Jesus the Spiritual Warrior vs Jesus the Sacrificial Lamb
There are many sincere, good people who are Christians but are fooled and caught in the trap of the roman church and its bible. This is a spiritual article written by a believer, but to mainstream Christians it may seem more skeptical and more antagonistic than blank atheism.
First, let’s take a look at the crucifixion.
This is not to support Deism, but some of the parts of Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason are interesting. Think about it, if you would ask a child who never heard about the crucifixion described in the bible: which one should be crucified? a)The Son of God. Or b)The Devil. Most probably the child would say “The Devil of course!!”. Who would want the Devil to get away without punishment? Who would want the Son of God punished?
“Had the inventors of this story told it the contrary way, that is, had they represented the Almighty as compelling Satan to exhibit himself on a cross, in the shape of a snake, as a punishment for his new transgression, the story would have been less absurd — less contradictory. But instead of this, they make the transgressor triumph, and the Almighty fall.”
“Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator?”
H.G. Wells’ book God the Invisible King makes a similar point. Why would the church portray Jesus’ suffering as a good thing? How does suffering in itself bring victory? Why does the church use the crucifixion and painful death of Jesus Christ as its symbol? Why not use Jesus’ rising from the dead which gives strength and hope?
“It is not by suffering that God conquers death, but by fighting. Incidentally our God dies a million deaths, but the thing that matters is not the deaths but the immortality. It may be he cannot escape in this person or that person being nailed to a cross or chained to be torn by vultures on a rock. These may be necessary sufferings, like hunger and thirst in a campaign; they do not in themselves bring victory. They may be necessary, but they are not glorious. The symbol of the crucifixion, the drooping, pain-drenched figure of Christ, the sorrowful cry to his Father, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" these things jar with our spirit. We little men may well fail and repent, but it is our faith that our God does not fail us nor himself. We cannot accept the Christian's crucifix, or pray to a pitiful God. We cannot accept the Resurrection as though it were an after-thought to a bitterly felt death. Our crucifix, if you must have a crucifix, would show God with a hand or a foot already torn away from its nail, and with eyes not downcast but resolute against the sky; a face without pain, pain lost and forgotten in the surpassing glory of the struggle and the inflexible will to live and prevail. . . .”
Then let’s take a look at what Amitakh Stanford in her book The Personal Devil has to say about the Crucifixion and about the Eucharist. Consider this: what do you think about Satanists who symbolically drink human blood and symbolically eat human flesh in their ceremonies? What about Satanists who symbolically drink the blood of God, and symbolically eat the flesh of God? Would you deem this a satanic act or a divine act? And what happened to taking responsibility for your own actions(which includes one’s own sins)?
“The eating of flesh and drinking of blood of animals and humans who have been conquered is an ancient custom in many cultures. It is still done in many societies, whether overtly or discreetly, by those who worship the Devil. Many Christians are sickened by customs that require ritual drinking of animal blood, yet they have been so programmed by the Church that they accept the symbolic drinking of Jesus’ blood as a “holy” sacrament. In reality, the ritual of the Eucharist was implemented under the Devil’s influence to attempt to signify a supposed conquest over Christ by Darkness. It is a celebration of a victory that Darkness will never have. Those who sincerely love Jesus have been deceived into partaking in the Devil’s pleasure of mocking the Christ. The Church has become the Devil’s tool.
The Church has repeated the lie of the Eucharist so frequently and fervently that the followers are thoroughly desensitized to the point that such gory images and re-enactments do not even bother them. In fact, they been brainwashed to believe that such sacrilege is in fact sacred. Here is another case where the Devil has made demonic acts appear godly.
The Church also hangs crosses with an effigy of Jesus being crucified throughout cathedrals, and has encouraged people to wear jewelry with the cross displayed, often gruesomely containing the effigy of Jesus. The Church says this is to remind the followers that Jesus died on the cross for their sins. If Jesus had actually died for the sins of the world, there would not be any more sins in the world. But, the sins continue, irrespective of people’s religious beliefs.”
Talking about the devil, lets take a closer look at him. In a world where evil exists, the concept of a devil makes a lot of sense. But let’s take a closer look at the specific concept of the devil in mainstream Christianity. How did the devil come into existence according to the church? Who created the devil? Why isn’t he stopped from doing evil? According to the church the devil can only as far as God allows, so it seems like mainstream Christianity is stuck with a “God” who deliberately allows the devil to do evil and cause suffering, and deliberately does not stop the devil from these evil acts.
“Traditionally, Christians have understood the Devil to be the author of lies and promoter of evil; however, he can go no further than the word of God allows.”
This quote from the Old Testament further confirms that mainstream Christianity is stuck with a “God” who deliberately creates evil:
“Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
Why would Yahweh be worried about other Gods? Is he imagining them? Or is he worried because Yahweh knows that he is NOT the father of Jesus?
And why would Yahweh want to punish the innocents, the children up to the fourth generation? Do you think that the children of criminals should be punished for the crimes of their fathers? Do you think that the children of the children of criminals should be punished? Should the children of the children of the children of criminals be punished?
“Exodus 20:5 (King James Version)
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;”
Why is Jesus talking about two different fathers when monotheistic mainstream Christianity says that there is only one God, who is omnipotent and omniscient? Given that assumption, then everyone must be of God.
“John 8:47 (King James Version)
He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.”
Again, why would Jesus say that his mission is to cause division if the monotheistic mainstream Christians would have it right? This only makes sense if dualistic Christians got it right, and God isn’t strictly omnipotent/omniscient. The Devil would then be a separate entity from God and Jesus would want to cause division between the followers of the Devil(as a separate being, which monotheistic Christianity denies) and the followers of God.
“Luke 12:51 (King James Version)
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division”
This is also evidenced in the Parable of the Tares. The church usually keeps quiet about the Parable of the Tares because of its dualistic nature of good versus evil. Remember that according to mainstream Christianity God is in full control of the Devil, so the Parable would make only sense if God would deliberately cause evil, which is a lie and blasphemy. Also there is an implication in the Parable that although God is perfectly good, that God is not strictly omnipotent. The Parable of the Tares is the most logical when you consider that God is the highest power there is and has the power to eradicate evil forever. However God wants to prevent damaging the wheat which is bundled together with the tares, which is why evil temporarily exists until the time of the harvest.
“Matthew 13:24-30 (King James Version)
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.30Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.”
However going back to the main theme of Jesus the Spiritual Warrior vs Jesus the degraded sacrificial lamb, some parts of the extant Bible also show Jesus as a strong and mighty “Spiritual Warrior”, H.G. Wells is referring to Revelation 1:14-16:
“under the vitalising stresses of the war we are winning "faith in Christ as an heroic leader. We have thought of Him so much as meek and gentle that there is no ground in our picture of Him, for the vision which His disciple had of Him: 'His head and His hair were white, as white wool, white as snow; and His eyes were as a flame of fire: and His feet like unto burnished brass, as if it had been refined in a furnace; and His voice was as the voice of many waters. And He had in His right hand seven stars; and out of His mouth proceeded a sharp two-edged sword; and His countenance was as the sun shineth in its strength.'"”
Further evidence for Jesus the Spiritual Warrior is given in this extant bible quote, where Jesus gives his followers authority to tread on snakes and scorpions (the Evil ones). Isn’t this very different from the turn-the-other-cheek-Jesus that the church proclaims?
“Luke 10:19 (King James Version)
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy”
Roman Christianity included the Epistles of Paul in the roman-catholic bible because the roman church focuses on the DEATH of Jesus Christ, instead of focusing on the LIFE of Jesus Christ. The roman church paints Jesus as a suffering, degraded savior.
Now let’s take a look at history. The Church murdered and tortured many pagans. But, the Romans, before they adopted catholic Christianity were also Pagans. Could it be that some of this Roman Paganism was included in Roman Catholic Christianity? My suggestion is, that this happened indeed. One major aspect of paganism is usually sun worship(and to a lesser extent moon worship).
So, what about Easter? Where in the Bible says it anything about the date of Easter? Have you ever heard of someone’s day of death being on a different day each year? Speaking of Jesus’ death – Why is it called Good Friday? Who but an enemy of Christ would call it GOOD Friday? Bad Friday, Tragic Friday or Horrific Friday would be much more appropriate for any loving follower of Jesus.
Coming back to the subject of roman paganism, the date of Easter is calculated to be the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox. If that isn’t Paganism then what is Paganism? If that isn’t moon and sun worship(vernal equinox is calculated according to the sun) then what is moon and sun worship?
Even the name EAST-er SUN-day for mainstream Christianity gives away its basis. The SUN rises in the EAST, hence Sun-worshippers celebrate this direction, and the day named SUNday is self-explanatory.
“Easter falls on the first Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon, the full moon on or after 21 March, taken to be the date of the vernal equinox.”
“Along with Christmas celebrations, Easter traditions were among the first casualties of some areas of the Protestant Reformation, being deemed "pagan" by some Reformation leaders.”
Speaking about Christmas: Where in the bible is the date for Christmas? There is no date given in the bible. Fortunately, contrary to the date of Easter, the date of Christmas is the same every year. But could there be sun-worship involved? Is Christianity corrupted by Roman Paganism?
“For many centuries, Christian writers accepted that Christmas was the actual date on which Jesus was born. In the early eighteenth century, scholars began proposing alternative explanations. Isaac Newton argued that the date of Christmas was selected to correspond with the winter solstice, which the Romans called bruma and celebrated on December 25. In 1743, German Protestant Paul Ernst Jablonski argued Christmas was placed on December 25 to correspond with the Roman solar holiday Dies Natalis Solis Invicti and was therefore a "paganization" that debased the true church. “
But were there also other forms of Christianity which weren’t corrupted by Roman Paganism and the Jewish Old Testament? My proposition is exactly that. However, little is known about them because of church-controlled history and church-instigated murder, forced conversions and book-burnings by the roman-church which started with the Roman Emperor Theodosius I. Keep in mind that this Wikipedia article is written from a strongly pro-roman-catholic-point-of-view. This is evidenced by the assumption that there is only one form of Christianity. However, there were different forms, and Theodosius I promoted the Roman Catholic Pagan Christianity, which this article fails to mention. The article also fails to mention that Theodosius I persecuted people belonging to other Christian faiths and the destruction of their books.
“Theodosius promoted Nicene Trinitarianism within Christianity and Christianity within the Empire. On 27 February 380, he declared "Catholic Christianity" the only legitimate imperial religion”
Correctly the article would read ‘non-Roman-Catholic-Christian’ instead of ‘non-Christian’:
“In 391, Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all "pagan" (non-Christian) temples, and the Christian Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria complied with this request. The pagan temples were flattened or burned, at that time, by order of Theodosius I in many places, such as at Delphi (in Greece), not just in Alexandria alone.”
Marcionism is an example of a Christian Religion that was destroyed by the Roman Church:
“Marcionism is an Early Christian dualist belief system that originates in the teachings of Marcion of Sinope at Rome around the year 144, see also Christianity in the 2nd century. Marcion believed Jesus Christ was the savior sent by God and Paul of Tarsus was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and Yahweh. Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. This belief was in some ways similar to Gnostic Christian theology; notably, both are dualistic.”
Paulicianism is another example of a Christian Religion that was destroyed by the Roman Church:
“Little is known of the tenets of the Paulicians, as we are confined for information to the reports of opponents and a few fragments of Sergius' letters which they have preserved. Their system was dualistic, although some have argued that it was actually adoptionist in nature.” “
“The Paulicians accepted the four Gospels; fourteen Epistles of Paul; the three Epistles of John; the epistles of James and Jude; and an Epistle to the Laodiceans, which they professed to have. They rejected the Tanakh also known as the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament, as well as the Catholic-Marian title Theotokos ("Mother of God", and refused all veneration of Mary. Christ came down from heaven to emancipate humans from the body and from the world, which are evil. The reverence for the Cross they looked upon as heathenish. The outward administration of the sacraments of the Lord's Supper and baptism they rejected. Their places of worship they called "places of prayer." Although they were ascetics, they made no distinction in foods, and practiced marriage.”
Bogomilism is yet another Christian Religion that was destroyed by the Roman Church:
“From the imperfect and conflicting data which is available”
“They accepted the four Gospels, fourteen Epistles of Paul, the three Epistles of John, James, Jude, and an Epistle to the Laodiceans, which they professed to have.”
“The essence of Bogomilism is the duality in the creation of the world. This is exactly why it is considered a heresy. Bogomils explained the earthly sinful corporeal life as a creation of Satan, an angel that was sent to Earth. Due to this duality, their doctrine undervalues everything that is created with materialistic and governmental goals and that does not come from the soul, the only divine possession of the human. Therefore, the established Church, the state, and the hierarchy is totally undermined by Bogomilism. Its followers refuse to pay taxes, to work in serfdom, or to fight in conquering wars. The feudal social system was disregarded, which on its part was understood as suggesting disorder and propelling destruction for the state, the church by its progenitors, that ultimately eradicated the bogomils.”
Catharism is yet again another Christian Religion that was destroyed by the Roman Church:
“Catharism was a name given to a Christian religious sect with dualistic and gnostic elements that appeared in the Languedoc region of France and other parts of Europe in the 11th century and flourished in the 12th and 13th centuries.”
“Like many medieval movements, there were various schools of thought and practice amongst the Cathari; some were dualistic (believing in a God of Good and a God of Evil)”
“They held that the physical world was evil and created by Rex Mundi (translated from Latin as "king of the world", who encompassed all that was corporeal, chaotic and powerful;”
“This placed them at odds with the Catholic Church in regarding material creation, on behalf of which Jesus had died, as intrinsically evil and implying that God, whose word had created the world in the beginning, was a usurper.”
“Cathars vehemently repudiated the significance of the crucifixion and the cross. In fact, to the Cathars, Rome's opulent and luxurious Church seemed a palpable embodiment and manifestation on Earth of Rex Mundi's sovereignty.”
“Sacred texts: Besides the New Testament, Cathar sacred texts include The Gospel of the Secret Supper, or John's Interrogation and The Book of the Two Principles.”
“According to the Cathars, the world had been created by a lesser deity, much like the figure known in classical Gnostic myth as the Demiurge. This creative force was identified with Satan;”
“Many embraced the Gospel of John as their most sacred text, and many rejected the traditional view of the Old Testament — proclaiming that the God of the Old Testament was really the devil, or creative demiurge. They proclaimed that there was a higher God—the True God—and Jesus was variously described as being that True God or his messenger.”
“The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by the Catholic Church to eliminate the Cathar heresy in Languedoc.”
One Quote about the Cathars is especially interesting: “They held that the physical world was evil and created by Rex Mundi (translated from Latin as "king of the world",”.
This is in line with what Jesus said. Jesus said that his kingdom is NOT of the world:
“John 18:36 (King James Version)
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
Who would you consider to be more adhering to the teachings of Jesus? The mass murdering ,torturing church tyrants with their Inquisitions and Crusades or Christian “heretics” like the Cathars who just wanted to live in peace? Who of them loved his neighbour? Who of them killed his neighbour?
Let’s also remember that before the Protestant Reformation there was a time when the Church banned ordinary people from possessing or reading a Bible. In fact, possession of a Bible was sometimes even punished with the death penalty. Who but an enemy of Christ would punish the reading of the Gospels? One of the reasons why the Church kept people ignorant was that no one would question the validity of the Roman Catholic Bible.
A common misconception is that the Church has changed for the better because people in the western world are free to choose their religion. The church never gave up its worldly power voluntarily, this was only accomplished because the American Revolution and the French Revolution were successful. Many people had to die to achieve Religious Freedom.
Even to the present day, Christians who disagree with the Roman Bible are referred to as heretics. But the facts are clear: These so called heretics lived and are living in peace and dedicated and dedicate their lives to Jesus, whilst the Church has a horrible history of murder, wars, torture, worldly power and worldly riches. Even in the present-day we see Obama, who is a mainstream-christian US President, murder countless civilians and torture suspects. Obama, and even more so Bush(who was even re-elected!), were voted into power by millions and millions of mainstream Christians who claim to be adhering to the Gospel of Jesus. Further, if a politician promises peace but it turns out to be a lie, Christians should use Civil Disobedience. But according to Paul of Tarsus in the Roman Bible, this would be supposedly unchristian, see Romans 13:1-7. As an extreme example, according to Paul's teaching, if the German citizens had resisted Adolf Hitler, they would have been going against God. These self-acclaimed Christians who want to follow Romans 13:1-7 need to make a decision. Do they follow Paul of Tarsus or do they follow Jesus Christ? Ye shall know them by their fruits.
In light of these facts, could it be that it is vice versa? That mainstream Christianity is the one which is heretical? Of course, heretical in this sense is defined as being heretical to the teachings of Jesus, not to the Church. One thing is certain, while the mainstream Christians see themselves as adhering to the Gospel of Love, their actions often speak otherwise. Yet I repeat what I said in the beginning, which is also the reason why I wrote this article: There are many sincere, good people who are Christians but are fooled and caught in the trap of the roman church and its bible.
A final quote from the excellent (and free) e-book The Personal Devil by Amitakh Stanford:
“The Gnostics were certainly not against Christ. On the contrary they embraced Christ. With the discovery of Gnostic scriptures near Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt in 1945, it is evident that far from being “heretics”, the Gnostics were in fact the original Christians whose teachings were directly from the earliest disciples of Jesus. In fact, the Christianity of various denominations of today is a very degraded heresy of Gnosticism.
The misinformed Christians who perceived the Gnostics as rivals were quick to brand the Gnostics as demons – the “otherness”. This has nothing to do with the will of God. History can attest to many atrocities that have been committed in the name of Christ, and in the name of overcoming the Devil. Often those who were perceived as threats were labeled as the “devils”. These are examples of abuse and misuse of the concept of Satan – very convenient and dangerous ones indeed!”