|
Links:
|
|
| LETTERS TO ME and MY ANSWER |
EVEN OTHER DECISIVE FIGURES OF CHRISTIANITY WERE CRIPPLES
LIKE THEIR "GOD" JESUS "CHRIST"
|
|
A. Z. from New Zealand writes:
In the beginning, you see Paul as a
Christian (criminal etc.etc), but later you make somewhere a remark that Paul is
Jesus. That makes so much sense...
I was always surprised that the
original apostles were hardly ever heard of, until then I assumed that perhaps
they had never ever existed. The name Jesus Christ, I assumed not to refer to
the real person anyway, and for a long time I assumed that we don't know the
real name really, and the name Jesus Christ developed within the Roman
Church.Hence I assumed there really were no apostles.
But after reading your comment on Paul,
I was on the road and suddenly saw a big light (haha). That makes so much sense.
Together with your exposition of a basically OK James brother of Jesus,
archenemy of Paul and the apocryphal writings from allegedly (probably) real
apostles.
And suddenly I realized this. If you
look at the Mormonism, then it is a fact that ALL his primary 'apostles' (of
Joseph Smith) at later stage dropped out. We see in the gospels already Thomas
being the first doubting. What when all the real apostles at some stage saw what
was really happening and dropped out?
What if James, who was no original
apostle, also realized the true state of affairs and in fact, dropped IN order
to salvage the early church for the better and keep it within Jewish orthodoxy?
If that would have been the case (and there is lots of real and circumstantial
evidence) then the whole project had fallen flat: Jesus failing at Palm Sunday.
Jesus failing at the crucifixion. The apostles dropping out and his own brother
trying to mend everything for the better. There is only one thing he possibly
could do and that was stepping in himself. Which is why Paul did not meet. ANY
of the original apostles and surely not Peter and James for a couple of years.
(After first killing in rage his OWN by the hands of 'Paul'). Then he saw the
light at the road to Damascus (himself) and saw a better way of doing things, by
founding the gentile church and setting it up against the Jewish synagogue of
the early church. If you look at it that way, there is a whole
bunch of small, bold, limping, one eyed saints who directed the Roman Church at
crucial times. Ignatius of Loyola for starters, but even Francis of Assisi was on of those with all sorts of
explanations why his was blind, bold (monks tonsure) and limping. By the way, Francis of Assisi came on the
scene at one of the most satanic periods (next to when Ignatius of Loyola came
on the scene) of the Roman Church.
What I don't see is that the Jewish
religion (and Muslim) are basically good. They are (until the last century) less
evil, because they are probably less 'perfect' at it. Abraham was the same type
of devourer. Stealing money from Pharaoh, even (through Sarah) the birth seed of
the Pharaonic blood line (Isaac was not Abraham's own son but adopted son),
which is why also the Christians are adopted and not real. However, we are of
course REAL creations by God and hence the one who adopts is the father of Jesus
Christ... Again, you did some very good research. And I am not surprised by the
consequences (even your family).
Hope you are keeping safe...
|
| My answer: (The quotation mark
sometimes is reproduced as a sort of star)
The book is structured in a way that it does
not depend its debunking of Ben-Pandera ("Jesus‘ Christ“) and Christianity only
on one or a few circumstances but on all possible objections with which the
Christians come up and could come up and each of them proving the abomination,
conclusively. Consequently, my debunking of this sect is independent of the
fact, whether "Jesus Christ“, "Saul“, "Paul“, "Lithorgoel“ etc. are alias of
Ben-Pandera or not. Of course, the evidence I present forces the unbiased to do
so. The first topic you mention is the one whether Ben-Pandera ("Jesus Christ“)
ever existed. Here, it is to say that the Christians overdid and are wont to
overdo him that much so that many people are wonder, whether this individual
ever existed and is nothing more but a fabrication like almost everything in
Christian sect is a fabrication.
Firstly,
there is a decisive difference between Ben-Pandera ("Jesus Christ“) and "Saul“
or "Paul“. Concerning the former we also have reports from the Jewish side,
whereas nothing exists about "Saul“ or "Paul“. Since the Jews believed having
hanged the "right“ felon, they believed "Saul“ or "Paul“ as an alias for Simon
Peter, whom they assumed being the boss of the gang of (Christian) terrorists.
Otherwise the enemy must have known something about that extraordinary agitator.
However, the Jews neither lost such a skillful seducer nor a squad of people
they purported ordered to Damascus. Before a historian says something about a
matter he also should prove what the concerned enemy respectively victim says to
it or whether he has nothing to say to it... Christian shysters do not do so
since they know that their lies are not confirmed by the enemy...
Secondly, if
Ben-Pandera just would be an invention, there would not be those shameful
truths, which the Christians later denied, canted or wanted to get in oblivion,
for instance, his social shortcomings (being an illegitimate child from a
hamlet), disabilities (dwarfish, limping, blind in one eye, etc.) and ugliness
like that one of Satan. If he would be a fabrication, the Christians right from
the outset would have beautified him as they are used to doing so, starting from
the third century. The Christians try hiding those shameful truths by contesting
that the Ben-Pandera the Jews report is not their "Jesus Christ", and hereby
they give rise to presumptions that the individual in question never existed
since they destroy all the knowledge about him on account of getting rid of his
and hereby their own disgrace.
Thirdly,
it is a matter of course that dastards shamming their foremost impostor as
"god", of course, try concealing, hiding, repressing and destroying all the
truths making their "god" a laughing stock what Ben-Pandera ("Jesus Christ") is,
on top of everything, measured as "god"....
Fourthly,
concealing the identity of Jesus and "Paul" presupposes to hide all the
knowledge about the real individual (Jesus) since otherwise the duped easily
will find out that both are one and the same person, respectively, unperson.
Hereby, Ben-Pandera (thieves' cant: "Jesus
Christ" became fabricated that much so that many unbiased doubt if this dastard
ever existed. This means that those who contest the real existence of
Ben-Pandera ("Jesus Christ“) either support the Christian tricks of blurring and
eliminating the truths about this faking "god“. Hereby, the doubting ones do
what they shall do according to the Christian deceivers. Everything what is
uncertain cannot debunk those criminals. That is what they want, at least, i.e.
on condition that they cannot hoodwink everybody. Both types contest the truths
about the individual. The latter in order to get rid of shamefulness and the
former because they see that if the Christians allegations (lies) would be
correct, then there never would have been a "Jesus Christ“ or Ben-Pandera.
However, it is not to understand why the Christians should have contrived those
shameful truths about their foremost rogue if they would have invented him,
completely. Consequently, the fact that, on the one hand, the enemy knows the
delinquent (Ben-Pandera) and, on the other hand, does not know a Paul or Saul is
the evidence to infer that the one existed and the other only as an alias name.
Although the disabled only attract their ilk, the similarities between "PAUL“
and "JESUS“ are too numerous as to be accidental ones. Another problem I prove
in my book is that generally behind each exaggeration, there are real
(distorted) occurrences. For instance, Simon of Cyrene or Joseph of Ariminathea
did not do what is alleged in some "gospels“. However, have certain "merits“ and
obviously insisted on becoming "immortalized“ in the way they are mentioned in
that fake of "god‘s word. So, I think one can assume that Ben-Pandera got the
idea of putting on another identity when he fled to Damascus. The story
obviously is contorted in the way we know from the perfidious fake of "god‘s
word“. Since the Christians demonstrably had the effrontery as to remove whole
"gospels“ from their fake of "Holy Writ“ and replaced them by others given the
same name, e.g. as they did so pertaining to "The Gospel of Matthew“, it is
possible that most of the very first stooges of Ben-Pandera left the sick one no
physician could help, i.e. the unscrupulous and megalomaniac one. In order to
hide the shame and disgrace they became replaced by other poor sods to which
were given the same name. Please read chapter 28 or 27 where I point out the
Didache. It is the ever first church order of (criminality of) Christianity.
Here, the first "disciples“ neither accepted the version of vicarious suffering
and atonement nor the lie that the instigator of Christianity is "god“ ("The
world deceiver appears as son of god“). In the "Gospel of James“, James says to
the Christian fake of "god“: Lord, do not tell us something about death and
cross, since they are far from you... This means that the excuse that
Ben-Pandera is the victim of his stooges is nothing but sheer whitewashing of
the source of the evil. He was the top megalomaniac and the top Mafioso! It is
very interesting what you mentioned, e.g. that many other Christian criminals
were the same cripples like this fake of the felons‘ "god“... It underscores
that this sect is about an organized crime tricking that by perfidy and foul
play what the concerned do not attain if keeping to fair play. Therefore,
neither their crimes of thefts, murder nor their sexual offenses against little
children wonder those seeing behind the mask of Christian perfidies. Regarding
other religions, I am indeed lenient. Whatever one may object to them. I
realized that the respective prophets believed in that what they disseminated.
In addition, those prophets tried organizing their respective societies
corresponding principles of the commonwealth. The cross criminals only want us
to address and worship their uppermost felon from the death row as "god".
Everything else is foul mouth and foul play. Christianity only is concerned how
criminals can get rid of their bad conscience in order to perpetrate smoothly
their foul play (everything already is forgiven by the "cross" before being
perpetrated. Felon's heart, after what else are you hankering?). For this
purpose, the numberless "miracles" serve of which none happened as I prove in
the book. In addition, the Christians were told to me as "lovable" humans, but I
experienced them as dastards being despicable to the utmost. In contrast with
them, many of my friends are Muslims, Hindus or Buddhist. On the contrary, I am
sure that they will care that my book never will die! The other big religions
are no blemish to humankind as the cross criminals are. "Jesus Christ“ neither
believed in god nor in heaven and that is why he faked himself as such. A
believer in god rather would die because of fear than perpetrating such a
transgression. It is a very mistake to believe that Christianity is not the top
evil and uppermost threat to humankind. What we today call "Christian“ societies
or "Christian culture“ is no Christian one but a mixture of a co-existence of
Christians, atheists, human rights activists and other sorts of denominations.
Christianity is unable to coin the "Christian“ world like Islam, Hinduism or
Buddhism does so in areas in which they are the strongest denomination. For
instance, in so-called "Christian“ societies, we have human rights and
democracy, achieved against (criminality of) Christianity. In "Christian“
societies of the Western hemisphere, we even have voluntary euthanasia. However,
as each social progress, it only was to achieve that some had to go to prison,
at the instigation of Christian criminals. Even the founding fathers of the
U.S.A. hardly had a different verdict on Christianity, I have. Afterward, of
course, those impostors try filching each splendid plume... This is the very
nature of impostors wanting to keep "the first place in everything“ (Col. 1:18),
even by lying "god“ as an accomplice of their attempt at the perfect crime. This
means that, unlike Christianity, other religions are bearable. A purely
Christian society is the Middle Ages, and that is hell on earth. Christianity is
that shameful that even the Christians cannot admit what it is and lie many
things as their properties, which only is the loot of burglars or rogues (with
frocks and without frocks)... Nietzsche correctly said that those perfidiously
faking "martyrs of the truths“ decline knowing what is true.
04/09/2011
|
|
ONE OF THE GENERAL TRICKS OF THE CHRISTIANS'
MASK: TRYING TO VEIL THEIR CRIMINALITY BY DIVERTING THE ATTENTION TO OTHER EVIL
ONES
Do you mind
if I ask you a real basic question? What is evil? Whether it is the Catholic
inquisition, Christians massacring a village in Syria, Muslims massacring the
town of Isfahan, Hindus practicing suttee, atheists killing 10 million in Soviet
Russia and at least 10 million in China, or the Nazi holocaust, (all of which I
think are evil), how can YOU say these are evil? I am guessing you are not a
religious person, so how can you say that killing a person is worse than killing
a rat? Horribly, many people who participated in these things were convinced
that they were doing the right thing. What standard do you have for saying these
things are wrong? Sincerely, Steve (U.S.A)
|
|
MY ANSWER
Hi Steve; you
confuse two things I precisely differ in my book. If there is a god or not is a
matter of belief. However, the allegation that somebody has been executed death
penalty and purportedly rose from the dead after three days is no believe but
claimed facts. Facts are to verify or falsify by reason. Therefore, Christianity
is no religion since it is not based on faith but on pretensions, lies and
deceits about purported things that did not happen and are to falsify what I do
in my book. You’re right pertaining to the notions of good and evil.
In the book I
write, of course, if one declares something as evil one must have a notion of
that what is good and evil. Than one has to evaluate the facts according to the
notion. In addition, it is assumed that your concept of good and evil is right
what is hard to prove. However, pertaining to Christianity – as I point out in
the book– we do not need to “take up such efforts of the notion” (Hegel). We
only need to judge the Christians by their own notions (or pretensions), for
instance, the claim of being “martyrs for the truths”, “modesty”, “humbleness”,
to “love of the enemy” and purported “self-sacrifice” for others. The mask of
the Christians as well condemns as ridicules them since it demonstrably hides
the reverse of that what is perpetrated. Nobody than the Christian dastards
hates, kills and massacres more its enemies than those who even have the
effrontery to feign “loving” them (see: the pope-desperado’s partly admittance
of Christians’ crimes from March 12, 2000)… So, I do not judge the Christians
according to my standards but according to the ones they pretend for themselves.
In my book I furnish evidence that even Ben-Pandera (“Jesus Christ”) is unable
to comply with his own standards. He only wants to mask himself by them in order
to make the targeted prey trust in their enemy (that is why he preaches “love of
the enemy”)… Cutting a long story short, I answer your question: “What standard
do you have for saying these things are wrong?” – in that way: I do so precisely
by the Jesus’ or the Christians’ own standards! The perfidies of the Christians
enable disguising them but also condemning them!
You’re saying
the evil in the world is not confined to Christianity. This undoubtedly is
right. However, if one has to save money, one also cannot say: Starting from
tomorrow I do not spend any money more, at all. One has to start saving on
things that are less necessary and the top superfluous ones. Here, we comparably
have to do the same. One has to start restraining the evil where it deliberately
disguises itself as the reverse. That is Christianity.
In addition,
many crimes you mention as ones of atheists are at least joint crimes of with
(criminality of) Christianity. The holocaust would not have happened without
Christians’ hatred and robotizing of anti-Semitism. It is not only a Nazi
holocaust but also a Christian one. The murderous dictator of Soviet Russia
(Stalin) was a candidate for Catholic priesthood. He only missed the final
examination. It is not to imagine that his studies in Catholic theology had no
impact on his crimes. It is to state that nobody of atheist criminals murdered
that much than the Christians murdered, until today and nobody of them presumes
to fake to stand for the perfidy of “love of the enemy”! In addition, Christians
brag about their sect very much when criminals (thieves’ cant: sinners) detect
Christianity as their home of mind. However, I only can see that criminals find
their home in an organized crime specialized by criminals for criminals. For
instance, when my book became published in November 2009, in Laos there was a
trial on a mass-murder of the Pol Pot regime who tormented, tortured and
massacred about 50.000 humans in a prison he run at the time of this regime.
Now, you can say that again it is about crimes of an atheist. However, even this
atheist detected (criminality of) Christianity as his home of mind in the
meantime. It’s no accident that top felons feel attracted by Christianity. Birds
of a feather flock together or where there is carcass the vultures or Christian
desperadoes gather…
Among
friends, I would like to say that no other organized crime makes it easy to
debunk it than (criminality of) Christianity does. In its fundaments, it is no
faith but lied facts (which did not happen) and its depravity is that easy to
unmask by the Christians’ disguise. Regarding others, one has to face and
overcome the difficulties you correctly point out.
Hans
09/16/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
I feel so sorry for you. Who ever hurt you so bad that you are so
against our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be severely punished at the time
of "The Judgement". You will also be held accountable for those you also
mislead. You can't take a few scriptures out of a Bible and make a suposition.
Jesus Christ came into the world to pay for our sins so that we would not have
to incur the judgement of God. John 3:16. I will pray for you, that one day you
will see the truth of God and believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior also. It
isn't too late, but it might be soon when your life her on earth is over. Read
just the the "gospels" and concentrate on them and God will show you the "truth
of Jesus". The writing's of Paul are difficult for even "saved" people. They
have been debated and argued about since the beginning by bibical scolars and
theologins. God will show you the truth if you will ask Him.
Regards, Pat R. (from New Mexico, USA)
My answer:
Dear Pat,
it‘s very kind of you that
you pray for me. However, I think that you‘re a victim a very shrewd Christian
(psychological) terrorists wanting to make sheep in order to exalt themselves as
„shepherds“ (without sheep, there are no shepherds).
The Koran says that on
Doomsday Jesus will witness against all the Christians that he did not make
himself god. He will be the witness that all the Christians go to hell on
account of this severe sin which is out of bounds. Please, ask the Muslims to
pray for you that you will not be punished too hard for worshiping Jesus
„Christ“ as „god“. If you would have grown up in North Africa or Indonesia, you
firmly would think so, too.
Even if you stay Christian
I only can advise you two things: 1.) Never take part in a crime for
Christianity and 2) never miss a chance in your life because of Christian grudge
and rubbish. It is your life and you have to bare the consequences.
Hans
|
|
|
|
