* Adrian Ioniţă - Happy to get laid
* Adrian Ioniţă - Uncle Milty
* Ştefan Bolea – A Minority of One
* Ormeny Francisc - Is Salinger a Communist?
* Axel H. Lenn - Considerations on Two Early Christian Symbols
* Axel H. Lenn - Ultimum Testamentum

Happy to get laid

by Adrian Ioniţă

when you arrived, smiling, your eyes laying at a slanting angle,  hold up not to be true or real,  the mailboxes were playing musical chairs  and the soggy ceiling was crying in esperanto. Blind as usual,  I haven’t' seen that your house has a threshold of glass and every morning  a blind man with a stick is walking up the stairs,  or maybe he's just sliding gently down...
quite wittgensteinian and pretty silly, what can I say , there are no options,  but still,  the picture is worth thousands words.

Uncle Milty

by Adrian Ioniţă

you thaught me not to cry at dog food commercials, to keep the chair tall at weddings, to count the number of stitches on
every Ferragamo shirt, to set the station on Benny Goodman, to make reservations and appointments, to tip the doorman and the limo drivers, to count the hours when the Permax kicks…there are times when the Energizer is stuck near the door and the Tribune has no headline news, when the Fat Lady sings,  the bottles of moonshine are filled with tears and the slotmachines are keeping a moment of silence.

A Minority of One

by Ştefan Bolea

“Had not history always been an inhumane, unscrupulous builder, mixing its mortar of lies, blood and mud?” (Koestler)

1. History and Context

I will investigate three novels that deal with communism - Aldous Huxley - “Brave New World” (1932), Arthur Koestler – “Darkness at Noon” (1940), George Orwell – “1984” (1949). They emphasize more exactly the fears of Western World concerning a totalitarian state. However different they might be, they have in common this particular aspect: the expression of a point of view that has widespread in the 1930’s and 1940’s – that democracy will fade out, that in the near future a democratic and capitalistic state will be impossible. Orwell expressed this thing best in an article during WW II, stating that British democracy would not survive the war (a Fascist takeover from above or a Socialist revolution from below would bring it to the end).

Another aspect the studied authors is that they all had a leftist background. Huxley had a scientist and materialist education (he was the grandson of the Darwinian biologist T.H. Huxley) and was, at his time, a brilliant critic and satirist of the capitalist society. Koestler fought in the Spanish Civil War in the Republican side and was captured and imprisoned for several months by the Nationalists. A member of the Communist Party from 1931, he saw in the Soviet experiment the only real alternative to fascism. However he was disappointed in the Moscow purges in 1938 and begun denouncing the Stalinist Russia. Orwell fought as well in the Spanish Civil War against Franco’s Nationalist uprising. Although he was never either a Trotskyist or an anarchist, he was strongly influenced by the Trotskyist and anarchist critiques of the Soviet regime and by the anarchists' emphasis on individual freedom.

2. Individual versus State

The definition of the individual in the totalitarian state is “a multitude of one million divided by one million.” Freedom of thought cannot exist in an authoritarian regime – it was an illusion that dictatorships only destroy economic liberties and have no effect on intellectual liberty. A totalitarian regime “not only forbids you to express –even to think – certain thoughts, but it dictates what you shall think, it creates an ideology for you.”
So the individual can create his personal theory (a personal philosophy or point of view) only at his own expense.

The characters from “Brave New World” perceive their difference in a way that hurts them. “A chronic fear of being slighted made him avoid his equals” (Bernard Marx); “If one's different, one's bound to be lonely. They're beastly to one” (John the Savage). Difference is dangerous – it can turn you into an enemy of the society. Other persons are “determined to preserve [their] incomprehension intact”, when the main characters from Huxley’s novel preach their individualism and uniqueness. Hulxey’s main heroes cannot adjust easily in a society that cures every problem with “soma”, a psychotropic drug which has “all the advantages of Christianity and alcohol [and] none of their defects”.
The main character from “Darkness at Noon”, Rubashov was one of the main actors of the Bolshevik Revolution – so he knows the Party from the inside. He knew that if we accepted the logic of the Party, the individual would be diminished and fallible: “You and I can make a mistake. Not the Party.” Through his monologues, Koestler exposes his interests in dialectics, emphasizing a paradox applicable to the Communist state: “we should have been loved by the people. But they hate us. Why are we so odious and detested? We brought you truth, and in our mouth it sounded a lie. We brought you freedom, and it looks in our hands like a whip.”

Winston Smith, the main character from “1984” is a member of the Outer Party that works for the government. He writes in a personal diary, a crime punishable by the Police of Thought (a combination of NKVD and Gestapo). The Party erases the past and “changes” it constantly but Winston can’t help observing the forgery of the state. Thus he becomes “a minority of one”, a concept somewhere between democracy and pathology.

Many of the words of the characters from the three novels appeal to the philosophical doctrine of intransitivity: a barrier of communication that cannot be surpassed has appeared between them and society. Their personal feelings and thoughts can no longer be translated in other peoples’ affection and ideas. From a sociological point of view they are sick and they are to be treated, from a psychological point of view they are healthy and the “society is insane”, to use the famous expression of Erich Fromm.

3. State versus Individual

The state works with a different kind of theory: total control and absolute power are its main traits. In “Brave New World” the dialogue between the main heroes and the World Controller (Mustapha Mond) is especially relevant. The humanistic mind represented by John the Savage, a young man grown in a Reservation that got his “paideia” from Shakespeare is appalled by this society’s destruction of arts, heroism and tragedy. Mustapha Mond reflects: “Our Ford himself did a great deal to shift the emphasis from truth and beauty to comfort and happiness. Mass production demanded the shift.” It’s the classical dilemma between culture and civilization: which one is more important? Which one is more powerful? The Greeks represented the peak of humanistic culture but they were assimilated by the Romans who had a better judiciary system, were highly skilled in political organization and fought wars in a more competitive way. The confrontation between these sets of value, i.e. culture represented by John and civilization cynically and brilliantly depicted by Mustapha Mond is dramatic and complex:

"But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."
"In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."

The main hero claims the right to liberty, even if it’s a negative liberty (defined through its opposites) that encompasses unhappiness, suicide, love or moral disorder.

In “Darkness at Noon” the theory of the Party is explained through Ivanov, one of Rubashov’s persecutors. He calls it “vivisection morality”: “A collective aim justifies all means, and not only allows, but demands, that the individual should in every way be subordinated and sacrificed to the community—which may dispose of it as an experimentation rabbit or a sacrificial lamb.” Here we see again exposed one of the fears of the Western society from the 1940’s: if the Western society became totalitarian, the equation individual/ community would be solved with the disappearance of a single term. This reality of the Soviet Russia (the individual reduced to nothing) would be more frightening if we imagined that Communism took over the whole Western democratic world (Huxley’s and Orwell’s cases). Ivanov’s absolute cynism is displayed in his next affirmation: “Every year several million people are killed quite pointlessly by epidemics and other natural catastrophes. And we should shrink from sacrificing a few hundred thousand for the most promising experiment in history?” Something from the excitement of the early revolutionary mindset is expressed through Ivanov that has much in common with anarchism and 19th century scientific nihilism. This “experiment” costed millions of lives, solved everything though death and, as Rubashov put it, sacrificed the present generation in the interest of the future ones.

“1984” is perhaps more direct and spectacular when defining the theory of the Party. Its leaders are more open, brutally honest and direct. Winston Smith is captured by the Thought Police and tortured (electroshock therapy is one of the specialties). O’Brien, its persecutor doesn’t simply want to annihilate him, he wants to “cure him”, to make him love Big Brother (the all-powerful dictator). Here is how O’Brien explains Winston’s “sickness”: “You are mentally deranged. You suffer from a defective memory. […]You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one.” O’Brien’s line of arguing is repellent: reality exists only in the mind (an example of classic solipsism); only the mind of the party (“collective and immortal”) holds the truth. Thus, “it is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.” The consequence is that the laws of arithmetic and physics can be adjusted (2+2=5, maybe the Sun revolves around Earth, there is no law of gravity if the Party doesn’t want it to be). There is no firm ground, no knowledge we could trust.. The subject of a totalitarian state is in a state of permanent confusion and the only way he can integrate would be to embrace the whole system of lies with all his heart.

Here is the doctrine of the Party best exposed: “The choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and […] for the great bulk of mankind, happiness was better.” “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.” “Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain.”

The same kind of cynicism we find in Ivanov or Mustapha Mond, still something in the tone has changed. O’Brien’s applied philosophy is crueler, more complex and without escape. The individual wouldn’t be annihilated like in the times of Inquisition and be allowed to keep his freedom of thought (“heresy”) intact. First he would be destroyed psychologically, re-educated, he would be made to accept everything he knew it was wrong. After this conversion he would be “vaporized” and deleted from all the records. This death is complete – posterity wouldn’t rehabilitate him because he wouldn’t have existed.

4. Conclusions

“Brave New World” is set in 632 after Ford (i.e. the 26th century) but contains contemporary issues of the early 20th century. Huxley’s main concerns were the technological developments, which could alter and suppress individual freedom. The Industrial Revolution, mass production, the Russian Revolution influenced the modern mindset, more that it has been expected. The society of the future imagined by Huxley is nightmarish – an excessive development of the main traits of the present society.

Koestler doesn’t describe the future, being more concerned with the present development of the Stalinist Russia. His novel has an impressionistic quality, because he doesn’t name Russia or Stalin at all – although the allusions are unambiguous. Koestler was very impressed by the Stalinist trials from the 1930’s, when the very people that created the Revolution were systematically destroyed (We have seen the same theme in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn).

Orwell seems to be the most pessimistic from the three. A dystopian author like Huxley, he was very influential not only in political sciences but in popular culture, too. Movies, like “Matrix” or “V for Vendetta” (to give only two famous examples) would unintelligible without the Orwellian reference.

Aldous Huxley – Brave New World, Harper Perennial, 1998
Arthur Koestler – Darkness at Noon, translated by Daphne Hardy, Bantam Books, New York, 1968
George Orwell – 1984, Signet Classic, 1996
George Orwell – Literature and Totalitarianism (link)
George Kennan – The Sources of Soviet Conduct (link)
1984 Information (link)

Is Salinger a Communist?

by Ormeny Francisc

Salinger’s novel is placed in a post-World War II setting. At that time, a burgeoning industrial economy made the American nation a rich one and some very strict social rules were agglutinated into a real code of conformity for the younger generation. It was an age of domestic insecurities which forced Truman to expand some loyalty programmes. By taking full advantage of these insecurities and of people’s damaged nervous system, guys like McCarthy made careers: forced “confessions” were issued. Anyone in this period who was the slightest bit different, eccentric or somehow out of the mainstream, became a suspect (accused of “subversion”): “When this pompous diplomat in stripped pants, with a phony British accent, proclaimed to the American people that Christ on the Mount endorsed communism, high treason, and betrayal of a sacred trust, the blasphemy was so great that it awakened the dormant indignation of the American people.” (Senator Joseph McCarthy) Not only the State had the power to accuse, isolate and punish, but PUBLIC OPINION had maybe an impact twice as strong as that of the State. To be accused was already to be “guilty” or at least “presumed guilty”. The early 50’s were the America’s most passive and full of conformism period in the entire history of this country.

Salinger’s book was accused of obscenity in literature as it discusses matter of sexuality in a “too” open way and as it was considered an encouragement for the countercultural revolt that took place in the 50’s and 60’s. An opaque cultural norm creates a heartless world, alienates the individual and restrict his personality (cultural oppression must be neutralized by means of an iconoclastic behavior).The novel is organized around two buildings which function as symbols for this new world order: the mental hospital (where Holden Caulfield is undergoing a treatment, just like Vonnegut’s Billy) and the museum. Haulden’s “mood” can also be the result of what McCarthy called: “It is the result of an emotional hang-over and a temporary moral lapse which follows every war.”

“Many of the men and women who gravitated to the party were misfits or neurotics who sought to deal with their own inadequacies by embracing the CP. Lonely people were particularly drawn to the party. It offered community and<<belongingness>>, a feeling of comradeship. (…) A large proportion of emotionally maladjusted individuals who were seeking to solve their emotional problems by attacking society, rather than face up to their personal inadequacies and conflicts.” (Ellen Schrecker-“Many are the crimes”)
Holden can be read as the Soviet Saviour of innocent Children from the Hands of this hidden neo-nazi so-called Capitalism:

In his eyes, the image of the American capitalist society is an utter one:
-insensitive and unpoetic people (the cab drivers get irritated and sick when he, “innocently” asks them where the ducks in Central Park go when the lagoon freezes)
-sick, pathological and deviant sexual behavior (From his room at Edmont Hotel he observes a man putting on silk stockings, high heels, a bra, a corset, and an evening gown. Afterwards he observes a man and a woman in another room taking turns spitting mouthfuls of their drink into each other’s face and laughing hysterically - he interprets it as a form of foreplay)
-he himself feels “infected” with this hypocrisy as, after having danced in the Lavander Room, he feels “half in love” with a blonde (although he feels strongly that sex should happen between people who care deeply about and respect one another-reason for which he refuses to have sex with the prostitute Sunny, claiming that he recently underwent a spinal operation and isn’t sufficiently-recovered to have sex...but he offers to pay her anyway).
When trying to explain to his sister Phoebe his repeated failure with schools, she accuses him of not liking anything.Now he tells her his fantasy of being “the catcher in the rye”, a person who catches little children as they are about to fall off a cliff.
Like in Russia’s case, isolation is both the source of his strength and of his problems. Isolation, like an utter engine, propels him into his date with Sally Hayes, but his need and dependence on isolation causes him to insult her. This is one of the reason why Russia was able to colaborate with the Allies only up to a point...to the point where they threatened its tendency to isolated the occupied territories (the Berlin Airlift problem and Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech). Communists fear Capitalism and the changes it can produce in society. Like them, Holden fears change, being overwhelmed by the complexity of life. He enjoys the experience of the MUSEUM, where everything is easy to understand/understandable, unchanging and infinite as it is eternally fixed (like the statues of Eskimos and Indians). Like Marx’s utopian dream, his childhood world is one of innocence and honesty. Letting the Children of the Party get in contact with the West and its degraded spirit equals a fatal fall over the cliff. Both Holden and the Soviet system expend so much energy searching for phoniness in others, that they never directly observe their own phoniness (the utopian dream of being a paragon of virtue in a world of phoniness). As he himself can’t adhere to the same black-and-white standards with which he judges other people, he becomes his very counterevidence. Loneliness and isolation also denotes a fragile sense of individuality, a constant running away from introspection. The fear of the adult world parallels Russia’s fear of the West, and, at its bottom it means fear of: complexity, unpredictability, of potential for conflict and change. Holden likes the museum as he wants his world to be silent, obedient, ever-frozen, predictable and unchanging. When people become unpredictable, one has to question his senses of self-confidence and self-worth...Cynicism and isolation are refusals to acknowledge your personal weakness. He asks obsessively “Where do the ducks go when the lake freezes over?”-as he is terrified by the idea of change and disappearance. The Ceausescu regime did the same in Romania: no citizen was allowed to leave the country for ever and permissions to go abroad were given on the pattern of some very strict procedures. Should one “trick” the system and escape the “cage”, his family would suffer all kind of repercussions: left without a job and having to withstand an endless interrogatory and public opprobrium. Holden would rather see the ducks dead than away from his lake (if he can’t have them, nobody should have them).

Suspicion, paranoia and schizophrenia are taken to the extreme. Holden calls his former English teacher, Mr.Antolini. Antolini tryes to comfort him, and while sleeping he strokes his forehead, but Holden misinterprets it as a kind of homosexual overture. Holden indicates in chapter 19 that he is extremely nervous around possible homosexuals and that he worries about suddenly becoming one! His paranoid fear of homosexuals equals the Red Scare fear of communist spies, and here Holden is a sort of McCarthy who was also a great “admirer” of homosexuals and saw them everywhere. Even when Phoebe-his beloved sister, puts her arms around him, he remarks that she may be a little too affectionate sometimes.
Stradlater is Holden’s roommate at Pencey. Although he is handsome, self-satisfied and popular, Holden calls him a “secret slob”: he appears well groomed but his toiletries, such as his razor are unclean.
A media-based culture is an artificially created and forced culture. When Holden’s brother D.B. wrote a volume of short stories that Holden admires deeply, he says that D.B. prostitutes his talents by writing for Hollywood movies.
Sex follows the same principles as war did. Fear of war equals fear of sex. Holden famous fantasy about the catcher in the rye is nothing but an utter avoiding of Robert Burn’s sexual message: “if a body meet a body through the rye” Holden willingly misinterprets it and prefers the word “catch” which can acquire a forced Messianic connotation.
War, like sex, should take place only between people who respect themselves sufficiently not to cheat on each their partner/adversary. Holden is deeply upset by the ‘discovery” that sex can be casual (the affair between Stradlater and his ex-girlfriend Jane, or the scene with the two adults spitting on one’s partner’s face). The “unconscious” hint is made at the bombing of Hiroshima which meant a crass lack of respect for the Japanese, a spit in their face, but mostly a self-spitting of the Americans on their flag (although Japan attacked Pearl Harbor without a declaration of war). The song “Comin’ Thro’ the Rye” asks if there is anything evil in two humans having a “romantic”/ romantic encounter out in the fields, away from the public eye, even if they don’t plan to have a commitment to one another. “Recreational sex” is the normal outcome of such a meeting...and here personal liberty is at stake. Holden wants to catch (in the communist web) the children before they “recreationally” lose their innocence. As, once you’ve lost it in virtue of misinterpreted liberty, from recreational sex to recreational war(PC games, wars for testing one’s weapons-as, in part, Vietnam was the case)...it is a matter one step (that is why Roosevelt said that he hopes he’ll build together with Stalin and Churchill [a highly anchored in fixity/tradition Englishman] a world of peace).

Considerations on Two Early Christian Symbols

by Axel Lenn

Early Christian symbology is quite difficult to interpret, chiefly because of its hybrid morphology. Trans-symbological analysis provides the interpretation keys behind any symbol, based on morphological and sometimes conceptual similarities – e.g. knocking on wood is a common practice intended to prevent something evil from happening; it’s a fine example of magic that has made it to this day. But how do we read it, where did it come from exactly? The key concept here is wood, not knocking. Why not knock on stone or on metal? Wood is symbologically derived from tree; and trees can be seen in all mythologies, no matter the continent, signifying: an axis mundi representation, a link between heaven and earth; a stairway to the stars for the souls of the dead; also ascension, verticality, death as well as regeneration and fertility; gods are often associated with trees (Ra, Horus, Venus, Minerva, Jupiter, Apollo) and trees are present in Christian symbology as well (the tree of life, the tree of knowledge etc). Since trees are protective, good elements, one used to conjure them in order to drive away evil spirits. Using this type of analysis, one can determine precisely not only the most probable meaning, but also the origins of many Christian symbols. I find this to be the correct way to approach and decipher an early Christian epitaph (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).

The epitaph in Fig. 2 is inscribed on early Christian ossuaries. The epitaph in Fig. 1 is unique, in the sense that the Talpiyot tomb is the only monument displaying these two symbols: an inverted V and a circle. Some researchers have made a connection between this epitaph and the so-called Pontormo code [1], represented in Fig. 3. I fail to see this connection, since the circle in Fig. 1 and the dot in Fig. 2 are close to the base of the inverted V, whereas the divine eye in Fig. 3 and the encircled cross in Fig. 4, much later date additions to common Christian decorations, are obviously located toward the triangle top. Taking a closer look at these four images, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 resemble hieroglyphs, suggesting that they constitute two variations of the same conceptual/text key or inscription; Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 display two variations of the same architectural or decorative key/element. I’m not saying that there is no connection or similarity between these two representation types, I’m merely pointing out that their functions and meanings do not match.
Certain letter theories [2] have also surfaced. They are not worth considering, since the two symbols are definitely not letters. Moreover, some of the people buried in the Talpiyot tomb or in the early Christian burial sights where the symbol in Fig. 2 was found must have been able to write since some of the ossuaries bear name inscriptions. In other words, if one can write down names, there is no need for letter-derived codes.
In drawing a circle, one begins from one point and returns there. The beginning and the end meet. Therefore, the basic universal meaning of a circle is continuity, eternity. A series of concentric circles, a circle with a dot in the center and a simple dot have exactly the same meaning. The New Covenant contains a couple of claims attributed to Jesus Christ, which are extremely unusual and spectacular: Jesus says he is the light, the Resurrection (id est “continuation of life”) and the way to heaven (or to eternal life) for all those who believe. The Egyptian hieroglyphs for light are: a circle, two concentric circles (just like the ones depicted in Fig. 1) and a circle with a dot in its center. Pretty interesting, isn’t it? Still, what does ancient Egypt have to do with Christianity? Why would an Egyptian symbol be placed on Jesus’ tomb? That’s a very good question actually, and it should address other Christian symbols as well. There is a quite common representation of Christ wearing a cross stuck in a heart on his chest. In middle Egyptian, a heart with a windpipe stuck in it (Fig. 5-C) reads nfr [nefer] – meaning good, beautiful.

When I first saw the epitaph on the Talpiyot tomb, I associated it with Fig. 5-B, which is the opposite of the crescent sun depicted in Fig. 5-A [3, 4, 5]. These are mythical representations of actual astronomical phenomena that many ancient civilizations were familiar with; to ancient Egyptians, for example, Fig. 5-A signified the sun-god’s journey across the sky during the day; Fig. 5-B reads “Ra during the night” or “Ra in the underworld” – in other words, “the sun/light of the night”, “the sun/light in the land of the dead”; in this particular case, both the upright and the inverted V are to be read “the ship of heaven”. Again, a “light of the dead” epitaph might apply to Jesus’ tomb alone; where does this leave the others?

Another theory suggests that the inverted V is a masculine attribute; associated with a circle (id est continuity, eternity), the Talpiyot epitaph would actually read “He who is eternal”. This would work for Jesus Christ, but not for other people, namely the early Christian followers with the same epitaph on their ossuaries. The phallic indication of the inverted V is actually secondary. Other secondary meanings include roof and hill/mount; this would be one step away from “house of eternity” or “mount of eternity”. However, the basic trans-symbological, universal meaning of an inverted V is stairway. So, does the Talpiyot epitaph say “stairway to eternity”?
This particular early Christian epitaph and its two component symbols are quite rare. Did people abandon them over the centuries? I think not. The Christian burial service revolves around the idea of eternal life through Christ. Man’s body remains in a tomb, while the soul goes to heaven; therefore, man’s ascension to eternal life is reserved for the soul alone. In this light, a not so common inscription like “Hic (incipit) aeternitas animi” (“Soul’s eternity [begins] right here”) mentioned on Christian graves from the first centuries to the 20th century is the best translation for the message in Fig. 1 and Fig.2.

[1] link
[2] link
[3] link
[4] link
[5] link

Ultimum Testamentum

by Axel H. Lenn

A very long time ago, religion played two major roles in human societies: ensuring social stability and providing various social services. The first of these roles was gradually undetaken by specially created institutions, while the latter is turning more and more dispensable. Other occasional roles, such as those assumed by religious bodies in politics, military conflicts and economic affairs should have never been played. Since societies and mentalities move on and religious dogmas don’t, it’s pretty obvious which of these grow extinct. Ancient Egypt’s magnificent religion, with its many dogmatic centres, that basically invented spirituality, philosophy and monotheism, vanished out of sight eventually.
Where spirituality is concerned, monotheism is degenerated polytheism. I haven’t found a precise dictionary definition of spirituality yet; moreover, almost all the circulating definitions merge spirit (i.e. thoughts, logic, metaphysical analysis) with soul (i.e. heartfelt emotions, gullibility); from the individual’s angle, spirituality emerged when men started asking simple questions regarding everything that could not be understood, their life, their origin and, most of all, their definite mortality. Some aspects and phenomena had to be accepted as such – that’s how dogmas popped up; dogmas were related to each other as an attempt to answer the aforementioned types of questions, and were later summed up as religious canons. Symbology and theatricality made the whole thing more spectacular and impressive.
Egyptians had the most elaborated spiritual theories in human history, laws of the universe and up to three hypostases of the soul - Ach, Ba and Ka. They even went so far as considering that, just like anything else in the universe, all gods die eventually. Buddhism imagined stages of transformation where souls, no matter the species, had to embody different morphologies in order to become pure and enter Nirvana. Fact: ploytheistic and nontheistic doctrines have the decency to integrate men somewhere in the universe. Fact: monotheistic doctrines place humans above all the other creatures. And so it happens that, as time passes by, biblical dogmas keep collapsing one by one – quite an easily predictible course, since the Old Covenant is 90% Jewish parables on historical events and 10% reversed Egyptian symbology. Genesis 1 states that there was light, days and nights before the sun was created – extremely hilarious! Most surely, earth is not flat, immovable and placed in the very center of the universe, and, as genetic finds indicate, man is anything but the best creation on the planet. If many of the Old Covenant beliefs are obviously outdated, the New and most certainly the Last Covenant is so preposterously catastrophic that one can’t help asking how on earth it ever became a religious canon in the first place. Taking one step further, not only the Bible is a poorly inspired and badly written book overfilled with contradictions, but there is absolutely no historical evidence to support its spiritual claims described as out of the ordinary and divine.

Piling up the Last Covenant

The first followers of Christ produced various writings to guide their beliefs – among those are the best known 84 Gospels and Acts. When Constantine was proclaimed emperor by his troops in 306 A.D., the Roman Empire had become too large and diverse to control. Those were very troubled times, cultural and religious diversity was not a factor of stability, on the contrary. So Constantine, a convinced polytheist until his last breath, summoned the first Christian conference ever in 325 (known as the First Council of Nicaea) to eliminate the differences between the 84 major circulating writings and thus to put up a common, unique Christian canon. This way, Christianity could progress from a pile of sectarian movements to an offensive state religion; and this was no ordinary religion, but one that urged people to be calm, obedient, stupid, uninquisitive and as selfless as possible (i.e. no dignity or verticality allowed); clearly an invention for demented people. As Nietzsche well put it, Christianity’s best herdal product is indeed the slave mentality, which helped the very few people in power perpetrate some of the most outrageous crimes in human history.
            In 363 A.D., the Council of Laodicea took further steps in piling up the Bible. Eastern Christian leaders rejected John’s Apocalypse, while western leaders wanted the Old Covenant out. Athanasius, a bishop in Egypt, eventually managed to present the first official edition of the Christian canon in 367 A.D. (the oldest known version of the Last Covenant is Codex Sinaiticus, discovered in 1859 in Egypt, which dates from 330-350 A.D.), including both the Old Covenant and John’s Apocalypse. The Old Covenant is an abridged version of the Jewish sacred books. The New and Last Covenant is made up of 27 chapters: four castigated gospels (attributed to Marc [70-80 A.D.], Matthew [80-90 A.D.],  Luke [95-100 A.D.] and John [around 110 A.D.]), a chapter called the Acts of the Apostles (most certainly written by the same scholar who wrote the Gospel of Luke), 21 epistles (14 attributed to Paul [around 50 A.D., the earliest writings in the Last Testament], one to James, two to Peter, three to John and one to Judas) and finally John’s Apocalypse. The other books were declared heretical and destroyed; these included the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Thomas and the Gospel of Truth (all were rediscovered in 1945, part of the Nag Hammadi codices); the Gospel of Philip (rediscovered in 1945, one of the Nag Hammadi codices, the first document to suggest that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ intimate companion); the Acts of Philip (rediscovered in 1974 in the Xenophontos Monastery, on Mount Athos, depicts Mariamene [Mary Magdalene] as a powerful apostle, highly respected by many of the early Christians); the Gospel of Mary (possibly Mary Magdalene) (rediscovered in 1896, part of the Akhmim Codex, it depicts Peter’s fierce attack on Mary, an icon of Christian patristic misogyny – i.e. the “if god is man, then man is god” principle); the Gospel of Judas (rediscovered in the 1970s, part of the Tchacos Codex, it suggests that Judas Iscariot was the only apostle to know and spread Jesus’ real teachings); Pistis Sophia; the Gospel of Peter (rediscovered in 1886 in Egypt, attributes Jesus’ execution to king Herod and claims that Jesus’ brothers were halfbrothers in fact, sons of Joseph by a former wife); two divergent writings both titled the Revelation of Peter (rediscovered in 1886 in the Akhmim necropolis) and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (rediscovered in 1945, one of the Nag Hammadi codices); the Didache (rediscovered in 1883, part of Codex Hierosolymitanus); the Shepherd of Hermas (Latin version fully preserved); the Gospel of James, brother of Jesus (rediscovered in 1958); Paul’s Third Epistle to the Corinthians (claiming that resurrection cannot be physical – “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”); the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (or The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit) and the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians (both rediscovered in 1945, part of the Nag Hammadi codices); the Acts of Peter and the Twelve (part of the Nag Hammadi codices); the Egerton Gospel; the First and Second Apocalypses of Paul; Epistula Apostolorum; the Acts of Andrew; the Acts of Paul and Thecla; the Gospel of Nicodemus and the Acts of Pilate. Some of the rejected writings have not been found yet or have survived as fragmented quotations – these include: the two Oxyrhncus Gospels; the Gospel of the Saviour; the Gospel of Bardaisan; the Gospel of the Hebrews; the Gospel of the Ebionites; the Gospel of the Nazoraeans; the Gospel of Matthias, the apostle chosen to replace Judas Iscariot; the Gospel of Bartholomew; the Gospel of Eve; the Gospel of Marcion; the Gospel of Basilides; the Gospel of the Twelve; the Gospel of the Seventy; the Gospel of the Four Heavenly Realms; the Gospel of Cerinthus; the Gospel of Appelles; the Gospel of Perfection.
            One would assume that such a radical selection was intended to produce an extremely accurate and amazing tenet. Still, why burn these writings to ashes? Why murder those who continued to mention them? In reality, the aforementioned selection produced the worst religious canon ever: mistranslations as a rule, edited material, a lot of later additions to the texts, adaptations from the old Jewish canon and an endless row of embarrasing inconsistencies that ultimately erase any trace of credibility. If it could be possible to conduct a study on the exact percentage of people who have actually read the Bible throughout the past two millennia, the result would be incredibly low, most surely under 0.001% (N.B. this is the approximate percentage of Christians able to write and read throughout the second millennium alone). And this answers the most delicate question of all: how come this hilarious tenet managed to survive this long?

Deconstructing the biblical fiasco

Marcion’s intention of writing a Christian canon that had nothing to do with Judaism did not stand a single chance. Most clerical figures favoured a canon directly linked to Judaism, mainly for two reasons: (1) on spiritual grounds, Christian dogmas are quite poor and, since Jesus himself was a Jewish prophet, there was really no need to sever the new teachings (attributed to him) from the old Jewish religion; (2) building up a new canon, i.e. providing new, original explanations on life and death is not an easy task – e.g. it took many centuries to complete the Jewish canon. Comparing noncanonical writings and the Bible, certain aspects can be observed.

I. None of the 27 books of the Last Covenant was actually written down by the people they were attributed to. Literary criticism applied to these texts reveals embarrassing variations in utterance structure, word-order and style. For example, in the gospel attributed to him, Luke refers to himself using the first person initially; later, only third person references exist. Matthew’s gospel provides another eloquent example (Matthew 9:9):
“And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.”
This is Matthew referring to himself in the third person.

II. There are obvious text interruptions, leaving the impression that something is either missing or left unfinished. For example, Jesus is presented as a spectacular figure prior to his birth; however, there is not a single word on his early life, up to his 30th anniversary when he starts preaching. Mark’s description of Jesus’ arrest in the Gethsemane garden contains two verses depicting a strange, unique event (Mark 14:51-52):
“51. And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
52. And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.”
The young man, who affectionately runs after Jesus and is grabbed by the guards, manages to escape. The reader is left wondering: so what? There is no other record of this young man in this gospel. Judging from his unselfconsciousness (dressed in scant attire; running after Jesus, who was arrested, while all the apostles run away and hide; escaping Roman guards and running away naked), this young man is a child or an adolescent.
Another similar example can be found in the Gospel of John: a mysterious disciple (a male), somehow hidden in the text. In John 13:
“21. When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
 22. Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spoke.
 23. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
 24. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spoke.
 25. He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?”
Simon Peter, whom Jesus calls the first among his disciples, is obviously afraid to ask the difficult question himself. Afraid of what? Afraid that he might be the traitor. Then why should the beloved disciple ask the question, and why does he? Obviously because this beloved disciple could not have ever betrayed Jesus. The text makes a suggestion that, unlike the other disciples, the beloved one had a special, extremely affectionate relation with Jesus (they must have been related). In John 18, when Jesus is brought before the priests:
“15. And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
 16. But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spoke unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.”
The special relation between Jesus and his beloved disciple was not unheard of, it seems. Since the high priest does not allow Peter, who was not a relative, to witness Jesus’ trial, this most certainly points out that the beloved disciple was a close relative of Jesus. In John 19:
“25. Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
26. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27. Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.”
The other three gospels mention Mary, Jesus’ mother, and Mary Magdalene at Jesus’ cross. No beloved disciple. And who is this disciple’s mother? Mary, Jesus’ mother? If the disciple is Jesus’ brother, why would Jesus introduce them to each other? Perhaps the disciple is Jesus’ son, in which case his words read: ‘from now on, you won’t have a father and you won’t have a man, so take care of one another’. Of the three women mentioned, Mary Magdalene is the only one who fits the role of Jesus’ companion and mother to his child.

III. The Bible is full of later date additions to the initial texts. The list is immense. Jesus’ miracles, for instance, follow exact patterns; they are not written as eye-witness accounts, but to impress, to underline the exquisite and unusual nature of the stories. The reader is told over and over again that Jesus requested those whom he miraculously cured (blind, paralyzed, mute, handicapped, insane, possessed and even dead people) not to tell a soul. On occasions, these miracles are performed with no witnesses around - e.g. Jesus resurrecting a dead girl or Jesus curing a blind man outside his village; despite this, the Bible specifies the dialogue between Jesus and the girl and between Jesus and the blind man. Quite hilarious! Other clichés, seen in all four gospels, refer to: Jesus’ telepathic healing powers, the claim that people who touched his cloths were instantly cured, his ability to walk on water.
            Jesus’ baptism by his cousin John the Baptist has a pile of clichés attached to it (Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-13; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34). In all four gospels, when Jesus is baptized, the Holy Ghost appears in the shape of a dove descending toward him and a voice from above (i.e. god’s voice) is heard:
“This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17)
“Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:11)
“Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22)
Almost the exact phrase, using the exact same words – quite a very interesting paradox, since none of the four apostles telling this story actually witnessed Jesus’ baptism; they did not even meet John the Baptist. Most surely, everything attributed to John the Baptist is sheer fabrication. After being baptized, three gospels state that Jesus was tempted and tormented by the devil for exactly 40 days (Matthew 4:1-2; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-2).
The discovery of an old version of John’s first epistle revealed a fine example of later addition (written in bold red and called Comma Johanneum); the biblical version of 1 John 5:7-8 is as follows:
“7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”
It’s pretty obvious that the trinity principle is nothing but a fraud.
            Another example, even more hilarious, refers to verses Mark 16:9-20, which do not appear in the earliest version of Mark’s gospel. A fine example of late additions is Mary Magdalene’s possession by seven devils - a feature of remarkable patristic misogyny:
“Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.” (Mark 16:9)
“And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,” (Luke 8:2)
            In some cases, biblical authors justify their spectacular text insertions by references to Old Covenant passages. For instance, the idea of Jesus’ parthenogenesis is justified by a vague reference to Isaiah 7:14, where a young woman who is going to bear a son named Emmanuel is to be taken as a sign from god. The idea reemerges in Matthew 1:22-23:
“22. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
The prophet Matthew refers to is Isaiah and, using a mistranslation, not a young woman, but a virgin shall bear the child – and thus, god’s sign becomes god’s child. This trick is supposed to “prove” that Jesus’ birth was really as fantastic as depicted and that it had been foreseen many centuries earlier.
            The epistles seem to have been written in order to explain certain controversial aspects circulating during the first century A.D.; in fact, these texts further distort the original message by various additions. In 1 Corinthians 11:
“4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”
These verses spell misogyny quite clearly; verses 7, 8 and 9 say merely one thing: women were created to be slaves to men. This is not mentioned in any of the four gospels. Verse 14 is even more preposterous, since neither Jesus, nor any of the disciples used to shave their heads; moreover, early Christian representations depict a long haired Christ.
            But the best example of textual and conceptual additions is John’s Revelation. As nowadays scholars agree, Jesus was not an eschatological preacher. There is nothing vaguely apocalyptic in the teachings attributed to him.

IV. Inconsistencies form another trademark of biblical fallibility. There are three types of biblical inconsistencies: (1) those within the Old Covenant, which are either different interpretations of the same story or sheer fabrications; (2) those between the Old Covenant and the Last Covenant, which are either mistranslations (accidental and intentional) or dogmatic differences; and (3) those within the Last Covenant, 90 percent of which are sheer fabrications and 10 percent interpretation variations.
The Old Covenant contains a lot of major discrepancies among its 39 books. The first monumental preposterousness in the Bible is located at its very beginning: Genesis 1 says that man is god’s last creation; Genesis 2 states that after creating Adam, god decided to entertain him and thus created Eden, filled it with plants sand animals, and later came Eve. In Genesis 2:17, god tells Adam:
“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
In Genesis 5:5, we find out that:
“all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.”
The Old Covenant god is a masculine figure, sometimes deceitful (e.g.2 Thessalonians 2:11-12), very jealous and vengeful (e.g. Genesis 6:11-17; 7:11-24; 19:26), locking souls in hell, making children pay for their parents’ sins (Exodus 20:5), destroying his enemies (Deuteronomy 7:10), ordering massacres and other abominable crimes (e.g. Exodus 2:12; 9:22-25; 12:29; 21:20-21; 32:27-29); the Last Covenant introduces a god of love, peace, goodness, joy, gentleness and temperance (e.g. Galatians 5:22-23; 1 John 4:8; 2 Corinthians 13:11); in Jesus’ view, anger and hate are sins (Matthew 5:22, 43-44).
According to the Bible, children are literally born from sin and death is the price everyone has to pay for the original sin (Romans 5:12); this would have made Jesus an offspring of sin as well, had it not been for the parthenogenesis insertion. Admitting Jesus was not born from sin, why would he die? For everyone else’s sins but his own, we are told – in other words, Jesus is a victim. All four gospels repeatedly underline that Jesus was aware of his imminent death; there are numerous later date insertions of Jesus preaching his death, as well as his miraculous resurrection three days later (John 12:20-36; Luke 9:22, 44-45; 18:31-34; Mark 8:31-38; 9:30-32; 10:32-34; 14:6-8; Matthew 16:21-28; 17:22-23; 26:10-12), in direct reference to nu
merous Old Covenant prophecies that had thus been fulfilled. The explanations are hilarious:
“For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” (Romans 5:19)
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22)
All these conceptual tricks are meant to justify a rather clear example of what god considers the greatest sin of all – suicide. The fact that Jesus goes to Jerusalem knowing he is going to be put to death is synonymous to suicide. He doesn’t do anything to prevent it, but rather accepts it gladly. Admitting that Jesus’ death is not suicidal, but a price paid for all men’s sins, how come people are still dying?
             The inconsistencies within the Last Covenant constitute an impressive exhibition of the worst fabrications ever recorded on paper. Three types of fabrications can be identified: (1) original fabulous events, seen in all four gospels, generating the specific surreal atmosphere (these include many drafts that are very often subject to interpretation variations): e.g. Jesus could cure the blind (the number of blind people he cured varies among gospels); (2) later date fabulous additions to the original texts – using approximately the same words, no matter the gospel: e.g. god’s voice saying “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”, mentioned both at Jesus’ baptism and in the transfiguration scenes; (3) conceptual fabrications, trying to excuse or explain other inconsistencies: e.g. since the disciples have witnessed a really spectacular series of miracles, since they have repeatedly heard god’s voice proclaiming Jesus as the messiah, it is really hilarious that they should doubt, abandon, disown, betray, sell and not recognize Jesus. Many times, they do not understand him (Mark 4:13; 6:52; 8:15-17; Luke 8:9; 9:45), other times Jesus underlines their little faith (Matthew 8:26; 17:20). So, another series of later date fabrications is introduced: the disciples did all these things because they were occasionally possessed:
“But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” (Matthew 16:23)
“Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.” (Luke 22:3)
“And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you all, that he may sift you all as wheat:” (Luke 22:31)

The real characters and story behind the Last Covenant

            Considering the four analytical criteria mentioned previously, it is possible to eliminate large sections of the Last Covenant and thus to extract a few highly realistic data which, corroborated with other information, can produce a relatively real, historical profile of the characters.
            Jesus was born in a rather rural and illiterate family that spoke Aramaic. He was illiterate too; had he been able to write, he would have conceived the Old Covenant himself. Matthew 13:55 mentions that Joseph, Jesus’ father, was a carpenter. Tradition goes that sons should follow family skills – so, according to Mark 6:3, Jesus became a carpenter as well. The rest of the story regarding his origins, family and birth is pure fabrication, an obvious poorly inspired attempt of turning Jesus into something he was not, namely a prophetic figure. Matthew’s gospel introduces the virgin birth fabrication, stating that Jesus was god’s direct descendent; quite paradoxically, it says Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Kind David’s town, and that he was a direct descendent from King David on Joseph’s side. Luke’s gospel sustains the same ideas, but the genealogy is strikingly different.
The table below contains the three royal genealogies mentioned in the Bible; Matthew 1/Old Covenant correspondences are written in black, normal letters; omissions are marked with an asterisk *; Matthew 1/Luke 3 correspondences are written in italic; unique names are undelined. Four aspects can be easily noted: (1) In Matthew 1, Joseph is descending from kind David's son Solomon, while in Luke 3 from king David's son Nathan; some scholars make a preposterous claim that, in fact, Luke's gospel gives Mary's genealogy - in other words, Joseph and Mary were cousins; (2) though different, the two genealogies intersect twice: in Shealtiel and in Joseph, Jesus' father; but, Luke's Shealtiel is five generations away from Matthew's Shealtiel, and Luke's Jesus is 14 generations ahead of Matthew's Jesus; (3) in Matthew's genealogy, Joseph's father is Jacob, while in Luke's genealogy, Joseph's father and Jesus' grandfather is Heli; (4) the number of unique, most surely fabricated names, is overwhelming.

Old Covenant genealogy

Matthew1 genealogy

Luke 3 genealogy









Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Cainan, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah




Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez (of Tamar), Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz (of Rahab), Obed (of Ruth), Jesse, king David

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, king David


















































































Joseph, Mary’s husband


Jesus, also called Christ























Joseph, Mary’s husband

Jesus, also called Christ

And here comes a rather difficult question: why would one of kind David’s direct descendents end up in a rural community, working as a carpenter to support himself and his family? There is no answer to this question, simply because Jesus’ royal genealogy is a fraud, just like the annunciation, the magi, the east-south-west-north moving star, the trip to Egypt and the massacre of all male babies 0-2 years old on Herod’s order (such a crime was simply impossible because of the Roman rule; considering it had taken place, such a dramatic event would have never been omitted by historians and would have been suicidal for king Herod’s rule). Why was this fraud necessary? Well, to support the idea that Jesus was entitled to Israel’s throne – and this is a historical detail mentioned on his cross. But, in this case, Jesus would have to be Joseph’s real son. So, since the parthenogenesis and the David genealogy are firmly sustained by two of the biblical gospels, we may conclude that Jesus is both Joseph’s and god’s son – we might well presume that Mary had sexual intercourse with both of them.
Here is a very interesting story that might have actually happened – Luke 2:
“41. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover.
 42. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
 43. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
 44. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
 45. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.
 46. And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.
 47. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
 48. And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
 49. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
 50. And they understood not the saying which he spoke unto them.
 51. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.”
Two parents who lose their child for five days (one on their way home, one on their way back to Jerusalem and three days looking for him) are preposterously irresponsible. But, admitting the annunciation, the trip to Egypt, the star and the magi, Herod’s massacre of the infants etc, it’s pretty obvious that Jesus was not an ordinary child – there is no scale to adequately measure his parents’ imbecility! Verse 50 underlines Mary and Joseph’s imbecile character as well: had they forgotten about god’s son and the angels and everything else? No, I don’t believe one can forget something that never happened. Mary and Joseph were probably too simple and too stupid compared to their son Jesus, that’s what the story tells. Stupid people can be this irresponsible. The fact that Mary, instead of requesting further explanations, used to memorize and repeat over and over again every strange phrase she ever heard, is not at all complimentary.
            Another story, most probably real, is Jesus going back to his hometown to preach (Matthew 13:53-58; Mark 6:16; Luke 4:16-30); he is almost lynched by the local community. In John 7:5, we are told that “neither did his brethren believe in him”. All these people, including his brothers, were certainly offended that an illiterate carpenter would issue a claim to David’s throne. Although his brothers’ distrust in him is mentioned only in one gospel (John’s), the other gospels present another interesting story – Jesus disowning his family (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21); in Matthew 12:
“46. While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
 47. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
 48. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
 49. And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
 50. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
            According to biblical sources and to historical views as well, Jesus had 4 brothers and two sisters. If X has a younger brother named Y and an older brother named Z, it’s a sign of respect to mention Z first and then Y – in other words, one should say “X, the brother of Z and Y”:
“55. Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
 56. And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” (Matthew 13)
“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” (Mark 6:3)
 “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;” (Mark 15:40)
“And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.” (Mark 16:1)
“It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.” (Luke 24:10)
In Mark 6:30, the two “of”-s used suggest that James and Joses were older than Juda and Simon. The fact that Matthew 13:55 mentions Simon first and Juda(s) last is not necessarily a contradiction: they could have been twins. In Mark 15:40 and 16:1, Salome is an extremely close relative since she attends Jesus’ execution and later goes to anoint the corpse; tradition has it Jesus had two sisters, one named Mary and another named Salome. So, why is there no “of” in front of Salome? Most surely the author’s intention was to underline the fact that Salome was there (James and Joses were not there), also implying she was Mary’s daughter. Concluding, the seven siblings, in chronological order, were: James, Joses, Jesus, Simon and Juda(s) [possibly twins], Salome and Miriam (name provided by tradition). Indeed, Jesus was the third, which means Mary is no virgin after all. And this is why many Christian writings, including Peter’s gospel, introduce another fabrication: Jesus’ siblings were in fact his stepsiblings, namely Joseph’s children from a previous marriage. All canonical texts and the large majority of noncanonical writings mention brothers or sisters, not stepbrothers or stepsisters. On the other hand, he who calls a woman, mother of seven, a virgin is either idiotic or sarcastic. Mary’s perpetual virginity is definitely a hoax.
            Now, why would a man having a real father named Joseph and six siblings call himself the son of god? In Matthew 6:9-15 and Luke 11:1-4 (Pater noster/Our Father), Jesus teaches people how to pray; note that it doesn’t say My Father, but Our Father. Matthew 23:9 reads:
“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”
Most certainly, the rural community in Nazareth was too stupid to get the idea, took Jesus’ claims that he was semi-divine literally and became offended.
            Jesus’ life prior to his ministry is nowhere to be found. There was probably nothing worth mentioning or nothing that could be transformed into a fabulous story. He began his ministry immediately after his baptism by John (most probably a real event) and close to John’s arrest and execution. From various nonbiblical sources, we know that John the Baptist was indeed a very unusual man in his days: not married, living in the desert, severe fasting; he preached, among other things, the inevitable judgment day. On the other hand, Jesus must have led a common life; some of his views against fasting, Sabbath or the priests, for example, suggest this idea (Matthew 9:14-17; 12:5; 15:10-11; 15:17-20; Mark 2:18-22; 27-28; Mark 7:15-23). This is why John sends his followers to question Jesus (Luke 7:9):
“And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?”
This tells us one thing: Jesus did not match John’s views. We know John the Baptist gathered large crowds and his teachings were offensive especially to the king and the high priest, who were appointed by the Romans. Those were very troubled times, people were extremely agitated – e.g. the failed Maccabean insurrection against the Seleucids. But, except for the Bible, there is no independent source to confirm that John the Baptist was related to Jesus. Jesus most probably tried to take over John’s ministry; and to justify such a claim, he posed as Israel’s savior and king to be (one of the Baptist’s prophecies). In other words, his actions translate as political insurgency: gathering popular support against Roman occupation, but also against the Jewish monarchy and the Sanhedrin (see Pilate’s words in Luke 23:14). The gospels tell he went to Jerusalem on Passover – a central Jewish celebration, when enormous waves of pilgrims would flood Jerusalem – what an opportunity to stir the spirits for rebellion! During the day, one could easily get lost in the crowd whenever danger appeared. The gospels mention that Jesus exited Jerusalem and hid during the night, fearing he might be caught. That’s why someone had to sell him, namely Judas Iscariot. The identification of the traitor is a clear later date insertion: since all the disciples attended the last supper, it’s quite hilarious that they depict differently Judas’ gesture to confirm he was indeed the traitor (Matthew 26:21-25; Mark 14:18-20; Luke 22:21-23; John 13:18-30).
The Bible specifies that Jesus was aware of his mission and doubted a favorable outcome (he says his time has come); in other words, he prepared himself and his close followers for the worst. The alms giving during the last supper indicates imminent death; moreover, Jesus’ gesture translates as adieu. When he gets caught by the Romans:
“Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.” (Matthew 26:56)
“And they all forsook him, and fled.” (Mark 14:50)
Why? They must have been afraid they could share his fate. The disciples are not at the cross, witnessing Jesus’ execution, they are not at the burial. There are several indications that Peter might have followed Jesus to the Sanhedrin trial.


Jesus’ trials


Caiaphas [26:57-68]          

Pilate [27:1-2]


Caiaphas [14:53-65]

Pilate [15:1-5]


Caiaphas [22:54; 66-71]

Pilate [23:1-5]

Herod [23:6-12]


Ana [18:13; 19-23]

Caiaphas [18:24]

Pilate [18:28-38]

Had the Sanhedrin trialed Jesus for blasphemy, he could have been stoned to death, not crucified – just as happened to James, Jesus’ brother, years later. A man claiming he was the son of god would have been considered insane and chased away most probably, not sent to Pilate. Jesus was charged with political insurgency and it was Pilate’s attribute to judge such cases; and Pilate, considering insanity, ordered that Jesus be whipped; since this produced no result whatsoever, namely no coherent word, explanation or defense to counterbalance the charges of insurgency, Pilate ruled in favor of these charges and sentenced Jesus to death by crucifixion (another real, historically backed-up event).


Figures at Jesus’ cross

Figures at Jesus’ tomb

Matthew [27:56]

-Mary Magdalene
-Mary, the mother of James and Joses
-the mother of Zebedee’s children
-other women

-Mary Magdalene
-the other Mary

Mark [15:40-41]

-Mary Magdalene
-Mary, the mother of James the less and of Joses
-other women

-Mary Magdalene
-Mary, the mother of James the less and of Joses

Luke [23:49]

-women accompanying Jesus from Galilee

-women accompanying Jesus from Galilee

John [19:26]

-Mary, Jesus’ mother
-Mary, Cleophas’ wife
-Mary Magdalene

-Mary Magdalene

            The four gospels mention that many women accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem; considering the variations detailed in the table above, one thing is for certain: Mary Magdalene was one of those women. Since she was a stranger, it is most unusual to see her at Jesus’ cross and going to Jesus’ tomb to anoint and prepare his corpse for proper burial – these are strictly family attributes. Why would anyone mention a stranger and not Jesus’ sisters, for example, who must have also been there? In fact, Mary Magdalene is mentioned first, as if leading the group of women; this constitutes another indication that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were intimately related, possibly husband and wife.
            The most spectacular story in the Last Covenant is Jesus’ physical resurrection and ascension to heaven, depicted only in Luke 24 and John 20:
“36. And as they thus spoke, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
 37. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.” (Luke 24)
“Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:39)
“42. And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
 43. And he took it, and did eat before them.” (Luke 24)
“And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.” (Luke 24:51)
“19. Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
 20. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.” (John 20)
“26. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
 27. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” (John 20)
Jesus could not have been flesh and bones and pop out of nowhere, like a ghost, startling his disciples. Two thousand years ago, Jesus (or any other person for that matter) might have honestly believed that among the clouds there were armies of angels and chariots of fire; that it would be possible to physically rise into the air and live among the clouds. We now know these are silly fabrications. Likewise, the physical resurrection three days after death is obviously an early date hoax inserted in the Bible. The Acts of the Apostles say that Christ was “the first to rise from the dead” (Acts 26:23) and walk; the Acts were written after the gospels, where Jesus’ lifetime miracles include three resurrections: Jairus’ daughter (Matthew 9:18-25; Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40-45), the Nain widow’s son (Luke 7:11-17) and Lazarus (John 11:38-44). Well, these three resurrections are later date inventions, most certainly. And fantasy goes on:
“nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:64)
“and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:62)
Thereafter, man has reached the moon, and there was no sign of god, Jesus on his right etc. Oh yes, there were clouds indeed! The ultimate proof that resurrection is a hoax is also located in the Last Covenant:
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28)
“And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” (Mark 9:1)
“But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:27)
According to these verses, Jesus was supposed to die and return as king of the Jews prior to some of his disciples’ death. Since all his disciples died almost two millennia ago, it’s quite obvious that this so called prophecy is yet another fabrication.

Closing the Case

            The Last Covenant attributes a lot of teachings to Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps the most interesting phrase in its 27 books, a rather memorable insertion, is:
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33)
What would words matter when earth and heaven disappear?! This quote shows a definite mark of infatuation! He who wrote this epitaph, must have considered it fit for Jesusí real character, i.e. a humble man considering himself royal material. And it is rather sad that a humble manís infatuation and preposterous claim to Israelís throne against Roman rule was used, centuries later, by a desperate Roman emperor in an attempt to save his disintegrating empire! In my view, Christianity is the last and most ridiculous of Romeís legacies to the world!

revistă de metafizică şi spiritualitate

~> alte recomandări