That’s right. The Jews did not kill Jesus because he apparently survived the crucifixion, faked his death and then took off to the South of France with Mary Magdalene. Once there they no doubt spent many a lazy morning spooning in bed, drinking fine French wine and eating baguettes and croissants. They also allegedly founded the Merovingian Dynasty of Frankish kings.
This startling “discovery” was reported in an article in Salon. The author of this discovery? None other than Michael Baigent in his new book The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History. Baignet you might recall is the author of an earlier work of paranoid pseudohistory – “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” – which Dan Brown’s The Davinci Code is based on.
Salon’s review is kinda harsh, but what do you expect when they’re reviewing a book by an author who may very well be completely insane. Insanity aside though, you never really know what those defenders of the faith at the Vatican have suppressed throughout the ages. I guess we can add this to other wacky Christian things like the Gospel of Judas (Judas was actually a good guy helping Jesus fulfill his mission!), or the theory that Jesus, prior to his death at the hands of whoever, transferred leadership over his nascent movement not to Peter but to Mary Magdalene. Or to his brother James. Or to Haile Selassie.
Despite the pan, the review is a fun read and I am certain that people are gonna lap this one up just like they lapped up the stupid Da Vinci Code. Jah Rastafari!
- Hawk Tuah Girl Haliey Welch is Not Jewish. Probably. - 8/9/2024
- Jews Blessed by their High Priests - 10/14/2022
- Foolproof Mufletta Recipe & Muflettapalooza / Mimouna Invite! - 3/26/2021
what is cbg and cbd
Has anyone ever been to Sky Liquid Vapor Ecigarette Shop located in 810 E 36th Ave?
I think that after his faked crucifixtion he and Mary took a boat to the new world and settled in The Bronx where he invented the egg cream and its distribution channel…the candy store.
Uh, Deon? Crucifixion was a normal Roman practice at the time.
it has said that it was the Romans who killed Jesus but the idea of cruxifiction was the Jews
Jim, why can’t we take the very same story you just presented and convert it to one where you had a very minor group of anti-establishment younger folks, led by a particularly charismatic one. As part of their philosophy, they felt that the establishment, uh, sucked, and like all good young rebels, talked about its suckiness relentlessly. Then when Jesus was killed, as so many others were and in the same way so many others were, by the Romans, it became very natural for this group to create conspiracy theories accusing the establishment of collaborating in his death, instead of accepting that the Romans just wanted to do away with yet another misfit who might cause them problems?
Or let’s try another approach. Although there are 4 (some will now say 5) gospels written by different authors, many details and stories converge while other differ. Wouldn’t it make sense that as stories were told and shared within their community and outside of it and later when writing things down, that since the authors were able to access the bible – Hebrew Bible, of course, and familiar to many at the time – they simply used ready references to buttress their Jesus stories by benefitting from those aspects of the Bible that helped their claims (messiah has to come from Davidic lineage, etc.) while also attempting to besmirch the reputation of their competing religion and mother religion, that of the Israelites?
Is it possible that certain elements of their stories were embellished? Today, when a group has a rally, they will usually put out a press release touting attendance numbers that are higher than real numbers. If someone wants to inflate numbers, they can, and this in an age of video and television. We are 40 years away from space travel and there are lots of people who deny it ever happened. Yes, they may be wacky, but the point is that information and data can be twisted even in a sophisticated culture with video and camera recording devices. How much easier would it have been 2000 years ago with nothing but word of mouth by parties with strong self-interest?
From all accounts in the gospels, Jesus was a gentle, compassionate and kind man living in a time when maybe his religious leaders, the Priests in the Jewish Temple, were not. Sort of like the rebellion of Martin Luther against the abuses of the flock by the Catholic Priests created the Protest_ants, did Jesus’ rebellious language, growing support from the flock, and final rebellious behavior in the Jewish Temple where the Priest lived the high life(compared to their followers) in Jerusalem, cause his death and with it the creation of the Christian religion?
Realistically with our own knowledge of history, religion, politics, and power in our own lives today, can’t we see how the possibility exists the Jewish Priests, not the Jewish flock(people) themselves, wanted this rebellious trouble maker out of the way and could so easily assemble a good sized crowd to call for his death, while not letting the majority of the Jewish people know anything about a trial of Jesus?
I do not believe Jesus was the son of God and believe even he was having second thoughts when according to Biblical passages he said “My God, why has thou forsaken me.” as he was dieing from crucifixion(not an uncommon form of execution in those days btw).
In any case, it seems from other statements attributed to him, he planned on an early death and knew full well the likely outcome from declaring himself as the son of God(I believe that title belonged to Cesar in those times), and rebelling against the religious authority in words and deeds in addition.
Jesus effectively committed suicide, like some today still do, by behaving in a way they know will cause the authorities kill them. If he had any idea at the time how much hate and death this method of committing suicide would cause in the future, I am satisfied he would have done the job himself.
Ephraim, SH’ll have to get a black robe with some serious decolletege . . . You know, there was an interval of press treatment of the Catholic issue when Alito was nominated. It quickly ended– I assume the Dems believed they couldn’t p.o. Catholic voters. For what it’s worth, I think the issue’s fair game. And you heard it here first: Roberts may be ambivalent, but Alito is absolutely, positively a strong advocate for ditching Roe asap. (As are Scalia and Thomas, but we knew that.)
(Here’s a tip– save time and space, and refer to Scalia and Alito as Scalito.)
Then there’s Pontius Pilate . . . An interesting theory, Dave. On the one hand, the gospel accounts (to me) suggest a chaotic scene, in which PP, in particular, is anxious to deal with Jesus as quickly as possible, one way or another. The chaos, if my reading’s correct, may support your view.
Cutting against your view, textually: Jesus always distinguishes himself in the NT from the “Father,” understood to be God, or the God depicted in the Torah. And Pilate takes pains to make sure that the crowd wants Jesus dispatched (according to John’s account, anyway).
But the whole point of the story is that everyone let Jesus down and bears some responsibility for his fate (for which Jesus promptly absolves them). So, it’s inapposite, seems to me, to single out one person or group, and exclude others. (Peter, for example, sucked in his first task as successor to Jesus, denying he knew him three times.) This is where the Catholic Church (finally) is on this issue.
The blame game’s beside the point.
OK, so supposedly when Pilate offered to release a prisoner, the Jews asked for the release of a thief named Barabbas rather than Jesus. But in Aramiac, “Bar Abbas” means “son of the father”. And who did Jesus’s followers think he was? The son of G-d, right? And G-d is “the father”. And his follwers where who? The Jews!
So the Jews present, who get the blame for it all, were really Jesus’ followers asking for HIS release, not some thief.
But when the gosples were written, Jews were out of favor with Rome due to the whole revolt that resulted in the distruction of the Temple in 70 CE. And the last thing a new religion wants to do is to blame the reigning military super-power for executing the “founder” of their religion. So they shift the blame to the Jews, who are conviently already in trouble with Rome.
Note the quotes around “founder” above is intentional.
Wait a second, Tom. You mean there are others on the Court besides Scalia who are Opus Dei?
You guys have really pulled the wool over the eyes of America, man. But seriously, if that’s true, you would think that someone would have mentioned it. What have you guys got on the media to make them ignore this?
We’re obviously pikers compared to you guys, conspiracy-wise, anyway.
If she’s confirmed, can I uh, you know, file an amicus brief in chambers?
I’ve carefully reviewed Article III, Sec. 1 of the Constitution, as well as the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress’s statute governing the composition of the Supreme Court. I find no Art. II, Sec. 1-style prerequisite of birth within the US.
I conclude that the next Catholic member of the United States Supreme Court could, indeed, be Salma Hayek.
Checked out YCT– congratulations, that’s deep cover, Purim Hero. Just make sure to report back, ok?
I had a feeling that Cardinal pic would come back to haunt me, but I figured it would do so by calling into question certain aspects of YCT and maybe effecting the reputation my Smicha would have upon my completion 5 years from now. I’m hopefully attending that Yeshiva in the fall… all I’ve got to do now is find housing and health insurance.
Ephraim, they’re hampered by a sort of pc rule that one can’t baldly take this issue on in the confirmation process.
If Bush can hold out, maybe we get another one. Kennedy’s not as Opus Dei as the others.
No. I mean, I knew that most of the court were, you know, gentiles, of course, but I hadn’t really thought about the religion thing.
But, yeah, if you stop to think about it: Scalia and Alito, Italians, so yeah, duh. Kennedy, well, of course, Irish, although he could have been a Proddy, but not likely, just given the averages.
Roberts and Thomas were the ringers, I guess. I just assumed they were Protestant. If I had paid any attention to the “I’m-not-going-to-actually-give-a-straight-answer-to-any-questions” farce that masqueraded as Roberts’ confirmation hearing I might have figured it out, I guess. And with Thomas it’s just stereotyping: I know there are plenty of black Catholics, but since most black Americans come from a Protestant background I just assumed it.
Grassy knoll, indeed. But this is way more than just a second shooter.
I cannot believe that the pro-Roe crowd isn’t screaming louder about this, given the Catholic position on abortion. But the conspiracy is obvious now.
But it’s too late.
Ephraim– you didn’t know?
Man, even I have a grassy-knoll feeling about this now . . . But yeah, five Catholics. What we got? . . . Scalia– one of his sons is a priest. Roberts– his wife goes to daily Mass. Alito– his wife (like me) teaches religious ed to confirmation class kids. Thomas– Catholic because Scalia told him to be, probably.
Today, Roe v. Wade. Tomorrow the world . . .
. . . Seriously, the issue of access to Vatican documents is a serious one, esp. WWII-era material. Why the equivalent of serious dental surgery is required to spring them, I don’t know. It’s certainly foolish and counterproductive to act like you have something to hide; I fully agree about that.
For example– as to Pius XII, I suspect the picture will be mixed. But one can only speculate for now. Just put the stuff out there, let scholars look at it, and move on.
Whoa, wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute. You mean FIVE of the Supreme Court Justices are Catholic??
Not to be too, like, crude, you know, but holy fucking shit! Can you imagine the shit storm if five of the justices were Jews? How come the Protestants aren’t up in arms about Catholic penetration and subversion of one of America’s most sacred institutions by those of an alien faith?
Or have you guys been doing the Ecumenical Rag and made up or something while our backs were turned?
Is anybody else on the court Opus Dei or is it just Scalia?
Re: the library:
We know you guys have got the Menorah from the Temple. It’s right there, on Titus’ Arch. We would kinda like it back. Could you bring it up with your guys?
Alright, Purim Hero, I’m on to you . . . Just checked out your blog. You got a pic of a cardinal there!
You, too, are part of the conspiracy!
LOL… Nice Tom, I know to watch out for you now. I wasn’t implying it was a good reason to suspect the church, or founded in pristine logic, rather that it expected as a result of human nature.
I’ve chosen to stay anonymous on this forum and on my blog (to most people anyway), while this doesn’t prove that I’ve got anything to hide, I would understand it if people though I did. (The reality is that I don’t have anything to hide, otherwise it wouldn’t be online in any form psuedo name or not, rather, I merely want to be able to distance my one persona from the other allowing me more freedom to comment and critique without personally offending…)
(Apropos of nothing– this site is amazing. In the span of 20 minutes, I’ve referred to Claus von Stauffenberg, Antonin Scalia, and Melanie Griffith. Wow . . . Maybe I have a subconscious agenda to reference gentiles at random, just for the sake of balance.)
I understand that access is improving on that front, Purim Hero. But on the other hand, it’s hard to prove a negative. ‘Let us see everything, otherwise we’ll assume something nefarious is afoot’, that sort of thing.
btw, my library’s off-limits. And I do plan on world domination.
I think CK’s more referring to the fact that the Vatican has an extensive library (to put it mildly) that is off limits to just about everyone. It includes many sources that simply don’t exist anywhere else, many in manuscript form. From a Jewish perspective we want to be able to get in there because a lot of those one of a kind sources are Jewish sources. Instances of access though have been few and far between and highly limited. The impact that opening its library would have to both Jewish Scholars and Scholars in general is immense, not doing that is what generally causes people to feel like they are hiding something. You don’t need Dan Brown to tell you that.
I’ll get Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito together . . . That’s five votes, right?
I certainly hope so, Tom. I will be totally disappointed if she isn’t.
And, yeah, I gotta kinda agree with Purim Hero on the “Protocols” reference being a little much. Yes, “Code” didn’t treat the Catholics, especially Opus Dei, very well, but I doubt if we’re going to see anti-Catholic pogroms because of it, and, more to the point, it wasn’t written for the specific purpose of fomenting said pogroms.
But, yes, I can see how a Catholic would be a bit peeved about “Code”. At your next secret meeting, could you ask Scalia what he thought of it?
Fair enough, Purim Hero. You’re right about the reception history, as the phrase goes, of the books– at least to date. They do have some formal characteristics in common, though. Dan Brown seems to have ck believing that the nefarious Vatican’s hiding something. Maybe the secret plan for world domination! I’ll check with my sources.
Tom M… I’m not sure that the Da Vinci Code can really be compared to the Proticols of the Elders of Zion like that. (Admittedly, I haven’t read the Da Vinci Code) The first was written with an intent to sell and make profit, and as far as I’m aware didn’t really cause a negative impact on the church in the form of church hatred and hatred of Christians. The latter, however, was writtin with an intent to incite hatered and violence towards the Jews. That makes it entirely different. Neither are necessarily to be believed, but one is clearly worse and more malicious then the other.
Is she gonna be naked in it?
Read “The Da Vinci Code”. It was an enjoyable page turner hugger-mugger. I think I read it in an afternoon. Over done and breathless, but silly fun. And all those cool European landmarks and all.
I forgot pretty much everything about it about 30 minutes after I put it down. Mildly enjoyable ephemera but nothing more.
The other one Brown wrote, about some sort of fusion bomb in the Vatican planted by the son of the pope or something IIRC, was a lot sillier.
I’m totally going to see the movie, though. It’s got Rachel Weisz in it, man. Even though it looks like Tom Hanks is sporting a mullet or something.
All I can say is, the Merovingian kings were a pretty lame bunch, seeing as how they were supposedly descended from Jesus and all. You’d think their yichus would have given them a little more oomph.
Also, Lancelot’s genelogy in Mallory’s Morte d’Arthur has him being the 4th generation direct descendent of Jesus.
Which would explain his puissance, I guess. But it’s interesting that everybody wants to be descended from the Jews.
The link at the top of this post goes to a piece in Salon, not Slate. In some ways I wish they were the same magazine (I work at one of them), but for now they are not. Malheureusement.
Well, the Jews didn’t kill Jesus, but not for the foregoing reasons. “Pilate therefore said to him, ‘Aren’t you speaking to me? Don’t you know that I have power to release you, and have power to crucify you?'” (John 10:19).
Save some money, folks– visit your local hotel room, and read the original.
‘The Da Vinci Code’ is a “wacky Christian thing” in the same sense as ‘The Protocols of The Elders of Zion’ is a “wacky Jewish thing.”
saw an interview with this guy and it was hysterical. he was like, “a private collector has the proof to back me up…no, i can’t name him…while i can’t read or understand aramaic, i can recognize it…i’ve been around alot of papyrus, and this papyrus was definately authentic…” really compelling…aside from the piece of papyrus he can’t read or show anyone, his main argument was how illogical it would have been for pilate to have actually killed jesus since jesus had advised the jews to pay their taxes. and the romans liked their tax booty. ah, whatever, hopefully this new jesus conspiracy will be lucrative and baigent will have enough cash to pay dan brown’s millions in legal fees.