The Very Last Word In The Bible

Amen, the very last word in the Bible, could well have begun as a Pagan word. Yet Christians, Jews and Muslims end their prayers, Scripture readings, and hymns by saying Amen as an expression of concurrence.

From old Egyptian texts we can see that people regarded the sun as the emblem of the Creator. They called the sun Ra, and all other gods and goddesses were forms of the Creator. One of these gods was Amen; a secret, hidden and mysterious god named variously Amen, Amon, Amun, Ammon and Amounra.

So Amen was originally the name of a Pagan god, who was considered a form of god the Creator. But he was certainly not considered the same One and Only God who Abrahamic religions worship now.

-----

Full article here.

@ChristianityExposed

The Importance Of Pre-Christian Customs

Halloween is rooted in an annual Celtic pagan festival called Samhain that was then appropriated by the early Catholic Church some 1,200 years ago.

The importance of pre-Christian customs to people’s lives apparently wasn’t lost upon the early Catholic Church. Pope Gregory I, also known as St. Gregory the Great, who headed the Church from A.D. 590 to 604, advised a missionary going to England that instead of trying to do away with the religious customs of non-Christian peoples, they simply should convert them to a Christian religious purpose.

The old beliefs associated with Samhain never died out entirely. The powerful symbolism of the traveling dead was too strong to be satisfied with the new, more abstract Catholic feast honoring saints.

Instead, the first night of Samhain, October 31, became All Hallows Day Evening, the night before the saints were venerated. That name eventually morphed into Halloween.

-----

Full article here.

@ChristianityExposed

I am often asked how Christianity spread so quickly in the Roman Empire if Jesus never existed. This is what's called a loaded question, since it presupposes the false premise that Christianity indeed spread quickly, which it did not.

It is estimated that by 100 CE there were about 7,000 Christians in the Roman Empire, which was a mere 0.01 percent of its entire population at the time. And by the middle of the 3rd century, it was only about five percent, according to Edward Gibbon.

It wasn't until Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 CE that the spread of Christianity was hastened, which proclaimed (Nicene) Christianity as the official state religion.

In 392 CE, however, Rome was still predominantly Pagan, so he decided to launch a war on paganism, which slowly forced pagans out of towns. Hence, the term pāgānus, meaning rural. In some remote regions, paganism persisted well into the 6th and 7th centuries.

@ChristianityExposed

The "Christian" Trinity

The Trinity doctrine, which didn't gain acceptance until the fourth century during the First Council of Nicaea, was much more influenced by Greek philosophy than by biblical teachings.

Plato wrote about a divine triad consisting of "God, the ideas, [and] the World-Spirit" centuries before the Gospels were even written.

This concept was later refined by other Greek philosophers into what they referred to as three "substances": the supreme God or "the One," from which came "mind" or "thought," and a "spirit" or "soul."

These were considered different divine aspects of the same God, or as "good," representing the personification of that good, and the agent through which that good is carried out—distinct yet unified as one.

The early Church Fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria, openly acknowledged their Greek philosophical influences. In his book "Stromata," for example, he references Plato well over a hundred times.

@ChristianityExposed

Evidence Of Jesus?

The tweet is entirely correct. The annotations, however, clearly are not.

The works of Tacitus and Josephus are not evidence, nor is Lucian of Samosata's, which was merely a satirical commentary on the late 2nd century Christian community written about 140 years after the alleged crucifixion.

The Bible books are not historical documents. We can't even prove the existence of Moses, let alone confirm everything else, such as the historicity of King Solomon or the earthquakes in Jerusalem that were strong enough to split stones.

And there are plenty of scholars who doubt that Jesus existed. Here is a list of 43 examples.

@ChristianityExposed

https://t.iss.one/fyrgen/2980

Good question. Before the top-to-bottom imposition of Christianity's inherent Zionism upon the Romans—and later upon the rest of the European people, due to either force or their traitorous leaders converting to Christianity to make alliances with the Empire to solidify their own positions of power—they didn't speak too highly of the Jews. For example:

"This race detested by the gods . . . Things sacred with us, with them have no sanctity, while they allow what with us is forbidden . . . among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies." — Tacitus (Histories, c. 100–110 CE)

"They are more unscrupulous, despicable cowards, treacherous, servile, and in general fickle, on account of the stars mentioned.  [They] are in general bold, godless, and scheming." — Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos, c. 100–178 CE)

And they were very aware that Christianity is a Jewish sect. For instance, as Celsus states in On The True Doctrine (c. 178 CE):

"I wonder that Christians and Jews argue so foolishly with one another—their contest over whether Jesus was or was not the Messiah reminding me rather of the proverb about the shadow of an ass. In fact, there is really nothing of significance in their dispute: both maintain the quite nonsensical notion that a divine savior was prophesied long ago and would come to dwell among men. All they disagree on is whether he has come or not."

@ChristianityExposed

The Christianization of Poland took several centuries and started when the first ruler of the Polish state, Mieszko I, got baptized in order to marry the Christian princess of Bohemia, Doubravka, around the year 965. This established the Polish-Bohemian alliance, which strengthened his grip on power.

However, the Polish folk were not having it. Mieszko I and his 3 successors/descendants all faced revolts almost immediately after their coronations in 1025, 1026, and 1076. The most notable one being the "reakcja pogańska w Polsce" (pagan reaction in Poland) in the 1030s.

Unfortunately, Mieszko I's baptism formed close ties with the Catholic Church—which up until the 12th and 13th centuries remained a foreign and unpopular establishment in Poland, imposed upon its populace by a governing elite driven by their own political and expansionist objectives—which gradually gained enough political influence to consolidate its rule over the Polish people, despite their many uprisings.

@ChristianityExposed

A few decades after Mieszko I's conversion, the Polish monarchs waged war on the Prussians over the following two centuries with the goal of converting them to Christianity in 997. However, they weren't very successful.

The Prussians defeated their armies in guerilla warfare, engaged in reciprocal raids, killed their missionaries, and the Prussians who had been baptized under compulsion returned to their native beliefs after hostilities ended.

After the Prussians heard what the Crusaders did to the Baltic tribes, they invaded parts of Poland, pillaging 300 cathedrals and churches as retribution, and enabled Christian converts to revert back to their pre-Christian beliefs.

This eventually led to the Teutonic Knights getting involved, who militarily defeated the Prussians in the second half of the 13th century. As a result, they were subjected to a gradual process of Christianization within the Teutonic Knights' monastic state after centuries of trying to preserve their heritage.

@ChristianityExposed

"When war broke out in Israel, organizations and ministries working in the country put crisis plans into action. And they looked to Christians in the US and around the globe to help fund their efforts."

"The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ) has received millions in donations since the war broke out, more than any other two-week period in its history."

"Around half of US evangelicals consider support for Israel and the Jewish people to be an important priority in their charitable behavior. For years, giving to nonprofits that work in the Holy Land has been on the rise. Some rank among the biggest Christian charities in the US."

"Evangelicals’ approach to Israel tends to be theological rather than political; those who believe Jews are God’s chosen people—51 percent of US evangelicals—are the most likely to make charitable support of Israel a priority."

-----

Full article here.

@ChristianityExposed

"The most successful settlements in Africa are where blacks adopted Christianity."

To imply that (Sub-Saharan) Africa would be successful if they were Christian while already being the most Christian continent on earth is self-refuting.

The most successful settlements in Africa were "just as successful as Europeans," because they were colonized by Europeans, and even then they weren't—and still aren't—nearly as successful as Europe.

"Europeans were living in caves and huts and killing each other till they got Christianity . . . We acted just like Africans."

So Christians don't kill each other and before Christianity started to take hold in the Roman empire, they were living in caves and huts?

Alex Jones—just like all Christian conservatives/nationalists—wants you to believe that "we were [savages] until we got Jesus," the king of the Jews, to save us from our incompetence, even though our competence clearly derives from our European ancestry, not from adopting Jewish scriptures.

@ChristianityExposed

The United States Was Not Founded On Christianity

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

-----

Full article here.

@ChristianityExposed

A common claim is that "we have more evidence for Jesus than for Alexander the Great." However, this is not even remotely the case.

For Alexander the Great (356–323 BCE), we have a good amount of contemporary evidence:

• We have coins that were minted from around 333 BCE up until the 2nd century CE, which depicts images of him wearing a lion's skin, symbolizing his connection to Heracles.

• We have the Alexander Sarcophagus (commissioned c. 332 BCE), which is decorated with bas-relief carvings of Alexander, along with scrolling historical—and mythological—narratives.

• We have the Alexander Chronicle (331–323 BCE), which is a Babylonian clay tablet inscription describing key battles and military campaigns led by Alexander.

• We have the Priene Inscription (c. 330 BCE), which contains a letter attributed to him where he granted privileges to the city of Priene (modern Turkey).

And the list goes on.

For Jesus, however, we have zero contemporary evidence.

@ChristianityExposed

"Aryan" Jesus

The three "first-hand eyewitnesses" mentioned here are the only supposed contemporary sources claiming that Jesus had light-colored hair and eyes. But, unfortunately for Christian Identitarians, these are all well-known forgeries.

Publius Lentulus is said to have been governor of Judea before Pontius and to have written his letter—which was "found" in 1421—to the Roman Senate. However, not only does the letter contain anachronisms, no procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus and a Roman governor would have addressed the emperor, not the Senate.

Both of the other "historical accounts" were published in The Archko Volume (1884), of which the author was found guilty of falsehood and plagiarism by church authorities—of all things—after falsely claiming his source to be a guardian of the Vatican who never existed.

The "thousands of ancient artistic depictions" are based on these fraudulent accounts, and the supernatural visions are indeed "alleged".

@ChristianityExposed

A lot of people claim that homosexuality was widespread throughout pre-Christian Europe, especially in Greece. However, their evidence for this is either misunderstood or greatly exaggerated.

For instance, they will bring up pottery from ancient Greece, even though only 30 out of 80,000 depicted what could be interpreted as homosexual scenes, which equals 0.0375%. The majority of them featuring Satyr, who were known hedonists, in which case it makes sense to depict them as such.

And then there is, of course, pederasty; a mentorship between an older and younger male. Was this sometimes abused? Most likely, yes—as elites still do today. Was this abuse tolerated? Not exactly. We have plenty of writings and laws condemning it (and homosexuality in general) [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10].

Also, Achilles being upset about his best friend Patroclus dying does not make them gay, and the Greek concepts of love and beauty are often poorly translated.

@ChristianityExposed

The One True Faith

Some religious systems claim to be the "one true faith" for all mankind. Christianity is one such belief. Adherents of native religions know that this whole approach is wrong. There is no one religion for all the world—nor should there be.

The various branches of humanity arose under different conditions, underwent different experiences, and have their own unique way of being in the world. It is only right that we should approach the Divine in the manner native to our own branch of the human family... in the way of our own ancestors.

To claim that there is, or can be, or even should be a universal religion flies in the face of our genuine diversity. We recognize the uniqueness and the value of all the different pieces that make up the human mosaic [and support] the efforts of all cultural and biological groups to maintain their identity.

-----

From: Asatru: A Native European Spirituality by Stephen A. McNallen.

@ChristianityExposed

"Those men, whom Jewish and Christian idolaters have abusively called heathen, had much better and clearer ideas of justice and morality than are to be found in the Old Testament, or in the New. The answer of Solon [the Athenian] on the question, 'Which is the most perfect popular government?' has never been exceeded by any man since his time, as containing a maxim of political morality. 'That,' says he, 'where the least injury done to the meanest individual is considered as an insult on the whole constitution.' Solon lived above 500 years before Christ [1] . . . What Athens was in miniature, America will be in magnitude." [2]

Founding Father Thomas Paine on how the Constitution was inspired by Solon the "heathen"—whom John Adams spoke highly off as well—rather than the Bible.

@ChristianityExposed

The Viking Age, coincidentally, began only 11 years after the Massacre of Verden in 782, where Charlemagne ordered the beheading of 4,500 Saxons for their resistance against the Franks during a thirty-year campaign to Christianize the Saxons—known as the Saxon Wars—who were allies to the Danes. This led to the Saxons losing their entire tribal leadership and were now governed by Frankish counts appointed by Charlemagne.

It would be rather naïve to believe that the Scandinavians did not see the spread of Christianity and its empires as a major threat, which could very well have been the instigator of their raiding endeavors. However, this perspective is often ignored and we're told that it was due to nothing but a desire for wealth rather than preemptive self-defense.

And, on top of that, the Viking Age did not end until Scandinavia was largely Christianized in 1066, due to conversions of—and by—their kings. Most notably Olaf I and Olaf II.

@ChristianityExposed

Orthodox Church Father admits that "if Christ is not resurrected, then [their] faith is nothing"—a paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 15:17. Unfortunately for him, it never happened.

He then claims that there is an "immense" amount of evidence for Jesus, which is false [1][2][3]—and appealing to authority ("scholars") is fallacious as well—and that we "can't find proof for George Washington."

Now, I am well aware that proof is a higher standard of validation, but considering the absolute mountain of evidence we have for Washington—including ~77,000 correspondences, diaries, and financial and military records during his lifetime alone—it's quite safe to say that we can prove his historicity.

Implying that proving someone's historicity is an endless "rabbit hole"—suggesting that it's close to impossible—is an obvious red herring to conceal the fact that you have zero contemporary evidence, which is a whole lot less than 77,000.

Full debate here.

@ChristianityExposed

The common Christian claim that Odin drank semen originates from a 1990 book called "The Construction of Homosexuality"—written by semen-obsessed Jewish Marxist David F. Greenberg—not from any Norse mythology source material.

@ChristianityExposed

As stated before, wherever Christianity goes, Zionism follows.

Even in one of the most monoethnic countries in the world, Japan, you will find Christians waving Israeli flags and singing Jewish songs.

I'm guessing it would be quite a challenge to find even one person of their indigenous polytheistic Shinto faith doing the same, despite it having 47 times the practitioners Christianity has. Or a Japanese Buddhist, for that matter.

@ChristianityExposed

"The [scholarly] consensus on Jesus is useless: it is based on false assumptions about what the alternative even is, much less the evidence for it; and it is based on a series of ancillary dogmas that turn out to be false when checked.

Only scholars who have checked all these things have relevant opinions. Everyone else literally does not know what they are talking about. Sometimes intentionally. Sometimes owing to bad practices inculcated in their training. Sometimes due to laziness or disinterest.

But regardless of the why, the what remains: the ignorant are not relevant authorities. Citing such scholars on this matter is therefore a textbook example of the fallacy of Argument from Authority.

And that’s the bottom line. Notice just from this article alone how many bad arguments for historicity occupy the field. This is why the field remains stuck on the dogma of historicity: they don’t even know these are bad arguments. Because they aren’t checking."

— Dr. Richard Carrier [source]

@ChristianityExposed