I suggest to my readers that they read the article in full but what I wish to focus on here are the misguided views that both xtians and non-xtians have concerning jesus of Nazareth. Over the years I have made it very clear in my writings on my blogs and on various forums that I do not accept as fact that there ever existed such a personality in the turn of the first century in Palestine. The so-called gospels are sheer fabrications and what the various churches preach is an utter lie.
Alejandro Rodriguez in his comments states:
"The name's similarity with Jesus is completely coincidental, but what really shoots down your theory is the fact that Jesus is not the original form of the name but a latinization that came afterwards; the original form of the name is Joshua, which doesn't resemble Esus that much. Also, Jesus' name wasn't decided at Nicea, his name already appears in the Gospels and in Paul's letters, which are the earliest Christian writings dating to 50-90 CE. Are you really knowledgeable about these things?" (23/12/13)Rodriguez`offers no evidence or indeed any reasoning to support his assertion that "The name`s similarity with Jesus is completely coincidental." When the xtian religion was fully crafted in the 4th century by Constantine, under his direction the books of the New Testament were fabricated and a new `god` was born: Hesus Krishna, from which today we derive `Jesus Christ`. An interesting and informative work exposing the Aryan origins of the jesus myth is Sarah Elizabeth Titcomb`s Aryan Sun Myths. The Origin of Religion, 1899.
"All Indo-Germanic nations have worshipped crucified saviours and overwhelming proof was obtained that the sun-myths of the ancient Aryans were the origin of the religion in all of the countries which were peopled by the Aryans." (Charles Morris in his introduction to Titcomb`s book.)
Constantine would not have stood a cat in hell`s chance of peddling his new `saviour` to Europeans of course with a Semitic name and so having plagiarised Aryan sources to account for his myth he utilised the names of Hesus/Esus and Krishna to make it more acceptable to the Aryan inhabitants of his empire. His need for a single universal religion that could be used to cement the disparate parts of his empire together was paramount and the best way of forging a new religion is to build on old foundations and then eventually obliterate all traces of having done so, which is what the churches have attempted to do for 1,500 years, exterminating anyone who gets in their way in the same way that islam continues to do so today. There is nothing more intolerant than Semitic monotheism.
Esus like Baeldag/Baldr and Wotan/Wodan/Woden/Odin are crucified Gods. The Celts and Teutons often with a combination or force, persuasion and deception took to accepting the white xrist as their new `god` because of the similarities and often this new `god`jwas worshipped alongside the old ones, grafted into their pantheons; eventually under the guidance of the churches, superseding them altogether whilst the old ones were demonised.
As far as the authenticity and dating of the gospels in concerned they appear to date no further back than the 4th century and certainly none of them are contemporary to the alleged life of xrist or the events that they report:
"the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD"(Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).
There are simply no contemporary writings, biblical or non-biblical that report the life and events of jesus of Nazareth which is astounding when one considers how careful the Romans were to catalogue important events!
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)
Rodriguez writes again:
"Sorry for the delay, but I didn't realize you had answer me. Apparently you pretty much give up any notion that Esus and Jesus are etymologically related, so this point is moot. You then assert without any evidence whatsoever that Jesus was presented as a peddled god on the worldtree. And you do realize that crucifixion was a fact that the Romans did as a punishment to criminals, right? And that the crucifixion of Jesus is one of the things historians completely agree on. As for historical evidence, the Gospels were written mere decades after Jesus' crucifixion and by people who were with him. And Paul's letters and the Book of Acts were written even before them, around the 50s and 60s AD. This is not something I say, this is what every historian and New Testament scholar will tell you. And then there's the fact that Jesus also gets mentioned by other authors of that time, including Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus, who mentions him twice. Tacitus even provides crucial information, saying that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. If you want more info, you should read Did Jesus Exist? by the agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman (so you won't say that it is biased), which is a very good book summarizing the academic viw of Jesus, that he did exist and was a first century Jewish preacher who was crucified by the Romans. Also your comment about the weak and gullible is amusing considering that White Europeans. the ones who you consider the superior race, have been the ones that have preserved Christianity and nourished it the most." (5/2/14)
This time he asserts that I had "pretty much give up any notion that Esus and Jesus are etymologically related," which my readers can see that this is not the case. To the jewish speaking world this made-up `saviour` is presented as joshua but to the European and wider world he is jesus and would have been seen by the Celts at the time of being related to their God Hesus/Esus.
The evidence for the parallels between jesus on the cross[a tree] and that of Wodan and Esus require no further elaboration from me. Either you see and acknowledge this connection or you just bury your head in the sand! The issue of crucifixion as a Roman punishment does not detract from my argument.
Tacitus wrote his Annals in 116CE. That is hardly a contemporary account and thus it cannot be regarded as evidence for xrit`s existence! This is hear-say and would not stand up in a court of law as evidence. Tacitus was not in a position to state that xrist was a real flesh and blood person, having never lived during his lifetime. All Tacitus is doing is reporting about the fire of Rome in July 64 CE and makes inferences that this may have been caused by a jewish sect of fanatics. It is not confirmation for the existence of jesus of Nazareth and is not contemporary with his alleged life. This believe it or not is the `strongest` piece of `evidence` that the xtians have and it is not much, now is it?
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind". (Tacitus, Annals 15:44)
"White Europeans" is a term which I generally do not use. It is in itself an unnecessary term for either one is European or one is not. It stands to reason that Europeans are white of skin unless they are miscegenated.
It certainly is not a `race` as Rodriguez seem to allege that I think it is. To speak of a Nordic or a Europid race is legitimate but not a "White European race". This seems to me to be an American term and one of little validity for European racialists.
The truth of the matter is that the Germanic and other northern European peoples were forced by the threat of bloodshed to outwardly convert to the new religion of xtianity. Today in northern Europe xtianity has been largely abandoned: the xtian `god` is dead. Only the old and the feeble of mind cling to the decayed edifice of this religion. Only among the Europid Americans is xtianity still a powerful influence but I put this down to what I term the Pilgrim Fathers` Complex.