The Incredible Edible Jesus

[Kamikaze189]

ghoulslime wrote

There are no contemporary references to Jesus. In a Roman province, at a time when scrupulous record keeping was the norm, not a single mention of this mind-boggling Jewish magician who claimed to be the messiah. Not a line in a Roman log. “That damn Jesus is disturbing the peace again!” Not a word from the religious authorities of the day. “That heretic Jesus is at his blasphemy again! When are we going to get around to punishing him?”

The interesting aspect to eye-witness talk is how the average Christian argues it in their favor. If there are even two accounts, decades after the fact, by members of the religion with ulterior motives, we should accept them.

The Buddha's birth is mythologized in an unusual way. A queen falls asleep and dreams that a white elephant enters her side. Dream interpreters say that she will either give birth to a warrior or a Buddha. And so later the Buddha is born.

What if there were accounts of an actual elephant entering a woman's side? How many would it take to be believable? First, they would have to be figures with some history. Someone who disliked Buddha admitting this story was correct would be worth something. The word of members of his belief system isn't much at all. They are biased and have "good" reasons to lie.

Lao Tzu was said to have been born as an old man. How many accounts of this would be necessary to believe? Again, there are the same issues.

And in none of the three cases should supernatural claims be believed because a handful of devout followers report it. They're not trustworthy. But the average Christian plays favorites.

[Philboid Studge]

It's not enough that we have the FDA seal of approval and detailed list of ingredients on edible Jeebus, or as we like to call it, 'Jeez in Crackers.' We should also know whether our meat product was raised in a cruel 'veal cage' or if it had been force-fed (gavage) like a French goose. Free-range Jesus is more humane, but perhaps is not to everyone's taste, as it can be a bit stringy.



And we should be aware of what Jeebus consumed, as that will affect flavor. We know He ate broiled fish, honeycomb, bread and enjoyed a flagon or three of wine with His meals. As a Jew, should we assume that pork never passed His lips, nor catfish, crabs, lobsters, shrimp, or clams? For some reason, He sure hated figs. Cows were a go, of course (to paraphrase the old gag, 'In Russia, Savior eats you!'), though not the cuts too close to the animal's crap factory.



On the other hand, Jeez commanded Peter to 'rise, kill, and eat' all manner of crawling, creeping beasts, so maybe the Hebrew laws were good for He but not for thee ... And anyway, this is one topic that Jeebus was clear about. He did say 'whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods.' (Mark 7: 18-20) [Shorter Jesus: 'Shit happens.']

Finally, we should be aware which Jeezus we are tucking into. Is it the juicy and tender baby Jesus, the atheist favorite? Oy, like butter it tastes.



Then there's slightly older, child Jesus -- the little Lamb of God that goes nicely with mint sauce and a hearty red red wine--perhaps a grenache or shiraz.

I would avoid the adolescent Jesus, as well as any meats produced during the gaping hole in His biography -- roughly from 13 to 30 years old. That's mystery meat, people!

Bolder palates prefer the older Jesus meat, sun-cured for three (sic) days.

[Philboid Studge]

ghoulslime wrote

I grant that it is difficult to find common ground with someone who insists with frantic apologies, and blood frothing down his chin, that he has found his god, and in fact engages in pseudo cannibalism for Him on a regular basis.

I don't believe this is an entirely fair characterisation, Dr Ghoulslime. For a great many Jeebertarians, there is nothing "pseudo" about their cannibalism!

Ever since the Fourth Lateran Council, it has become an article of faith among a certain cult -- only the most populous among all the Christy cults -- that the Magic Crackers and Manischevitz served at Sunday happy hour are in fact the actual flesh and blood of Superjew.

On the eve of His death, when the Lord Jeebus looked his manly entourage in the eyes and said 'Eat Me,' nobody in the room was thinking, 'The old queen is just being metaphorical.'

[ghoulslime]

Kamikaze189 wrote

The interesting aspect to eye-witness talk is how the average Christian argues it in their favor. If there are even two accounts, decades after the fact, by members of the religion with ulterior motives, we should accept them.

The Buddha's birth is mythologized in an unusual way. A queen falls asleep and dreams that a white elephant enters her side. Dream interpreters say that she will either give birth to a warrior or a Buddha. And so later the Buddha is born.

What if there were accounts of an actual elephant entering a woman's side? How many would it take to be believable? First, they would have to be figures with some history. Someone who disliked Buddha admitting this story was correct would be worth something. The word of members of his belief system isn't much at all. They are biased and have "good" reasons to lie.

Lao Tzu was said to have been born as an old man. How many accounts of this would be necessary to believe? Again, there are the same issues.

And in none of the three cases should supernatural claims be believed because a handful of devout followers report it. They're not trustworthy. But the average Christian plays favorites.

It's much like the little boy who sees his dad putting on the Santa Claus suit, or gets a peek at the town drunk through the big white jolly beard. If he wants to believe in Santa hard enough, no amount of truth will undermine his determination.

[ghoulslime]

Philboid Studge wrote

It's not enough that we have the FDA seal of approval and detailed list of ingredients on edible Jeebus, or as we like to call it, 'Jeez in Crackers.' We should also know whether our meat product was raised in a cruel 'veal cage' or if it had been force-fed (gavage) like a French goose. Free-range Jesus is more humane, but perhaps is not to everyone's taste, as it can be a bit stringy.



And we should be aware of what Jeebus consumed, as that will affect flavor. We know He ate broiled fish, honeycomb, bread and enjoyed a flagon or three of wine with His meals. As a Jew, should we assume that pork never passed His lips, nor catfish, crabs, lobsters, shrimp, or clams? For some reason, He sure hated figs. Cows were a go, of course (to paraphrase the old gag, 'In Russia, Savior eats you!'), though not the cuts too close to the animal's crap factory.



On the other hand, Jeez commanded Peter to 'rise, kill, and eat' all manner of crawling, creeping beasts, so maybe the Hebrew laws were good for He but not for thee ... And anyway, this is one topic that Jeebus was clear about. He did say 'whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods.' (Mark 7: 18-20) [Shorter Jesus: 'Shit happens.']

Finally, we should be aware which Jeezus we are tucking into. Is it the juicy and tender baby Jesus, the atheist favorite? Oy, like butter it tastes.



Then there's slightly older, child Jesus -- the little Lamb of God that goes nicely with mint sauce and a hearty red red wine--perhaps a grenache or shiraz.

I would avoid the adolescent Jesus, as well as any meats produced during the gaping hole in His biography -- roughly from 13 to 30 years old. That's mystery meat, people!

Bolder palates prefer the older Jesus meat, sun-cured for three (sic) days.

The question of free-range Jesus versus cage-raised Jesus is one of ecumenical complexity. While allowing Jesus to roam freely, grazing at his leisure, strutting around all day, spreading his tail into a great big fan and such, is certainly more humane that keeping him in a cage, it can lead to unexpected divine anomalies. First and foremost is the gamey taste of free-range Jesus. Sweet Jesus, you can barely wash some of that down with a shot of wine! And imagine if Jesus were to happen across an unrighteous man, and consume him in entirety! Think of the consequences this would have on the final Jesus meat product!

Cage raising Jesus is the only way to go. No fear of him getting into locoweed, and turning a whole congregation of devout Catholics into Jehovah's witnesses! No fear of him feeding on other redeemer gods! No fear of him cursing some poor fig tree to death! No fear of Him straying too far from the story line. Cage raising Jesus insures the highest concentration of divinity in each savory bite. Sure, he will whine a bit, but you will wash him down with a bit of wine, and all will be fine! Amen!


Incidentally, the gaping hole in any Catholic youth is no mystery, sir!

[ghoulslime]

Philboid Studge wrote

I don't believe this is an entirely fair characterisation, Dr Ghoulslime. For a great many Jeebertarians, there is nothing "pseudo" about their cannibalism!

Ever since the Fourth Lateran Council, it has become an article of faith among a certain cult -- only the most populous among all the Christy cults -- that the Magic Crackers and Manischevitz served at Sunday happy hour are in fact the actual flesh and blood of Superjew.

On the eve of His death, when the Lord Jeebus looked his manly entourage in the eyes and said 'Eat Me,' nobody in the room was thinking, 'The old queen is just being metaphorical.'

Rats!

I've misrepresented truth again as a consequence of obstinate adherence to dogma! I hope that Oral Roberts University doesn't rescind my academic honors in Leprechaunology! I stand corrected.

Within the cult in question, as cult members do in fact consume on a regular basis, genuine meat or meat byproducts of a two thousand year old zombie, it seems incumbent, in the interest of diligent scholarship, to discuss the handling and preparation of said meat, as well as the correct etiquette in serving it. For example, would asparagus be an appropriate side vegetable for Jesus tartar? Well, I just don't know!

[ghoulslime]

Pliny the Younger (Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus) was born in 61 CE. In some of his writing, he mentions and describes the beliefs and practices of Christians in Asia Minor. Well, so does a homeless guy on the corner of Vermont and Olympic in Korea Town. It doesn't make him a contemporary reference to historical Jesus either.

[ghoulslime]

Flavius Josephus was born in 37 CE. Josephus was a Jew who believed that Judaism and Graeco-Roman thought could coexist in harmony. He was a historian who wrote The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94).

WIKI: The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Rome (66–70). Antiquities of the Jews recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective. These works provide valuable insight into first century Judaism and the background of early Christianity.

In fact, Josephus is usually the first straw that Christian apologists grasp for when trying to pretend like there was a historical Jesus. In the year 94 CE, Josephus wrote about early Christians.

There are two versions of Josephus' reference to Christians - Josephus' version that simply mentions Christians, and a later version modified by blood drinker priests in the Dark Ages, to make it seem that Josephus mentioned Jesus.

Liars for Christ modified the writings of Josephus, then destroyed all of the originals, or so they thought. Fortunately, the good scholars of Islam preserved the original writings of Josephus for comparison against the Christian forgeries later.

Josephus is not only NOT a contemporary witness to historical Jesus, he stands as a clear example of how early blood drinkers shaped their deception.

[lostsheep]

Wow. So when were the actual accounts by Jeebus' supposed followers written? Were these followers--Mathew Mark Luke John---not real people either?

[ghoulslime]

lostsheep wrote

Wow. So when were the actual accounts by Jeebus' supposed followers written? Were these followers--Mathew Mark Luke John---not real people either?

I am glad that you asked!

In the first century AD, Rome was replete with mystery religions. There were hundreds of different cults that worshiped gods, like Adonis, Dionysus, Mithra, and Osiris. Many of these gods were savior / redeemer type gods, who were believed to save mortals from one evil or another. Followers of these cults engaged in ritual worship of their gods that included anointing, sacrifices, special meals, and ritual cleansing. Some of them drank the ceremonial blood of their gods, ate their flesh, were baptized in holy water or blood, etc. Sound familiar?

(Most of the information surrounding the details of these mystery religions was destroyed later by the Christians, who spent nearly two thousand years trying to erase the origins of their religion from history in order to invent a new story.)

Even Julius Caesar invested in the political support of the believers of redeemer gods. He made himself a god. After his death, much of the lore and symbolism surrounding Caesar would later be borrowed by the Christians to embellish their newly-wrought god.

Jesus was almost certainly invented between 40 & 50 CE by Paul the apostle. Paul was the first Christian, and the father of Christianity. Although there were many messiahs to choose from at the time, Paul rejected them, as he received "heavenly visions" about the one true messiah. The name "Jesus" comes from the Tanach - Yahu'shuah which means "god saves".

English = Jesus
Latin = Iesus
Greek = lesous
Arabic = Yeshuah
Hebrew = Yahu'shuah

Will the real slim shady please stand up?

Paul invented the Jesus character, and made up the framework for his fictitious life. Later Christian writers would continue to build the work of fiction. Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, etc, are all complete bullshit. They were not real people. They never existed. Just as Jesus never existed.

[Sternwallow]

ghoulslime wrote

I am glad that you asked!

In the first century AD, Rome was replete with mystery religions. There were hundreds of different cults that worshiped gods, like Adonis, Dionysus, Mithra, and Osiris. Many of these gods were savior / redeemer type gods, who were believed to save mortals from one evil or another. Followers of these cults engaged in ritual worship of their gods that included anointing, sacrifices, special meals, and ritual cleansing. Some of them drank the ceremonial blood of their gods, ate their flesh, were baptized in holy water or blood, etc. Sound familiar?

(Most of the information surrounding the details of these mystery religions was destroyed later by the Christians, who spent nearly two thousand years trying to erase the origins of their religion from history in order to invent a new story.)

Even Julius Caesar invested in the political support of the believers of redeemer gods. He made himself a god. After his death, much of the lore and symbolism surrounding Caesar would later be borrowed by the Christians to embellish their newly-wrought god.

Jesus was almost certainly invented between 40 & 50 CE by Paul the apostle. Paul was the first Christian, and the father of Christianity. Although there were many messiahs to choose from at the time, Paul rejected them, as he received "heavenly visions" about the one true messiah. The name "Jesus" comes from the Tanach - Yahu'shuah which means "god saves".

English = Jesus
Latin = Iesus
Greek = lesous
Arabic = Yeshuah
Hebrew = Yahu'shuah

Will the real slim shady please stand up?

Paul invented the Jesus character, and made up the framework for his fictitious life. Later Christian writers would continue to build the work of fiction. Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, etc, are all complete bullshit. They were not real people. They never existed. Just as Jesus never existed.

So, did Paul also make up Peter? There are some bones with his name on them buried in Rome.

I might suspect that Peter made up the physical Jesus and Paul made up the spiritual one. IIRC, Paul doesn't mention the resurrection, for example.

[Philboid Studge]

We know there were eyewitnesses because of all the passages in the New Testes that describe Jeebus' physical appearance. Without those, I'd have my doubts ...

[Sternwallow]

Philboid Studge wrote

We know there were eyewitnesses because of all the passages in the New Testes that describe Jeebus' physical appearance. Without those, I'd have my doubts ...

Well, that settles it for me. Those Biblical witlesses are certainly more authoritative than, for instance, the reported witnesses who described Jesus' contemporary, Judah Ben Hur. And who could doubt the reality of Ben Hur?

[ghoulslime]

Sternwallow wrote

So, did Paul also make up Peter? There are some bones with his name on them buried in Rome.

I might suspect that Peter made up the physical Jesus and Paul made up the spiritual one. IIRC, Paul doesn't mention the resurrection, for example.

Paul sometimes made up Peter, and dressed him in women's clothing. There are a lot of bones that have buried in Rome. The blokes are still trying to cover all of that stuff up.

[ghoulslime]

Philboid Studge wrote

We know there were eyewitnesses because of all the passages in the New Testes that describe Jeebus' physical appearance. Without those, I'd have my doubts ...

Yeah, you have a solid Christian point there. The New Testiclement must be true, because it says so in the Bible.