Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

Richard Caught Me!

Posted by Bob on November 11th, 2005 under Comment Responses


Richard Hardison said,

“Peter a follower of Mani, before Mani was born? Have you been into the lemonade again?”

First, I meant Paul.

Second, it is true Mani lived long after Paul, so Paul could not have been a Manichaean.

Good save.

Please note that I spent a LOT of words below trying to explain that you simply cannot know ANYTHING about Christianity if you do not fully recognize that Christianity grew up in the six centuries before Islam.

During that period, the theologians were obsessed with chastity and self-torture. There is no way you can understand this by looking at the Old Testament, especially the obsession with chastity and sterility as a way to God.

That isn’t IN the Old Testament, no matter how hard you try to shoehorn early Christianity into it.

So where did it come from?

It came from Zoroastrianism, the religion of the only other superpower of the Roman world. That was the official religion of the Persian Empire. Its membership was strictly limited to those of the Aryan race.

Zoroastriansim also contained what we think of as new, the Aryan demand for self-destruction.

Ahriman was the Satan of Zorastrianism, but he had another name theologians may be familiar with. Ahriman was the ruler of THIS world.

When Satan tempted Jesus, he offered Christ all the kingdoms of the world.

Did you ever consider how it was that Satan COULD offer Jesus all the kingdoms of the world?

In the first century AD the seven million Jews in the Roman Empire asumed that Satan was the Lord of THIS world. He OWNED all the kingdoms of THIS world.

The Zoroastrian Good God was Ahura-Mazda, who was the ruler of the NEXT world, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

That is NOT in the Old Testament. OT’s Jehovah was dedicated to Jews and to Israel.

But over the one thousand and eight hundred years of its overpowering presence, Zoroastrianism evolved. It came to believe that everything about THIS world was evil. That is where, before there ever was a Moslem on earth, Mani got his idea for Manichaeism.

Mani was openly synthesizing the two great relgiions of his world, Christianity which dominated Rome and Zoroastrianism which ruled Persia.

Mani invented nothing. Paul was dedicated to the idea that THIS world is altogether evil. Having children was assumed to be evil for a reason no Old Testament fanatic can begin to understand.

As Elizabeth points out, Manichaeism is sick.

But it is not a SEMITIC sickness. It came straight from us Aryans.

You cannot begin to understand Christianity by obsessing on the Old Testament.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
  1. #1 by Peter on 11/11/2005 - 4:53 pm

    As much as I would love to take credit for Mr. Hardison’s humorous comments, I can’t.

    Yes, I did notice error, but since the same has been commented on before, and since you asked us to focus on the issues, I said nothing. Besides, Hardison commented better than I would have.

  2. #2 by Bruce on 11/11/2005 - 7:35 pm

    I thought Paul was a Pharisee prior to his conversion. So how exactly did he get influenced by Zoroastrianism?

  3. #3 by joe rorke on 11/11/2005 - 8:01 pm

    God cannot be found with the intellect. To follow Christ is a matter of faith. “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign and no sign shall be given it save the sign of ……” I have no questions to ask. There are many mysteries. We will come into this world and go out of this world and only claim to have the answers.

  4. #4 by Richard L. Hardison on 11/11/2005 - 9:52 pm

    Bob, the near converse is also true. You can’t understand Christianity with understanding the OT. Obsession is a much different matter. Calvin and Augustine did not understand the OT any more than the Puritans did.

  5. #5 by Richard L. Hardison on 11/11/2005 - 9:59 pm

    Another issue. Christianity changed drastically during the period of 300 to 450. Hellenic and Manicheistic influences obtained greater and greater influence during that period, and the church councils did not solve any of the trouble. Gregory Nanzianzus stated that succinctly. Christianity has been warped ever since.

    There must be a balnce in one’s understanding of the nature of God. The OT shows us one side, the judgemental righteous God who will one day judge us. The NT shows us the loving forgiving God who will accept us in response to our faith in Him for salvation. Our actions show our faith as witness to our faith, which is nothing more than taking God seriously at his word. God forgives sin if we a re willing to understand he hates it and wants us to abandon it because of what it does to us.

    Without the Ot we can not understand the place Christ has in our salvation because we have no idea of why He came in the first place.

  6. #6 by Elizabeth on 11/11/2005 - 10:26 pm

    Paul had a Classical education: in other words, Paul
    learned lots of Plato — and Plato picked up
    Zoroastrian concepts from somewhere.

    One of the classic pieces of Zoroastrian imagery
    in the Paul is the language about the soul separating
    from the physical body after death. (This can be
    heard in the British Navy funeral service near the
    beginning of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.)

  7. #7 by Elizabeth on 11/11/2005 - 10:28 pm

    “in the Paul” — I’ve had a really long day! In Paul,
    in the Bible. I think it’s in Corinthians.

    The Zoroastrians didn’t want to pollute the Earth
    with dead bodies, which is why they left bodies out
    in the air and the Sun.

  8. #8 by Peter on 11/12/2005 - 7:00 pm

    Elizabeth: We knew what you meant. I make mistakes all the time, so I was relieved to see you at last make ONE.

  9. #9 by Bob on 11/13/2005 - 3:12 pm

    Peter, while it seems like I just made a mistake in attributing Richard’s comments to you, I had a much more conpiratorial agendum in mind.

    I thought that Richard, in a rage of jealousy, would kill you.

    But Richard wimped out on me.

  10. #10 by Bob on 11/13/2005 - 3:20 pm

    But Peter, please don’t think that the fact that I tried to get Richard — hearafter referred to as “The Wimp” — to kill you showed any personal animosity on my part towards you.

    My thought was that the headlines would read, “Web Site Causes Homicide!”

    Blogging is a very competitive business.

  11. #11 by Peter on 11/13/2005 - 6:47 pm

    I like Richard.

  12. #12 by Bob on 11/13/2005 - 7:32 pm

    Yes, Peter, you like Richard.

    But just relax and concentrate on this watch that I am spinning above you. You need to attempt violence on Richard and tell the media that Bob’s Blog

    http://whitakeronline.org/blog

    made you do it.

    I was in politics, so you can trust me.

  13. #13 by Richard L. Hardison on 11/14/2005 - 10:05 pm

    Bob, you didn’t waste that check. I just cleaned my Savage 110FP and am checking zero. As soon as you get me the address I’ll be over in half a jiffy. Assassins R Us aims to please!

You must be logged in to post a comment.