New recipes

Bud Light Gives Royal Response After ‘Dilly Dilly’ Phrase Banned From This Year’s Masters

Bud Light Gives Royal Response After ‘Dilly Dilly’ Phrase Banned From This Year’s Masters


"Dilly Dilly" denied.

Augusta National staff at this year's Masters has reportedly been given a sheet with a list of sayings that are prohibited from the tournament. Among the list of phrases is "Dilly Dilly" the Bud Light slogan from its ad campaign during the NFL season, according to Bryce Ritchie of Bunkered Online.

Anyone who shouts one of the phrases on the list will be kicked out of the Masters immediately, Ritchie reported.

"Dilly Dilly" became popular thanks to the many commercials Bug Light ran throughout the football season, including a multi-part ad that aired during the Super Bowl.

Bud Light responded to the reported ban by posting a letter from "their King" King John Barley IV on Twitter saying that they planned to send 1,000 "Dilly, Dilly" shirts to Augusta for fans to wear.

"Your king hath received word that the guards of the Green Jacket plan to escort any patron who dare utter Dilly Dilly off yon premises. Except for myself, I am against tyranny in all forms. So, I have instructed my royal tailors to make 1,000 Dilly Dilly shirts that shall be delivered to Georgia in time for the festivities," the post read. "For if thou cannot say Dilly Dilly, thou can still wear Dilly Dilly."

Professional golf has had a problem with rowdy spectators this season and it could be why Augusta is reportedly cracking down.

In March, Rory McIlroy suggested limiting alcohol sales at events after one fan kept yelling McIlroy's wife's name at him during the Arnold Palmer Invitational, according to CBS Sports.

"I know that people want to come and enjoy themselves and whatever, and I'm all for that, but sometimes when the comments get personal and people get a little bit rowdy it can get a little much," McIlroy said.

"It used to be like you bring beers on to the course or buy beers but not liquor. And now it seems like everyone's walking around with a cocktail or whatever. So I don't know whether it's just go back to letting people walk around with beers in their hand, that's fine, but, I don't know."

McIlroy wasn't the only golfer to raise issues with fans.

Justin Thomas had a fan ejected at the Honda Classic in February. He shared that a particular person was yelling things "that weren't necessary over and over again."

Thomas tweeted that he felt bad having the fan kicked out and thanked the fans who support the golfers on every tour.

..and should not have had him kicked out. I feel bad for it, but was more doing so because again I felt the stuff he was saying was completely unnecessary. I love all my fans and to hear that I’ve lost quite a few bc of that, isn’t fun. So I’m sorry to all!

— Justin Thomas (@JustinThomas34) February 26, 2018

...the fans are who support us all on TOUR and we are extremely lucky to have them each and every week. Thanks to all who came out and supported at @TheHondaClassic and continue to every week we play. We (I) love you guys

— Justin Thomas (@JustinThomas34) February 26, 2018

The Masters begin on April 5 from August National in Georgia.


In which the author crafts an entire new history of Christianity because the Establishment doesn't want you to know.

OK, there's a lot going on here. Mostly seems to be an (excited) rehash of the works of Robert Eisenmann, who I am not particularly familiar with, but who does seem to be something of a heterodox scholar.

To skip to the point, and offer the thesis: *PAUL, THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, WAS A ROMAN-HERODIAN, WORKING ON THEIR BEHALF, TO PACIFY THE HYPER-REVOLUTIONARY JEWS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF JAMES THE JUST, "BROTHER OF THE LORD", HELPING MURDER JAMES, HIS MESSIANIC FOLLOWERS, AND ALL OPPOSITION TO ROME, AND INSTEAD OFFERING A PEACEFUL, PRO-ROMAN, HEAVENLY SPIRITUALISM AS OPPOSED TO THEIR REVOLUTIONARY, ANTI-ROMAN, APOCALYPTIC ZIONISM.

Thank you for starting in all caps, it really gets the tone of the entire thing across. Also, I'm not really sure what a "Zionist" would be doing in ancient Judaea without time traveling, but hey, let's find out.

Much of the information of the period comes from Josephus, a NATIVE PALESTINIAN with INTIMATE first-hand knowledge as he turned against the Jews and led a contingent of the Romans in Gamela in the War/Uprising. It is worth noting that Josephus writes that most of the history of the period was defective due to either FLATTERY TO THE ROMANS AND HATRED OF THE JEWS.

Nothing wrong with saying that Josephus was a flawed historian that's pretty well-established. On the other hand, the point of this is to establish that no conventional history could possibly be accurate, and let the OP substitute whatever he likes. Also, claiming that he was motivated by hatred of the Jews is. iffy. But, whatever. This isn't about Josephus.

What most people do not understand, is that FC Palestine was a hotbed of insurrection, war, oppression, strife, constant battling between SEVERAL factions.

It's a plot point in Life of Brian but sure, most people don't understand that. "FC Palestine" means first century Palestine here, and does not, as I initially thought, refer to a soccer team.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Jerusalem, the temple, and the High Priesthood were all PLACED there by the Herods, the Roman puppet kings of the region. The multitudes of the Jews HATED this, as they considered this defilement of the temple, as all temple service was essentially polluted by a High Priesthood that "doesn't keep the Law" and converses and intermingles with the Romans and Herodians, "Sons of the Pit", basically demonic figures to these Jews, full of adulteresses and murderers and villains.

TIL that Jews never liked Jerusalem or the Second Temple, anyway. I'll have to ask about that at Passover next year.

Enter James the Just. If you were to read the New Testament, youɽ know very, very little of James. At one point he is called the brother of the Lord, by none other than Paul himself. It's worth noting that Paul's letters, especially the earliest such as Galatians, is often a truer, first-person account of real experiences, and should be given primacy over other NT books, such as the Gospels and Acts

Well, the New Testament isn't about James, so I don't know why heɽ be that prominent in it. Since we're about to accuse Paul of a giant Roman conspiracy, I'm not sure why we start out by praising the veracity of his letters. Plus, regardless of the authority of either the Gospels or the Epistles, they're accounts of different events so I have no clue what should be given "primacy" or what that would mean.

In Galatians and other letters, Paul refers to the LEADERSHIP OF JERUSALEM as a central triad, or pillars, of James, Cephas, and John. Sometimes described as James, PETER, and John.

Cephas is Aramaic, Peter is Latin, they mean the same thing. And it's not the civic leadership of Jerusalem, they're the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. New thing.

James was not a High Priest. He was not an establishment priest. He was the OPPOSITION High Priest, the leader of the vast multitudes in Jerusalem and Palestine, whose names are varied, but who call themselves "The Poor", "The Many". Another name? The Essenes. Much disinfo has leaked out about who "the Essenes" were. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were hyper-messianic, hyper-revolutionary, hyper-anti-Roman Jews who "made a way in the wilderness."

Right, James was a Christian of course he wouldn't be part of the temple priesthood. That doesn't necessarily make him an Essene, and while there may have been influences, Christians and Essenes weren't the same thing. Their beliefs are not fully known, but they weren't a band of revolutionaries mostly we know them to be monastic. They're getting blended with the Zealots here.

It was taken pretty much for granted by all involved at the time that James was a) the true blood brother of another, called Jesus b) the opposition High Priest with more clout in Jerusalem and Palestine to be FEARED by the Establishment, for James had the entire population on his side.

Well, the Establishment won't know what hit them. Who were the Establishment, anyway, if the entire population was against them?

So perhaps the most important man of FC Palestine is forgotten, erased from history.

Yeah, they really did a heck of a job erasing James from history. He has a letter in the canonical Bible!

Enter Saulus, I mean, Saul, I mean Paul.

Paul OPENLY ADMITS to "persecuting the way" in its infancy. One must recognize that "Christianity" as "The Way" is really not a good framework to udnerstand this. Christianity became what it was literally decades, if not centuries, later.

Well, you can tell it's a good conspiracy because he admits to it.

There exists a couple documents called "The Pseudoclementines." Most establishment scholars completely dismiss these as"romance fiction."

Sure, what do establishment scholars know?

In the Recognitions is a section that is the first-hand account of Peter telling Clement that before Clement arrived, [this is in the early 40s] there was a day like any other, in which James, like Jesus afterward, is depicted as discoursing with the multitudes on the steps of the temple, preaching and answering their questions. Suddenly, a man only named "The Enemy" walks into the midst of the people on the temple with a gang of his compatriots. The Enemy begins shouting, yelling, at James, shouting for his compatriots to stop him from speaking. Astonishingly, in a footnote at the end of the Recognitions, there is a lone line, that says, in effect, "The Enemy went by the name Saulus."

Well, it's a margin note, not a footnote, but sure, this might be an anti-Paul work. There are plenty.

Beautiful. No wonder the Latin version, "The Homilies" deleted this section, and no one mentions the Recognitions. How embarrassing for the Church to know this exacts.

You will notice the Gospels and Acts have several episodes that seem to go out of their way to paint the Romans in as best a light as possible.

Dunno. There's some persecution in there, too.

Why is Paul, who "claims Jewish heritage" as all Herodians do, saying the most insulting, horrifying, vile thing to those of "his own kin" or faith? He LITERALLY SAYS that when Moses descended with the tablets from Mt Sinai, he wore a veil, not to hide the glory of god from shining and burning the people when they looked upon it, but TO DECEIVE THEM AND HIDE THE FACT THAT THE GLORY OF GOD HAD BURNT OUT?

Yes, Paul isn't Jewish. Christianity is becoming a new thing.

What we have with the New Testament, is a systematic overwriting of real history to pacify an entire region, to turn the population to Roman subjugation. You'll notice how "Samaritans" feature prominently in the Gospels, all in good terms. Samaritans were the other huge factions in Palestine along with the Jews. These Samaritans had religious beliefs of their own, very, VERY similar to the Christianity of Jesus - it's obvious that they were being flattered and turned toward this new religion to slowly turn demographics away from the Jews, who were eventually massacred and dispelled from the area for centuries after the destruction of their temple in 70 AD.

Well, that's a big leap. It's a Samaritan conspiracy!

Even traditional Judaism at it exists today, BIRTHED IN THE AFTERMATH OF THIS PERIOD AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, is merely and overwrite of AUTHENTIC JUDAISM OF THE PERIOD.

The Romans got us too, it turns out! Judaism is a Roman plot. Yes, religions change a lot, etc. But this is quite something.

The founder of Rabbinical Judaism, Yohanan ben Zacchai, fled Jerusalem, prostrated himself in front of Vespasian, THE DESTROYER OF JERUSALEM AND THE JEWS, applying the Messianic star prophecy to HIM, something so blasphemous and the HEART of the "The Way" of James and his followers, that Yohanan was allowed to live and found his academy which would birth modern Rabbinic Judaism, which is much, MUCH less hardline than the Zealots of James, the Poor, the Essenes.

I guess we're all just dupes of this guy?

The entirety of Acts, and even the Gospels, is a way to distort REAL history and create an idealized, Hellenistic, peaceful view of the times, offering a heavenly Man-God figure that would have offended the Zealots who "Could never bring themselves to call any man Lord." Part of the Torah and these Zealots insistence was ABSTENANCE FROM BLOOD, which becomes THE central imagery of Paul's new religion, drinking the cup of his Lord's own blood, and eating his body.

Correct - people who are not Christians do not follow Christian practices.

Is it not obvious that Paul and his lackeys are writing polemically to denigrate these Jews who hated him, hounded him, and opposed him? The NT uses coded language like "Pharisees" to ostensibly refer to the Establishment Jews, but THE ESTABLISHMENT JEWS were on the Herodian/Roman side, and would never act the way they do in the NT. The ZEALOTS, JAMES, THE POOR, THE MANY, now they would indeed act as Paul describes the Pharisees. They would "nitpick" over the Law. They would indeed call out his blasphemy


In which the author crafts an entire new history of Christianity because the Establishment doesn't want you to know.

OK, there's a lot going on here. Mostly seems to be an (excited) rehash of the works of Robert Eisenmann, who I am not particularly familiar with, but who does seem to be something of a heterodox scholar.

To skip to the point, and offer the thesis: *PAUL, THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, WAS A ROMAN-HERODIAN, WORKING ON THEIR BEHALF, TO PACIFY THE HYPER-REVOLUTIONARY JEWS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF JAMES THE JUST, "BROTHER OF THE LORD", HELPING MURDER JAMES, HIS MESSIANIC FOLLOWERS, AND ALL OPPOSITION TO ROME, AND INSTEAD OFFERING A PEACEFUL, PRO-ROMAN, HEAVENLY SPIRITUALISM AS OPPOSED TO THEIR REVOLUTIONARY, ANTI-ROMAN, APOCALYPTIC ZIONISM.

Thank you for starting in all caps, it really gets the tone of the entire thing across. Also, I'm not really sure what a "Zionist" would be doing in ancient Judaea without time traveling, but hey, let's find out.

Much of the information of the period comes from Josephus, a NATIVE PALESTINIAN with INTIMATE first-hand knowledge as he turned against the Jews and led a contingent of the Romans in Gamela in the War/Uprising. It is worth noting that Josephus writes that most of the history of the period was defective due to either FLATTERY TO THE ROMANS AND HATRED OF THE JEWS.

Nothing wrong with saying that Josephus was a flawed historian that's pretty well-established. On the other hand, the point of this is to establish that no conventional history could possibly be accurate, and let the OP substitute whatever he likes. Also, claiming that he was motivated by hatred of the Jews is. iffy. But, whatever. This isn't about Josephus.

What most people do not understand, is that FC Palestine was a hotbed of insurrection, war, oppression, strife, constant battling between SEVERAL factions.

It's a plot point in Life of Brian but sure, most people don't understand that. "FC Palestine" means first century Palestine here, and does not, as I initially thought, refer to a soccer team.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Jerusalem, the temple, and the High Priesthood were all PLACED there by the Herods, the Roman puppet kings of the region. The multitudes of the Jews HATED this, as they considered this defilement of the temple, as all temple service was essentially polluted by a High Priesthood that "doesn't keep the Law" and converses and intermingles with the Romans and Herodians, "Sons of the Pit", basically demonic figures to these Jews, full of adulteresses and murderers and villains.

TIL that Jews never liked Jerusalem or the Second Temple, anyway. I'll have to ask about that at Passover next year.

Enter James the Just. If you were to read the New Testament, youɽ know very, very little of James. At one point he is called the brother of the Lord, by none other than Paul himself. It's worth noting that Paul's letters, especially the earliest such as Galatians, is often a truer, first-person account of real experiences, and should be given primacy over other NT books, such as the Gospels and Acts

Well, the New Testament isn't about James, so I don't know why heɽ be that prominent in it. Since we're about to accuse Paul of a giant Roman conspiracy, I'm not sure why we start out by praising the veracity of his letters. Plus, regardless of the authority of either the Gospels or the Epistles, they're accounts of different events so I have no clue what should be given "primacy" or what that would mean.

In Galatians and other letters, Paul refers to the LEADERSHIP OF JERUSALEM as a central triad, or pillars, of James, Cephas, and John. Sometimes described as James, PETER, and John.

Cephas is Aramaic, Peter is Latin, they mean the same thing. And it's not the civic leadership of Jerusalem, they're the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. New thing.

James was not a High Priest. He was not an establishment priest. He was the OPPOSITION High Priest, the leader of the vast multitudes in Jerusalem and Palestine, whose names are varied, but who call themselves "The Poor", "The Many". Another name? The Essenes. Much disinfo has leaked out about who "the Essenes" were. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were hyper-messianic, hyper-revolutionary, hyper-anti-Roman Jews who "made a way in the wilderness."

Right, James was a Christian of course he wouldn't be part of the temple priesthood. That doesn't necessarily make him an Essene, and while there may have been influences, Christians and Essenes weren't the same thing. Their beliefs are not fully known, but they weren't a band of revolutionaries mostly we know them to be monastic. They're getting blended with the Zealots here.

It was taken pretty much for granted by all involved at the time that James was a) the true blood brother of another, called Jesus b) the opposition High Priest with more clout in Jerusalem and Palestine to be FEARED by the Establishment, for James had the entire population on his side.

Well, the Establishment won't know what hit them. Who were the Establishment, anyway, if the entire population was against them?

So perhaps the most important man of FC Palestine is forgotten, erased from history.

Yeah, they really did a heck of a job erasing James from history. He has a letter in the canonical Bible!

Enter Saulus, I mean, Saul, I mean Paul.

Paul OPENLY ADMITS to "persecuting the way" in its infancy. One must recognize that "Christianity" as "The Way" is really not a good framework to udnerstand this. Christianity became what it was literally decades, if not centuries, later.

Well, you can tell it's a good conspiracy because he admits to it.

There exists a couple documents called "The Pseudoclementines." Most establishment scholars completely dismiss these as"romance fiction."

Sure, what do establishment scholars know?

In the Recognitions is a section that is the first-hand account of Peter telling Clement that before Clement arrived, [this is in the early 40s] there was a day like any other, in which James, like Jesus afterward, is depicted as discoursing with the multitudes on the steps of the temple, preaching and answering their questions. Suddenly, a man only named "The Enemy" walks into the midst of the people on the temple with a gang of his compatriots. The Enemy begins shouting, yelling, at James, shouting for his compatriots to stop him from speaking. Astonishingly, in a footnote at the end of the Recognitions, there is a lone line, that says, in effect, "The Enemy went by the name Saulus."

Well, it's a margin note, not a footnote, but sure, this might be an anti-Paul work. There are plenty.

Beautiful. No wonder the Latin version, "The Homilies" deleted this section, and no one mentions the Recognitions. How embarrassing for the Church to know this exacts.

You will notice the Gospels and Acts have several episodes that seem to go out of their way to paint the Romans in as best a light as possible.

Dunno. There's some persecution in there, too.

Why is Paul, who "claims Jewish heritage" as all Herodians do, saying the most insulting, horrifying, vile thing to those of "his own kin" or faith? He LITERALLY SAYS that when Moses descended with the tablets from Mt Sinai, he wore a veil, not to hide the glory of god from shining and burning the people when they looked upon it, but TO DECEIVE THEM AND HIDE THE FACT THAT THE GLORY OF GOD HAD BURNT OUT?

Yes, Paul isn't Jewish. Christianity is becoming a new thing.

What we have with the New Testament, is a systematic overwriting of real history to pacify an entire region, to turn the population to Roman subjugation. You'll notice how "Samaritans" feature prominently in the Gospels, all in good terms. Samaritans were the other huge factions in Palestine along with the Jews. These Samaritans had religious beliefs of their own, very, VERY similar to the Christianity of Jesus - it's obvious that they were being flattered and turned toward this new religion to slowly turn demographics away from the Jews, who were eventually massacred and dispelled from the area for centuries after the destruction of their temple in 70 AD.

Well, that's a big leap. It's a Samaritan conspiracy!

Even traditional Judaism at it exists today, BIRTHED IN THE AFTERMATH OF THIS PERIOD AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, is merely and overwrite of AUTHENTIC JUDAISM OF THE PERIOD.

The Romans got us too, it turns out! Judaism is a Roman plot. Yes, religions change a lot, etc. But this is quite something.

The founder of Rabbinical Judaism, Yohanan ben Zacchai, fled Jerusalem, prostrated himself in front of Vespasian, THE DESTROYER OF JERUSALEM AND THE JEWS, applying the Messianic star prophecy to HIM, something so blasphemous and the HEART of the "The Way" of James and his followers, that Yohanan was allowed to live and found his academy which would birth modern Rabbinic Judaism, which is much, MUCH less hardline than the Zealots of James, the Poor, the Essenes.

I guess we're all just dupes of this guy?

The entirety of Acts, and even the Gospels, is a way to distort REAL history and create an idealized, Hellenistic, peaceful view of the times, offering a heavenly Man-God figure that would have offended the Zealots who "Could never bring themselves to call any man Lord." Part of the Torah and these Zealots insistence was ABSTENANCE FROM BLOOD, which becomes THE central imagery of Paul's new religion, drinking the cup of his Lord's own blood, and eating his body.

Correct - people who are not Christians do not follow Christian practices.

Is it not obvious that Paul and his lackeys are writing polemically to denigrate these Jews who hated him, hounded him, and opposed him? The NT uses coded language like "Pharisees" to ostensibly refer to the Establishment Jews, but THE ESTABLISHMENT JEWS were on the Herodian/Roman side, and would never act the way they do in the NT. The ZEALOTS, JAMES, THE POOR, THE MANY, now they would indeed act as Paul describes the Pharisees. They would "nitpick" over the Law. They would indeed call out his blasphemy


In which the author crafts an entire new history of Christianity because the Establishment doesn't want you to know.

OK, there's a lot going on here. Mostly seems to be an (excited) rehash of the works of Robert Eisenmann, who I am not particularly familiar with, but who does seem to be something of a heterodox scholar.

To skip to the point, and offer the thesis: *PAUL, THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, WAS A ROMAN-HERODIAN, WORKING ON THEIR BEHALF, TO PACIFY THE HYPER-REVOLUTIONARY JEWS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF JAMES THE JUST, "BROTHER OF THE LORD", HELPING MURDER JAMES, HIS MESSIANIC FOLLOWERS, AND ALL OPPOSITION TO ROME, AND INSTEAD OFFERING A PEACEFUL, PRO-ROMAN, HEAVENLY SPIRITUALISM AS OPPOSED TO THEIR REVOLUTIONARY, ANTI-ROMAN, APOCALYPTIC ZIONISM.

Thank you for starting in all caps, it really gets the tone of the entire thing across. Also, I'm not really sure what a "Zionist" would be doing in ancient Judaea without time traveling, but hey, let's find out.

Much of the information of the period comes from Josephus, a NATIVE PALESTINIAN with INTIMATE first-hand knowledge as he turned against the Jews and led a contingent of the Romans in Gamela in the War/Uprising. It is worth noting that Josephus writes that most of the history of the period was defective due to either FLATTERY TO THE ROMANS AND HATRED OF THE JEWS.

Nothing wrong with saying that Josephus was a flawed historian that's pretty well-established. On the other hand, the point of this is to establish that no conventional history could possibly be accurate, and let the OP substitute whatever he likes. Also, claiming that he was motivated by hatred of the Jews is. iffy. But, whatever. This isn't about Josephus.

What most people do not understand, is that FC Palestine was a hotbed of insurrection, war, oppression, strife, constant battling between SEVERAL factions.

It's a plot point in Life of Brian but sure, most people don't understand that. "FC Palestine" means first century Palestine here, and does not, as I initially thought, refer to a soccer team.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Jerusalem, the temple, and the High Priesthood were all PLACED there by the Herods, the Roman puppet kings of the region. The multitudes of the Jews HATED this, as they considered this defilement of the temple, as all temple service was essentially polluted by a High Priesthood that "doesn't keep the Law" and converses and intermingles with the Romans and Herodians, "Sons of the Pit", basically demonic figures to these Jews, full of adulteresses and murderers and villains.

TIL that Jews never liked Jerusalem or the Second Temple, anyway. I'll have to ask about that at Passover next year.

Enter James the Just. If you were to read the New Testament, youɽ know very, very little of James. At one point he is called the brother of the Lord, by none other than Paul himself. It's worth noting that Paul's letters, especially the earliest such as Galatians, is often a truer, first-person account of real experiences, and should be given primacy over other NT books, such as the Gospels and Acts

Well, the New Testament isn't about James, so I don't know why heɽ be that prominent in it. Since we're about to accuse Paul of a giant Roman conspiracy, I'm not sure why we start out by praising the veracity of his letters. Plus, regardless of the authority of either the Gospels or the Epistles, they're accounts of different events so I have no clue what should be given "primacy" or what that would mean.

In Galatians and other letters, Paul refers to the LEADERSHIP OF JERUSALEM as a central triad, or pillars, of James, Cephas, and John. Sometimes described as James, PETER, and John.

Cephas is Aramaic, Peter is Latin, they mean the same thing. And it's not the civic leadership of Jerusalem, they're the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. New thing.

James was not a High Priest. He was not an establishment priest. He was the OPPOSITION High Priest, the leader of the vast multitudes in Jerusalem and Palestine, whose names are varied, but who call themselves "The Poor", "The Many". Another name? The Essenes. Much disinfo has leaked out about who "the Essenes" were. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were hyper-messianic, hyper-revolutionary, hyper-anti-Roman Jews who "made a way in the wilderness."

Right, James was a Christian of course he wouldn't be part of the temple priesthood. That doesn't necessarily make him an Essene, and while there may have been influences, Christians and Essenes weren't the same thing. Their beliefs are not fully known, but they weren't a band of revolutionaries mostly we know them to be monastic. They're getting blended with the Zealots here.

It was taken pretty much for granted by all involved at the time that James was a) the true blood brother of another, called Jesus b) the opposition High Priest with more clout in Jerusalem and Palestine to be FEARED by the Establishment, for James had the entire population on his side.

Well, the Establishment won't know what hit them. Who were the Establishment, anyway, if the entire population was against them?

So perhaps the most important man of FC Palestine is forgotten, erased from history.

Yeah, they really did a heck of a job erasing James from history. He has a letter in the canonical Bible!

Enter Saulus, I mean, Saul, I mean Paul.

Paul OPENLY ADMITS to "persecuting the way" in its infancy. One must recognize that "Christianity" as "The Way" is really not a good framework to udnerstand this. Christianity became what it was literally decades, if not centuries, later.

Well, you can tell it's a good conspiracy because he admits to it.

There exists a couple documents called "The Pseudoclementines." Most establishment scholars completely dismiss these as"romance fiction."

Sure, what do establishment scholars know?

In the Recognitions is a section that is the first-hand account of Peter telling Clement that before Clement arrived, [this is in the early 40s] there was a day like any other, in which James, like Jesus afterward, is depicted as discoursing with the multitudes on the steps of the temple, preaching and answering their questions. Suddenly, a man only named "The Enemy" walks into the midst of the people on the temple with a gang of his compatriots. The Enemy begins shouting, yelling, at James, shouting for his compatriots to stop him from speaking. Astonishingly, in a footnote at the end of the Recognitions, there is a lone line, that says, in effect, "The Enemy went by the name Saulus."

Well, it's a margin note, not a footnote, but sure, this might be an anti-Paul work. There are plenty.

Beautiful. No wonder the Latin version, "The Homilies" deleted this section, and no one mentions the Recognitions. How embarrassing for the Church to know this exacts.

You will notice the Gospels and Acts have several episodes that seem to go out of their way to paint the Romans in as best a light as possible.

Dunno. There's some persecution in there, too.

Why is Paul, who "claims Jewish heritage" as all Herodians do, saying the most insulting, horrifying, vile thing to those of "his own kin" or faith? He LITERALLY SAYS that when Moses descended with the tablets from Mt Sinai, he wore a veil, not to hide the glory of god from shining and burning the people when they looked upon it, but TO DECEIVE THEM AND HIDE THE FACT THAT THE GLORY OF GOD HAD BURNT OUT?

Yes, Paul isn't Jewish. Christianity is becoming a new thing.

What we have with the New Testament, is a systematic overwriting of real history to pacify an entire region, to turn the population to Roman subjugation. You'll notice how "Samaritans" feature prominently in the Gospels, all in good terms. Samaritans were the other huge factions in Palestine along with the Jews. These Samaritans had religious beliefs of their own, very, VERY similar to the Christianity of Jesus - it's obvious that they were being flattered and turned toward this new religion to slowly turn demographics away from the Jews, who were eventually massacred and dispelled from the area for centuries after the destruction of their temple in 70 AD.

Well, that's a big leap. It's a Samaritan conspiracy!

Even traditional Judaism at it exists today, BIRTHED IN THE AFTERMATH OF THIS PERIOD AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, is merely and overwrite of AUTHENTIC JUDAISM OF THE PERIOD.

The Romans got us too, it turns out! Judaism is a Roman plot. Yes, religions change a lot, etc. But this is quite something.

The founder of Rabbinical Judaism, Yohanan ben Zacchai, fled Jerusalem, prostrated himself in front of Vespasian, THE DESTROYER OF JERUSALEM AND THE JEWS, applying the Messianic star prophecy to HIM, something so blasphemous and the HEART of the "The Way" of James and his followers, that Yohanan was allowed to live and found his academy which would birth modern Rabbinic Judaism, which is much, MUCH less hardline than the Zealots of James, the Poor, the Essenes.

I guess we're all just dupes of this guy?

The entirety of Acts, and even the Gospels, is a way to distort REAL history and create an idealized, Hellenistic, peaceful view of the times, offering a heavenly Man-God figure that would have offended the Zealots who "Could never bring themselves to call any man Lord." Part of the Torah and these Zealots insistence was ABSTENANCE FROM BLOOD, which becomes THE central imagery of Paul's new religion, drinking the cup of his Lord's own blood, and eating his body.

Correct - people who are not Christians do not follow Christian practices.

Is it not obvious that Paul and his lackeys are writing polemically to denigrate these Jews who hated him, hounded him, and opposed him? The NT uses coded language like "Pharisees" to ostensibly refer to the Establishment Jews, but THE ESTABLISHMENT JEWS were on the Herodian/Roman side, and would never act the way they do in the NT. The ZEALOTS, JAMES, THE POOR, THE MANY, now they would indeed act as Paul describes the Pharisees. They would "nitpick" over the Law. They would indeed call out his blasphemy


In which the author crafts an entire new history of Christianity because the Establishment doesn't want you to know.

OK, there's a lot going on here. Mostly seems to be an (excited) rehash of the works of Robert Eisenmann, who I am not particularly familiar with, but who does seem to be something of a heterodox scholar.

To skip to the point, and offer the thesis: *PAUL, THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, WAS A ROMAN-HERODIAN, WORKING ON THEIR BEHALF, TO PACIFY THE HYPER-REVOLUTIONARY JEWS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF JAMES THE JUST, "BROTHER OF THE LORD", HELPING MURDER JAMES, HIS MESSIANIC FOLLOWERS, AND ALL OPPOSITION TO ROME, AND INSTEAD OFFERING A PEACEFUL, PRO-ROMAN, HEAVENLY SPIRITUALISM AS OPPOSED TO THEIR REVOLUTIONARY, ANTI-ROMAN, APOCALYPTIC ZIONISM.

Thank you for starting in all caps, it really gets the tone of the entire thing across. Also, I'm not really sure what a "Zionist" would be doing in ancient Judaea without time traveling, but hey, let's find out.

Much of the information of the period comes from Josephus, a NATIVE PALESTINIAN with INTIMATE first-hand knowledge as he turned against the Jews and led a contingent of the Romans in Gamela in the War/Uprising. It is worth noting that Josephus writes that most of the history of the period was defective due to either FLATTERY TO THE ROMANS AND HATRED OF THE JEWS.

Nothing wrong with saying that Josephus was a flawed historian that's pretty well-established. On the other hand, the point of this is to establish that no conventional history could possibly be accurate, and let the OP substitute whatever he likes. Also, claiming that he was motivated by hatred of the Jews is. iffy. But, whatever. This isn't about Josephus.

What most people do not understand, is that FC Palestine was a hotbed of insurrection, war, oppression, strife, constant battling between SEVERAL factions.

It's a plot point in Life of Brian but sure, most people don't understand that. "FC Palestine" means first century Palestine here, and does not, as I initially thought, refer to a soccer team.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Jerusalem, the temple, and the High Priesthood were all PLACED there by the Herods, the Roman puppet kings of the region. The multitudes of the Jews HATED this, as they considered this defilement of the temple, as all temple service was essentially polluted by a High Priesthood that "doesn't keep the Law" and converses and intermingles with the Romans and Herodians, "Sons of the Pit", basically demonic figures to these Jews, full of adulteresses and murderers and villains.

TIL that Jews never liked Jerusalem or the Second Temple, anyway. I'll have to ask about that at Passover next year.

Enter James the Just. If you were to read the New Testament, youɽ know very, very little of James. At one point he is called the brother of the Lord, by none other than Paul himself. It's worth noting that Paul's letters, especially the earliest such as Galatians, is often a truer, first-person account of real experiences, and should be given primacy over other NT books, such as the Gospels and Acts

Well, the New Testament isn't about James, so I don't know why heɽ be that prominent in it. Since we're about to accuse Paul of a giant Roman conspiracy, I'm not sure why we start out by praising the veracity of his letters. Plus, regardless of the authority of either the Gospels or the Epistles, they're accounts of different events so I have no clue what should be given "primacy" or what that would mean.

In Galatians and other letters, Paul refers to the LEADERSHIP OF JERUSALEM as a central triad, or pillars, of James, Cephas, and John. Sometimes described as James, PETER, and John.

Cephas is Aramaic, Peter is Latin, they mean the same thing. And it's not the civic leadership of Jerusalem, they're the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. New thing.

James was not a High Priest. He was not an establishment priest. He was the OPPOSITION High Priest, the leader of the vast multitudes in Jerusalem and Palestine, whose names are varied, but who call themselves "The Poor", "The Many". Another name? The Essenes. Much disinfo has leaked out about who "the Essenes" were. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were hyper-messianic, hyper-revolutionary, hyper-anti-Roman Jews who "made a way in the wilderness."

Right, James was a Christian of course he wouldn't be part of the temple priesthood. That doesn't necessarily make him an Essene, and while there may have been influences, Christians and Essenes weren't the same thing. Their beliefs are not fully known, but they weren't a band of revolutionaries mostly we know them to be monastic. They're getting blended with the Zealots here.

It was taken pretty much for granted by all involved at the time that James was a) the true blood brother of another, called Jesus b) the opposition High Priest with more clout in Jerusalem and Palestine to be FEARED by the Establishment, for James had the entire population on his side.

Well, the Establishment won't know what hit them. Who were the Establishment, anyway, if the entire population was against them?

So perhaps the most important man of FC Palestine is forgotten, erased from history.

Yeah, they really did a heck of a job erasing James from history. He has a letter in the canonical Bible!

Enter Saulus, I mean, Saul, I mean Paul.

Paul OPENLY ADMITS to "persecuting the way" in its infancy. One must recognize that "Christianity" as "The Way" is really not a good framework to udnerstand this. Christianity became what it was literally decades, if not centuries, later.

Well, you can tell it's a good conspiracy because he admits to it.

There exists a couple documents called "The Pseudoclementines." Most establishment scholars completely dismiss these as"romance fiction."

Sure, what do establishment scholars know?

In the Recognitions is a section that is the first-hand account of Peter telling Clement that before Clement arrived, [this is in the early 40s] there was a day like any other, in which James, like Jesus afterward, is depicted as discoursing with the multitudes on the steps of the temple, preaching and answering their questions. Suddenly, a man only named "The Enemy" walks into the midst of the people on the temple with a gang of his compatriots. The Enemy begins shouting, yelling, at James, shouting for his compatriots to stop him from speaking. Astonishingly, in a footnote at the end of the Recognitions, there is a lone line, that says, in effect, "The Enemy went by the name Saulus."

Well, it's a margin note, not a footnote, but sure, this might be an anti-Paul work. There are plenty.

Beautiful. No wonder the Latin version, "The Homilies" deleted this section, and no one mentions the Recognitions. How embarrassing for the Church to know this exacts.

You will notice the Gospels and Acts have several episodes that seem to go out of their way to paint the Romans in as best a light as possible.

Dunno. There's some persecution in there, too.

Why is Paul, who "claims Jewish heritage" as all Herodians do, saying the most insulting, horrifying, vile thing to those of "his own kin" or faith? He LITERALLY SAYS that when Moses descended with the tablets from Mt Sinai, he wore a veil, not to hide the glory of god from shining and burning the people when they looked upon it, but TO DECEIVE THEM AND HIDE THE FACT THAT THE GLORY OF GOD HAD BURNT OUT?

Yes, Paul isn't Jewish. Christianity is becoming a new thing.

What we have with the New Testament, is a systematic overwriting of real history to pacify an entire region, to turn the population to Roman subjugation. You'll notice how "Samaritans" feature prominently in the Gospels, all in good terms. Samaritans were the other huge factions in Palestine along with the Jews. These Samaritans had religious beliefs of their own, very, VERY similar to the Christianity of Jesus - it's obvious that they were being flattered and turned toward this new religion to slowly turn demographics away from the Jews, who were eventually massacred and dispelled from the area for centuries after the destruction of their temple in 70 AD.

Well, that's a big leap. It's a Samaritan conspiracy!

Even traditional Judaism at it exists today, BIRTHED IN THE AFTERMATH OF THIS PERIOD AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, is merely and overwrite of AUTHENTIC JUDAISM OF THE PERIOD.

The Romans got us too, it turns out! Judaism is a Roman plot. Yes, religions change a lot, etc. But this is quite something.

The founder of Rabbinical Judaism, Yohanan ben Zacchai, fled Jerusalem, prostrated himself in front of Vespasian, THE DESTROYER OF JERUSALEM AND THE JEWS, applying the Messianic star prophecy to HIM, something so blasphemous and the HEART of the "The Way" of James and his followers, that Yohanan was allowed to live and found his academy which would birth modern Rabbinic Judaism, which is much, MUCH less hardline than the Zealots of James, the Poor, the Essenes.

I guess we're all just dupes of this guy?

The entirety of Acts, and even the Gospels, is a way to distort REAL history and create an idealized, Hellenistic, peaceful view of the times, offering a heavenly Man-God figure that would have offended the Zealots who "Could never bring themselves to call any man Lord." Part of the Torah and these Zealots insistence was ABSTENANCE FROM BLOOD, which becomes THE central imagery of Paul's new religion, drinking the cup of his Lord's own blood, and eating his body.

Correct - people who are not Christians do not follow Christian practices.

Is it not obvious that Paul and his lackeys are writing polemically to denigrate these Jews who hated him, hounded him, and opposed him? The NT uses coded language like "Pharisees" to ostensibly refer to the Establishment Jews, but THE ESTABLISHMENT JEWS were on the Herodian/Roman side, and would never act the way they do in the NT. The ZEALOTS, JAMES, THE POOR, THE MANY, now they would indeed act as Paul describes the Pharisees. They would "nitpick" over the Law. They would indeed call out his blasphemy


In which the author crafts an entire new history of Christianity because the Establishment doesn't want you to know.

OK, there's a lot going on here. Mostly seems to be an (excited) rehash of the works of Robert Eisenmann, who I am not particularly familiar with, but who does seem to be something of a heterodox scholar.

To skip to the point, and offer the thesis: *PAUL, THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, WAS A ROMAN-HERODIAN, WORKING ON THEIR BEHALF, TO PACIFY THE HYPER-REVOLUTIONARY JEWS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF JAMES THE JUST, "BROTHER OF THE LORD", HELPING MURDER JAMES, HIS MESSIANIC FOLLOWERS, AND ALL OPPOSITION TO ROME, AND INSTEAD OFFERING A PEACEFUL, PRO-ROMAN, HEAVENLY SPIRITUALISM AS OPPOSED TO THEIR REVOLUTIONARY, ANTI-ROMAN, APOCALYPTIC ZIONISM.

Thank you for starting in all caps, it really gets the tone of the entire thing across. Also, I'm not really sure what a "Zionist" would be doing in ancient Judaea without time traveling, but hey, let's find out.

Much of the information of the period comes from Josephus, a NATIVE PALESTINIAN with INTIMATE first-hand knowledge as he turned against the Jews and led a contingent of the Romans in Gamela in the War/Uprising. It is worth noting that Josephus writes that most of the history of the period was defective due to either FLATTERY TO THE ROMANS AND HATRED OF THE JEWS.

Nothing wrong with saying that Josephus was a flawed historian that's pretty well-established. On the other hand, the point of this is to establish that no conventional history could possibly be accurate, and let the OP substitute whatever he likes. Also, claiming that he was motivated by hatred of the Jews is. iffy. But, whatever. This isn't about Josephus.

What most people do not understand, is that FC Palestine was a hotbed of insurrection, war, oppression, strife, constant battling between SEVERAL factions.

It's a plot point in Life of Brian but sure, most people don't understand that. "FC Palestine" means first century Palestine here, and does not, as I initially thought, refer to a soccer team.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Jerusalem, the temple, and the High Priesthood were all PLACED there by the Herods, the Roman puppet kings of the region. The multitudes of the Jews HATED this, as they considered this defilement of the temple, as all temple service was essentially polluted by a High Priesthood that "doesn't keep the Law" and converses and intermingles with the Romans and Herodians, "Sons of the Pit", basically demonic figures to these Jews, full of adulteresses and murderers and villains.

TIL that Jews never liked Jerusalem or the Second Temple, anyway. I'll have to ask about that at Passover next year.

Enter James the Just. If you were to read the New Testament, youɽ know very, very little of James. At one point he is called the brother of the Lord, by none other than Paul himself. It's worth noting that Paul's letters, especially the earliest such as Galatians, is often a truer, first-person account of real experiences, and should be given primacy over other NT books, such as the Gospels and Acts

Well, the New Testament isn't about James, so I don't know why heɽ be that prominent in it. Since we're about to accuse Paul of a giant Roman conspiracy, I'm not sure why we start out by praising the veracity of his letters. Plus, regardless of the authority of either the Gospels or the Epistles, they're accounts of different events so I have no clue what should be given "primacy" or what that would mean.

In Galatians and other letters, Paul refers to the LEADERSHIP OF JERUSALEM as a central triad, or pillars, of James, Cephas, and John. Sometimes described as James, PETER, and John.

Cephas is Aramaic, Peter is Latin, they mean the same thing. And it's not the civic leadership of Jerusalem, they're the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. New thing.

James was not a High Priest. He was not an establishment priest. He was the OPPOSITION High Priest, the leader of the vast multitudes in Jerusalem and Palestine, whose names are varied, but who call themselves "The Poor", "The Many". Another name? The Essenes. Much disinfo has leaked out about who "the Essenes" were. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were hyper-messianic, hyper-revolutionary, hyper-anti-Roman Jews who "made a way in the wilderness."

Right, James was a Christian of course he wouldn't be part of the temple priesthood. That doesn't necessarily make him an Essene, and while there may have been influences, Christians and Essenes weren't the same thing. Their beliefs are not fully known, but they weren't a band of revolutionaries mostly we know them to be monastic. They're getting blended with the Zealots here.

It was taken pretty much for granted by all involved at the time that James was a) the true blood brother of another, called Jesus b) the opposition High Priest with more clout in Jerusalem and Palestine to be FEARED by the Establishment, for James had the entire population on his side.

Well, the Establishment won't know what hit them. Who were the Establishment, anyway, if the entire population was against them?

So perhaps the most important man of FC Palestine is forgotten, erased from history.

Yeah, they really did a heck of a job erasing James from history. He has a letter in the canonical Bible!

Enter Saulus, I mean, Saul, I mean Paul.

Paul OPENLY ADMITS to "persecuting the way" in its infancy. One must recognize that "Christianity" as "The Way" is really not a good framework to udnerstand this. Christianity became what it was literally decades, if not centuries, later.

Well, you can tell it's a good conspiracy because he admits to it.

There exists a couple documents called "The Pseudoclementines." Most establishment scholars completely dismiss these as"romance fiction."

Sure, what do establishment scholars know?

In the Recognitions is a section that is the first-hand account of Peter telling Clement that before Clement arrived, [this is in the early 40s] there was a day like any other, in which James, like Jesus afterward, is depicted as discoursing with the multitudes on the steps of the temple, preaching and answering their questions. Suddenly, a man only named "The Enemy" walks into the midst of the people on the temple with a gang of his compatriots. The Enemy begins shouting, yelling, at James, shouting for his compatriots to stop him from speaking. Astonishingly, in a footnote at the end of the Recognitions, there is a lone line, that says, in effect, "The Enemy went by the name Saulus."

Well, it's a margin note, not a footnote, but sure, this might be an anti-Paul work. There are plenty.

Beautiful. No wonder the Latin version, "The Homilies" deleted this section, and no one mentions the Recognitions. How embarrassing for the Church to know this exacts.

You will notice the Gospels and Acts have several episodes that seem to go out of their way to paint the Romans in as best a light as possible.

Dunno. There's some persecution in there, too.

Why is Paul, who "claims Jewish heritage" as all Herodians do, saying the most insulting, horrifying, vile thing to those of "his own kin" or faith? He LITERALLY SAYS that when Moses descended with the tablets from Mt Sinai, he wore a veil, not to hide the glory of god from shining and burning the people when they looked upon it, but TO DECEIVE THEM AND HIDE THE FACT THAT THE GLORY OF GOD HAD BURNT OUT?

Yes, Paul isn't Jewish. Christianity is becoming a new thing.

What we have with the New Testament, is a systematic overwriting of real history to pacify an entire region, to turn the population to Roman subjugation. You'll notice how "Samaritans" feature prominently in the Gospels, all in good terms. Samaritans were the other huge factions in Palestine along with the Jews. These Samaritans had religious beliefs of their own, very, VERY similar to the Christianity of Jesus - it's obvious that they were being flattered and turned toward this new religion to slowly turn demographics away from the Jews, who were eventually massacred and dispelled from the area for centuries after the destruction of their temple in 70 AD.

Well, that's a big leap. It's a Samaritan conspiracy!

Even traditional Judaism at it exists today, BIRTHED IN THE AFTERMATH OF THIS PERIOD AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, is merely and overwrite of AUTHENTIC JUDAISM OF THE PERIOD.

The Romans got us too, it turns out! Judaism is a Roman plot. Yes, religions change a lot, etc. But this is quite something.

The founder of Rabbinical Judaism, Yohanan ben Zacchai, fled Jerusalem, prostrated himself in front of Vespasian, THE DESTROYER OF JERUSALEM AND THE JEWS, applying the Messianic star prophecy to HIM, something so blasphemous and the HEART of the "The Way" of James and his followers, that Yohanan was allowed to live and found his academy which would birth modern Rabbinic Judaism, which is much, MUCH less hardline than the Zealots of James, the Poor, the Essenes.

I guess we're all just dupes of this guy?

The entirety of Acts, and even the Gospels, is a way to distort REAL history and create an idealized, Hellenistic, peaceful view of the times, offering a heavenly Man-God figure that would have offended the Zealots who "Could never bring themselves to call any man Lord." Part of the Torah and these Zealots insistence was ABSTENANCE FROM BLOOD, which becomes THE central imagery of Paul's new religion, drinking the cup of his Lord's own blood, and eating his body.

Correct - people who are not Christians do not follow Christian practices.

Is it not obvious that Paul and his lackeys are writing polemically to denigrate these Jews who hated him, hounded him, and opposed him? The NT uses coded language like "Pharisees" to ostensibly refer to the Establishment Jews, but THE ESTABLISHMENT JEWS were on the Herodian/Roman side, and would never act the way they do in the NT. The ZEALOTS, JAMES, THE POOR, THE MANY, now they would indeed act as Paul describes the Pharisees. They would "nitpick" over the Law. They would indeed call out his blasphemy


In which the author crafts an entire new history of Christianity because the Establishment doesn't want you to know.

OK, there's a lot going on here. Mostly seems to be an (excited) rehash of the works of Robert Eisenmann, who I am not particularly familiar with, but who does seem to be something of a heterodox scholar.

To skip to the point, and offer the thesis: *PAUL, THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, WAS A ROMAN-HERODIAN, WORKING ON THEIR BEHALF, TO PACIFY THE HYPER-REVOLUTIONARY JEWS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF JAMES THE JUST, "BROTHER OF THE LORD", HELPING MURDER JAMES, HIS MESSIANIC FOLLOWERS, AND ALL OPPOSITION TO ROME, AND INSTEAD OFFERING A PEACEFUL, PRO-ROMAN, HEAVENLY SPIRITUALISM AS OPPOSED TO THEIR REVOLUTIONARY, ANTI-ROMAN, APOCALYPTIC ZIONISM.

Thank you for starting in all caps, it really gets the tone of the entire thing across. Also, I'm not really sure what a "Zionist" would be doing in ancient Judaea without time traveling, but hey, let's find out.

Much of the information of the period comes from Josephus, a NATIVE PALESTINIAN with INTIMATE first-hand knowledge as he turned against the Jews and led a contingent of the Romans in Gamela in the War/Uprising. It is worth noting that Josephus writes that most of the history of the period was defective due to either FLATTERY TO THE ROMANS AND HATRED OF THE JEWS.

Nothing wrong with saying that Josephus was a flawed historian that's pretty well-established. On the other hand, the point of this is to establish that no conventional history could possibly be accurate, and let the OP substitute whatever he likes. Also, claiming that he was motivated by hatred of the Jews is. iffy. But, whatever. This isn't about Josephus.

What most people do not understand, is that FC Palestine was a hotbed of insurrection, war, oppression, strife, constant battling between SEVERAL factions.

It's a plot point in Life of Brian but sure, most people don't understand that. "FC Palestine" means first century Palestine here, and does not, as I initially thought, refer to a soccer team.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Jerusalem, the temple, and the High Priesthood were all PLACED there by the Herods, the Roman puppet kings of the region. The multitudes of the Jews HATED this, as they considered this defilement of the temple, as all temple service was essentially polluted by a High Priesthood that "doesn't keep the Law" and converses and intermingles with the Romans and Herodians, "Sons of the Pit", basically demonic figures to these Jews, full of adulteresses and murderers and villains.

TIL that Jews never liked Jerusalem or the Second Temple, anyway. I'll have to ask about that at Passover next year.

Enter James the Just. If you were to read the New Testament, youɽ know very, very little of James. At one point he is called the brother of the Lord, by none other than Paul himself. It's worth noting that Paul's letters, especially the earliest such as Galatians, is often a truer, first-person account of real experiences, and should be given primacy over other NT books, such as the Gospels and Acts

Well, the New Testament isn't about James, so I don't know why heɽ be that prominent in it. Since we're about to accuse Paul of a giant Roman conspiracy, I'm not sure why we start out by praising the veracity of his letters. Plus, regardless of the authority of either the Gospels or the Epistles, they're accounts of different events so I have no clue what should be given "primacy" or what that would mean.

In Galatians and other letters, Paul refers to the LEADERSHIP OF JERUSALEM as a central triad, or pillars, of James, Cephas, and John. Sometimes described as James, PETER, and John.

Cephas is Aramaic, Peter is Latin, they mean the same thing. And it's not the civic leadership of Jerusalem, they're the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. New thing.

James was not a High Priest. He was not an establishment priest. He was the OPPOSITION High Priest, the leader of the vast multitudes in Jerusalem and Palestine, whose names are varied, but who call themselves "The Poor", "The Many". Another name? The Essenes. Much disinfo has leaked out about who "the Essenes" were. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were hyper-messianic, hyper-revolutionary, hyper-anti-Roman Jews who "made a way in the wilderness."

Right, James was a Christian of course he wouldn't be part of the temple priesthood. That doesn't necessarily make him an Essene, and while there may have been influences, Christians and Essenes weren't the same thing. Their beliefs are not fully known, but they weren't a band of revolutionaries mostly we know them to be monastic. They're getting blended with the Zealots here.

It was taken pretty much for granted by all involved at the time that James was a) the true blood brother of another, called Jesus b) the opposition High Priest with more clout in Jerusalem and Palestine to be FEARED by the Establishment, for James had the entire population on his side.

Well, the Establishment won't know what hit them. Who were the Establishment, anyway, if the entire population was against them?

So perhaps the most important man of FC Palestine is forgotten, erased from history.

Yeah, they really did a heck of a job erasing James from history. He has a letter in the canonical Bible!

Enter Saulus, I mean, Saul, I mean Paul.

Paul OPENLY ADMITS to "persecuting the way" in its infancy. One must recognize that "Christianity" as "The Way" is really not a good framework to udnerstand this. Christianity became what it was literally decades, if not centuries, later.

Well, you can tell it's a good conspiracy because he admits to it.

There exists a couple documents called "The Pseudoclementines." Most establishment scholars completely dismiss these as"romance fiction."

Sure, what do establishment scholars know?

In the Recognitions is a section that is the first-hand account of Peter telling Clement that before Clement arrived, [this is in the early 40s] there was a day like any other, in which James, like Jesus afterward, is depicted as discoursing with the multitudes on the steps of the temple, preaching and answering their questions. Suddenly, a man only named "The Enemy" walks into the midst of the people on the temple with a gang of his compatriots. The Enemy begins shouting, yelling, at James, shouting for his compatriots to stop him from speaking. Astonishingly, in a footnote at the end of the Recognitions, there is a lone line, that says, in effect, "The Enemy went by the name Saulus."

Well, it's a margin note, not a footnote, but sure, this might be an anti-Paul work. There are plenty.

Beautiful. No wonder the Latin version, "The Homilies" deleted this section, and no one mentions the Recognitions. How embarrassing for the Church to know this exacts.

You will notice the Gospels and Acts have several episodes that seem to go out of their way to paint the Romans in as best a light as possible.

Dunno. There's some persecution in there, too.

Why is Paul, who "claims Jewish heritage" as all Herodians do, saying the most insulting, horrifying, vile thing to those of "his own kin" or faith? He LITERALLY SAYS that when Moses descended with the tablets from Mt Sinai, he wore a veil, not to hide the glory of god from shining and burning the people when they looked upon it, but TO DECEIVE THEM AND HIDE THE FACT THAT THE GLORY OF GOD HAD BURNT OUT?

Yes, Paul isn't Jewish. Christianity is becoming a new thing.

What we have with the New Testament, is a systematic overwriting of real history to pacify an entire region, to turn the population to Roman subjugation. You'll notice how "Samaritans" feature prominently in the Gospels, all in good terms. Samaritans were the other huge factions in Palestine along with the Jews. These Samaritans had religious beliefs of their own, very, VERY similar to the Christianity of Jesus - it's obvious that they were being flattered and turned toward this new religion to slowly turn demographics away from the Jews, who were eventually massacred and dispelled from the area for centuries after the destruction of their temple in 70 AD.

Well, that's a big leap. It's a Samaritan conspiracy!

Even traditional Judaism at it exists today, BIRTHED IN THE AFTERMATH OF THIS PERIOD AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, is merely and overwrite of AUTHENTIC JUDAISM OF THE PERIOD.

The Romans got us too, it turns out! Judaism is a Roman plot. Yes, religions change a lot, etc. But this is quite something.

The founder of Rabbinical Judaism, Yohanan ben Zacchai, fled Jerusalem, prostrated himself in front of Vespasian, THE DESTROYER OF JERUSALEM AND THE JEWS, applying the Messianic star prophecy to HIM, something so blasphemous and the HEART of the "The Way" of James and his followers, that Yohanan was allowed to live and found his academy which would birth modern Rabbinic Judaism, which is much, MUCH less hardline than the Zealots of James, the Poor, the Essenes.

I guess we're all just dupes of this guy?

The entirety of Acts, and even the Gospels, is a way to distort REAL history and create an idealized, Hellenistic, peaceful view of the times, offering a heavenly Man-God figure that would have offended the Zealots who "Could never bring themselves to call any man Lord." Part of the Torah and these Zealots insistence was ABSTENANCE FROM BLOOD, which becomes THE central imagery of Paul's new religion, drinking the cup of his Lord's own blood, and eating his body.

Correct - people who are not Christians do not follow Christian practices.

Is it not obvious that Paul and his lackeys are writing polemically to denigrate these Jews who hated him, hounded him, and opposed him? The NT uses coded language like "Pharisees" to ostensibly refer to the Establishment Jews, but THE ESTABLISHMENT JEWS were on the Herodian/Roman side, and would never act the way they do in the NT. The ZEALOTS, JAMES, THE POOR, THE MANY, now they would indeed act as Paul describes the Pharisees. They would "nitpick" over the Law. They would indeed call out his blasphemy


In which the author crafts an entire new history of Christianity because the Establishment doesn't want you to know.

OK, there's a lot going on here. Mostly seems to be an (excited) rehash of the works of Robert Eisenmann, who I am not particularly familiar with, but who does seem to be something of a heterodox scholar.

To skip to the point, and offer the thesis: *PAUL, THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, WAS A ROMAN-HERODIAN, WORKING ON THEIR BEHALF, TO PACIFY THE HYPER-REVOLUTIONARY JEWS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF JAMES THE JUST, "BROTHER OF THE LORD", HELPING MURDER JAMES, HIS MESSIANIC FOLLOWERS, AND ALL OPPOSITION TO ROME, AND INSTEAD OFFERING A PEACEFUL, PRO-ROMAN, HEAVENLY SPIRITUALISM AS OPPOSED TO THEIR REVOLUTIONARY, ANTI-ROMAN, APOCALYPTIC ZIONISM.

Thank you for starting in all caps, it really gets the tone of the entire thing across. Also, I'm not really sure what a "Zionist" would be doing in ancient Judaea without time traveling, but hey, let's find out.

Much of the information of the period comes from Josephus, a NATIVE PALESTINIAN with INTIMATE first-hand knowledge as he turned against the Jews and led a contingent of the Romans in Gamela in the War/Uprising. It is worth noting that Josephus writes that most of the history of the period was defective due to either FLATTERY TO THE ROMANS AND HATRED OF THE JEWS.

Nothing wrong with saying that Josephus was a flawed historian that's pretty well-established. On the other hand, the point of this is to establish that no conventional history could possibly be accurate, and let the OP substitute whatever he likes. Also, claiming that he was motivated by hatred of the Jews is. iffy. But, whatever. This isn't about Josephus.

What most people do not understand, is that FC Palestine was a hotbed of insurrection, war, oppression, strife, constant battling between SEVERAL factions.

It's a plot point in Life of Brian but sure, most people don't understand that. "FC Palestine" means first century Palestine here, and does not, as I initially thought, refer to a soccer team.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Jerusalem, the temple, and the High Priesthood were all PLACED there by the Herods, the Roman puppet kings of the region. The multitudes of the Jews HATED this, as they considered this defilement of the temple, as all temple service was essentially polluted by a High Priesthood that "doesn't keep the Law" and converses and intermingles with the Romans and Herodians, "Sons of the Pit", basically demonic figures to these Jews, full of adulteresses and murderers and villains.

TIL that Jews never liked Jerusalem or the Second Temple, anyway. I'll have to ask about that at Passover next year.

Enter James the Just. If you were to read the New Testament, youɽ know very, very little of James. At one point he is called the brother of the Lord, by none other than Paul himself. It's worth noting that Paul's letters, especially the earliest such as Galatians, is often a truer, first-person account of real experiences, and should be given primacy over other NT books, such as the Gospels and Acts

Well, the New Testament isn't about James, so I don't know why heɽ be that prominent in it. Since we're about to accuse Paul of a giant Roman conspiracy, I'm not sure why we start out by praising the veracity of his letters. Plus, regardless of the authority of either the Gospels or the Epistles, they're accounts of different events so I have no clue what should be given "primacy" or what that would mean.

In Galatians and other letters, Paul refers to the LEADERSHIP OF JERUSALEM as a central triad, or pillars, of James, Cephas, and John. Sometimes described as James, PETER, and John.

Cephas is Aramaic, Peter is Latin, they mean the same thing. And it's not the civic leadership of Jerusalem, they're the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. New thing.

James was not a High Priest. He was not an establishment priest. He was the OPPOSITION High Priest, the leader of the vast multitudes in Jerusalem and Palestine, whose names are varied, but who call themselves "The Poor", "The Many". Another name? The Essenes. Much disinfo has leaked out about who "the Essenes" were. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were hyper-messianic, hyper-revolutionary, hyper-anti-Roman Jews who "made a way in the wilderness."

Right, James was a Christian of course he wouldn't be part of the temple priesthood. That doesn't necessarily make him an Essene, and while there may have been influences, Christians and Essenes weren't the same thing. Their beliefs are not fully known, but they weren't a band of revolutionaries mostly we know them to be monastic. They're getting blended with the Zealots here.

It was taken pretty much for granted by all involved at the time that James was a) the true blood brother of another, called Jesus b) the opposition High Priest with more clout in Jerusalem and Palestine to be FEARED by the Establishment, for James had the entire population on his side.

Well, the Establishment won't know what hit them. Who were the Establishment, anyway, if the entire population was against them?

So perhaps the most important man of FC Palestine is forgotten, erased from history.

Yeah, they really did a heck of a job erasing James from history. He has a letter in the canonical Bible!

Enter Saulus, I mean, Saul, I mean Paul.

Paul OPENLY ADMITS to "persecuting the way" in its infancy. One must recognize that "Christianity" as "The Way" is really not a good framework to udnerstand this. Christianity became what it was literally decades, if not centuries, later.

Well, you can tell it's a good conspiracy because he admits to it.

There exists a couple documents called "The Pseudoclementines." Most establishment scholars completely dismiss these as"romance fiction."

Sure, what do establishment scholars know?

In the Recognitions is a section that is the first-hand account of Peter telling Clement that before Clement arrived, [this is in the early 40s] there was a day like any other, in which James, like Jesus afterward, is depicted as discoursing with the multitudes on the steps of the temple, preaching and answering their questions. Suddenly, a man only named "The Enemy" walks into the midst of the people on the temple with a gang of his compatriots. The Enemy begins shouting, yelling, at James, shouting for his compatriots to stop him from speaking. Astonishingly, in a footnote at the end of the Recognitions, there is a lone line, that says, in effect, "The Enemy went by the name Saulus."

Well, it's a margin note, not a footnote, but sure, this might be an anti-Paul work. There are plenty.

Beautiful. No wonder the Latin version, "The Homilies" deleted this section, and no one mentions the Recognitions. How embarrassing for the Church to know this exacts.

You will notice the Gospels and Acts have several episodes that seem to go out of their way to paint the Romans in as best a light as possible.

Dunno. There's some persecution in there, too.

Why is Paul, who "claims Jewish heritage" as all Herodians do, saying the most insulting, horrifying, vile thing to those of "his own kin" or faith? He LITERALLY SAYS that when Moses descended with the tablets from Mt Sinai, he wore a veil, not to hide the glory of god from shining and burning the people when they looked upon it, but TO DECEIVE THEM AND HIDE THE FACT THAT THE GLORY OF GOD HAD BURNT OUT?

Yes, Paul isn't Jewish. Christianity is becoming a new thing.

What we have with the New Testament, is a systematic overwriting of real history to pacify an entire region, to turn the population to Roman subjugation. You'll notice how "Samaritans" feature prominently in the Gospels, all in good terms. Samaritans were the other huge factions in Palestine along with the Jews. These Samaritans had religious beliefs of their own, very, VERY similar to the Christianity of Jesus - it's obvious that they were being flattered and turned toward this new religion to slowly turn demographics away from the Jews, who were eventually massacred and dispelled from the area for centuries after the destruction of their temple in 70 AD.

Well, that's a big leap. It's a Samaritan conspiracy!

Even traditional Judaism at it exists today, BIRTHED IN THE AFTERMATH OF THIS PERIOD AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, is merely and overwrite of AUTHENTIC JUDAISM OF THE PERIOD.

The Romans got us too, it turns out! Judaism is a Roman plot. Yes, religions change a lot, etc. But this is quite something.

The founder of Rabbinical Judaism, Yohanan ben Zacchai, fled Jerusalem, prostrated himself in front of Vespasian, THE DESTROYER OF JERUSALEM AND THE JEWS, applying the Messianic star prophecy to HIM, something so blasphemous and the HEART of the "The Way" of James and his followers, that Yohanan was allowed to live and found his academy which would birth modern Rabbinic Judaism, which is much, MUCH less hardline than the Zealots of James, the Poor, the Essenes.

I guess we're all just dupes of this guy?

The entirety of Acts, and even the Gospels, is a way to distort REAL history and create an idealized, Hellenistic, peaceful view of the times, offering a heavenly Man-God figure that would have offended the Zealots who "Could never bring themselves to call any man Lord." Part of the Torah and these Zealots insistence was ABSTENANCE FROM BLOOD, which becomes THE central imagery of Paul's new religion, drinking the cup of his Lord's own blood, and eating his body.

Correct - people who are not Christians do not follow Christian practices.

Is it not obvious that Paul and his lackeys are writing polemically to denigrate these Jews who hated him, hounded him, and opposed him? The NT uses coded language like "Pharisees" to ostensibly refer to the Establishment Jews, but THE ESTABLISHMENT JEWS were on the Herodian/Roman side, and would never act the way they do in the NT. The ZEALOTS, JAMES, THE POOR, THE MANY, now they would indeed act as Paul describes the Pharisees. They would "nitpick" over the Law. They would indeed call out his blasphemy


In which the author crafts an entire new history of Christianity because the Establishment doesn't want you to know.

OK, there's a lot going on here. Mostly seems to be an (excited) rehash of the works of Robert Eisenmann, who I am not particularly familiar with, but who does seem to be something of a heterodox scholar.

To skip to the point, and offer the thesis: *PAUL, THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, WAS A ROMAN-HERODIAN, WORKING ON THEIR BEHALF, TO PACIFY THE HYPER-REVOLUTIONARY JEWS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF JAMES THE JUST, "BROTHER OF THE LORD", HELPING MURDER JAMES, HIS MESSIANIC FOLLOWERS, AND ALL OPPOSITION TO ROME, AND INSTEAD OFFERING A PEACEFUL, PRO-ROMAN, HEAVENLY SPIRITUALISM AS OPPOSED TO THEIR REVOLUTIONARY, ANTI-ROMAN, APOCALYPTIC ZIONISM.

Thank you for starting in all caps, it really gets the tone of the entire thing across. Also, I'm not really sure what a "Zionist" would be doing in ancient Judaea without time traveling, but hey, let's find out.

Much of the information of the period comes from Josephus, a NATIVE PALESTINIAN with INTIMATE first-hand knowledge as he turned against the Jews and led a contingent of the Romans in Gamela in the War/Uprising. It is worth noting that Josephus writes that most of the history of the period was defective due to either FLATTERY TO THE ROMANS AND HATRED OF THE JEWS.

Nothing wrong with saying that Josephus was a flawed historian that's pretty well-established. On the other hand, the point of this is to establish that no conventional history could possibly be accurate, and let the OP substitute whatever he likes. Also, claiming that he was motivated by hatred of the Jews is. iffy. But, whatever. This isn't about Josephus.

What most people do not understand, is that FC Palestine was a hotbed of insurrection, war, oppression, strife, constant battling between SEVERAL factions.

It's a plot point in Life of Brian but sure, most people don't understand that. "FC Palestine" means first century Palestine here, and does not, as I initially thought, refer to a soccer team.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Jerusalem, the temple, and the High Priesthood were all PLACED there by the Herods, the Roman puppet kings of the region. The multitudes of the Jews HATED this, as they considered this defilement of the temple, as all temple service was essentially polluted by a High Priesthood that "doesn't keep the Law" and converses and intermingles with the Romans and Herodians, "Sons of the Pit", basically demonic figures to these Jews, full of adulteresses and murderers and villains.

TIL that Jews never liked Jerusalem or the Second Temple, anyway. I'll have to ask about that at Passover next year.

Enter James the Just. If you were to read the New Testament, youɽ know very, very little of James. At one point he is called the brother of the Lord, by none other than Paul himself. It's worth noting that Paul's letters, especially the earliest such as Galatians, is often a truer, first-person account of real experiences, and should be given primacy over other NT books, such as the Gospels and Acts

Well, the New Testament isn't about James, so I don't know why heɽ be that prominent in it. Since we're about to accuse Paul of a giant Roman conspiracy, I'm not sure why we start out by praising the veracity of his letters. Plus, regardless of the authority of either the Gospels or the Epistles, they're accounts of different events so I have no clue what should be given "primacy" or what that would mean.

In Galatians and other letters, Paul refers to the LEADERSHIP OF JERUSALEM as a central triad, or pillars, of James, Cephas, and John. Sometimes described as James, PETER, and John.

Cephas is Aramaic, Peter is Latin, they mean the same thing. And it's not the civic leadership of Jerusalem, they're the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. New thing.

James was not a High Priest. He was not an establishment priest. He was the OPPOSITION High Priest, the leader of the vast multitudes in Jerusalem and Palestine, whose names are varied, but who call themselves "The Poor", "The Many". Another name? The Essenes. Much disinfo has leaked out about who "the Essenes" were. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were hyper-messianic, hyper-revolutionary, hyper-anti-Roman Jews who "made a way in the wilderness."

Right, James was a Christian of course he wouldn't be part of the temple priesthood. That doesn't necessarily make him an Essene, and while there may have been influences, Christians and Essenes weren't the same thing. Their beliefs are not fully known, but they weren't a band of revolutionaries mostly we know them to be monastic. They're getting blended with the Zealots here.

It was taken pretty much for granted by all involved at the time that James was a) the true blood brother of another, called Jesus b) the opposition High Priest with more clout in Jerusalem and Palestine to be FEARED by the Establishment, for James had the entire population on his side.

Well, the Establishment won't know what hit them. Who were the Establishment, anyway, if the entire population was against them?

So perhaps the most important man of FC Palestine is forgotten, erased from history.

Yeah, they really did a heck of a job erasing James from history. He has a letter in the canonical Bible!

Enter Saulus, I mean, Saul, I mean Paul.

Paul OPENLY ADMITS to "persecuting the way" in its infancy. One must recognize that "Christianity" as "The Way" is really not a good framework to udnerstand this. Christianity became what it was literally decades, if not centuries, later.

Well, you can tell it's a good conspiracy because he admits to it.

There exists a couple documents called "The Pseudoclementines." Most establishment scholars completely dismiss these as"romance fiction."

Sure, what do establishment scholars know?

In the Recognitions is a section that is the first-hand account of Peter telling Clement that before Clement arrived, [this is in the early 40s] there was a day like any other, in which James, like Jesus afterward, is depicted as discoursing with the multitudes on the steps of the temple, preaching and answering their questions. Suddenly, a man only named "The Enemy" walks into the midst of the people on the temple with a gang of his compatriots. The Enemy begins shouting, yelling, at James, shouting for his compatriots to stop him from speaking. Astonishingly, in a footnote at the end of the Recognitions, there is a lone line, that says, in effect, "The Enemy went by the name Saulus."

Well, it's a margin note, not a footnote, but sure, this might be an anti-Paul work. There are plenty.

Beautiful. No wonder the Latin version, "The Homilies" deleted this section, and no one mentions the Recognitions. How embarrassing for the Church to know this exacts.

You will notice the Gospels and Acts have several episodes that seem to go out of their way to paint the Romans in as best a light as possible.

Dunno. There's some persecution in there, too.

Why is Paul, who "claims Jewish heritage" as all Herodians do, saying the most insulting, horrifying, vile thing to those of "his own kin" or faith? He LITERALLY SAYS that when Moses descended with the tablets from Mt Sinai, he wore a veil, not to hide the glory of god from shining and burning the people when they looked upon it, but TO DECEIVE THEM AND HIDE THE FACT THAT THE GLORY OF GOD HAD BURNT OUT?

Yes, Paul isn't Jewish. Christianity is becoming a new thing.

What we have with the New Testament, is a systematic overwriting of real history to pacify an entire region, to turn the population to Roman subjugation. You'll notice how "Samaritans" feature prominently in the Gospels, all in good terms. Samaritans were the other huge factions in Palestine along with the Jews. These Samaritans had religious beliefs of their own, very, VERY similar to the Christianity of Jesus - it's obvious that they were being flattered and turned toward this new religion to slowly turn demographics away from the Jews, who were eventually massacred and dispelled from the area for centuries after the destruction of their temple in 70 AD.

Well, that's a big leap. It's a Samaritan conspiracy!

Even traditional Judaism at it exists today, BIRTHED IN THE AFTERMATH OF THIS PERIOD AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, is merely and overwrite of AUTHENTIC JUDAISM OF THE PERIOD.

The Romans got us too, it turns out! Judaism is a Roman plot. Yes, religions change a lot, etc. But this is quite something.

The founder of Rabbinical Judaism, Yohanan ben Zacchai, fled Jerusalem, prostrated himself in front of Vespasian, THE DESTROYER OF JERUSALEM AND THE JEWS, applying the Messianic star prophecy to HIM, something so blasphemous and the HEART of the "The Way" of James and his followers, that Yohanan was allowed to live and found his academy which would birth modern Rabbinic Judaism, which is much, MUCH less hardline than the Zealots of James, the Poor, the Essenes.

I guess we're all just dupes of this guy?

The entirety of Acts, and even the Gospels, is a way to distort REAL history and create an idealized, Hellenistic, peaceful view of the times, offering a heavenly Man-God figure that would have offended the Zealots who "Could never bring themselves to call any man Lord." Part of the Torah and these Zealots insistence was ABSTENANCE FROM BLOOD, which becomes THE central imagery of Paul's new religion, drinking the cup of his Lord's own blood, and eating his body.

Correct - people who are not Christians do not follow Christian practices.

Is it not obvious that Paul and his lackeys are writing polemically to denigrate these Jews who hated him, hounded him, and opposed him? The NT uses coded language like "Pharisees" to ostensibly refer to the Establishment Jews, but THE ESTABLISHMENT JEWS were on the Herodian/Roman side, and would never act the way they do in the NT. The ZEALOTS, JAMES, THE POOR, THE MANY, now they would indeed act as Paul describes the Pharisees. They would "nitpick" over the Law. They would indeed call out his blasphemy


In which the author crafts an entire new history of Christianity because the Establishment doesn't want you to know.

OK, there's a lot going on here. Mostly seems to be an (excited) rehash of the works of Robert Eisenmann, who I am not particularly familiar with, but who does seem to be something of a heterodox scholar.

To skip to the point, and offer the thesis: *PAUL, THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, WAS A ROMAN-HERODIAN, WORKING ON THEIR BEHALF, TO PACIFY THE HYPER-REVOLUTIONARY JEWS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF JAMES THE JUST, "BROTHER OF THE LORD", HELPING MURDER JAMES, HIS MESSIANIC FOLLOWERS, AND ALL OPPOSITION TO ROME, AND INSTEAD OFFERING A PEACEFUL, PRO-ROMAN, HEAVENLY SPIRITUALISM AS OPPOSED TO THEIR REVOLUTIONARY, ANTI-ROMAN, APOCALYPTIC ZIONISM.

Thank you for starting in all caps, it really gets the tone of the entire thing across. Also, I'm not really sure what a "Zionist" would be doing in ancient Judaea without time traveling, but hey, let's find out.

Much of the information of the period comes from Josephus, a NATIVE PALESTINIAN with INTIMATE first-hand knowledge as he turned against the Jews and led a contingent of the Romans in Gamela in the War/Uprising. It is worth noting that Josephus writes that most of the history of the period was defective due to either FLATTERY TO THE ROMANS AND HATRED OF THE JEWS.

Nothing wrong with saying that Josephus was a flawed historian that's pretty well-established. On the other hand, the point of this is to establish that no conventional history could possibly be accurate, and let the OP substitute whatever he likes. Also, claiming that he was motivated by hatred of the Jews is. iffy. But, whatever. This isn't about Josephus.

What most people do not understand, is that FC Palestine was a hotbed of insurrection, war, oppression, strife, constant battling between SEVERAL factions.

It's a plot point in Life of Brian but sure, most people don't understand that. "FC Palestine" means first century Palestine here, and does not, as I initially thought, refer to a soccer team.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Jerusalem, the temple, and the High Priesthood were all PLACED there by the Herods, the Roman puppet kings of the region. The multitudes of the Jews HATED this, as they considered this defilement of the temple, as all temple service was essentially polluted by a High Priesthood that "doesn't keep the Law" and converses and intermingles with the Romans and Herodians, "Sons of the Pit", basically demonic figures to these Jews, full of adulteresses and murderers and villains.

TIL that Jews never liked Jerusalem or the Second Temple, anyway. I'll have to ask about that at Passover next year.

Enter James the Just. If you were to read the New Testament, youɽ know very, very little of James. At one point he is called the brother of the Lord, by none other than Paul himself. It's worth noting that Paul's letters, especially the earliest such as Galatians, is often a truer, first-person account of real experiences, and should be given primacy over other NT books, such as the Gospels and Acts

Well, the New Testament isn't about James, so I don't know why heɽ be that prominent in it. Since we're about to accuse Paul of a giant Roman conspiracy, I'm not sure why we start out by praising the veracity of his letters. Plus, regardless of the authority of either the Gospels or the Epistles, they're accounts of different events so I have no clue what should be given "primacy" or what that would mean.

In Galatians and other letters, Paul refers to the LEADERSHIP OF JERUSALEM as a central triad, or pillars, of James, Cephas, and John. Sometimes described as James, PETER, and John.

Cephas is Aramaic, Peter is Latin, they mean the same thing. And it's not the civic leadership of Jerusalem, they're the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. New thing.

James was not a High Priest. He was not an establishment priest. He was the OPPOSITION High Priest, the leader of the vast multitudes in Jerusalem and Palestine, whose names are varied, but who call themselves "The Poor", "The Many". Another name? The Essenes. Much disinfo has leaked out about who "the Essenes" were. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were hyper-messianic, hyper-revolutionary, hyper-anti-Roman Jews who "made a way in the wilderness."

Right, James was a Christian of course he wouldn't be part of the temple priesthood. That doesn't necessarily make him an Essene, and while there may have been influences, Christians and Essenes weren't the same thing. Their beliefs are not fully known, but they weren't a band of revolutionaries mostly we know them to be monastic. They're getting blended with the Zealots here.

It was taken pretty much for granted by all involved at the time that James was a) the true blood brother of another, called Jesus b) the opposition High Priest with more clout in Jerusalem and Palestine to be FEARED by the Establishment, for James had the entire population on his side.

Well, the Establishment won't know what hit them. Who were the Establishment, anyway, if the entire population was against them?

So perhaps the most important man of FC Palestine is forgotten, erased from history.

Yeah, they really did a heck of a job erasing James from history. He has a letter in the canonical Bible!

Enter Saulus, I mean, Saul, I mean Paul.

Paul OPENLY ADMITS to "persecuting the way" in its infancy. One must recognize that "Christianity" as "The Way" is really not a good framework to udnerstand this. Christianity became what it was literally decades, if not centuries, later.

Well, you can tell it's a good conspiracy because he admits to it.

There exists a couple documents called "The Pseudoclementines." Most establishment scholars completely dismiss these as"romance fiction."

Sure, what do establishment scholars know?

In the Recognitions is a section that is the first-hand account of Peter telling Clement that before Clement arrived, [this is in the early 40s] there was a day like any other, in which James, like Jesus afterward, is depicted as discoursing with the multitudes on the steps of the temple, preaching and answering their questions. Suddenly, a man only named "The Enemy" walks into the midst of the people on the temple with a gang of his compatriots. The Enemy begins shouting, yelling, at James, shouting for his compatriots to stop him from speaking. Astonishingly, in a footnote at the end of the Recognitions, there is a lone line, that says, in effect, "The Enemy went by the name Saulus."

Well, it's a margin note, not a footnote, but sure, this might be an anti-Paul work. There are plenty.

Beautiful. No wonder the Latin version, "The Homilies" deleted this section, and no one mentions the Recognitions. How embarrassing for the Church to know this exacts.

You will notice the Gospels and Acts have several episodes that seem to go out of their way to paint the Romans in as best a light as possible.

Dunno. There's some persecution in there, too.

Why is Paul, who "claims Jewish heritage" as all Herodians do, saying the most insulting, horrifying, vile thing to those of "his own kin" or faith? He LITERALLY SAYS that when Moses descended with the tablets from Mt Sinai, he wore a veil, not to hide the glory of god from shining and burning the people when they looked upon it, but TO DECEIVE THEM AND HIDE THE FACT THAT THE GLORY OF GOD HAD BURNT OUT?

Yes, Paul isn't Jewish. Christianity is becoming a new thing.

What we have with the New Testament, is a systematic overwriting of real history to pacify an entire region, to turn the population to Roman subjugation. You'll notice how "Samaritans" feature prominently in the Gospels, all in good terms. Samaritans were the other huge factions in Palestine along with the Jews. These Samaritans had religious beliefs of their own, very, VERY similar to the Christianity of Jesus - it's obvious that they were being flattered and turned toward this new religion to slowly turn demographics away from the Jews, who were eventually massacred and dispelled from the area for centuries after the destruction of their temple in 70 AD.

Well, that's a big leap. It's a Samaritan conspiracy!

Even traditional Judaism at it exists today, BIRTHED IN THE AFTERMATH OF THIS PERIOD AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, is merely and overwrite of AUTHENTIC JUDAISM OF THE PERIOD.

The Romans got us too, it turns out! Judaism is a Roman plot. Yes, religions change a lot, etc. But this is quite something.

The founder of Rabbinical Judaism, Yohanan ben Zacchai, fled Jerusalem, prostrated himself in front of Vespasian, THE DESTROYER OF JERUSALEM AND THE JEWS, applying the Messianic star prophecy to HIM, something so blasphemous and the HEART of the "The Way" of James and his followers, that Yohanan was allowed to live and found his academy which would birth modern Rabbinic Judaism, which is much, MUCH less hardline than the Zealots of James, the Poor, the Essenes.

I guess we're all just dupes of this guy?

The entirety of Acts, and even the Gospels, is a way to distort REAL history and create an idealized, Hellenistic, peaceful view of the times, offering a heavenly Man-God figure that would have offended the Zealots who "Could never bring themselves to call any man Lord." Part of the Torah and these Zealots insistence was ABSTENANCE FROM BLOOD, which becomes THE central imagery of Paul's new religion, drinking the cup of his Lord's own blood, and eating his body.

Correct - people who are not Christians do not follow Christian practices.

Is it not obvious that Paul and his lackeys are writing polemically to denigrate these Jews who hated him, hounded him, and opposed him? The NT uses coded language like "Pharisees" to ostensibly refer to the Establishment Jews, but THE ESTABLISHMENT JEWS were on the Herodian/Roman side, and would never act the way they do in the NT. The ZEALOTS, JAMES, THE POOR, THE MANY, now they would indeed act as Paul describes the Pharisees. They would "nitpick" over the Law. They would indeed call out his blasphemy


In which the author crafts an entire new history of Christianity because the Establishment doesn't want you to know.

OK, there's a lot going on here. Mostly seems to be an (excited) rehash of the works of Robert Eisenmann, who I am not particularly familiar with, but who does seem to be something of a heterodox scholar.

To skip to the point, and offer the thesis: *PAUL, THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, WAS A ROMAN-HERODIAN, WORKING ON THEIR BEHALF, TO PACIFY THE HYPER-REVOLUTIONARY JEWS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF JAMES THE JUST, "BROTHER OF THE LORD", HELPING MURDER JAMES, HIS MESSIANIC FOLLOWERS, AND ALL OPPOSITION TO ROME, AND INSTEAD OFFERING A PEACEFUL, PRO-ROMAN, HEAVENLY SPIRITUALISM AS OPPOSED TO THEIR REVOLUTIONARY, ANTI-ROMAN, APOCALYPTIC ZIONISM.

Thank you for starting in all caps, it really gets the tone of the entire thing across. Also, I'm not really sure what a "Zionist" would be doing in ancient Judaea without time traveling, but hey, let's find out.

Much of the information of the period comes from Josephus, a NATIVE PALESTINIAN with INTIMATE first-hand knowledge as he turned against the Jews and led a contingent of the Romans in Gamela in the War/Uprising. It is worth noting that Josephus writes that most of the history of the period was defective due to either FLATTERY TO THE ROMANS AND HATRED OF THE JEWS.

Nothing wrong with saying that Josephus was a flawed historian that's pretty well-established. On the other hand, the point of this is to establish that no conventional history could possibly be accurate, and let the OP substitute whatever he likes. Also, claiming that he was motivated by hatred of the Jews is. iffy. But, whatever. This isn't about Josephus.

What most people do not understand, is that FC Palestine was a hotbed of insurrection, war, oppression, strife, constant battling between SEVERAL factions.

It's a plot point in Life of Brian but sure, most people don't understand that. "FC Palestine" means first century Palestine here, and does not, as I initially thought, refer to a soccer team.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Jerusalem, the temple, and the High Priesthood were all PLACED there by the Herods, the Roman puppet kings of the region. The multitudes of the Jews HATED this, as they considered this defilement of the temple, as all temple service was essentially polluted by a High Priesthood that "doesn't keep the Law" and converses and intermingles with the Romans and Herodians, "Sons of the Pit", basically demonic figures to these Jews, full of adulteresses and murderers and villains.

TIL that Jews never liked Jerusalem or the Second Temple, anyway. I'll have to ask about that at Passover next year.

Enter James the Just. If you were to read the New Testament, youɽ know very, very little of James. At one point he is called the brother of the Lord, by none other than Paul himself. It's worth noting that Paul's letters, especially the earliest such as Galatians, is often a truer, first-person account of real experiences, and should be given primacy over other NT books, such as the Gospels and Acts

Well, the New Testament isn't about James, so I don't know why heɽ be that prominent in it. Since we're about to accuse Paul of a giant Roman conspiracy, I'm not sure why we start out by praising the veracity of his letters. Plus, regardless of the authority of either the Gospels or the Epistles, they're accounts of different events so I have no clue what should be given "primacy" or what that would mean.

In Galatians and other letters, Paul refers to the LEADERSHIP OF JERUSALEM as a central triad, or pillars, of James, Cephas, and John. Sometimes described as James, PETER, and John.

Cephas is Aramaic, Peter is Latin, they mean the same thing. And it's not the civic leadership of Jerusalem, they're the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. New thing.

James was not a High Priest. He was not an establishment priest. He was the OPPOSITION High Priest, the leader of the vast multitudes in Jerusalem and Palestine, whose names are varied, but who call themselves "The Poor", "The Many". Another name? The Essenes. Much disinfo has leaked out about who "the Essenes" were. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were hyper-messianic, hyper-revolutionary, hyper-anti-Roman Jews who "made a way in the wilderness."

Right, James was a Christian of course he wouldn't be part of the temple priesthood. That doesn't necessarily make him an Essene, and while there may have been influences, Christians and Essenes weren't the same thing. Their beliefs are not fully known, but they weren't a band of revolutionaries mostly we know them to be monastic. They're getting blended with the Zealots here.

It was taken pretty much for granted by all involved at the time that James was a) the true blood brother of another, called Jesus b) the opposition High Priest with more clout in Jerusalem and Palestine to be FEARED by the Establishment, for James had the entire population on his side.

Well, the Establishment won't know what hit them. Who were the Establishment, anyway, if the entire population was against them?

So perhaps the most important man of FC Palestine is forgotten, erased from history.

Yeah, they really did a heck of a job erasing James from history. He has a letter in the canonical Bible!

Enter Saulus, I mean, Saul, I mean Paul.

Paul OPENLY ADMITS to "persecuting the way" in its infancy. One must recognize that "Christianity" as "The Way" is really not a good framework to udnerstand this. Christianity became what it was literally decades, if not centuries, later.

Well, you can tell it's a good conspiracy because he admits to it.

There exists a couple documents called "The Pseudoclementines." Most establishment scholars completely dismiss these as"romance fiction."

Sure, what do establishment scholars know?

In the Recognitions is a section that is the first-hand account of Peter telling Clement that before Clement arrived, [this is in the early 40s] there was a day like any other, in which James, like Jesus afterward, is depicted as discoursing with the multitudes on the steps of the temple, preaching and answering their questions. Suddenly, a man only named "The Enemy" walks into the midst of the people on the temple with a gang of his compatriots. The Enemy begins shouting, yelling, at James, shouting for his compatriots to stop him from speaking. Astonishingly, in a footnote at the end of the Recognitions, there is a lone line, that says, in effect, "The Enemy went by the name Saulus."

Well, it's a margin note, not a footnote, but sure, this might be an anti-Paul work. There are plenty.

Beautiful. No wonder the Latin version, "The Homilies" deleted this section, and no one mentions the Recognitions. How embarrassing for the Church to know this exacts.

You will notice the Gospels and Acts have several episodes that seem to go out of their way to paint the Romans in as best a light as possible.

Dunno. There's some persecution in there, too.

Why is Paul, who "claims Jewish heritage" as all Herodians do, saying the most insulting, horrifying, vile thing to those of "his own kin" or faith? He LITERALLY SAYS that when Moses descended with the tablets from Mt Sinai, he wore a veil, not to hide the glory of god from shining and burning the people when they looked upon it, but TO DECEIVE THEM AND HIDE THE FACT THAT THE GLORY OF GOD HAD BURNT OUT?

Yes, Paul isn't Jewish. Christianity is becoming a new thing.

What we have with the New Testament, is a systematic overwriting of real history to pacify an entire region, to turn the population to Roman subjugation. You'll notice how "Samaritans" feature prominently in the Gospels, all in good terms. Samaritans were the other huge factions in Palestine along with the Jews. These Samaritans had religious beliefs of their own, very, VERY similar to the Christianity of Jesus - it's obvious that they were being flattered and turned toward this new religion to slowly turn demographics away from the Jews, who were eventually massacred and dispelled from the area for centuries after the destruction of their temple in 70 AD.

Well, that's a big leap. It's a Samaritan conspiracy!

Even traditional Judaism at it exists today, BIRTHED IN THE AFTERMATH OF THIS PERIOD AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, is merely and overwrite of AUTHENTIC JUDAISM OF THE PERIOD.

The Romans got us too, it turns out! Judaism is a Roman plot. Yes, religions change a lot, etc. But this is quite something.

The founder of Rabbinical Judaism, Yohanan ben Zacchai, fled Jerusalem, prostrated himself in front of Vespasian, THE DESTROYER OF JERUSALEM AND THE JEWS, applying the Messianic star prophecy to HIM, something so blasphemous and the HEART of the "The Way" of James and his followers, that Yohanan was allowed to live and found his academy which would birth modern Rabbinic Judaism, which is much, MUCH less hardline than the Zealots of James, the Poor, the Essenes.

I guess we're all just dupes of this guy?

The entirety of Acts, and even the Gospels, is a way to distort REAL history and create an idealized, Hellenistic, peaceful view of the times, offering a heavenly Man-God figure that would have offended the Zealots who "Could never bring themselves to call any man Lord." Part of the Torah and these Zealots insistence was ABSTENANCE FROM BLOOD, which becomes THE central imagery of Paul's new religion, drinking the cup of his Lord's own blood, and eating his body.

Correct - people who are not Christians do not follow Christian practices.

Is it not obvious that Paul and his lackeys are writing polemically to denigrate these Jews who hated him, hounded him, and opposed him? The NT uses coded language like "Pharisees" to ostensibly refer to the Establishment Jews, but THE ESTABLISHMENT JEWS were on the Herodian/Roman side, and would never act the way they do in the NT. The ZEALOTS, JAMES, THE POOR, THE MANY, now they would indeed act as Paul describes the Pharisees. They would "nitpick" over the Law. They would indeed call out his blasphemy


Watch the video: BEST BEER Commercial advertisement EVER! PURE BLONDE PURE BLONDE!!