Monday, April 29, 2013

Great Western leaders vs. Jews on Christianity, Jesus Christ

What did some of the greatest Western leaders in history say about Christianity and Jesus Christ? What follows is a small sampling.

"They are [Jefferson's Bible and thoughts on Jesus Christ] the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that Anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.  To the corruptions of christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.  I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other. [...]

I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials (The Gospels) which I call the Philosophy of Jesus.  It is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject.  A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen.  It is a document in proof that I am a REAL CHRISTIAN, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call ME infidel and THEMSELVES Christians and preachers of the Gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw.  They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature."

- Thomas Jefferson, writing to Mr. Charles Thompson, quote directly from The Jefferson Bible

"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."

- John Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; [...]"

- Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790

"The movement steadfastly refuses to take up any stand in regard to those problems which are either outside of its sphere of political work or seem to have no fundamental importance for us. It does not aim at bringing about a religious reformation, but rather a political reorganization of our people. It looks upon the two religious denominations as equally valuable mainstays for the existence of our people, and therefore it makes war on all those parties which would degrade this foundation, on which the religious and moral stability of our people is based, to an instrument in the service of party interests."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"His life [the Jew] is of this world only and his mentality is as foreign to the true spirit of Christianity as his character was foreign to the great Founder of the new creed two thousand years ago. The Founder of Christianity made no secret of His estimation of the Jewish people; when He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God, because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. At that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews, whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics, and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"MY FEELING AS A CHRISTIAN POINTS ME TO MY LORD AND SAVIOUR AS A FIGHTER. IT POINTS ME TO THE MAN WHO ONCE IN LONELINESS, SURROUNDED ONLY BY A FEW FOLLOWERS, RECOGNIZED THESE JEWS FOR WHAT THEY WERE AND SUMMONED MEN TO THE FIGHT AGAINST THEM AND WHO, GOD'S TRUTH! WAS GREATEST NOT AS SUFFERER BUT AS FIGHTER. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago - a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."
- Adolf Hitler, speech of April 12, 1922

THE CREED OF NATIONAL-CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM: "I believe in the one and undivided Romanian State, from Dniester to the Tisa, the holder of all Romanians and only of Romanians, lover of work, honor and in fear of God, concerned about the country and its people; giver of equal rights, both civil and political, to men and to women; protector of the family, paying its public servants and workers on the basis of the number of children and the work performed, quality and quantity; and in a State, supporter of social harmony through minimizing of class differences; and in addition to salaries, nationalizing factories (the property of all workers) and distributing the land among all the ploughmen. [...]

I believe in one Sacred Christian Church with priests living the Gospel and for the Gospel, and who would, like the apostles, sacrifice themselves for the enlightenment of many."

- Romanian nationalist leader Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, quote from For My Legionaries

"There should be no subject in this country that we're afraid to discuss - especially when it impinges on the security of the United States of America and the White Christian people of the whole world!"

“I don't believe in democracy. In the second place, neither did our white forefathers. I believe, as they did, in a republican authoritarian republic with a limited electorate -- just like the one the writers of our Constitution meant this country to be. When these White Christian patriots sat down to write the Declaration of Independence, there were no black citizens for them to worry about.”

- George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party

Now compare the quotes above with what various Jews and Jewish texts have had to say about Christianity and Jesus Christ.

"The Jew is not content to dechristianize, he Judaizes; he destroys Christian beliefs; he provokes religious indifference, but he also imposes on those whose faith he destroys, his own concept of the world, of morality, and of human life; he labors at the age-old task - the destruction of the religion of Christ."
- Jewish author Bernard Lazare
Piss Christ: Jesus Christ submerged in urine and blood.
The Jews love this type of "art" and constantly
malign Jesus Christ and his message.

"The Communists are against religion (Christianity), and they seek to destroy religion; yet, when we look deeper into the nature of Communism, we see that it is essential nothing else than a religion (Judaism)."
- A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Rabbi Harry Waton

“I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch.... Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values (Christianity) and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”
- Radical Jewish intellectual Georg Lukacs

"I hope the Jews did kill Christ. I'd do it again, I'd fucking do it again in a second."
- Jewish "comedian" Sarah Silverman

"Fundamentally Judaism is Anti-Christian."
- The Jewish World, March 15, 1923

Truth About the Talmud: Judaism's Holiest Book
While it is the standard disinformation practice of apologists for the Talmud to deny that it contains any scurrilous references to Jesus Christ, certain Orthodox Jewish organizations are more forthcoming and admit that the Talmud not only mentions Jesus but disparages him (as a sorcerer and a demented sex freak). These orthodox Jewish organizations make this admission perhaps out of the belief that Jewish supremacy is so well-established in the modern world that they need not concern themselves with adverse reactions. [...]

Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement." [...]

Shabbath 116a. Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament. 
Jesus in the Talmud

Scattered throughout the Talmud, the founding document of rabbinic Judaism in late antiquity, can be found quite a few references to Jesus--and they're not flattering. In this lucid, richly detailed, and accessible book, Peter Schäfer examines how the rabbis of the Talmud read, understood, and used the New Testament Jesus narrative to assert, ultimately, Judaism's superiority over Christianity.

The Talmudic stories make fun of Jesus' birth from a virgin, fervently contest his claim to be the Messiah and Son of God, and maintain that he was rightfully executed as a blasphemer and idolater. They subvert the Christian idea of Jesus' resurrection and insist he got the punishment he deserved in hell--and that a similar fate awaits his followers.


  1. Let's see here...

    1) Jefferson sought to remove almost everything from the Bible and simply keep it as a philisiophical text. He was refering to Christian in a philosophical context. Here are some more quotes:

    "As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us."
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819 (Note here he also calls himself an Epicurian, denoting it as philosophical)

    Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

    "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
    -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

    "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

    "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
    -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

    "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
    -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

    If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

    Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.
    -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820

    And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
    -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

    May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)

    2) The Adams bit is a fake quote:

    1. Jefferson, and most of the Founding Fathers, considered themselves disciples of Christ, and sought to live their lives according to his philosophy. They had many criticisms of organized Christianity, including the priest class and tyrannical nature of the Church. As Jefferson himself said (quoted above):

      "To the corruptions of christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others;"

      Jefferson also said Jesus Christ's message and philosophy was the most "beautiful" and "precious morsel of ethics" he had ever studied, much superior to the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, pagans, and certainly the Jews.

    2. Jefferson's claim to be a Christian was made in response to those who accused him of being otherwise, due to his unorthodox view of the Bible and conception of Christ. Recognizing his rather unique views, Jefferson stated in a letter (1819) to Ezra Stiles Ely, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
      This could be Jefferson with a bit of sarcasm. His other statements in which he says "ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture" referring to the text says otherwise.
      Generally, the more reasonable assertions would be he saw it as a philosophical work, and not something to base one's life around... and not something free from criticism, as he himself just cut out the bits he liked with a razor and said sod the rest.

    3. I totally disagree with you. Jefferson clearly stated he was a follower of the philosophy and morals of Jesus Christ. He did indeed base his life around it.

    4. The founding fathers of America were anti-Catholic.
      They also were in general NOT Christians. The Treaty of Tripoli 1796 between USA and North African moslem pirates said that we are not a Christian govt. and we are not founded on Christian principles.
      It was signed into law by our President and passed unanimously in the Senate. It was article 11. Our English version had that article. The Arabic version given to the Arabs omitted it.

  2. 3) The rest of that Franklin quote paints it in a different light:
    "but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.
    "I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it... I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and, as I never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all." "
    And some more Franlin quotes:
    "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
    "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
    [Ben Franklin, _Poor Richard's Almanac_, 1754 (Works, Volume XIII)]
    "The nearest I can make it out, 'Love your Enemies' means, 'Hate your Friends'."
    [Benjamin Franklin]
    "My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the dissenting [puritan]way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. [Robert Boyle (1627-1691) was a British physicist who endowed the Boyle Lectures for defense of Christianity.]It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist"
    [Benjamin Franklin, "Autobiography,"p.66 as published in *The American Tradition in Literature,* seventh edition (short), McGraw-Hill,p.180]

    "If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England]and in New England"
    [Benjamin Franklin, "Toleration", in _Works, Vol.ii._,p. 112]

    1. Again, the quotes you are providing here further demonstrate my point that the Founding Fathers were disciples of Christ and lived their lives according to his philosophy and morals. They were very critical of organized Christianity and the priest class (as am I). Organized Christianity was and remains a perversion of what Christ actually taught.

    2. Franklin stated he had never studied the thing. He was sort of a happy-go-lucky guy and didn't want to step on any toes or upset the apple cart.
      I don't see any direct influence on the man himself, and he avoided religion entirely for the most part.

    3. Leaving Jefferson aside, for most of its history, the vast majority of the U.S. populace identified with some branch of Christianity. This is an indisputable fact. One only needs to consult thousands of available historical archives to prove this point.

  3. 4) As per Hitler, it's a complicated story. His private words speak a different story.
    As for the "we must not tolerate" quote, it comes from a book by a Jew who wants to prove he's a Christian and I cannot source the quote independantly.
    ” Marxism’s irrational castelike behavior and estrangement from its own folk has a parallel only in the early history of Christianity, which also established itself as a state within the Roman state, outside the general community of interests, and thereby became the cause of the extraordinary collapse of a world empire which no longer could muster the resistance of the whole state to counter the impact of the technologically and organizationally far inferior Teuton bands” – Adolph Hitler in his “Road to Resurgance” pamplet, which was given to German Industrialists in 1927
    “Today a new state is being established, the unique feature of which is that it sees its foundation not in Christianity and not in a concept of state; rather, it places its primary emphasis on the self-contained Volksgemeinschaft. “, which was recalled in a statement at the Ordensburg Sonthofen, November 22, 1937

    SS pamphlet which crushes the Christian NSDAP myth again:

    The Table Talks:
    I have not seen any source refute them. Some say the translations are bad... but with all the staunch Christian translators we have... Rodney, Veronica, Hadding et al. I have not seen any of them attempt to put forth a better one for 3 pages of text.

    5) I'll give you Codreanu. He was also however a murder, terrorist and failure.
    6) "I reread and studied it some more. Slowly, bit by bit, I began to understand. I realized that National Socialism, the iconoclastic world view of Adolf Hitler; was the doctrine of scientific racial idealism--actually a new religion. . . ." - Rockwell

    1. Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler's Christian principals and morals are throughout the entire book, and all of his speeches and actions back that up.

      Carolyn Yeager did a program regarding Christianity and the NSDAP which I thought was pretty balanced, see here:

      I'm no expert, but it seems clear Christianity was highly respected as a basic philosophical and moral foundation of society, and even those critical of it did not denigrate or trash it like many in the White Nationalist movement today do.

      Have you read Codreanu's book, For My Legionaries? The man is a hero. Here is my favorite quote from the book (I'm not quite finished with it yet, I'm sure there are other gems, but this one really stood out to me):

      "... one who fights for God and his people, even if alone, will never be defeated."

      Would you concede that transcendentalism and a belief in an afterlife/judgement before God is an important aspect of Western civilization? In fact, I would argue this is a central aspect of what has separated Western civilization (and made it superior) from other civilizations.

      As to Rockwell, in almost any speech or lecture I've heard from him, he ALWAYS refers to "White Western CHRISTIAN civilization" and I emphasize Christian. Can it be denied Christianity has served as the foundation of our civilization, especially as a moral and philosophical bedrock? Again, organized Christianity is a perversion of Jesus' message, and has always been about exerting political and financial power rather than genuine spiritual or philosophical beliefs.

    2. Funny you mention that, one attempt to re-translate (by someone who follows the prochristian angle) yields:
      "There are many other suspect quotations. I checked over a dozen, in four separate entries. All of them ended with similar results. For example, one oft-repeated quote comes from 13 December 1941: "But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery" (Stevens and Cameron's English, again matching Genoud's French verbatim). But the original German says, "Christianity teaches 'transubstantiation,' which is the maddest thing ever concocted by a human mind in its delusions, a mockery of all that is godly." The difference in meaning here is radical, and again shows how Genoud (hence the Trevor-Roper translation) has distorted Hitler's criticism of one form of Christianity (which implies he believed there was a true Christianity) into a thoroughly anti-Christian sentiment."

      Scientific evidence yields that this is flawed as well:
      "However, recent studies suggest that not all religious beliefs are equal in this respect. Though supernatural punishment is associated with increases in normative behavior, laboratory research reveals the concept of supernatural benevolence to be associated with decreases in normative behavior. For example, university students with stronger beliefs in in God’s punitive and angry nature tended to be the least likely to cheat on an academic task, whereas stronger beliefs in God’s comforting and forgiving nature significantly predicted higher levels of cheating [7]. These results remained robust after controlling for plausible third variable candidates."

      Personally... I believe the old Norse phrase.. "There is one thing which never dies.. the fame of a dead man's deeds"

    3. Furthermore on Jefferson, if there is one angle to take with this the Jeffersonian Philosopher angle might be the best. It's free of much of the problematic aspects such as the literalness and stranger aspect.. and it has a link to American nationalism. If you look at these nationalist movements that have encompassed nationalism with Christianity, it was tied to an aspect of their history. For example with Germany using Lutheranism's "hard working / antisemitic aspects" as well as the Catholic connection with Germany playing important roles in the Holy Roman Empire. We can deduce they were effective in nationalism as they were aspects tied to the country's history.
      Another great feature of the Jeffersonian bit is that we can use it to appeal to the right because it's a founding father.. and can be used against Christian Zionist crusaders maniacal frenzy by roping them back into sanity with something they can level with.

    4. The fact is Hitler allowed Christianity to flourish in Germany and the rest of Europe. His moral ideals,despite any differences were parallel... He was a brilliant and inquisitive man,so any comments he made in private was one of questioning,and wondering. He properly wanted them out of party politics,as this corrupts politics as well as RELIGION,as we see in history and certainly today.... Too understand the Fuhrer's ideas on this,in depth:Please see David Irving's master work HITLERS WAR;DAVID IRVING ACTION REPORT .Com.

    5. Vicious slander against the noble warrior Codreanu. Can you exlain your criticisms against him by citing specific actions that he took that you have an issue with? He killed in self defense while selflessly fighting for the survival of his people. Not sure how he was a "terrorist". And a lot of people have failed in this struggle haven't they? It could be argued that everyone has.

  4. 7) Lazare.
    Here is what you quoted in it's original form:
    "The accusation has not been limited to this alone. The Jew, it is said, is not only a destroyer, but also an up-builder; arrogant, ambitious and domineering, he seeks to subject everything to himself. He is not content merely to destroy Christianity, but he preaches the gospel of Judaism; he not only assails the Catholic or the Protestant faith, but he incites to unbelief, and then imposes on those whose faith he has undermined his own conception of the world, of morality and of life. He is engaged in his historic mission, the annihilation of the religion of Christ. Are the Christian antisemites right or wrong in this respect? Has the Jew retained his ancient notions; is he still in his actions anti-Christian? I say in his actions, because he is necessarily anti-Christian, by definition, in being a Jew, just as he is anti-Mohammedan, just as he is opposed to every principle which is not his own."
    Basically the author was speaking as if he was a gentile slandering a Jew. It's a book about Anti-Semetism, and the author was just using a literary narrative.
    8) The original did not have the quotes, and goes on:
    " The communists are against religion, and they seek to destroy religion; yet, when we look deeper into the nature of communism, we see that it is essentially nothing else than a religion. That the communists seek to destroy all existing religions is not remarkable; all new religions had first to destroy the existing religions, to clear the terrain for its own existence. This was the case of Judaism, Christianity, Mohammedanism, Buddhism, and all other religions. Next, when we disregard the scientific cloak of Marxism, we see that in essence it is nothing else than religion."

  5. 9) Loukas
    Again, you're putting words in his mouth:
    He said, “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch.... Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”
    AND, the old values he spoke of were in fact those of German philosophers such as Nietzche!
    "For if man is made the measure of all things, and if with the aid of that assumption all transcendence is to be eliminated without man himself being measured against this criterion, without applying the same ‘standard’ to himself or – more exactly – without making man himself dialectical, then man himself is made into an absolute and he simply puts himself in the place of those transcendental forces he was supposed to explain, dissolve and systematically replace. At best, then, a dogmatic metaphysics is superseded by an equally dogmatic relativism.
    This dogmatism arises because the failure to make man dialectical is complemented by an equal failure to make, reality dialectical. Hence relativism moves within an essentially static world. As it cannot become conscious of the immobility of the world and the rigidity of its own standpoint it inevitably reverts to the dogmatic position of those thinkers who likewise offered to explain the world from premises they did not consciously acknowledge and which, therefore, they adopted uncritically. For it is one thing to relativise the truth about an individual or a species in an ultimately static world (masked though this stasis may be by an illusory movement like the “eternal recurrence of the same things” or the biological or morphological ‘organic’ succession of periods). And it is quite another matter when the concrete, historical function and meaning of the various ‘truths’ is revealed within a unique, concretised historical process. Only in the former case can we accurately speak of relativism. But in that case it inevitably becomes dogmatic. For it is only meaningful to speak of relativism where an ‘absolute’ is in some sense assumed. The weakness and the half-heartedness of such ‘daring thinkers’ as Nietzsche or Spengler is that their relativism only abolishes the absolute in appearance."
    Silverman, yeah she's an insane degenrate. However she just makes gross jokes about everyone.
    The Best AntiChristian comedians are gentile.. Hicks, Carlin. They actually make it convincing.
    11) Piss Christ was done by a Gentile
    12) That paper allegedly said alot of crazy things but it could be out of context. (Jewish World)
    13) The Talmud
    The Gitten line refers to Balaam, who is actually that guy with the talking donkey believe it or not. The Shabb. line is actually refering to the books of the Pagans.
    Most of the stuff about bashing goys in general is legit though.

    1. Are you trying to say that Communism and Jews in general have not and are not trying to subvert and destroy Christ and his message/philosophy?

  6. lugh just can't accept that some of us don't need nor want his 'advice', we are free to choose for ourselves. If this means we are excluded for being 'christian', great ...let's see how far lugh get with his Christ-bashing agenda, seems to be the main thing he is worried about. The White race will perish while lugh is still whinging about the Bible ...

    "Join us White Brothers, oh not you, you're 'christian'" ~Renegade broadcasting.

    'christians' have not been engaging in such a divisive strategy, as renegade and truth militia have been. So who is really holding us back, simple, lugh and the people in the 'movement' who agree with his BS.

    1. I tend to agree with you - it's not the Christian or pro-Christian types causing all the drama, bashing pagans and others who aren't Christians. It's the other way around. It's the pagans and non-Christians that go out of their way to denigrate and trash Christianity. That said, I think Lugh is probably the fairest and most objective guy over at Renegade when it comes to this topic. Dana, Kyle, and Dave in Texas often sound like rabbis to me with their Christ hatred.

  7. You can see the value in this jewish created division just by looking at this thread and others. This so called movement has spent to much time on this topic instead of exposing our actual enemies. Does this not prove christianity is a Jewish construct. This is divide and conquer, this religion was created to cause a split in our people and all people. But you would have to be confused to not think our history our morals and our history our white heritage is not fundamentaly linked to christianity. I am not religious in any traditional sence and certainly do not identify as a christian however i have felt an urge to associate along those lines simply because it IS white heritage....the rest is up for interpretation and as racial brothers i would hope that no matter what side of this topic you stand on we can find common ground in the only thing that is real White Pride. Be proud of your heritage Jewish created or not it does not matter it is OURS

    1. No, Christianity was not a Jewish construct. Christianity is 100% opposite of Judaism. The problem is, Christianity has been perverted and subverted for centuries now.

      Religion doesn't have to cause a split between people. Ignorance and arrogance cause divisions - and from where I sit all the ignorance and arrogance is coming from the Christian bashers.

      I think Christianity and spirituality is a subject that should be openly discussed and debated. I would love to set up a debate with a guy like Bill Finck or E. Michael Jones vs. Lugh or Dana or Dave in Texas or Kyle. I doubt any would agree to this though. We shall see.

  8. I am glad to see that John and Lugh can carry a discussion on this topic without any ad hominems. It is a testament to their characters as adults. As a die-hard anti-Abrahamic guy myself, it is good to see this for a change.

  9. In fact, the Jew leadership of Judea (and Galilee/Perea) knew Jesus was the Messiah, which is why Jesus wasn't stoned for the three years he ministered, and why they handed Jesus over to Pilate when Jesus gave the signal to the Jewish leadership that it was time for Him to die (after the Jewish leadership held three night time Q&A sessions to determine that Jesus was in fact signalling it was time for Him to die. Remember, trials under the Law of Moses could not take place during night time hours, and no punishment could be sentenced!). What was the signal Jesus gave? The signal was Jesus' hostile act of entering Jerusalem with the mob. Notice, the Jewish leaderships refused to arrest the 11 remaining disciples and execute them (you never thought about that, did you!), and in fact protected the Jesus community for the next 37 years before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70!

    Rome also refused to execute Jesus for three years for performing "rebellious miracles" and attracting large crowds. Other peaceful "prophets" that did less than Jesus were immediately killed, along with their followers. This inaction continued after Jesus' Resurrection, where Pilate and the next nine Roman governors of Judea continue to protect the Jesus Sect, even though Jesus' disciples (and others) are still performing "rebellious miracles" and attracting large mobs.

    You see, both Roman and Jewish authorities had agents within the Jesus Sect and throughout Judea who were reporting back to their respective employers that Jesus was unlike the other deluded prophets they had monitored, that Jesus was indeed the Messiah...that Jesus was actually raising those they KNEW to be dead! This explains why Jesus was allowed to minister for three years until it was time for Him to die, and why after Jesus' death the Jesus Sect was protected.

    The only persecution that took place of the Jesus Sect after Jesus' resurrection was that conducted by Paul for three years, which is why the Elders of Jerusalem sent Paul on wild goose persecution chases to the gentile cities of Decapolis. In fact, it was on one such wild goose mission (to Damascus) that Jesus had enough with Paul and threw him off his high horse of ignorance. Jesus says to Paul, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Note, Jesus only says this to the obstinate Paul. Jesus doesn't have to tell anyone else to cease persecuting his flock because no one else in Judea is! I bet you never thought about that either!

    1. That's an interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing!

    2. That is an absurd. A way to get the Jews of off the hook for Christs death....and makes them part of the cycle of Gods Plan,and they are not! Christ condemned them repeatedly,and cursed them often: The Jews were likened by him to a fig tree and he said they would no longer bear fruit,or die. He said they are of their father the devil,who was a liar from the beginning. He pronounced the destruction of their temple.... On the way to cross he said 'Oh daughters of Jerusalum do not weep for me,but for yourselves. If YOU DO THIS in the green wood,what will you do in the dry". There will come a day when you will say;hills hide me,and mountains cover me, and hope your wombs do not produce. LUKE 20's. Joseph Of Aramethia and Mary had to flee the area! The Jews killed James and Steven!Paul himself was a persecutor! They could not mention his name,for fear of the Jews! ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Amazing how some Christians will go to any lengths,to protect the Jews,and their evil power. Christ made a New Covenant and these types live in the old..... SEE BROTHER NATHANAEL KAPTNUR REAL JEW NEWS. As an Ex Jew,and I mean EX! That man takes them on! SATAN AT THE WAILING Wall EXPLAINS it all...I do appreciate the hard work of this site.

    3. You're very welcome.

      Here's the supportive evidence (taken from my review of the PBS Frontline documentary, "From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians"):

      In the PBS Frontline documentary, "From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians", Bible scholars interviewed for the program say, "Jesus would have represented a kind of activist and resister in Pontius Pilate's experience that he had been dealing with for years, and with varying degrees of success and effectiveness, obviously. Jesus would have been a blip on the screen of Pontius Pilate, because the unrest and the uprisings were so common, part of daily life for the Roman administration of Judea, that Jesus would have been seen, I think, as very little out of the ordinary."


      "Now I don't for a moment think that Pilate would have been worried that Jesus could have challenged the power of the emperor. That's not the point. The point is, any challenge to Roman authority...any challenge to the peace of Rome would have been met with a swift and violent response."

      This confirms Josephus' accounts as to what immediately happened to any person claiming to perform miracles in Roman Judea.

      Between 44 and 46 CE, one Theudas caused some consternation with what may have been a claim to be the Messiah:

      "It came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain charlatan, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it. Many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them. After falling upon them unexpectedly, they slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem." -- [(Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98]


      The Roman governor Festus, who was -according to recent research- in office from 58 until 60 CE, was confronted with another rebel:

      "Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also." -- [Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.188]

      Yet the Bible scholars interviewed for this PBS Frontline program fail to explain why Pontius Pilate failed for three years to swiftly deal with the threat of Jesus when if it had been anyone other than Jesus, that threat to the Roman Peace would have been immediately dealt with three years earlier!

    4. Anonymous says, "The Jews killed James and Steven!Paul himself was a persecutor!"

      As for Paul, see my initial comment. As for Stephen he was stoned after he was brought to the attention of the Jewish authorities by FOREIGN Jews in town for the Passover. Those FOREIGN Jews were shocked by Stephen's blasphemy and fingered him to the authorities. The Jewish authorities themselves refused to act against Stephen, UNTIL their hand was forced. As for the murders of the two disciples named James, see my review of the PBS Frontline documentary, "From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians" Go to the comment section of the review.

      Now a year or so before Stephen is killed, the disciples are arrested TWICE by the Jewish authorities and warned to stop talking about Jesus (see Acts 4 and Acts 5, respectively). The disciples were causing a ruckus in the Temple (why didn't Pilate arrest and execute them?!), blaming the Jewish authorities for Jesus' death (at this time the disciples are clearly disorganized and haven't yet figured out that the Jewish leadership is on their side, otherwise they would be already dead for gross blasphemy), yet the disciples are RELEASED in each instance! Are you beginning to get the picture of what's going on here?

      You see, The Gospels' failure to account for the inexplicable behaviors on the part of officials allowing Jesus to live three years beyond which others would have met their deaths, and equally inexplicable failure to destroy the Jesus Sect for the next thirty-seven years before the fall of Jerusalem, is understandable when one observes the precarious situation the new Jesus Sect found itself in. To openly proclaim in the Gospels and other books that found their way into the New Testament that Jewish (and Roman) officials knew Jesus was the Messiah would have forced those officials into actually persecuting the Jesus Sect in order to deflect such claims made in Jesus Sect literature. In other words, for forty years there was a "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards the Jesus Sect!

  10. “The Church can proclaim the Gospel or she can pursue good relations with the Jews. But she can’t do both.”

    “Rejection of Jesus Christ is the core of Jewish identity.”

    E. Michael Jones

    1. Indeed! I am going to see about having E. Michael Jones on my program in the future. I like his work.

    2. Please have Brother Nathanael Kaptnur too! He is amazing!

    3. Please do NOT have )ew Kapner as a guest. NO MORE )EWS! Apparently JRF, you have another "anonymous" )ew troll.
      -Bob in CA

    4. So a good guy who happened to be born in a jewish family figures out Judaism is bad and turns to Christ. And then helps to expose the satanic plot to destroy the world as we know with intelligent videos and articles to try and help people is some kind of asshole who isn't any good because he was birthed by a jew? You sound more like a troll than any other comment in this thread!

  11. I can tell you what a Protestant Preacher said about it" The German Movement under Hitler was the Flesh . But Germany will rise again and this time it will be the work of the Spirit...and no devils will hinder it!

  12. "Silverman, yeah she's an insane degenrate. However she just makes gross jokes about everyone."

    It wasn't a joke. There was no punchline. She was saying she would kill Christ. Period. The Jews killed Christ and the very Jewish Ms Silverman confirms that.

    "The Best AntiChristian comedians are gentile.. Hicks, Carlin. They actually make it convincing."

    Yeah. Anti-christian comedians with Jewish agents, who work in Jewish clubs, in the Jewish entertainment industry, which we all know can't get enough of pro-christian non-Jewish comedians.

    "Piss Christ was done by a Gentile"

    So? John never stated that it wasn't. Jewish galleries and Jewish art critics, however, zealously promoted and praised Serrano's work.

    "The Gitten line refers to Balaam, who is actually that guy with the talking donkey believe it or not."

    No. It refers to Christ, for whom Balaam was a pseudonym. See "Christ as Balaam" here:

  13. Regarding Jesus, I would recommend to anyone who believes in the Bible to study this article, and give it serious consideration.

    'MISSIONARIES - They do not know what they are doing'
    by Hugh Fogelman

    Also study the book by the Reverend Robert­ Taylor, 'The Diegesis: being a discovery of the origin, evidences and early history of Christianity, never yet before or elsewhere so fully and faithfully set forth (1834) which demonstrates how the figure of Jesus came to exist in the Bible.

    1. mothman777,

      You’re readings of the Gospel verses you brought to our attention form an unflattering motivation on your part.

      Amongst other quotes you provide, you quote Matthew 15:24 as a proof that Jesus never intended for His message to spread to the Gentiles after His Resurrection:

      ”I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

      Indeed, Jesus’ mission on Earth was confined to the Jews. This does not exclude His message being spread after His death, which is confirmed in Acts 10:28 (which you failed to quote completely when you quoted Acts 10:28!):

      28 He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?"

      As for your quote of Matthew 10:7 (which is actually Matthew 10: 5-6):

      “Go not into the way of the Gentiles....but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

      Again, the Jews were, naturally, to be the first to hear the message of Jesus. These verses in no way exclude Jesus’ message from being proclaimed to the Gentiles at a later date, which Acts 10: 28-29 confirms!

    2. (PART ONE) mothman777 to Dean

      Hello Dean.

      Not sure if you got me mixed up with someone else on here. I am mothman777 on some posts and because of signing in issues with WordPress I registered as anonymous for the rest of my posts but have signed them mothman777, and have not posted anything else here, so I can't see what verses I have quoted personally, and am not Hugh Fogelman myself, if it is his quoting of verses that you are referring to as mine by mistake.

      I am not sure what you meant by saying;
      "You’re readings of the Gospel verses you brought to our attention form an unflattering motivation on your part." Did you mean 'indicate' rather than 'form'? It is not my intention to have a go at anyone here, but to stimulate a higher reasoning than mainstream Christianity will permit, as it contradicts vedic teachings that predate Christian teachings by several millennia, that were re-validated and confirmed by an incarnation of Lord Krishna, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, in West Bengal, in 1486, as well as by Guru Nanak, who is also held to have descended from the spiritual world to teach, contemporaneously with Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, and both accepted the validity of the spiritual path of the other, agreeing on the essential similarity and common goal of both Vaishnavism and Sikhism, both paths being directed towards forming loving relationships with Lord Krishna, the Supreme Lord of the entire cosmos.

      Indeed, I used to be a Christian myself some decades ago until I realized just how sickening the prospect is of being party to people being burned alive for ever just because they are not Christians, and realized I could not stomach such an awful thing at all, and as a matter of conscience went with the Vaishnava teachings that state that no soul can ever be rejected and condemned for all eternity, and that there is in fact no such place as eternal hell.

      It is originally the Jews alone who believe that all Gentiles are eternally irredeemable demons from hell, who must reside there for all eternity once they have been exterminated from the entire planet, leaving Jews alone to possess this world, and the poisonous idea of eternal rejection and torture in hell in the subsequent Abrahamic religions has spread from that original corruption.

      I know it will take a long while for many, perhaps many lifetimes, to realize that there is something fundamentally wrong with such a degree of punishment being inflicted on anyone, and something fundamentally wrong with the teaching of such a torture being given by a supposedly loving God of all heaven.

    3. (PART TWO) mothman777 to Dean

      No matter how bad people have been, thinking of people like Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky, the Jewish scientists who developed every single type of nuclear weapon in existence, the rabbis who wrote the Talmud and Torah, the Jewish bankers who start wars to bring about annihilation of the Gentiles, even then there must be some limit to the amount of suffering they must undergo, even if it amounts to being reborn for as many deaths as they have caused, with an equal, or even greater degree of suffering than they have caused in all their victims.

      Every soul is an eternal individual and part of the community of souls who exist without beginning or end in conjunction with God, so every soul can reattain perfect consciousness again, as they once had before, and cycles of traveling between the dimension of heaven (called Vaikuntha in vedic philosophy, or Sach Khand in Sikh scripture), and the material dimension are regularly undergone in the span of eternity, whenever each individual soul practices their eternal free will to travel as they wish, to experience different pleasures on different planets, in different species and dimensions.

      Regarding the testimony in Acts, I do not believe in the factual historicity of the Bible characters or the stories written about them, agreeing with 'The Diegesis' in that regard.

      My position is very simple, no matter how many legalistic arguments one may present on the sayings of this or that person in the Bible that anyone may quote in defence of Christianity, to me, the entire doctrine of Christianity is non-valid due to the teachings of final and eternal rejection and constant torture of any soul who does not accept Jesus. What kind of God is that? That is a demon surely. You must question what God is about, and not blindly follow some bizarre belief just because someone tells you it was written in a book due to someone called God.

      Doesn't the Bible itself state that not so much as one letter of the Bible should be changed, and yet it has been, many times; surely something is very wrong there.

      You must ask yourself, is burning millions of people alive for all eternity without real cause, purpose, or justification something that is remotely spiritual? I can only say that I believe that people have been badly brainwashed 1984 style when they believe that to be a spiritual thing.

      Whereas much doubt exists about what Jesus actually taught, due to the many Church councils that often changed what was contained in the Bible, with new Bibles being 'channelled' and 'discovered' in recent years, the teachings of Sikhism and Vaishnavism, which are the same as each other in essence, have not been lost, changed, or corrupted.

    4. (PART THREE) mothman777 to Dean

      No one who believes in the eternal torture of countless millions of others, and the eternal rejection by God of those others can be considered compassionat5e enough to reside with the true Lord God in the spiritual dimension, and until they leave the Abrahamic belief systems, at least the mainstream versions commonly accepted as those religions, such people will confine themselves to the material dimension purely because of their unwillingness to culture their souls to engage with the rest of the cosmic community on a more compassionate level in the spiritual dimension above, which is the true eternal place of habitation of all souls originally.

      I wonder, how Christians will feel if they encounter people from other planets, would they condemn them all as devil worshippers and condemn them to burn in hell for all eternity for following different cultures to their own?

      What will the rest of the cosmos think about the dwellers on this small planet expressing such irrational and undeserved hatred towards them? Surely, those other beings must find the inhabitants of this planet who follow that line of reasoning quite insane.

      Space-travelling devotees visiting this planet are mentioned in great detail in the vedic scriptures, and a cosmic community of devotees of Supreme Lord Krishna already exists throughout the entire universe, with at least some numbers of devotees existing on every planet. Can the same be said for Jesus? Who is the real Lord? There are many people even today claiming to be Jesus himself, after all.

    5. mothman777,

      At the beginning of my reply to you, I wrote, “You’re [sic] readings of the Gospel verses you brought to our attention form an unflattering motivation on your part.”

      I didn’t say you wrote the article, I’m referencing the article you brought to our attention, and you failed to explain why you posted Hugh Fogelman’s embarrassing article.

      As for Hell, where did Jesus say such a “place” existed? Jesus mentioned Gehenna, a place on the southwest side of Jerusalem. When Jesus is claimed to have used the word “hell” (not mentioned in the Old Testament!), it’s a [intentional] mistranslation for Gehenna, a place where bodies were burnt, etc. in the OT. Jesus is referencing the fiery destruction of Judea in 70 AD when He references Gehenna. Jesus’ audience naturally knows what Jesus is taking about when He mentions Gehenna, and it’s not the generally accepted Christian concept of Hell, since God in the OT never mentioned Hell!

      "That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe." -- 1 Timothy 4:10

    6. mothman777 to Dean Jackson (May 3, 2013 at 11:38 PM)

      As early as 110 AD, the Christian Ignatius of Antioch refers to the unquenchable fiery hell. How can you say that he was corrupting intended Christian teachings?

      Taken from the following artrcicle:

      ""Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil teaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him" (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1–2 [A.D. 110]).

      "But the eternal nature of hell is stressed in the New Testament. For example, in Mark 9:47–48 Jesus warns us;
      ""[I]t is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." And in Revelation 14:11, we read: "And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.""

      I note that you are picking and choosing what you want to read from the Bible still, and that you are not stating how you can judge when the so-called corruption of the idea of fiery eternal hell was introduced.

      If you believe that the New Testament was corrupt from the very beginning, as it seems you will have to do in order to continue your assertion, then how can you draw from any of the New Testament at all?

      If you are still going to use the mainstream Bible to pick certain statements from, then you also have to accept the validity of the statement by the so-called Jesus in that same 'scripture'.

      I do not think that it is a reasonable assertion to state that Jesus never mentioned hellfire, given the statement by Jesus in Mark 9:47–48, in the article that I have quoted earlier, especially since the Christian Ignatius of Antioch states just 110 years after the crucifixion of Jesus about the existence of unquenchable fiery hell.

      Given those words of Jesus, it is certain that what Ignatius was talking of was already part of mainstream Christian teaching and belief at that time.

      You are not correct when you state that God never mentions hell in the Old Testament, as the prophet Isaiah states in Isaiah 66:24:

      "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."

    7. mothman777 says, “As early as 110 AD, the Christian Ignatius of Antioch refers to the unquenchable fiery hell. How can you say that he was corrupting intended Christian teachings?”

      Again, the word “hell” was not known to Jews in the first century.

      For instance, Jesus in Mt. 10.28 says, “And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Kill the BODY and SOUL in hell?! Who can kill a soul in hell, and what’s a corporeal body doing in the spiritual realm of hell? Jesus would be making no sense if He were referring to a fiery hell that souls suffer for all eternity in.

      In Mt. 23.33 Jesus says, “Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell [gehenna?].” Just three verses later, Jesus said (explaining what He meant by hell [gehenna]) in Mt. 23.36, “Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.” About these same things, Jesus said (again explaining what He meant by hell [gehenna]) in Mt. 24.34, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.” Jesus was speaking of the imminent destruction of Judea in 68-70 AD, not a fiery hell.

      Clear now?

    8. mothman777 to Dean Jackson (May 4, 2013 at 11:46 AM)

      You might be able to fool others and yourself, but you don't fool me. You don't really know what you are talking about.

      You have not accounted for the words in Isaiah 66:24 and by Jesus in Mark 9:47–48, that contradict what you said earlier, about hell not existing. The flames do not burn for ever in Gehenna, it is obvious, so Isaiah and Jesus were obviously talking about somewhere where flames burn for ever and are never quenched, somewhere not on this Earth obviously.

      The word hell does not need to be mentioned specifically when the threat of going to a place where flames are never quenched is mentioned.

      It is quite obvious to anyone prepared to read the words as they are intended to be read, but you alter the meaning of those words in your own mind to suit your own purpose, which, unfortunately, does not match up with the reality of what was taught by Christianity originally and still is taught by mainstream Christianity.

      The early 'saints' who wrote of eternal hell were a lot closer to the source of the original teachings of Christianity than you will ever be today, after all this time.

    9. mothman777,

      mothman777 says, “You have not accounted for the words in Isaiah 66:24 and by Jesus in Mark 9:47–48, that contradict what you said earlier, about hell not existing.”

      Firstly, I’ve proved that Jesus wasn’t mentioning hell (see two passages quoted in my last reply to you), and secondly Isaiah 66:24 says, “Then they shall go forth and look on the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me. For their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched; and they shall be an abhorrence to all mankind.” The entities whose “fire shall not be quenched “ are those that “go forth and look on the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me”. Those persons are still alive!

      You’re not analyzing (dissecting) the passages on hell.


      Take another look at the first passage from Matthew I quoted in my last reply (I’ll quote it in full):

      23:31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."

      See where it says, “How can you escape the condemnation of hell”? Does hell condemn? No it doesn’t, each person would condemn themselves to hell if there were a hell.

      Clearer now?

    10. @ Dean Jackson from mothman777

      It is the case that a soul can be held to be dead even in this world, and not only in the vedic scripture is that terminology sometimes expressed, it being held that all souls in the material world are in fact, in a state of continuous 'death', not yet being made alive again in God, as they were before they came here to this material dimension.

      It can also be said that a soul can be rendered 'as if dead', even whilst yet still appearing to be 'living' in this material dimension, and this is in some part merely an issue of semantics, whilst also expressing some factual state of consciousness, or lack of it, that souls may experience whilst living in this world, and indeed, souls can experience the full spectrum of so called life and death whilst dwelling in the material dimension in various types of material bodies, depending on their degrees of connection to God.

      'Death' is a somewhat figurative and not literal term in any case, as all souls are eternal beings, without any beginning point in time when they came into existence, conscious spiritual existence being the eternal, timeless and beginningless state of the nature of the entire cosmmos, which is an ocean of living consciousness.

      Condemnation of hell surely means here, that which one has been condemned to, and I would argue
      that it can also mean the condemnation OF hell by hell itself, with the understanding that hell is a conscious entity that does indeed continuously condemn, as hell itself, like all dimensions, must be comprised of spiritual matter, transformed in the eyes of the fallen souls dwelling within it, into the percept of material matter.

      The true nature of all material substance, beyond the veil of maya, is pure spiritual consciousness, the substance of the Supreme soul, the Lord God Himself, in which all other souls dwell.

      Plus, we have the issue of how words in ancient Hebrew, Greek and Latin are rendered into the English language, that not being a very precise science, with words sometimes being subject to the deliberate mistranslation into certain words unintended by the original authors, to lead their readers to adopt whatever understandings that the translator intends for them to come to.

      When Jesus said; “I tell you, if these remained silent, the stones would cry out.” (Luke 19:38-40),
      some indication is given that although souls in the material world under maya may think in their illusion that all material matter around them is merely dumb, and dead substance, without any consciousness, the very opposite is true, as God Himself is the silent witness of all we do here, as He in fact is the substance of the entire material and spiritual worlds, and whilst we remain blind to that understanding in our ignorance of the true spiritual reality, He is fully conscious as always, and is witnessing everything.

      The fictitious eternal hell of the Bible, being another material dimension on a more subtle level of material substance, which does not exist in any case, thank goodness, would thus also be made from the substance of the Lord God.

      The substance of all dimensions, both spiritual and material, is, in its final analysis and ultimate revelation, that of the Lord God Himself.

    11. mothman777 says, “and I would argue that it can also mean the condemnation OF hell by hell itself…”

      Again, as I already noted, hell does not condemn! If hell existed it would be man, himself, that condemns himself, with that judgement being formalized by God, not hell.

    12. mothman777 to Dean Jackson (PART ONE)

      I hardly think so. Very rarely do people ever consider what they are doing to be evil and condemn themselves for it.

      Even Stalin would consider himself an extremely pious man, thinking himself to be doing the best he possibly could for the section of society that he considered really mattered, and thus would not wish upon himself any suffering at all, but rather praise and elevation, just as he did whilst on this Earth, and that should be accepted as the foremeost indication of how he expected to be treated after this life.

      Most people do what they do, however evil, because they think it is good, at least for themselves, if nothing else, and are so callous and conceited that they believe what feels good, for them, is good, and nothing else matters. They perceive themselves, or their nearest and dearest, their religion, society or party, as the most important person or group of persons in their entire perceived reality.

      Very rarely do people genuinely come to realize that they have done something bad, when they have, thinking that only they or their nearest and dearest matter, as is the case of the Jewish race, and the Communism generated by it, as a means of subjugating all Gentile races to make them into slaves, for the Jewish counterpart of Capitalist countries that they also dominate to feed upon, before the Gentiles under both Capitalism and Communism are caused to kill each other in wars deliberately caused for that very purpose, to leave only the Jews in possession of the entire planet.

      Jews consider their souls alone to be made from God, eternally sinless and entirely good for all eternity for instance, and they have no notion of any suffering being deserved by them after this life, with the view that all Gentile souls are from hell, made entirely of satanic substance, pure evil, the reservoir of all sinful propensity, with every Gentile being viewed as eternally guilty of all types of sin and every instance of it even before they come into this world, and any suffering from any 'sin' that a Jew might experience, is as a result, they believe, of contaminbation from a sin-carrying Gentile, thus, the Jews believe, all Gentiles must be exterminated from the entire planet before God's 'chosen' people can live once more in eternal goodness, free from any suffering experienced as the result of infection of sin caused by any 'demon' Gentile.

      Jews themselves have cunningly learned how to bend the laws of karma, to tweak the subtle material laws of physics to simply wipe any sin, or karma off themselves and onto others, thinking themselves eternally blameless for any and all sin in eternity, hence the ritual of Kapparot, where innocent chickens (and sometimes Gentile children and adults) are sacrificed by many Jews every year and are made to accept all the sin from each of those Jews, their own personal Jesus.

    13. mothman777 to Dean Jackson (PART TWO)

      This is the same dirty Jewish trick of wrongly putting blame onto others that Jesus used, when he saved the Jewish men from the suffering of insanity caused by their sins, by placing their sins into the blameless Gadarene swine, who then threw themselves off a cliff.

      If he had to do that, how then could he claim to be able to take all sins of everyone who would follow him upon himself across such a huge span of time? Why did he not just take the sins of those insane men upon himself at that time also instead of continuing the Jewish ritual custom of Kapparot using those swine?

      How odd then, that Gentiles should come to accept a saviour predicted in Jewish scriptures, and use prophecies contained in Jewish scriptures to validate their saviour, when other spiritual teachers of far greater spiritual generosity exist in various cultures to choose from, with far higher compassion and sensitivity.

      Those Christians do not refer to all the prophecies though, such as when the Messiah comes, all Gentiles will be exterminated and their souls sent to hell under the Angel Duma, or that when the Messiah comes, all Jews will have many Gentile slaves. Those prophecies would be kept well-hidden from the Gentiles so as to sucker them in to kow-towing to a Messiah who was never intended for them, and the Talmud cunningly creates the illusion of a Jesus that the Jews hate, so as to trick the Gentiles ainto adopting him and seeking salvation in him, when they are just entering into a Jew trap, becoming acclimatized to Judaic culture in a thoroughly submissive and inferior level, that role being confirmed in the Schofield Bible for instance, evidenced today by the mind-numbing obedience that all fundamentalist Christians are compelled to give to Israel and the Jews these days.

      I think that Hitler, whose understandings are admirable in other areas, was still deceived to some extent by the myth of Jesus, though at least he interpreted it in a much healthier way.

      At least Hitler did not adopt the version of Christianity that has been created to manipulate the Gentiles into becoming slaves for the Jews, though the very adoption of a saviour so connected with the whole Jewish thing, even in the ostensible rejection of it by Jesus in some parts of the New Testament, is in itself something I believe that the Gentiles can do without entirely, as the Judaic atmosphere still seems to pervade Christianity nonetheless, with it's constant reference to Jewish characters, beliefs and customs in the Old Testament.

      No, I don't think that man wills upon himself the pain of being made to burn in hell, or any other kind of pain in any other situation. Who would in their right mind? No one would want to be made to suffer extreme pain, not even for one day, no matter how bad they may come to realize they have been.

    14. mothman777 to Dean Jackson (PART THREE)

      And who does the burning, and what is the dimension of hell and the flames themselves composed of, but ultimately the substance of someone other than the souls themselves who are compelled to dwell in hell.

      In one sense, there is something to be said for the notion that people are themselves ultimately responsible for being put in hellish states of consciousness, but ultimately, hell is not just an idea within someone's mind, and corresponding external physical hellish realities can exist, albeit not eternal, and not of eternal flames, and if we transgress the laws of nature, or so-called karma, then the tastes that we culture will act as a compass to direct us to whatever form of life and situation that we must occupy in our next existence, for instance someone with an exceptional liking for meat, and with no regard for spiritual culture may become a dog, as that is all they have in effect requested as being necessary for them to enjoy the degree of pleasure that they require, and that may be seen as a hellish existence by others looking down upon the harsh realities of a dog's life.

      If he had to put demons reulting from sinful behaviour by those men, from them into the swine, how then could he claim to be able to take all sins of everyone who would follow him upon himself across such a huge span of time? Why did he not just take the sins of those insane men upon himself at that time also instead of continuing the Jewish ritual custom of Kapparot using those swine?

      How odd then, that Gentiles should come to accept a saviour predicted in Jewish scriptures, and use prophecies contained in Jewish scriptures to validate their saviour, when other spiritual teachers of far greater spiritual generosity exist in various cultures to choose from, with far higher compassion and sensitivity.

      Those Christians do not refer to all the prophecies though, such as when the Messiah comes, all Gentiles will be exterminated and their souls sent to hell under the Angel Duma, or that when the Messiah comes, all Jews will have many Gentile slaves. Those prophecies would be kept well-hidden from the Gentiles so as to sucker them in to kow-towing to a Messiah who was never intended for them, and the Talmud cunningly creates the illusion of a Jesus that the Jews hate, so as to trick the Gentiles ainto adopting him and seeking salvation in him, when they are just entering into a Jew trap, becoming acclimatized to Judaic culture in a thoroughly submissive and inferior level, that role being confirmed in the Schofield Bible for instance, evidenced today by the mind-numbing obedience that all fundamentalist Christians are compelled to give to Israel and the Jews these days.

      I think that Hitler, whose understandings are admirable in other areas, was still deceived to some extent by the myth of Jesus, though at least he interpreted it in a much healthier way.

    15. mothman777 to Dean Jackson (PART FOUR)(not sure if some sections of text got mixed up earlier when I divided this comment up)

      At least Hitler did not adopt the version of Christianity that has been created to manipulate the Gentiles into becoming slaves for the Jews, though the very adoption of a saviour so connected with the whole Jewish thing, even in the ostensible rejection of it by Jesus in some parts of the New Testament, is in itself something I believe that the Gentiles can do without entirely, as the Judaic atmosphere still seems to pervade Christianity nonetheless, with it's constant reference to Jewish characters, beliefs and customs in the Old Testament.

      No, I don't think that man wills upon himself the pain of being made to burn in hell, or any other kind of pain in any other situation. Who would in their right mind? No one would want to be made to suffer extreme pain, not even for one day, no matter how bad they may come to realize they have been.

      But those souls cannot themselves provide the substance of the body of a dog, or the body that will suffer burning (in the fictitious burning hell of mainstream Christianity and Islam, or the hell containing boiling excrement that Jesus is said to be boiling in, in the hell of the Jews, or the body within which he must dwell in that dimension to experience such torture).

      No, those things are the substance of another person, the Supreme Creator, ultimately, who provides the substance of all bodily vehicles in all the material dimensions and the environments in which they live.

      Whilst it can in some ways be seen to be commendable to present the alternative view of Christianity that you do, mainstream Christianity as perceived and accepted by the vast majority of so-called 'Christians' and those who are not Christians themselves, but have been presented with the views of mainstream Christianity, still know Christianity as a religion that assures them of the literal manifestation of eternal hellfire for all non-believers, and it is more proper and relevant to consider Christianity in that mode of interpretation, that is acccepted by the vast majority, as it is their views primarily that come to influence events in the political arena when Christianity is called upon to play any part in decision making, no matter how correct or incorrect your own particular views may be.

      The vast majority do not consider the alternative view of there being no literal eternal hellfire to have any validity, that being perceived as merely an attempt to soften up the image of Christianity to sucker people in.

    16. mothman777 says, "I hardly think so. Very rarely do people ever consider what they are doing to be evil and condemn themselves for it."

      Where did I say "people ever consider what they are doing to be evil"? Not a very good deflection!

      Once again, as I already noted twice, hell does not condemn! If hell existed it would be man, himself, that condemns himself, with that judgement being formalized by God, not hell.

  14. If Lugh wanted to debste this seriously he would debate Finck, he has clashed with Finck before on your show John (and lost). So I don't place too much value on anything Lugh says ...he interprets anything through distorted eyes.

    Joseph Atwill also claimed that Jesus was fabricated by the Roman empire ...there are many obvious problems with that, one of his popular claims is how Jesus said 'render unto caesar that which is caesars" which is a mistranslated and shortened version of what is available at Christogenea's site.

    The book 'The Diegesis' makes many false assumptions, it assumes that Jesus was a jew and that the jews wrote the Torah, not realising that the people responsible for the Ancient Mysteries (pagan) were also responsible for the Torah and gave rise to Jesus, the White Race. It relies on all kinds of logical fallacies and mistranslations/misinterpretations.
    "Another of the Jewish doctrines is, " God promised
    to Abraham, that if his children were wicked, he would
    consider them as righteous on account of the sweet odom'
    of his circumcised foreskin."* "
    Just stupid!, it also goes into the Jesus is Bacchus drivel.

    The site about missionaries is correct in that the missionaries are misinformed, jews cannot become Israel and cannot be converted (this guy incorrectly assumes 'Israel' is the jews). The passage he refers to, Mark 16:15, is an interpolation, these passages were not in the original text and are not in the Christogenea NT ...meaning the whole article is worthless as it is based on something that should not be in the Bible.

    People who don't care for the Bible or Jesus certainly have alot to say about it... their research never goes far.

  15. @ Anonymous May 1, 2013 at 5:59 AM (PART ONE)

    You say "The passage he refers to, Mark 16:15, is an interpolation, these passages were not in the original text and are not in the Christogenea NT ...meaning the whole article is worthless as it is based on something that should not be in the Bible."

    But it is in the other versions of the Bible that are read by the vast majority of Christians, even though it is not in the Christogenea NT. That does not make the article by Hugh Fogelman worthless at all.

    There have been over 20 different Church councils throughout the centuries, to decide which books should and should not be contained in the Bible, and these matters were on occasion settled by nothing more than the sword, quite literally.

    I like many aspects of National Socialism, and think Hitler was unique in his day in achieving many great breakthroughs in understanding, which have sadly been lost to the vast majority of people today, as society suffers under Jewish domination all over the world practically.

    What National Socialist society would be like today would of course be vastly different to people's images of 1930's and 1940's Germany, with an extremely modern society, with free energy, organic farming, anti-gravity transportation and space transportation available to the public, no usury, no GM food, genuine medicine (not Jewish fake medicine designed only to genocide the Gentile races), no irradiation, no vivisection, a vastly reduced working week due to the absence of fractional reserve banking and the increase in modern labour-saving technology, and the absence of war, no fluoride or other intentionally harmful 'medications' forced on us as they are today under the Jews, etc. etc., quite idyllic, though where I feel Hitler, as well as almost every other leader in the world would have benefited, would be to have evolved beyond the Abrahamic religions, which I regard personally as being extremely savage and dark in their nature, though of course Hitler had great sympathy for the eastern religions, particularly the vastly more compassionate Buddhism, with 1,000 Buddhist monks having being found in Berlin at the close of the war, all dressed in SS uniform, who allegedly all committed suicide, though I rather doubt they killed themselves.

    The teaching of Christianity that all non-Christians should go to hell for all eternity, and burn unceasingly there for all eternity in inconceivable agony, is in fact extremely demonic and far distant from the real God, who is certainly not Yahweh, that occult elemental entity being a tribal construct peculiar to the Jews, being controlled by them for their own demonic purposes.


    1. "The teaching of Christianity that all non-Christians should go to hell for all eternity, and burn unceasingly there for all eternity in inconceivable agony, is in fact extremely demonic" not a teaching of the Bible, but is in-fact a teaching of the 'church', a satanic/jewish institution. The jews do not worship the Father or Jesus (one and the same, they have NEVER followed the Torah and are well known for hating Jesus), they worship themselves mostly and other pagan 'gods' such as allah (muhammad was part-jew), satan and ashteroth (jews created many pagan 'gods', ashteroth is a canaanite god, the goddesses of love had temple whores and depraved sexual practices).

      CI people believe that all Whites have an essence that is indestructible and that the other races do not have this essence. As with all things, they will cease to be in time but the spirit of Our Father, that lives in Us, will never cease.
      CI people do not need anyone to believe anything, not even Whites, they believe everything is done according to the Will of God, not according to the Will of Man ...belief means little ...there is nothing in blacks that will be redeemed no matter what they believe. Jesus did not come for the other races.

      I am not going into the whole CI teaching, everyone in CI is free to interpret different aspects for themselves also ...but they have interpreted the Bible correctly.

      The book you posted was pretty poor.

  16. (PART TWO)

    The Christian willingness to accept the infliction of such an inconceivably immense and terrible suffering on all non-Christians, which can only ever be entirely undeserved, is in my view a sure indication of an acute lack of spiritual development, and I do ask you to look deep inside yourself and reconsider whether all non-Christians really should have to suffer so terribly, and also reconsider whether such a punishment could be inflicted by an all-loving and compassionate God, as surely, such a terrible act would entirely contradict and oppose the very essential nature of God which is stated as love.

    The accounts of the early 'saints' from at least as early as 150 AD are bloodthirsty and sick in their lust to enjoy witnessing the suffering of the sinners in eternal flames, and they also state how God Himself enjoys the torturing of sinners, and that His joy is not complete in heaven without enjoying doing this as well, precisely matching the bloodthirsty nature of the torturers who murdered the Christians in terrible ways in the Red Revolution in Russia. It is exactly as if these early 'saints' were just like those Talmudic torturers also, and it is my opinion that they were of the same ilk. What sort of people lust to see people burn for ever?

    I know people like to look at the 'good' side of Christianity only, and all too easily dismiss the uncomfortable past of the blood-drenched crusades and inquisition, but they must also look at the reality of the consequence of their belief in burning all others alive for ever. Such a hellish intention does not match up with purported spirituality, and can never do so, yet generation after generation of Christians has swept this uncomfortable issue under the carpet, thinking only of themselves going up to heaven, with callous disregard for the suffering of all the others who will not be with them.

    I would have loved to have met Hitler and had the opportunity to engage him in a conversation about the merits of a modernized and reformed version of vedic philosophy, as an alternative to Christianity, that could have been accepted by at least some in Germany at that time.

    I am sure he would have been amenable to the suggestion of this philosophy being offered to people at that time, as he was so progressive in so many other areas, and as a compassionate man with empathy for others, such a philosophy would have appealed to him I am sure.

    Book knowledge and 'research' is worthless when considering this issue; legalistic definitions of such and such a verse are of no real value when we are looking at burning people alive for all eternity, and very often for being nothing worse than a vegetarian Buddhist or Hindu.


    1. Ok, the persecutions, of witches, druids and other Whites as well as the First 'Christians' (who had nothing to do with modern/church christiaanity) was largely instigated by jews.
      The church was created and destroyed True Christianity and other mystical/'pagan' teachings. I am only referring to European paganism.

      You are making the assumption that the church represents Jesus and the old religion of the Bible ...which it does not. The old religion of the Bible is similar to a racialist form of non-dogmatic Buddhism (Buddha was indo-aryan) or the Druidic rituals and beliefs, and other European mystical traditions (not the satanic spirit worship god/goddess stuff).

      The philosophy of Jesus is some of the most profound works I have come across, it reaches right to my heart and mind like no other philosophical system is highly developed. Sometimes the parables, as with a zen koan, can help one understand ...this does not reflect a lesser developed spiritual character seek such works, to feel such an urge and to understand such things actually represents the converse.

      The old testament has been misconstrued, the nature of creation can also be destructive, the nature of creation is all-encompassing ...Love for the Loving Life for the Living, Hate for the Hateful, Death for the Dead ...death for the jews, they are spiritually dead.

      This is not at odds with any other Aryan spirituality I have come across it is the most developed and intact we have. The prophets of old were genius ...their understanding cannot even be touched with modern philosophy (some are good and heading in the right direction, but some modern philosophers seem to be trying to justify moral relativism, human equality, evolution, materialism and other garbage unseen in Our nature or nature itself).

  17. PART ONE
    @ AnonymousMay 2, 2013 at 7:22 AM
    @ AnonymousMay 2, 2013 at 7:07 AM

    What did the first Christians believe in specifically that is different to what modern Christians believe in?

    I regularly meet Christians, street evangelists and the like, from quite a number of different Church groups, different sects of Christian belief, and they all have one thing in common, they do state that they have a personal relationship with Jesus, and state with absolute certainty to me that no matter how good I may be in this life, unless I accept Jesus as my saviour, then I will certainly burn for all eternity in hell, quite literally.

    The thing is, every Christian movement that knocks all the other movements that also claim to be Christian, they all claim the same thing, to be able to have a personal relationship with Jesus and to be able to talk with him, yet each of the opposing groups will say that the others are just talking to 'Satan', which is pretty sad really. Some of the movements however, are not so harsh in the views that they hold about each other.

    The teaching of the modern Christians is just the same with regard to eternal hellfire as it was in the beginning. Read the writings of the early 'saints', and they are just the same as the Talmudists in their vengeful hatred of anyone not within their group.

    When exactly in your view did this idea about non-followers of Jesus going to eternal hellfire come into existence? What was the view about the fate of non-followers of Jesus in those that you hold to be the original and true Christians, who existed at the time of 'Christ'. And how can you prove that, and from what writings? I presume that the mainstream Bible of today is a no-go area for you after what you have said, so where do you get your special teachings from, and how can they be validated?

    I presume you have a source that has never been affected by any of the over 20 different rewritings of the Bible by the various Church councils down through the centuries.

    Talk of 'love ' within the Christian Church is not justified if you really think that black people cannot be 'saved'. The soul is not eternally bound by any particular skin colour, and the soul can dwell in animal, plant, fish or bird. What do you think lives in these other beings but individual souls like we have? And so you really think that there is such a thing as an eternally unsaveable soul just because they inhabit a body with a black skin? That is a really miserable belief system, honestly.

    Certainly, the many black soldiers who fought for National Socialism under Hitler were not regarded by Hitler as unsaveable, and Hitler was not racist in any sense, though his opposition to racism in opposing the racists, the Jews, is erroneously construed as racism in the false propaganda constantly provided in the worldwide Jewish media today, whilst the Jews poison us all with fluoride to numb our minds.

    Certainly, the made-up character called Jesus, both in your version where you say he just came to save white people, and the early Jewish sect of Christianity's version, where Jesus just came to save the Jews (after all, he was prophesied in Jewish scriptures, so that would be pretty weird if he was not to have been something to do with the Jewish religion), is a very small-hearted person, not a great soul at all, to have been so racist and so limited in his view.


  18. PART TWO

    All really great teachers accept that souls in all species of beings are all of the same quality, and that they periodically ascend to the heavens, and then again fall to the material dimensions whenever they undergo brief periods of forgetfulness, but nowhere in any enlightened person's teachings is there any talk of eternal damnation. If eternal damnation really were to happen, the cosmic community would get whittled down smaller and smaller to almost nothing, and then everyone who was left would spend most of their time burning everyone else alive for all eternity as their main activity, yummy.

    I have read the writings of the Rosicrucians on Jesus, and several writers on Jesus supposedly being in India, and even the teachings of one Japanese sect, Mahikari, who say that they have the tomb of Jesus in Japan. These groups have a more pleasant version of Jesus, with him teaching reincarnation, teaching all races, and having female disciples.

    I wonder, apart from the Bible, what are your objective sources on which you base your ideas about the views of the first Christians, and what exactly were their teachings in contrast to the views of those claiming to be followers of Christ in the Christian Churches today?

    I can appreciate that there are a few small splinter groups today that have extremely different views from mainstream Christianity, but when I refer to Christianity, I am referring to what most people know and accept Christianity as today, that is, with the mainstream Bible teachings in the Protestant and Catholic Churches, which I hold to be demonic, purely because of their belief in torturing all others for all eternity in hellfire, surely an act of the criminally insane, though I know there are also some quite 'hip' syncretistic Catholics and Protestants today, including priests, who dabble in Zen and so on, and believe we are all going to the same place no matter what system of belief we follow, and I can appreciate that they are making an effort at least to soften the harshness of the older institutions, though I feel they are wasting their time by attempting to teach in their present positions, but the money is good, so they do what they do where they are at present.

    Myself, I prefer Vaishnava philosophy in comparison to the Bible and the teachings of so-called Jesus (whichever fictitious version from any of the splinter groups one may choose), though I do not belong to any particular society.

    I do wonder why people go through so much to seek out 'genuine' teachings of Jesus, ending up with all kinds of weird teachings from all weird kinds of Christian sects, when totally intact teachings exist from other masters from more resent times, like Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, an incarnation of Krishna, as well as the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, the living scripture of the Sikhs.


  19. In addition to the above comments, I would also like to say that it is highly improbable that the 'white people' are the true 'Chosen' people of God, as if that were the case, then why did that faith originate in the Middle East, where there are no large communities of white people?

    Surely, such a white race belief system would have originated in Europe somewhere if your theory were true.

    Another thing that does not add up in your idea about whites being the 'Chosen' race, is that such an idea would make Gentile whites as racist as the Jews, and surely, if the whites are the true chosen of God in that religion, and not those now claiming to be Jews (including those Ashkenazim who are now using many Jewish authors to seed false information making out that they are not Jews at all, to aid in their sneaky assimilation into other countries whenever Israel is legally declared no longer a state in about 10 years time), then what the hell are the Jews doing with those scriptures and why don't the white people have the Torah and the Talmud instead? Your theory is impossible.

    Surely, if white people were the real 'Chosen', and Jews were not the real authors of the Torah as you claim, then white people surely would have a large number of copies of that Torah, and even the Talmud, and there would be a sizeable community of white race 'Chosen' down through the millenia who would hold your belief system, presumably with the racist bit about black people in too, but, no, I cannot see any evidence of any white Caucasian group claiming to be the 'Chosen' race, rather than the Jews, that has some history going way back to the Bible times.

    I think the reason why Jews have the Torah and the Talmud today, and we do not, is because they are the Jews, and we are not, to put it simply.


    1. Anybody who accepts God in his words and ask for forgiveness for sin is accepted into heaven regardless of race according to the bible.

    2. No, the Bible does not say that. Jesus said "I have only been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Mathew 15:24
      The old testament says (Deuteronomy 23:3)
      "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
      An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:"

      @mothman, you are making the same claims I have already answered, you don't read the Bible yet suppose yourself to know what it says also suppose yourself to know what 'christianity' is while only discussing the 'jewdaisized' forms, I have already answered the hellfire nonsense, the Bible doesn't say this, if you want to argue further you will have nothing to base your claims on.
      The 'middle-east' had societies such as Egypt and Babylon which were White. Many of the answers to your questions, such as there would have been/should have been if x, y, z ...are based on logical fallacies. For example, God divorced the people of the Bible, so there is no basis for your assertion that there should have been a group of Whites through history knowing they were 'chosen'.
      Also 'racism', are you kidding me ...go mix your race then, commit the sin that cannot be cleansed. Until you show more respect, that is actually reading the Bible and getting some basic knowledge, I will not answer your 'questions'/baseless drivel. I have nothing to prove to imbeciles who make all kinds of claims based on nothing.

    3. You are getting hysterical here, as I have only stated that Hitler was not a racist and had black soldiers fighting for National Socialism under his command, and that they were viewed as people with souls that can be saved.

      Where on earth you get your unbalanced and malicious views from concerning black people I will never know.

      Your hateful and prejudiced views are entirely unworthy of National Socialism, as Hitler certainly wished for the emancipation of all races.

      Possibly you are a racist black person acting as an agent provocateur, trying to sucker people into spouting racist nonsense, so that you can use it to falsely shame National Socialism in that regard.

      Hitler stated that he admired the ancient cultures of the Chinese and Japanese peoples as superior to that of his own people in ancient times, though he stated that he preferred that all races should mix amongst their own people to produce children, and I would agree that that is preferable and more sensible for the ultimate benefit of all races, as they are the product of genomes specifically refined through many generations, developed to thrive best in certain climates and environments to their best advantage.

      Hitler further stated that miscegenation had nonethless produced some notable successes.

      The influence of Christianity in shrivelling your brain and spirit is quite obvious. You can only insult people in your fantasy world, hiding behind your keybord.

  20. I found this excerpt of "Hitler's Forgotten Library" - a 2003 article in The Atlantic - quite revealing. Hitler was clearly deeply influenced by the teachings of Jesus Christ. Anyone saying otherwise is either ignorant or deceiving themselves.

    "I also found, however, a Hitler I had not anticipated: a man with a sustained interest in spirituality. Among the piles of Nazi tripe (much of it printed on high-acid paper that is rapidly deteriorating) are more than 130 books on religious and spiritual subjects, ranging from Occidental occultism to Eastern mysticism to the teachings of Jesus Christ—books with titles such as Sunday Meditations; On Prayer; A Primer for Religious Questions, Large and Small; Large Truths About Mankind, the World and God. Also included were a German translation of E. Stanley Jones's 1931 best seller, The Christ of the Mount; and a 500-page work on the life and teachings of Jesus, published in 1935 under the title The Son: The Evangelical Sources and Pronouncements of Jesus of Nazareth in Their Original Form and With the Jewish Influences. Some volumes date from the early 1920s, when Hitler was an obscure rabble-rouser on the fringe of Munich political life; others from his last years, when he dominated Europe.

    One leather-bound tome—with WORTE CHRISTI, or "Words of Christ," embossed in gold on the cover—was well worn, the silky, supple leather peeling upward in gentle curls along the edges. Human hands had obviously spent a lot of time with this book. The inside cover bore a dedication: "To our beloved Führer with gratitude and profound respect, Clara von Behl, born von Jansen von den Osten. Christmas 1935."

    Worte Christi was so fragile that when the attendant brought it to me, he placed it on a red-velvet pad in a wooden reading stand, a beautifully finished oak contraption with two supports that could be adjusted with small brass pegs to fit the dimensions of the book. No more than a foot wide and eighteen inches long, the stand had a sacred air, as if it belonged on an altar.

    I reviewed the table of contents—"Belief and Prayer," "God and the Kingdom of God," "Priests and Their Religious Practices," "The World and Its People"—and skimmed the introduction; then I scanned the book for marginalia that might suggest a close study of the text. A white-silk bookmark, preserved in its original perfection between pages 22 and 23 (only the portion exposed to the air had deteriorated), lay across a description of the Last Supper as related by Saint John. A series of pages that followed contained only a single aphorism each: "Believe in God" (page 31), "Have no fear, just believe" (page 52), "If you believe, anything is possible" (page 53), and so on, all the way to page 95, which offers the solemn wisdom "Many are called but few are chosen."

    On page 241 appears the passage "You should love God, your Lord, with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your spirit: this is the foremost and greatest commandment. Another is equally important: Love your neighbor as you would love yourself." Beside this passage is one brief penciled line, the only mark in the entire book."


Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.