What is it like to be a Christian (?)

Hi

What is it like to be a Christian (?)

Commentators will notice that a question (?) mark in brackets to the name Christian on the title. Showing that the term Christian is a misnomer, and certainly not known in the early decades or even the first few centuries of the common era. Indeed, Jesus never heard it spoken, nor either his followers (Ebionites aka the Poor (Luke 6:20-21)) hear it said. The later Greek Gentiles of the false apostle Paul (cf. Acts 1:21) started to call themselves earlier on as “the Way” then “the saints” then “God’s people” then “the Believers.” 

It was the Roman authority that called them derisively Χρηστιανὸς̣/Chrestian (Acts 11:26, 14 Peter 4:16) meaning “the Good.” Which they indeed were not! To the Romans, they were the Atheists and Haters of Humanity. They even committed suicide for there belief, which is the same as saying suicide by Roman, Christians themselves called it martyrdom. The writers of the time tell a very different story than these of the so-called Christians. 

We know from a narrative from the time that Polycarp’s only crime was to side with the Christians, by refusing to worship the emperor. All Polycarp was asked to do! Was “swear by the fortunes of Caesar,” and curse “the Atheist,” that is the Christians. With no harm done and he would have been on his way to die a natural death. No, he preferred to commit suicide and die. Later they took up the name Χρηστιανὸς̣/Chrestian. Much later through Christian skullduggery, they change a single letter by replacing the eta with an iota, changing their name yet again from Χρηστιανὸς̣ to χρηστιανοι. Overnight they went from being Good to be Besmirched. They were Gentiles first and foremost, renouncing the Jewish way for their own made-up Pauline invention and beliefs. 

The one thing Christians are best known for was their prolific forgeries. With the early church’s having vast scriptorium as forgery mills, churning large quantities of counterfeits.  From MSS, documents, imperial and royal charters to title deeds.

Their other purpose was the destruction of the classical world and its literature and art if it was Pagan and not conforming to their doctrine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/08/books/review/catherine-nixey-darkening-age.html 

Such was the devastation one need look no further than the Serapeam in Alexandria in 391 CE and its daughter library. Even destroying their literature if it showed their saviour in poor light or not to there own doctrine (lost Gospel). It was also a Christian must, to destroy Pagan literature that seemed or was anti-Christian.  One also must not forget that they persecuted Jews and destroyed their scriptures, burning tens of thousands, or censoring Jewish holy books.

One now come to the part to show how Christianity chose itself over biblical truth as well as showing that forgery in this case of the book Matthew had taken place. Even the staunchest critics of Christianity will come to the aid of the Bible in a sense—if it seems biblical wrong! 

Who knew Jesus better?  

  1. The Followers of Jesus, who were there listening to his sermons and preachings. or 
  2. The Gentiles Christians some two centuries later who condemned Jesus’ followers as heretics—but hypocritically did not tar Jesus in the same stigma?

…The first properly historical as distinct from the “scriptural” notices of the Church at Jerusalem tell of a quasi-Christian sect there, known as Ebionites or Ebionim, a Hebrew word which signified “the poor.” From the point of view of the Gentile Christians of the end of the second century they were heretics, seeing that they used a form of the Gospel of Matthew lacking the first two chapters, denied the divinity of Jesus, and rejected the apostleship of Paul. As they likewise rejected the Hebrew prophets, accepting only the Pentateuch, there is some reason to suppose that they were either of Samaritan derivation or the descendants of an old element in the Judean population which, from the time of Ezra onwards, had rejected the later Biblical writings as the Samaritans did. On either view it would follow that the Jesuist [Jesuism, also called Jesusism or Jesuanism] movement rooted from the first in a lower stratum of the population, hostile to orthodox or Pharisaic Judaism, as were the Sadducees among the upper classes. The Samaritans made special account of Joshua (=Jesus), having a book which bore his name; and we shall see later that that name was anciently a divine one for some Syrian populations… [J. M. Robertson (1902), A Short History of Christianity, p.6, Watts & Co. London] The emphasis and square brackets [ ] are mine

We know that the followers denied his divinity of Jesus, and rejected the apostleship of Paul.

The followers of Jesus were before the Gentiles, so their book or Gospel of Matthew predates the canonical Gospel of Mathew. There is no way that it can be vice versa.  So the Gentiles must have added the first two chapters of the canonical Matthew. 

What do you say?

Cofion 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: