Was Jesus a Collaborator?
- This topic has 81 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I do not read and guide myself by fantasies and mythologies, I study and read history based on the Materialist Conception of History, I repeat again, all ancient religions were created based on an economic system, they did not come from the head of a prophet, that is pure idealism.
The whole bible is based on fantasies and mythology, the only real personality in the Bible is Paul, and he was also a pathetical liar, he never had any encounter with Jesus, he suffered from Syphilis, and the treatment and the diseases produced illusions, and he was not a jew either, he was Syrian and a roman citizen related to the Herodian family
The bible has more than 7,500 interpolations to adapt it to Catholicism which was the religion of Feudalism. I do not have to read anything again when I read the Bible in different versions and I have studied it based on topics. The Bible is not a book of historical facts
The ancient Christian religion only existed in Rome and it used to be called the sect because there were too many Christians sects in Rome and in the ancient world. Jesus never walked in Palestine, it is all based on historical lies, and Nazareth was interpolated it did not exist in that time, there was a sect known as Nazarene, and they were similar to the Trappists.
The Exodus never existed either it is also a historical lie, before that they used to say that salvation was going to come thru Egyptians, and Moses is only mythology, and there are not any historical evidence that he ever existed, confirmed by many historians who do not propagate fantasies
But the Roman church was but one of several churches, all long established before the feudal age. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist as an independent entity until 1054. The popes were merely the bishops of Rome, which was called a papacy because of its size, just as Constantinople and Antioch were called patriarchates. Alexandria was also a papacy, and still is.
Left to its own devices, the Roman papacy became a power bit by bit prior to the schism of 1054, but never had authority over the universal Catholic (Orthodox) Church. It was in the East where Christian basic doctrine was developed and thrashed out, and where the canonical Bible we have today was compiled. Not in or by Rome.I don’t think so, that is false history propagated by the catholic church claiming that they are the original Christian religion, Catholicism is the negation of the primitive Christians. I think the book How god was created will give some clarification about this subject matter. Classical slavery and Feudalism did not coexist together, Feudalism came from classical slavery, and catholicism was the religion of the feudal society https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/product/how-the-gods-were-made-by-john-keracher/
Again, dogmatism that doesn’t stand up. Western Europe developed feudalism. Byzantium remained a chattel slave-owning society. Islam too. Yours is a protestant fantasy: a “real” Christianity betrayed by “Roman Catholicism.”
We have already seen on these forums that feudalism does not always develop from chattel slavery, and that different systems have co-existed prior to today’s global capitalism.
Did you read the pamphlet published by the SPGB? Is that a dogmatic book? I am not a protestant or a religious person. I do not defend or support any class society. The only society that I defend and support is socialism/communism, Based on your analysis Nikita Kurschev was right when he said that communism and capitalism can coexist together, therefore, socialism in one country is possible to be established
What nonsense!
But European feudalism did co-exist with Byzantine and Islamic chattel slavery in the Middle Ages. And capitalism has indeed co-existed in this world with other societies it later destroyed.
Therefore, the Communist manifesto is full of nonsense too, Which opposite societies have existed within capitalism that it has destroyed? Which one, Soviet, Eastern European, those were capitalist societies too. Byzantine and Islamic are not an economic system, they came out from an economic system.
And established (Nicaean) Christianity precedes feudalism anyway, and the pope of Rome was merely one of its bishops. He had due respect because of the see he held, but he was not above the bishops of the east and had no power over them.
The economic system of Byzantium was slavery. The economic system of western Christendom was feudalism.
Capitalism existed whilst other systems existed which have now disappeared: tribal societies in the Americas and Africa, priestly autocracies in South America, Asian autocracies, semi-feudal societies like old Tibet, and feudal Japan, still in existence 15 years after the Crimean War between capitalist powers in Europe. Plenty to refute dogmatism whilst still understanding the materialist conception of history. You need to be more fluid.
Also, early capitalist relations co-existed with feudal relations in the later Middle Ages, as they did also in late Tsarist Russia and China.
Feudalism was never a world system, not even a pan-European one. Other societies never had slavery or feudalism. Others had feudalism without having had systemic slavery. In others slavery never gave way to feudalism.
I think we should be aware that there were very many Christian religions.
I recall reading somewhere that Marco Polo simply followed the trail of Nestorian monasteries to Cathay. Today in Kerala you are reminded of the Catholic Syrian religion when you see the ATMs of the bank with the same name who brought the legend of Thomas to India.
Then there is the Armenian church, perhaps the earliest, which has authority over much of Jerusalem Christian sites.
We then have all the Christian heresies to consider such as Arianism, Marcionites, too many to mention. Heresies continued to occur throughout the history of Christiandom, some taking on the garb of communistic politics.
Why did they all arise and why did interpretations diverse is mighty complex and i have no doubt that the MCH is a valuable tool in determining that.
The Armenian and Coptic and Ethiopian Churches are Monophysites, and separated from the Orthodox (Athanasian) Church in the 5th century. They are all of the same Monophysite communion.
Their opposite, the Nestorian Churches, are also of one communion, and are spread over central asia. The Mongols were both Nestorian Christian and shamanist before conversion to Buddhism.
So much for Christianity only being Roman!If you believe in MCH, Why do you defend so much the individualist conception of history and religion? I asked you again did you read the pamphlet published by the SPGB? It does explain everything that we are talking about and also Engels on the Primitive Christians clarifies everything too. I do not follow bourgeoise thinkers and historians they are based on false historical lies. The primitive Christians that I am talking about came out from Rome, and It was an anti-slavery movement, and It used to be called the sect because they were too many Christs around the world, conclusion every ancient religion came from a particular economic system, they were created by man to explain their materialist situation, none of them had a spiritual origin. Religion is not an economic system. I rest my case
“So much for Christianity only being Roman!”
Thomas More,
An interesting fact regarding ‘all roads leading to Rome’: Christianity is not a state of being Roman centric.
There was a survey of faith based communities conducted by the Atlas of Global Christianity (2010). It surveyed the extent and numbers of Protestant Christian groups. There are more than 38,000 denominations in Protestant denomination alone and over 4m congregations worldwide.
The idea that there is univocal interpretive stance in theology collapses the notion of a Roman only’ view… it is one only in a diverse and broad community of believers.
Imagine back in the early formation of Christian communities: there was greater interpretive freedoms… over time and perhaps with the modernist development of Theology, Scripture analysis began to sediment acts of interpretation- and yet diverse practices of everyday interpretations flourish.
Roman Church is only one of many discursive communities adding to the field…
… Back then and now!
Thought I would share this- I was, and was not surprised by the sheer volume of denominations.The primitive Christians that I am talking about came out from Rome, and It was an anti-slavery movement,
I have read that the idea Christianity was the religion of the slaves was very simplistic. Nothing in scripture condemns slavery. Church institutions became the biggest slave-owners. Many slave collars have been found inscribed with the cross. It is a widely accepted myth that Christianity was the religion of slaves. Not so.
https://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gaa_slavery.htm#early
Early converts were usually well-off and comfortable members of the city elite. After all, the the Latin origin of the word pagan means country-dweller and heathen too denotes a peasant, a heath-dweller. The poor remained faithful to the old ways. (reminds me of the Wicker Man)
Often early converts were wealthy widows who donated generously to the early churches as they were incorporated more fully into Christian communities than non-Christian ones and despite the patriarchy could achieve higher status.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.