Alt Left: The Notion of “Judeo-Christianity” Is Probably a Fraud

Who the Hell stuck that Judeo- in front of my great Christian religion anyway? Not trying to diss on Judaism here, but face it, it’s not much like Christianity even if one was birthed from the other, and Christianity at its absolutely core is nothing but Reform Judaism, sort of the ultimate in Reform Judaism, so reformed it’s barely even or not at all Jewish anymore.

People argue that Christianity is the Old Testament too, but that’s another feint because if you understand Christianity, you realize that when Jesus came, he replaced Judaism and the Old Testament at the same time. Jesus freed us from the Law. We no longer had to live under the Law. Hence, the Old Testament was essentially null and void, good as a historical document but for little else. Even the Old Testament and New Testament Gods are completely different. This is of course known as Replacement Theology.

(((Some people))) like to go on about how Replacement Theology is antisemitic doctrine, but the more you think about it, the more obvious it is that Christianity itself is Replacement Theology, so if the latter is antisemitic then the Christian religion itself is antisemitic. Which is what a lot of (((folks))) say anyway. Briefly, Jesus came, the Old Testament and the Law were replacement by the New Testament and what can only be called Mercy. At the same time, the Jewish birthright to Israel was cancelled, as the (Christian) Church was the new Israel.

The Catholics seem to understand this best of all. I attended Catholic Mass for a while when I lived in this new town. All of the lessons were about the New Testament. They never talked about anything else. If I had to describe Catholicism, I would call it “Jesusism” or “New Testamentism.” It’s the Protestants who regress to the Old Testament which doesn’t make much sense as they were supposed to be the reformers.

On the other hand, they were also back to the basics, and I suppose if you go back far enough, the Old Testament was important to the early Christians, especially since for the first 100 years, Christianity was little more than a very odd Jewish sect. In fact, one of the major religious debates of the time was whether a non-Jew could even be a Christian. For decades, one had to be a Jew in order to become a Christian in the first place. So in that sense perhaps Protestantism is like Sunnism, another back to the basics doctrine though not necessarily born of an Islamic reform movement against a staid and corrupt Islam.

On the other hand, Shia Islam always struck me as more like Catholicism, with the rule of the mullahs (the Pope and the Vatican) whose job it is to continuously reinterpret Islam to keep it updated to the current era. Which is exactly what Catholicism does and is also why the only true Christian fundamentalism is always Protestant as much as Catholic-hating Protestants love to holler that this is wrong. It’s hard to imagine what a Catholic fundamentalism would look like. Sure there are the orders and the pre-Vatican II (1964) Catholics, but even Vatican I was quite an advance. Show me any Catholics who want to go back to 60 AD. None do other than the Eastern Orthodox and they’re not so much fundamentalists as people who are practicing an ancient but rather progressive religion.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

2 thoughts on “Alt Left: The Notion of “Judeo-Christianity” Is Probably a Fraud”

  1. I agree that any sensible strain of Christianity should distance itself as much as possible from its (((scriptural roots))). Otherwise it just functions as another shit-cream flavor of Abrahamism.

    BTW, the original ‘Replacement Theology’ started with a series of Early Christian sects, most notably the Marconites: the church founded by Marcion of Sinope. His doctrine was quite dualistic and explicitly rejected the OT as being a product of a flawed being posing as the ultimate creator god to the ancient Israelites. There were plenty of ‘Gnostic’ churches as well that shared this similar outlook.

    It was probably Marcion who was responsible for collecting and publishing the first drafts of the authentic Pauline Epistles. Read the authentic epistles, and you’ll see the Marconite doctrine shining though loud and clear.

    Of course the Marcionites were totally shut down and banned after Constantine institutionalized Christianity and forced all the various churches (with their wildly-differing theologies) to consolidate into one big lumbering mass and a resulting lowest-common-denominator Frankenstein theology. The final product was a monstrosity that made lots of concessions to the pro-Jew/Torah Christians, who must have been rather numerous by the early 4th century CE.

    The version of the NT that made the final-cut (undoubtedly after lots of edit wars between the feuding church scribes and theologians) was effectively a political compromise. And thus why we see so many conflicting ideas and doctrines within the NT. It takes a ton of intellectually-dishonest apologetics to make the claim that the pro-Torah and anti-Torah versions of Paul were somehow the same person (or literary creation).

    The comparisons of Sunni/Protestant, Shia/Catholic are quite spot on BTW. And also the fact that what we know as Shiism today was largely remade by the Persians, who IMO are a much superior race of people than the Arabs. Ever since the Arab invaders laid waste to the Sassanid Empire and imposed Islam on Greater Iran, Persians have always been looking for ways to undermine the resulting Arab cultural control.

    And remember that the so-called ‘Islamic Golden Age’ was in fact the height of Persian civilization. The first several Arab caliphates were basically administered by Persian bureaucrats, scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, theologians, poets, physicians, etc. While the Arab rulers were basically just collecting their jizya taxes from the productive and creative classes while bathing themselves in harems full of ho’s and other opulent luxuries.

  2. Protestantism is a fraud cause it has too many leftovers from the Pagan era and misinterpretations (of the Latin and Greek). I would go with Christian Universalism – which basically states hell is purgatory, though probably one you’d want to avoid at all costs.

    Anyway, another mistake in Protestantism and Catholicism would be stuff like how monogamous marriage is seen as only right – when actual examples of King Solomon etc. show it isn’t.

    There’s maybe other mistakes also. Anyway, the two I mentioned I think have caused serious problems for society affected by Christianity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)