Church would adopt many of the ceremonial observances of ancient Rome. When the Christians had increased in numbers and formed a considerable party, the political equations changed. Now a contender to the throne could find support among them and use their services. The church would thus emerge victorious. It would not be content with merely taking political control of Rome, but also inherit its haughtiness, exclusiveness, pride...and much worse as we shall see below.

The critical turning point was the reign of Emperor Constantine, initially Augustus of the western empire.  In a crucial battle to gain control of the Roman empire, Constantine used a Christian symbol as his banner to gain the support of the Christians in the war. Constantine soon saw that it would be to the empire's advantage if it could harness the zeal of the Christians and turn it to support of the imperial government. A la the position of the secularists of today's India, he pretended that he did not fully appreciate that Christians rejected all other gods. In 313 AD, he issued the "Edict of Tolerance" which legalized Christianity throughout the empire.

Constantine became both Christianity's patron and champion. He gave the bishop of Rome imperial property where a new cathedral, the Lateran Basilica, would rise, and provided for the building of churches across his part of the empire.
All the state financing thus provided to the bishop of Rome was with the expectation that the Christian lobby would support him as Emperor. Further in order to control "barbarians" and prevent them from destroying the Empire, Constantine encouraged the clergy to convert them to pacifist Christians. Private sacrifices to the gods were prohibited, and only the church would have this privilege. He would embark on construction of churches on a scale much grander than the Christians had built so far. He granted the Christian clergy special privileges. He allowed people to will their property to the church. He exempted the clergy from taxation, military service and forced labor, as was the case for priests of other religions. (An unforeseen result was  rush of wealthy men joining the clergy, to claim tax exemptions. In 320 AD Constantine would correct this by making it illegal for rich pagans to claim tax exemptions by pretending to be Christian priests.)   Under pressure from the clergy he appropriated the day Sunday of Sol Invictus, the Sun god of the prevalent Mitra tradition, and declared it the official holiday for Christianity. Sacred days of the Pagans would no longer be holidays. He claimed his success as being an indication of favor from the Christian god, and likewise attributed the failures of those recent emperors who had harrassed the Christians.

But in a far more dangerous move, he virtually allowed the clergy to run the state. Members of the Christian clergy were given the status of imperial administrators, they became essentially government bureaucrats. He vested Christian bishops with the authority and power of judges, against whom there would be no appeal. Secular and ecclesiastical law now became one. The church community, "Ecclesia", now became the body of the state. Under Constantine's successors the Church would push this unity to seamless perfection. As a result, paganism and heresy were synonynous with treason; their ideas were not merely spiritually wrong, but more seriously were acts against the state.

With this reciprocity, the Church grew wealthy and powerful. Corruption followed power to the clergy and it was so rampant that internal and external rebellions broke out. To suppress this opposition the church fathers looked to every avenue to control the congregations and resorted to violence and coercion. This was a key motive in their arguments for a central authority and a strong leader. This would consolidate the institution of Papacy, with the Pope at the helm of affairs, with a hierarchical set  up of archbishops and patriarchs. A new definition of sin was developed and a mode of repentance would be laid out. We shall visit later the doctrines of "papal infallability" and "manifest destiny".

Meanwhile, the emperor in the east, Licinius, grew fearful of the respect that Christians in his realm had for Constantine. He expelled Christians from his household and executed a few bishops. In 323 AD, Constantine and his army entered Greece. Then he drove another wave of Goth invaders north and  back across the Danube River. Although Constantine was still in what was officially the Western half of the empire he was close enough to the east to concern Licinius. We also mention controversies arising in fundamental interpretations of Christianity in the church played a role in exacerbating the situation (see the Arian controversy in the section on the Greco-Roman Divide below). Licinius attempted negotiations with Constantine, which failed, and war erupted. In late 324 AD, Constantine's forces defeated those under Licinius, and Constantine became Augustus of the whole empire. He had publicly promised to spare the life of Licinius, but nevertheless had him subsequently executed by strangulation.

In 330 AD, Constantine took up residence in his new capital at Byzantium: New Rome. Three years later he returned to Rome to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of his taking power there. He continued to hold the office of Pontifex Maximus, and he was still the leader of the empire's pagans, but he refused to take part in the city's pagan rituals. Rome's pagan majority was offended, and Constantine returned to New Rome annoyed. Wishing that his pagan subjects would give up their religious rites, Constantine kept the pagans fearful and cowed as he confiscated from their priests much of the wealth the pagan religions had accumulated, including their sacred icons. He ordered the gold and silver statues of the pagan gods and temples to be melted and to be used for the embellishment of the churches.

So great was his contribution to Christianity that the later day church was to turn him into a mythic figure. In fact, he is often referred to as the thirteenth Apostle. (The papacy, in fact, laid claim to its secular rulership and ownership of central Italy upon a document forged in the 8th century called the Donation of Constantine. The forgery, alleged to have been written by the emperor, gave the church vast lands and secular authority over them, lands the popes would rule until the late 19th century and of which the Vatican City State is the surviving tiny, yet, extremely rich, remnant.)

Empowered thus, the church turned upon the Pagans and the Jews, and unleashed an orgy of bloody destruction.
Anti-pagan laws were enacted. Sacrifices in the temples were prohibited and were punished with death. The altar of the Goddess Victory was removed from the Senate in Rome, although, the senators, most of whom were pagan, were assured of their continued religious rights. Sorcery and divination was outlawed; soothsayers, diviners, astrologers, augurers and magicians were denied the right to practice. The law stated: "let the curiosity to know the future be silenced for all, forever". In its place would stand the Christian dogma that only its God could know anything of the future and only its bible could interpret reality. Various ways of torturing pagan victims were now invented.

There would follow a massacre of pagans and destruction of pagan places of worship, burning of ancient libraries across the Empire. Amongst millions of murders, each one equally tragic, we mention the famous account of the mathematician and astronomer Hypatia of Alexandria. On the orders of, the local bishop (Cyril, but according to some accounts by Peter), a Christian mob dragged her from her home and flayed her flesh from her bones with shards of glass and seashells.  The Christian leader, Cynegius, demolished a temple-citadel on the Persian border. Scholars believe this was probably the temple of the Semitic Moon-god Sin at the citadel of Carrhae. Another temple that was attacked in this area was that of the Great Goddess of Syria (Dea Syria) at Hierapolis, a city, on the western bank of the Euphrates. In 314 AD The Council of Ancyra denounced the worship of Goddess  Artemis.  In Dydima, Minor Asia, Constantine sacked the Oracle of the God Apollo and tortured the pagan priests to death. He also evicted all the pagans from Mt. Athos and destroyed all the local Hellenic Temples. In 326 AD, he destroyed the Temple of the God Asclepius in Aigeai of Cilicia and many Temples of the Goddess Aphrodite in Jerusalem, Aphaca, Mambre, Phoenice, Baalbek, etc. In 330 AD, he plundered the treasures and statues of the Pagan temples of Greece to decorate Constantinople (New Rome).  In 335 AD he sacked many pagan temples of Asia Minor and Palestine, and ordered the execution by crucifixion of all magicians and soothsayers. The Christians across the empire became more and more violent, taking the law into their own hands, harassing peasants suspected of sacrificing and making offerings to the gods, assaulting and robbing them much like the Nazi gangs that assaulted and robbed Jews in Germany and Austria. The bishops, and their monks, formed gangs that roamed the Egyptian countryside ransacking and looting temples and pulling them down. Throughout Syria and Lebanon the thuggishness of the monks was particularly barbaric.

The position of Jews had also become far more precarious. The Christian victors thought, as the pagans had not, that they had a divine mandate to oppose the Jews, who had now lost many of their rights. They were no longer permitted to live in Jerusalem, or to proselytize. Political measures against the Jews did not immediately follow, but the events did not bode well either for Judaism or for any religion other than Christianity.  Eventually even Christians who did not follow the "right kind" of Christianity were to face slaughter, this will be better understood in the section on the Greco-Roman split below.

Summary and consequences:
We have seen in this section Christianity transforming from a mere religion to a political movement that had successfully hijacked a key nation-state in the European setting. Although inheriting a decimated army, a bankrupt exchequer and facing invasions, it would be able to transform into a rigid, self-perpetuating, hierarchical militant nation-state. Its initial strategy was to convert and pacify the attacking barbarians, then manipulate them against each other. Eventually, it would maintain its own army, intelligence, tax structure, and a good hold over international geopolitics. Like a vulture, the Church was able to strengthen itself by feeding off the dead body of the Roman Empire. Rome of the Christian church would have exactly the same reasons that Rome of Caesars had to expand and conquer new lands. There was now an important additional motivation: divine ordination of plunder, loot, murder and rape. The "Doctrine of Manifest Destiny", would sanctify the perpetration of such torture and horror on the non-believers, by claiming that their suffering was anyway God-ordained and well deserved.

The stage was now set for global conquest. By 600 AD Spain, Portugal, France and England would be forcibly converted to Christianity. Ireland fought back longer, but the Irish pagans were subsequently converted by 700 AD. Between 700 and 1000 AD Germany and kingdoms to its East (Aryan Pagans) succumbed. The Pagans of Russia were converted around 1050 AD. Scandinavia the last  Pagan land in Europe would fall to Christianity in the 1800s.

But rather early on in this expansion, the Church found itself in a predicament of an altered geopolitics. Hitherto, kings had ruled empires, fought with other kings and conquered a few neighbouring lands. But now, this had been fundamentally altered. The church was no kingdom, although it tried to behave like one, perhaps like an upstart, but a successful one at that. But yet, it perceived its ideological reach as global, which dissolved national boundaries. Its solution to this dilemna was unique. It would create what might be termed a virtual kingdom for itself, today called the Vatican. It would play politics on a much larger scale by maneuvering kingdoms against the other. Each converted kingdom would be controlled by papal representatives stationed along with every converted noble and king.

The rise of islamic jihad would put a check on the activities of the church in the brief interlude of 1050-1500 AD, as would a reorganized Jewish resistance. But the church would not be cowed down. It would push for control of more economic resources and trade routes, opening up the routes to discovery of South Africa, India and the Americas. About 500 million Pagans would be massacred in these lands and property worth trillions of dollars plundered. All this would be legitimized and sancitfied under the doctrines of Papal Infalliability and Manifest Destiny. Much of this wealth would be used in the World Wars, motivated in good part by the church's renewed drive to  find the millions of Jews, many living in disguise, among us. These two wars would shatter economies the world over. The church would now turn its attention to cleaning Africa and the remainder of South America, creating wars and terorist movements, propping up dictators etc. Of consequence to us is that India and China and Japan would now be a renewed priority.

We strongly urge our readers to fill in all the missing blanks in the brief summary above.

3.6) Christianity splits from Judaism; roots of anti-semitism:

Another fundamental phenomenon of major geopolitical consequence was not merely Christianity's growing out of the confines of Judaism, but of it actually developing serious and fundamental anti-Jewish moorings. The exact causes and reasons for this are the subject of much research today, we shall see that the anti-Jewish theme developing right from Jesus Christ himself.

The Jews refusal to recognize Jesus' claim to being the messiah or prophet resulted in an open conflict between "the Jews" and Jesus. For specific example, we refer our reader to John 8:31-8:59, a dialogue between Jesus and "the Jews". The Jews challenge Jesus claim to prophethood, accuse him of being possessed by a demon, and in turn Jesus defends himself as "son of God", and calls the Jews liars and children of the devil. This would certainly be a recurring theme...we shall see the same with Mohammed, and again with Luther etc....where the Jews refuse to recognize the claim of the  prophet to prophethood and the religion of the prophet turns against the Jews. The development of the dogma of the divinity of Christ made a breach between the church and the synagogue. Judaism could not admit of the deification of a man; to recognize any one as the son of God was blasphemy; and as the Jewish Christians had not severed their connections with the Jewish community, they were disciplined. This accounts for the flagellation of the Apostles and the new converts, the execution of Stephen and of the Apostle James.  [In this and only in this context, we have put inverted commas around "the Jews", because this is not quite "the Jews", but "the Jews in power of Judea", claiming to represent conventional Jewry.]

Further, the claim by subsequent Christians: "They killed our Lord" is to a good extent true. Although, it was the Roman governor Pontius Pilate who finally sentenced Jesus to crucifixion, it should be kept in mind that he had at least tried (if not his very best), to prevent this. He had passed the sentence under pressure from what was certainly a Jewish crowd, yelling for Jesus' death. These were probably hirelings of the Sanhedrin, paid to do the shouting. It is also true that the grounds for the death sentence were unjustified. The Jews did everything they could to convince Pilate that Jesus was advocating a revolt against Caesar (Luke 23.2). We should also keep in mind the fact that the Sanhedrin had clearly "played politics", for when Jesus was initially produced before this Jewish body, they charged him with blasphemy for calling himself the son of God, warranting a death sentence in those days. However, when they produced him before the Roman authorities, they used a different charge: advocating a revolt against Caesar and instigating the Jews to stop paying taxes to the Rome. Pilate was clearly unconvinced of the validity of even this latter charge. Perhaps a case could be made that Pilate could have taken Jesus to Rome for further trial, but it must be kept in mind, that Jesus was at the time a nobody in the eyes of the Romans. At any rate, not just ordinary Christians, but the Gospels would explicitly state this. For examples where the Gospels blame the Jews for the death of their messiah, we refer the reader to Matthew 27:25, Paul 1, John 8:44, Mark 2:6, 15:10,16; 3:6, Luke 23:4, 14, 20, 22, 25 and  Thessalonians 2:15.

We next examine the case of anti-Judaism with apostle Paul. The easiest starting point for our reader would be to recognize that Paul was fundamentally a double-speak. In his own words he was all things to all men, to Jews a Jew, to Gentiles a Gentile. Paul, who spent most of his time with the Gentiles, told the Gentiles that Judaism was dead. Of course, he could not say the same when he was with Jews. Again, when Paul went to Rome, he explicitly blamed the Jews for murdering the messiah, being careful not to apportion any blame on the Romans. This was of course with an obvious political motive -- the Romans were not getting along too well with the Jews.  Paul (and his disciple Luke) made every attempt to belittle the others involved in the early rise of Christianity. In particular, Paul attempts to paint himself as being initially "equal to" and then "superior to" the elders of Jerusalem. However, this was not quite the case. The fact of the matter is that the Elders of Jerusalem were not the timid stupids of Paul's fiction, but scholarly men who were reverred greatly by the populace in Jerusalem, as well as by the Sanhedrin and by the Sadduccees. On an initiative from James, who as we have mentioned earlier, started the Jerusalem Church (which essentially preached Jewish nationalism), along with Peter and John summoned Paul to Jereusalem for cross-questioning. Here, he pretended to be a devout Jew and claimed he had taught his converts nothing contrary to Jewish law. Of course, it is not easy to tell a lie forever, and a break with the mainstream Judaism was inevitable. He was accused of apostasy from Judaism and of preaching against the law. This was in fact exactly what he was doing. He had thus made many enemies, including from amongst his former friends who now realized that he was deceiving them.  Thus, the fundamental role played by Paul in taking Jesus' message to the Gentiles had inherent in it the seeds of dispute. And when he declared that in order to come to Jesus one need not pass through the Synagogue, nor accept circumcision, the ties which bound Christianity to Judaism were torn. While Judaism would remain an ideology centered around the promised land, Christianity had broken these chains and would become a world movement.

The early Christians also saw themselves as separate from the Jews, and became increasingly unpatriotic. They no longer had the same passion for Judea that the Jews had, although many continued to abhor Rome.  For good example, the Christians had refused to join the Zealots and the uprising at Galilee, in attempting to liberate Jerusalem from the Romans. They fled both when the Jewish resistance initially won and again subsequently when Jerusalem and Israel was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, no Christian met his death amidst the destruction.

With the Jews now in the diaspora called the "Roman Exile", the relations between the Jews and Jewish-Christians worsened.  Being driven out of Israel, the Jews reconvened the Sanhedrin in Jabne and now attached themselves more strongly to their Law. Deprived of their home, the Jews took the Law as their cherished heritage and those who attacked it would be far worse enemies than the Romans. Thus, it was that the Jews found themselves fighting against the Christian doctrine that was making more and more converts from amongst the Jews. For example, we quote Rabbi Tarphonor: "The Gospels must be burned; paganism is not as dangerous to the Jewish faith as the Jewish Christian sects. I should rather seek refuge in a pagan temple than in an assembly of Jewish Christians". Nor was he the only one who thought so, for several Rabbis had recognized the threat from rising Christianity.

The Jews thus saw the loss of their influence and saw their beliefs and faith, attacked by the neophytes. The Christians felt equally bitter when Jewish elders obstructed their efforts at proselytization and furious hatred was mutual. The road to violence was now short. The Jews did not behave passively in the face of attacks from the Christians. They had not, as yet, acquired the stubborn and touching resignation which was to become characteristic of some of them later. They challenged the argumentation of priests and retaliated violently where they were physically attacked. They fought Christian proselytism with their own. Violent sermons were preached in synagogues, and Jewish preachers thundered against Rome, the Rome of the Caesars which had now become the Rome of Jesus. While Rome of Caesars had ravaged the land of the Jews, they found Rome of Christ threatening to destroy their faith. They did not content themselves with rhetoric and excited their brethren to revolt. The Jews took up arms during the rule of Gallus, Constantius' nephew, but they were severely repressed by Gallus and his general, Ursicinus. A mass butchery followed, Tiberias and Lydda were half destroyed, Sepphoris was razed to the ground and the catacombs of Tiberias were filled with Jews evading capture and death.

After Constantine's Edict of Milan, legalizing Christianity, and the militarization of the church in Rome, anti-Judaism became harsher, more severe and aggressive.  The Christians argued with the Jews that it was they, the Christians, that were the only faithful to tradition, for they fulfilled the prophecies and the details of their dogmas were foretold by the scriptures.  They no longer tried to win over the Jews to the fold of Christianity; the Jew was regarded less as a potential Christian than as unrepenting vermin. Pains were taken to forget that Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish in origin and to forget that Christianity was born in the shelter of the Judaism. This oblivion perpetuated itself, and today who in all Christendom would acknowledge that he bows to a poor Jew and perhaps a humble Jewess of Galilee?

Matters worsened in 323 AD when Constantine defeated Lucinius of the Eastern Empire and then started blatantly showing favors to the Christian church and gave the church what was to be the equivlaent of imperial power. He banned Jewish proselytism and revived an ancient Roman law which prohibited the Jews from circumcising their slaves; they were stripped of their former privileges and barred from Jerusalem, (except on the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple, and that upon payment of a special tax in silver), and were denied Roman citizenship in the other provinces of the empire. Jewish teachers were threatened with death if they taught about Judaism. Taxation of the Jews increased and they were forced to slave for the Roman officialdom. In 337 AD, Constantius made the marriage of a Jewish man to a Christian punishable by death and by 339 AD converting to Judaism was a criminal offense.The Christian preachers took advantage of this situation to pressure Jews into baptizing.

In the cities, monks and bishops denounced pagans and Jews, inciting against them the Christian populace and leading fanatical mobs in assaults upon temples and synagogues. Under Theodosius I, and under Arcadius, synagogues were burned at Rome and at Callinicus, in Mesopotamia. Under Theodosius II, at Alexandria, St. Cyril stirred up the mob and Christian hermits invaded the city and massacred all the Jews and Pagans they met. They assassinated the famous female mathematician Hypathia, plundered synagogues, set the libraries on fire, defying the efforts of the prefect Orestes whom the Emperor later disavowed.  Similar attacks were led by Simon the ascetic at Imnestar, near Antioch and by Zeno at Antioch itself.

The bishops and priests  attacked the Jews in vile language at their sermons. Several example can be cited: (Hosius in Spain; Pope Sylvester; Paul, bishop of Constantine; Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St Ambrose; the last four were the Great Doctors of the Western or Latin church ), St. Fulgentius, and there is the well known sermons (homilies "Adversus Judaeos" ) by the very popular preacher of Antioch, St. John of Antioch ( known later as Chrysostom= "Golden Mouth"  around 400 AD;  one of the Four Great Eastern Doctors of the Ancient church):

Over and over again the Christian bishops would refer to the Jews as "shameless, obstinate and deceitful", "Judaic serpents with Judas as the model", "impious ignoramuses, dogs, herd of brutes, beasts and brigands, wolves etc", "thieves, impure, debauchees, rapacious, misers, crafty, oppressors of the poor, plunderers and cheats", "deserving of all kinds of suffering", "seek nothing but to have children, possess riches and be healthy". "Their synagogues are playhouses, abodes of Satan", "the Jewish disease must be guarded against", "if one thought Judaism was true, he could leave the church, if not leave Judaism", "Stay away from the Jews who call the cross an abomination and whose religion is null and useless", "their suffering was due to them: they got what they deserved for killing the Son of God", "they knew God the Father, but chose to kill his son", "Satan dwells among them", " heretics, departing from the life of the Catholic church, deserving of the eternal fire prepared for the devil" etc etc.

Some consequences:
The church would remain anti-Judaic till this very day, and the Jews would suffer greatly at the hands of the church through the millenia. The Doctrine of Manifest Destiny was used to justify punishment for the Jews as being divinely ordained for not having come over to the Christian belief. Once the church gained control of most of Italy, confinement and ghettoization of Jews started and conditions in the ghettoes depended on economic and political need of church. The Jews had to pay a ransom in order to survive in the ghettoes. With the spread of Christianity to other kingdoms and over Europe, the persecution of Jews assumed global proportions. In the century following Gregory’s papacy, the Jews were already being hounded out of several countries of Europe. King Dagobert, in 626 AD, expelled them from France, although they did subsequently have a brief respite during the reign of the Carolingian dynasty. In 694 AD the Spanish monarchy, with open collusion from the church, forced the Jews to choose between conversion and slavery. The same was repeated in Portugal, where the persecution was particularly severe between 600-1000 AD. It was marked by massacres and economic loot of the Jews and their properties.

The Jews were thus forced to migrate eastwards, moving into Southern France and Pirennes Mountains in North Spain (related to today's Basque separatism), then onto Poland, Hungary, Russia, Mongolia and finally China. However, as Christianity spread to each of these countries, the persecution of Jews would accquire a worldwide proportion. They would start adopting Christian disguises to avoid detection and death or expulsion. Secret Jews (Conversos in Spain or Moranos in Portugal) were usually prominant wealthy Jews who officially converted to Christianity but practically remained Jewish. They were able to gain the confidence of the Spanish and Portuguese kings giving rise to a group called "Hoffjudens" or "court Jews". This group would help Jewish resistance over Europe and Asia.

The church was alarmed at the rise and penetration of these Secret Jews and decided to react. But they waited for the next four centuries till the last crusades were finally won in 1491 in Granada. Although during the crusades the intensity of the persecution of Jews decreased, they were still targetted in an indirect manner. The crusades were primarily aimed at liberating Palestine from islamic rule, but the crusading armies often used to pillage and kill Jews on their way to the holy land.

The decicive victory by Spain  left Europe with Spain and Portugal (both Catholic) as the major naval powers. Once islam was controlled, the Church  turned back to Europe to cleanse the continent from what it perceived to be the eternal menance -- Jews. In the period after the crusades, the Jews of Germany were routinely humiliated and sometimes massacred after accusations of treachery, poisoning of wells etc. Many German Jews fled eastward. Several Polish noblemen of the middle ages showed special favor to Jews who immigrated because of persecution in Germany, coupled with a Polish desire for Jewish expertise in commerce. The Jews did well in Poland, until recently. Although Catherine the Great was the first to give the Jews political rights, resulting in an  influx of a million Jews into Russia, the Orthodox church was not too happy. It urged them to accept Christianity, leading to riots and slaughter later in the century. In Germany, Martin Luther King had initially fantasized that the Jews, whom he was attracted to, would flock to his version of the church.  However, as was the case with Jesus, the Jews refused to recognize his claims to being a messiah and he then turned against them. He had earlier, in 1523, written the pro-Jewish book "That Christ Was Born a Jew" . But now he turned against this "damned and rejected race," and wrote "Against the Sabbatarians" (in 1538 AD) followed by "On the Jews and Their Lies".

Unlike the church which broke all links to any "motherland" (it had never accepted one in the first place), the Jews did have a historic home or promised land where they had once lived and fought for. But the hated Romans had devastated their political kingdom, and soon after they were completely driven out by the muslims. What was worse, they were beginning to realize that they were insecure in every country they fled to, as it seemed the church (and subsequently islam) followed them there. (This would happen even in India, where they thought they had found safe haven amongst the Pagan Indians. They were soon disabused of this notion, for the Catholic Portuguese Albuquerque instituted the Goan Inquisition, specifically aimed at hounding the Jews out of Goa.)

Of course, the Jews were not going to take all this lying down and face extermination. This insecurity would force them to create a unified global brotherhood (in much the same way as the church aimed to control the world without a kingdom or homeland). This brotherhood, reasonably termed Zionism, would be far greater in geopolitical reach, with a strong intention of getting back and creating their homeland. While the church would have as its primary aim religious conversion, using economic subjugation towards this end, the Jews would have as their primary geopolitical strategy mercantile control and political subjugation as tools for survival and getting back their homeland. They would play the same game that the church had started--that of controlling nations to serve their ends. They would put to good use the elaborate resident colonies and ghettos and the ubiquitious Secret Jews, and their considerable mercantile skills to organize resistance and exploit all avenues and weakness in the church (and also in islam). We should also mention that they were not averse to intrigues with various church denominations. In fact, in what may have been their first victory, they were responsible for the conquest of Jerusalem in the first crusade, and ruled Jerusalem under a French Noble named DeBullion (they were driven out by the Arabs 80 years later). In a later chapter, we shall see how they exploited the major rift between Catholics and Protestants to engineer the English Revolution, and take control of England.

The stage was now well set for what present generation Indians are taught about Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Hitler and Nazism. Perhaps the second victory of the Jews was the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, with 5 million Jews from all over moving in, after.

And, as we have done before, we urge our reader to fill in the missing blanks.

3.7) The Greco-Roman split

While the subsequent dynamics of the growth of the church is complex, involving Pagans, (Scandinavians, Germanic-Aryans etc), the islamic Moors from Spain, resulting in chaos and turmoil, we shall attempt to bring some clarity into the perspective of geo-politics, by identifying a key polarization. This polarization would result in the Grecian church splitting from the Roman church, and subsequently moving further northward and eastward to the Slavic republics. We shall attempt to draw only a basic outline, and trust that the interested reader will study the matter in more detail.

We shall pin this polarization down to two threads. The first is primarily political and secular, the second more theological. How would the various bishops share power? Who would be the primate? How would they relate to the secular rule? What about the exact nature of Jesus Christ: was he God, Man or God-Man or Man-God?

The two major civilizations of the Empire, the Roman and Greek, had held themselves together under the political and military might of Rome. This was to a certain degree artificial because of the cultural and linguistic differences between them. The Greeks felt  culturally superior to their Roman rulers, whom they equated with barbarians. Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome were the most powerful patriarchal churches in all Christendom. They had this power by virtue of their apostolic foundation and political importance. And there was much disagreement over the heirarchy of the respective patriarchs, although the bishop of Rome was still the highest. Rome had been under constant attacks by various Pagan tribes. Previous Emperors had recognized the utility of the Roman bishop in pacifying the invading Pagans, and this gave the bishops of Rome a lot of power.

However a major rift in this fragile unity would follow a decision by the Emperor Diocletian (284-305 AD).
He instituted two different rulers, called Augusti, for the eastern and western parts of the empire. This was one of the triggers to a subsequent formalization in a split of the church. This was followed by Constantine's shifting the capital from Rome to far-away Constantinople, and calling it New Rome. This served to aggravate this division. Amongst other factors, the political control of Rome was now completely in the hands of the powerful bishop.  With the Emperor nearer to Constantinople, disagreements now took a serious turn. For good example of the resulting theological disagreements, we mention their differing stands on the issue of sin and repentance. Although the synods held at Rome (251 AD) and at Carthage (Greece, 252 AD) had declared that sins were forgivable by proper penance, the Roman Latin church subsequently declared that  only Bishops could forgive sins.  The eastern church under the bishophood of Caecilian disagreed and declared that an individual can expiate himself from sin by individual repentance. The Roman church dismissed Caecilian and appointed another bishop in his stead. The Emperor had to intervene in this fight, and called for the second "Ecumenical council of Constantinople". The outcome was a canon stating that since Constantinople was the "new Rome", the bishop of Constantinople would have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome. Although, this canon gave primacy to the Roman bishop, it was liked neither by the eastern Patriarchs nor by the Roman bishops, since it implied that Rome's authority derived solely from its secular history, and not from its Petrine origin.

Thus, it was Constantine's initial policies that gave power to the corrupt of the clergy (predominantly in Rome), at the expense of relatively holy and just patriarchs of the east, on the grounds that the former could better hold the threads of the fabric of civilization. Effectively this resulted in the bishop of Rome becoming much stronger and the bishop of Constantinople much weaker. The Emperor now started intervening in church affairs and presented state grants to the Roman church. Sensing that they were denied the imperial share, the eastern church communicated their unhappiness to the Emperor. To prevent aggravation of matters, the Emperor started increasing intervention in the church. Imperial policy would be the answer to ecclesiastical questions. This resulted in an  increased corruption in the church and its followers who now pervceived the church as a tool to gain the Emperor's favor. Whenever theological controversies arose, the clergy had no difficulty siding with the Emperor to maintain this status-quo. Constantine had brushed aside repeated warnings the church was becoming a state within a state, and allowed his personal ambition to overrule traditional wisdom, and incorrectly reasoned that he and his descendants would be able to reign in the clergy. By 343 AD Valerian III had declared the bishop of Rome as being supreme in the religious affairs. This formalized the eastern bishops to a second grade of importance.

Constantine is thus responsible for what is best described as "Caesaropapism", understood as monarchical control over ecclesiastical affairs and intrusion of governmental officers in priestly sanctuaries,  in the east. This is the reverse antithesis of secularism, and is exactly what the government of India practices when it dictates how indigenous Indian religions and temples should be run. The Emperor, not the pope or patriarch, controlled the eastern church. He presided over the main synods at Constantinople, over all general councils and determined candidates for the post of patriarch. However, the power of the Roman church in the west grew independent of the political structure.  While in the east, the monarchy of Constantine exercised control over the church, here in the west the situation was the opposite. In fact, the Roman Church attempted to control many secular rulers. Soon the church of Rome, far from being destroyed by the invading barbarians, actually survived and became a force perhaps far more potent than the eastern church and associated Empires.
(It is not obvious that Constatine intended or foresaw the strengthening of the western church and weakening of the eastern one. In fact, it is likely that the reverse was true. One reason for moving the capital was the frequent invasions of Rome by the pagan tribes, called barbarians. Constantine played politics with the various church groups. He may have reasoned that the pope in Rome would be defeated in these attacks, and he would be safe in far away Constantinople. Further, when the eastern Patriarchs protested his seeming preference for Rome, he switched sides at convenience. In fact, as we shall see shortly, he would die as an eastern Orthodox Christian of the Arian brand, which he himself had declared as heretic.)

We draw particular attention to the capability of the western church to survive as an independent institution without the protection of a monarchy or state. It did this by politics, astute cunning, and ruthless violence and masquerade of divinity. This ability, evidence of which we have just provided, albeit in the earlier phases of Christianity, would make the Roman church a formidable geopolitcal player and an independent entity in its own right. It would influence the course of events through the next millenia to this very day.

Let us now look at an ideological dispute of fundamental importance. It was the enunciation of the "Nicene Creed" in  25 August 325 AD by Constantine. This was to be a fundamental document for the Christian world because a key belief structure was defined here. It would result in much bloodshed, and finally culminate in the formal excommunications of the eastern church and western church by each other in 1054 AD.

In the early period of Christianity, various apostles, bishops and preachers claimed insight into Christ, and various interpretations of his life had been in vogue. With Christianity gaining political importance, it was necessary for the Empire to iron out the fights that were brewing. A critical fight was on the nature of Christ: was he of the same substance as God? The Trinitarian church fathers, bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius, believed so. However, the Monarchianists led  by Arius, opined that he was the Son of God, but not God himself. Quite convincingly, Arius argued that Christ did not exist before a point in time, he was brought forth by the will of God (begotten by God the Father), therefore, he could not be equal to God, though he may be at a higher level than man. The followers of Arius could believe that Christ was a very great man, not necessarily a god. But Alexander and Athanasius, correctly sensing that this position would lead to the death of the church, fought back and claimed that Christ was essentially God himself. Alexander asked Arius to acknowledge his heresy which Arius refused, following which Alexander backed by other bishops deposed Arius and his followers. But Arius put to good use his considerable poetic skills, which got him into the minds of people at large. This gave him a sizeable following and enabled him to continue taunting Alexander. Arius possessed other advantages besides. Eusebius, the bishop of Nicomedia and strong supporter of Arius, had friends at court and was particularly close to Constantia, the sister of Emperor Constantine. This dispute that started in the church of Alexandria ran through all Egypt, Libya, Upper Thebes, Palestine, and Asia Minor. It ran deep and was often violent with much blood being shed on the streets of Alexandria and Nicomedia. In virtually every city, bishop was contending against bishop, and the populace involved in bitter argumentation. (This dispute also played a role in the battle between Lucinius and Constantine.)

Constantine had thus to step in. A conference of 318  bishops, invited from far and wide, was arranged to sort out the matter  The sessions were held in the main church and in the palace and continued for a while as a shouting match. When Arius was invited to present his views, he did this poetically as was his wont, and the shouting match continued. But finally, by political maneuvering with Constantine, the anti-Arians were able to get their position endorsed as the finality. Arius and two bishops who stood with him were banished. An edict was issued against the heretics (primarily intended at Arians), calling them "haters and enemies of truth and life, in league with destruction".  The Arians were forbidden to assemble in any place, including private homes. The heretical teachers were forced to flee. Constantine also ordered a search for their books, which were confiscated and destroyed. Hiding the works of Arius carried a death sentence.

Thus was born the "Creed of Nicene", explicitly stating that Jesus was of the same substance as God and categorically affirmed the doctrine of Christ's divinity. It also endorsed the doctrine of resurrection. It would later in 381 AD, be amplified in the Council of Constantinople. Constatine also ordered the Christian leaders to decide which of their secret books were to be accepted as representing the true faith. The result of their work was the Bible in essentially its present form in Greek. Nicea, marks the beginning of the end of the concepts of preexistence, reincarnation, and salvation through union with God. Although it would take two more centuries for the ideas to be fully expunged, Christian theology had  broken critical connections with its Pagan past. The emphasis on Christ's divinity would widen the already existing rift with Judaism, which as mentioned earlier, regarded Christ's messianic claims as blasphemous.

However, the scandalous "majority" vote of the Nicene Council did not really settle anything, and the controversy continued unabated. Within a few years the Arians had regained so much ground that Constantine found it politically expedient to change sides and Arianism was restored to favor. Arius was recalled from exile and declared innocent of heresy. Exiled bishops were reinstated and the Arian party then conspired to have Athanasius banished! Constantine's turnaround was so complete that, nearing the end of his life, he received his baptism from the Arian bishop of Nicodemia. After Constantine's death, his Arian son deposed the Trinitarian bishops and replaced them with Arians.

This fight would continue and result in the Council of Constantinople, and again in the council of Chalcedon. The Roman Church would stick with the Nicene Creed and it would be its foundation since.  A very independent  handling of international politics would now on be the hallmark of the papacy, which no longer saw itself as a subject of any Empire. The institution of papacy would now consolidate and establish its hold over all Churches established the world over, competing with the Orthodox church.  Pope Nicholas I (858­876 AD) used the "Pseudo­Isidorian Decretals" (according to many a forgery, to prove amongst other things rights conferred on the papacy by Constantine)  and he formulated sharply and decisively the idea of papal omnipotence in the church. But the Greek church, naturally, did not validate this claim to omnipotence. Nicholas I unsuccessfully tried to subordinate the eastern church, using the services of Emperor Michael who had  invoked a great council. Pope Nicholas I refused to recognize Photius as patriarch

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The pope attempted to subordinate certain churches in southern Italy that were subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, while the
Following discussion came in KQED Public radio Forum today:

"The Grand Inquisitor's Manual: A History of Terror in the Name of God."

Jonathan Kirsch
The Spanish Inquisition was the world's first experience with sanctioned terror, and a precursor to episodes like the Salem Witch Trials, McCarthyism and even Abu Ghraib, writes author Jonathan Kirsch. We speak with Kirsch about his latest book, "The Grand Inquisitor's Manual: A History of Terror in the Name of God."
Husky, I've taken the liberty to edit your first three paragraphs. Please feel free to use anything of value. I would add some line about liberal's donning the clothes of their civilizational victims, eg the native american headdress, and other such appropriation phenomenon.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Americans are referring to a "new beginning" with Barack Obama's election as the first 'black' President. As I will show, this is a problematic appraisal from the standpoint of the American worldview.  America is essentially continuing along its old path, with no new changes.

Obama is bi-ethnic (or to use a deprecated term, bi-racial). But America's colour parlance is about strictly black and white categories (and, when they remember the native Americans, the 'coloured'). The definition of 'black' in AmeriKKKa has its closest correspondence in what the Nazis of Germany later created with their 'Aryan Paragraph'. The Aryan Paragraph proclaimed that any German (ie Christian) who had any Jewish grandparent or great grandparent was to be considered Jewish, non-Aryan, and ultimately untermensch/subhuman. The Amerikkkan 'One Drop Rule' holds that if a person had a drop of African ancestry (usually considered as 1/8th African), they were 'black'. These arbitrary yet theologically necessary definitions barred Africans from a lot of rights in the past, and of course subjected Africans to the social stigma associated with being 'black' in a slavers' world.  [[[[ Footnote:  There are complicated reasons why Americans necessarily ended up equating African ethnicity with being 'Black'; however, S. N. Balagangadhara came closest when he pointed out that Western or Christian ethnies necessarily need to be (ordinally) ordered from higher to lower, from superior to inferior; that is, these designations do not signify reciprocal relationships like Brahmin or Sudra that develop during the interactions of different persons or communities (eg teacher or worker);.  Neither are they ethnic designations such as Jatt or Kumhar.  "Black" and "White"- type of designations are ordained from a specific need to define or 'essentialize'; indeed, to conform to the 'Good Book' itself.  Very pertient is the fact that one can actually lose one's designation as a Brahmin or a Vaishya or be derecognized as such.  An analogous situation with Blackness or Whiteness would be unthinkable; after all, the 'Good Book' (or the secular Constitution) is perfected in itself -- and the reality that it dictates must then be formulaically applied to all human situations.]]]]

While no one is literally black or literally white, in America's terms, these do not translate into African or European either, since Obama's ancestry would then be African-European. So when they say that the bi-ethnic Obama is 'black', Americans are actually conforming to the dynamic of the Nazi 'Aryan Paragraph'.  That is, the racist 'One Drop rule' is an exact parallel of the Nazi 'Aryan Paragraph'. As a Hindu (or any non-American) looking in, I find the American mindset vastly intriguing. So much loaded terminology, so many alien and unnatural concepts, so many layers upon layers of christian conditioning, that even when they think they are now much more open-minded, they aren't really.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

History of the Jesuits; Their Origin, Progress, Doctrines, and Designs by Giovanni Battista Nicolini</b>


The author conveys the character and aims of the brotherhood of Loyola. The author says that in no other epoch of history have the Jesuits been more dangerous and threatening for England.

The pope attempted to subordinate certain churches in southern Italy that were subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople, while the latter then closed the Latin monasteries and churches located in Constantinople. The matter could not be resolved. Finally, a dispute over the exact wording of the Nicene Creed would result in each church excommunicating the other in 1054 AD. This is called the  Great Schism, and was perhaps the inevitable culmination of many political, and perhaps to a lesser extent, theological disputes. Hereafter, the Roman church would call itself Catholic (Universal) and the Greek church would call itself "Orthodox".

The Germanic Christians (later day Lutherans or Protestants) would be the doctrinal descendants, with some variance, of the Arians. When in 343 AD the Greek church was relegated to playing second fiddle in the Roman empire, it pushed eastward converting Aryan Germany and then the Pagan kingdoms east of Germany. Thus converted, the German nobles started to attack the Empire. Rome finally fell in 476 AD to General Odoacer. He tolerated Roman Christianity but remained faithful to his Aryan beliefs. This infuriated the pope who foresaw the papal treasury declining under a non-Christian ruler. The victorious German Aryan Kings refused to accept the edict of Valerian III, that proclaimed the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff under the "primacy of St. Peter" (Petrine doctrine).

But the Pontiff would get the support of Gaul (modern day France). France followed the Roman Church. Left without support from the empire after Constantine switched sides, the Roman Church would negotiate a "Perpetual Pact" with the Moravingian dynasty of France and this would be sealed during the fifth century, about the same time as the Germanic invasion. It would make France as the final political and military authority in Europe. In return, Rome would retain the spiritual and religious supremacy over all other denominations in Europe. In the year 752 AD, pope Zacharias blessed an overthrow of the Moravingian monarchy, and appointed Pepin the Short, the chief steward of the French (Frankish) rulers, to be king. This marks the start of Carolingian rule of France. In return Pepin, seized the Germanic Lombard tribe the lands conquered by them in Italy. He delivered into the Pope's hands the keys to twenty­two cities and the Ravenna Exarchate, which had previously belonged to the Byzantine Empire. The Perpetual Pact with France would be very significant, and we shall see the critical role it played in the chapter on the French Revolution.

The eastern church would face invasions of far more serious magnitude. Already weakened by fights with neighbouring Persia, it would finally succumb to the massive and brutal islamic invasions initially led by Umar, the second caliph, who defeated them in the battle of Yarmuk in 636 AD, and the provinces of Syria and Egypt would soon fall to the islamic Arabs. Byzantine would reconquer Syria and Palestine, but this would fall again to the Ottomans and by 1092 AD, not a single major city in Asia Minor would be under the Christians. The battle of Maznikert in 1071 AD, where the Greek Emperor Diogenes was made a captive heralded the complete loss of control over Asia Minor. Inspite of the Great Schism, the Byzantine Emperor Michael VII in 1073 AD requested the assistance of the pope Gregory VII, and his descendant pope Urban II. This resulted in the unified first crusade, with the victorious Christians  marching into Jerusalem. They were dislodged by Saladin in 1187 AD. However, although they had lost control in Asia Minor, they had by then succeeded in converting the Slavic kingdoms and Russia. In the process, they overtook, displaced and persecuted the Jews who had already fled to these areas. This would enable them to spring back in the recent past.

We have thus attempted to show our reader in comfortable detail, the seeds of the internal conflicts within Christianity. Although the future dynamics would be more complex, we hope this will provide a starting base on which more accurate models can be built. It should not surprise our reader now that Christian NATO, Christian Croats, backed by the Vatican actually helped the muslims and went against the Christian Serbs in the recent events in Yugoslavia of 1996. Nor should it surprise him to know that when in 2001, after a lapse of thirteen centuries, a Papal head (pope John Paul II) chose to visit Greece, on a replay of Apostle Paul's travels, not a single member of the Greek Orthodox clergy was at the airport to receive him. He was received by a military guard, while on the streets, the Greek clergy were waving placards "pope go home".  His apology for "sins of commission and omission" was received coldly by the Patriarch, Christodolous, who said "much work to be done".
Dhu, We need the rest of the passage to be translated too.

Thanks, ramana
Husky and Dhu for you both:

Vernon Johns Society
Next paragraph.

<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Nov 9 2008, 11:28 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Nov 9 2008, 11:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Obama phenomenon represents a veritable microcosm of the Monotheist Colonial Project.  In short, the Monotheistic Messiah advocates capitulation to the colonial power and normalizes any dissonance stemming from the colonial project. Due to sustained propaganda, most people associate Monotheistic phenomenon like Christianity and Communism with "revolutionary" thoughts; in fact, these "movements" serve to integrate divergent and fissiparous tendencies into the colonial "system".  Such Monotheistic movements label the diversity of human traditions and cultures as deviances from the colonial norm and as impediments to "peace" (that is, to success of the colonial project) and then seek to homogeneize[?] these "problematic" cultures in their "own image".  Part of the project involves co-opting symbols from the defeated culture as trophies - in the way that Americans parade their "respect" for the defeated "Native American" by donning the clothes of their victims (e.g., the chief's headdress). [[[such liberal appropriation phenomenon is notably absent in cultures like India and China]]]  Indians should remember that whenever the Monotheists mention peace they are referring to the "peace of the graveyard" or the "peace of capitulation".  Similarly, the oft-professed monotheist love for his downtrodden victim is similar to the "love" of the pedophile priest for the child victim or to the paternalistic nostalgia of a Kipling for the decontextualized and dehistoricized, and thus exoticized, "boy" Mowgli.

The "dialogue" between America's 'blacks' and 'whites' reflects this same dynamic of monotheistic colonialism; but while the 'whites' are continuing the same monologue as their Christian ancestors, the response of the 'blacks' actually doesn't in any way represent their *African* ancestors. Colin Powell apparently went 'teary-eyed' when Obama made it as president. The Republican was moved that he lived to see a 'black' man as president. But it was a very superficial identification on his part: only the exterior was taken into consideration. Powell's response is the expected response of a Christianized victim to the depredations of the Christian masters and as such does not represent the voice of confident African traditions. Similarly, it is not a representative of Africa or of African traditions that has ascended to the highest rank of President; rather, it is only a 'colour' (i.e. an exterior) that has ascended (or been allowed to ascend as a trophy "headdress" for whites).  And, oddly enough, persons of African origin in America like Colin Powell are only glad for Obama's *color* (that is because identification with mere 'color' has replaced identification with their origins/natural traditions for blacks). Yet, inside Obama may be anything from the WASP ideological spectrum of republican, democrat, or leftist. Even if Obama deviates from his predecessors, he will still live with the "black" identity imparted to him in place of the African cultural identity. And he will, at most, just shift around within this "color" identity. So how does Obama represent anything more than the existing American ideals and status quo? How does Obama represent Africa or Africans (which are supposedly other connotations for 'black')?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->





Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)