Refuting the Refuters
by Michael Tsarion
After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands - Friedrich Nietzsche
Most of the refuters who groundlessly and maliciously attack revisionists are narrow-minded conservative Christians of the fundamentalist variety. They are for the most part cynical fanatics without intelligence. They are desperate to strengthen the weak foundations of their own "faith," and believe this is achieved by rabidly contradicting and challenging those few mavericks within the revisionist research community whose discoveries cut at the roots of all they believe. They attempt to find a modicum of psychological stability in a world where literate and informed people day-by-day throw out the irrational superstitions which enslaved their ancestors.
Because of recent discoveries about the past, and authorship and credibility of the Bible, the age-old lies and "pious frauds" in the Old and New Testaments are now finally seen for what they are. In regards the latter compendium, sane researchers realize that we don't have a single definable "Jesus Christ" a la St. Paul. Rather we have a warmongering Jesus (Judas) Khrestus, a Messianic Jesus of Gamala, a Jesus (Joshua) of the Fish, as well as others fitting the general description of the supposed Son of God. Which one do we pick? Which one was venerated by "Christians" two thousand years ago? Which one was divine and which a human fanatical Messianic rabble-rouser? Which one was a scheming demagogue and which a claimant for the throne of Rome? Which of them was executed by the authorities? Which one was exalted to the status of a demigod by followers after his demise? Which one, if any, was truly a historical person?
Yes, when we review the few unimpressive passages in the works of some early historians supposedly "proving" the existence of Jesus, we are bound to ask which Jesus is actually being referenced? Why do we continue assuming that there was but one public figure with this name? And since most ancient commenters did not use the name Jesus or anything like it when referring to this elusive icon of Christians, why do we assume him to be the character presented by Saint Paul, himself revealed as none other than mythmonger extraordinaire Flavius Josephus Piso, the commissioned agent of the world's great tyrants ensconced in imperial Rome? Why do we settle for loose English translations of these Latin passages that appear to speak of Christianity's Jesus? Why are they not presented first in their original form so we can see what might be lost in translation? Might not words such as "worshiped" simply refer to political rather than divine veneration? Might not the appellations "divine" and "savior" simply refer to the exalted status of earthly rulers? Might not the term "Son of God" have been the title of a caesar or emperor? We now know this to have been the case. More crucially, why do we accept the claims of a character who - given that he existed and according to the accounts of a few interested historians - proclaimed himself divine? Is such a claim verifiable in our times or times past? And did not one ancient monarch and self-appointed Messiah after another proclaim himself divine? What makes the claims of the Gospel's "Jesus" special? Absolutely nothing.
The fanatics who attempt to authenticate the few brief references to Jesus in the work of this or that ancient historian pay no attention to academics of the highest caliber who cast doubt on those same passages. Many of these academics are not Christians and well and truly see Christianity for the fraud it is. However, these same fanatical Christians elsewhere attempt to refute alternative researchers by citing academics and scientists from the same school as those who cast doubt on the authenticity of the Bible and existence of Jesus. It is important to bear this sleight-of-hand in mind when dealing with fanatical Christians attempting to set themselves up as critics of alternative research. If a qualified academic disproves the authenticity of passages cited by Christians as proof for the existence of Jesus, how can he, or others of his school, be wheeled out by those same Christians when they seek to bolster criticisms against revisionists? The fanatical Christian is thereby saying that he trusts and favors science only when it serves his cause, not when it undermines it. By this contradictory tactic he openly reveals himself for the scurrilous fraud he is.
Regrettably, despite the revelations of recent times, the machinery of lies and denial grinds on unabated. None of these facts have phased most believers. This is because the average Christian fanatic is the victim of egomania and monomania. He presumes himself the champion of mainstream religion and tradition. He conforms and abases his will before his heavenly tyrant. As a result he sets himself the task of forcing others to do likewise. It's a job he relishes. He is unwilling to leave people to intellectually progress on their own. If people refuse to do as he says, preferring to individuate and think for themselves, he sets himself up as Inquisitor General, in order to demand conformity to the status quo. His zealousness is not less than that of history's sadistic inquisitors who reduced their ideological enemies to ashes on fiery stakes throughout Christendom.
Christianity as we know it has been in state of turmoil for decades, and is currently on its last legs. Rational humans have little time for its antihuman doctrines and preposterous supernatural god. They are aware of how much crime has been perpetrated in the name of Jehovah. They are also becoming aware of the innumerable frauds perpetrated by the ministers of religion to maintain their status quo. They are learning how religious doctrines espoused by Christians warp our vision of the world have served to demean women, animals and non-believers for over two thousand years.
Fanatical Christians don't join in, advise, decently and respectfully suggest changes or compliment work well done. No, they prefer to act like school yard bullies, and get their kicks by picking on the smallest, weakest child. The bully tears open the vulnerable boy's satchel and browbeats him for not having his books and papers in the desired order. Of course that order is determined by the bully and is not an order that needs to be imposed, and not one to which even the bully conforms when all is said and done. The ransacking bully is insecure about himself, and finds temporary gratification by forcing other people to come up to scratch. He poses as a "father figure" because he himself is emotionally and mentally infantile. His behavior is petty but compensatory. By pointing out the supposed deficits of others more vulnerable than himself he imagines himself superior. If even one other person bows to his superiority, he is puffed up no end.
Demographically, alternative researchers constitute an extremely small group within the greater population of the world. Their influence is negligible. They are part of a fringe movement that began barely twenty years ago. The movement is in an adolescent stage of development and has a long way to go before the masses of the world turn to it with anything other than contempt. This means that the average revisionist is full of passion but open to making some mistakes and misjudgments. However this vulnerability testifies to the strengths rather than weakness of the revisionist's mind. It is a perfectly natural condition given the nascency of the revolutionary enterprises underway.
Revisionists are also open to manipulation. Indeed their community will not be the first to be exploited by cunning carpet-baggers out for their own gain. Alternative researchers are not immune to being deceived and misguided. However they can grow and take care of their own house without the intervention of deeply threatened Christian fanatics eager to undermine the enterprise before it is able to gather strength and popularity. As they develop understanding, the alternative researcher will develop the ability to discern between the true and the false. He should be allowed to develop the skill without interference from those with more than enough to deal with sorting out their own messes. In our opinion the fanatic tirades against the alternative scholar because it distracts him from dealing with the colossal decay bringing down his own house.
Although most Christian fanatics steer clear of alternative researchers, some of the sickest choose to ransack their work, attempting to undermine it before it has a chance to mature. Whereas Christianity has had thousands of years to establish and promote itself, the alternative community has had but a few years to do so. However even in its early stages of development it has served to damage the foundations of orthodox religion. This unsettles many who have unreservedly accepted the preposterous nonsense of the Bible and other religious works.
We remind our readers that it is not only from alternative circles that devastating attacks against religious belief have come. The Christian fanatic's worldview has been shaken to the core by the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls scholars and members of the Jesus Seminar. The discoveries of eminent scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, wreck accepted precepts and doctrines. Their all-important Jesus figure has been turned into a ever-melting snowman. Their St. Paul has been uncovered as an agent of imperialist Roman patrician families hell-bent on maintaining world control. Their dignitaries, patriarchs and church fathers are now for the most part regarded by informed people as little more than psychotics and sado-masochists. This holds true whether we speak of the Roman Catholic or Protestant branches of Christianity.
In light of this it is not surprising to find the more threatened and challenged Christian fanatic preferring to find whipping-boys among the newly founded alternative research community. It gives them something to soothe their inner ache and preoccupy them now that their own houses are swiftly burning to the ground, never to be rebuilt.
It is the purpose of this article to lay out some vital facts to be borne in mind when dealing with cynical, self-important fanatics of this kind. These include the following:
Christians are not to consider themselves the sole enemies of evil. In fact Christians are latecomers to the great fight. They are a welcome contingent as long as they realize that their tent is but one of many on the field of battle. Fanatical Christians arrogantly wish to see themselves as the only champions opposing evil. Such is not the case. Not by a long chalk. Evil has haunted our world long before the advent of Christianity, and has been opposed by many great forgotten heroes who fell in the name of Truth long before the birth of Jesus.
. . .
I invite readers to visit my website on Astro-Theology for more information on the deceptions of religion. I also provide relevant links below which contradict the various refutations levied against revisionists by fanatical Christians.