 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u |
2008.05.28, 1100
Dr. Wilson's book is a monumental milestone because it marks the first time that a university academic has "discovered" several more critical, in this case watershed, aspects of what I have been publishing since the mid-1970s… which academics, Christian and Jewish, have struggled with (or ignored) despite my ceaseless challenges: the conundrum of an intractable dissimilarity and discontinuity between Jesus & Christianity of "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate. Rabbi Michael Skobac, of Jews for Judaism, was the first I've seen to replicate some of my research findings and publish this intractable dissimilarity and discontinuity.
Correctly seeing that the Christian image (idol) is the polar opposite of the historical god idol apostasy? (Still, neither Dr. Wilson nor any other has yet to identify this apostasy—also original to my research—with the apostasy prophesied by
Contrary to Protestant Christians, it isn't only the "Catholic" Church. The entirety of the Christianity has been spawned by the Hellenist Christian syncretism – the prophesied apostasy of Hellenization from úÌåÉøÈä (Judaism) – conceived by "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate!
The answer is to "connect the dots" from the historical figure forward and trace the Christian figure back in time. The primary three candidates that immediately pop-out (long before 333 C.E.) are "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate, 70 C.E. and 135 C.E. Dr. Wilson found, as I did decades earlier, that these intractably contradictory and mutually exclusive polar-antitheses never connect-up.
Thus, the problem reduces to connecting events that constituted a counterfeiting (Hellenizing, syncretizing) process. While Dr. Wilson seems even yet not to fully grasp the counterfeiting nature of the transformation (apostasy) still remains a couple of decades behind my research, he is among the first of the academicians to grasp the Roman gentile need to transpose whatever was Judaic to parallels in their Hellenist – tracing back to Egyptian – mythology (elements never part of úÌåÉøÈä-Judaism).
Consequently, tracking these Hellenist elements, still the intrinsic core of today's Christianity, back to the 1st century C.E., we find that none of these intrinsically Christian elements are found at all in úÌåÉøÈä or the 1st century Pharisee rabbinic Jewish community as documented in
Perfectly corroborating the absence of these intrinsic Christian elements in úÌåÉøÈä and Judaism, they are pervasive in both Hellenist and Egyptian mythologies – proving that Christianity derives not from úÌåÉøÈä, but from adapting Hellenist and Egyptian mythologies! Thus, 2nd-4th century Hellenist Roman gentiles syncretized (Hellenized) their own image (version) of the Jewish
However, although Dr. Wilson is correct both in identifying the two polar opposites and realizing that the next task is to "connect the dots" (as I already did decades ago) to determine how the historical Jew was transposed into the Hellenist god, he assembles a couple of dots that evaporate under scrutiny. Thus, his conclusion, while correct, is based on flawed logic.
A clarification is in order. This is not a case of plagiarism. Dr. Wilson, followed by Dr. Tabor, are in the forefront of playing catch-up to my research—while academics have stonewalled my research because it isn't in their academic journals and they've been fundamentally incapable of citing "non-Ph.D." work based solely on its logic and correctness—especially when the source represents a threat to the (usually their) Christian belief system.
This is a typical case of wide-scale academic elitists' "good old boy" ignoring of correction when it's placed in front of their collective faces, even by a certified (Mensa) genius, if not a Ph.D. (or Ph.D. candidate). This goes a long way in explaining, and exposing, wide-scale academic ignorance, and arrogance, in the area of Christian origins. Christian and Jewish academics alike flee in panic from the specter of rocking that Titanic. One needs to look no further than the controversies surrounding the Talpiot Tombs, the
Dr. Wilson's description of the Hellenist syncretism process—apparently dumbed down for the Christian public—is confusing and misleading: contrasting what Wilson describes as
and | vs | "the |
Thus, like the rest of the Ivory Tower crowd, Wilson doesn't at all see through the fog of both (Hellenist Jew and Hellenist gentile facets of the core Hellenist-syncretisms apostasy) to see, beyond them both, the 1st century úÌåÉøÈä Judaism described by Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate. (It must also be mentioned that neither of the two 1st century C.E. sects of Sadducees – namely, the Hellenist "Wicked Priests" in the "Temple" vs
The singular 1st century C.E. Hellenist-Jew Christian prototype was a perpetuation of the Hellenist Apostasy of B.C.E. 175 that continued to be developed by Hellenist-philo-sopher Jews like Φίλων: the Hellenist Στέφανος".
While Dr. Wilson acknowledges "Ebionites," he seems entirely unaware of the
Confusingly, Wilson uses "Christians" and "Christianity" and "early Christians" showing no awareness of historically-accurate Judaic (Biblical and Talmudic) distinctions—which we restored decades ago. Confusion of terms breeds confusion of reasoning.
For the comprehensive discussion and documentation see the "30-99 C.E" page of our History Museum.
The last grand seam attempting to unite the civilized world by syncretizing Hellenist philosophy and mythology into Judaism – nascent Christianity – was stitched together by the greatest Hellenist syncretizer: the "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate. But this grand ecumenical seam, attempting to merge Judaism and the Hellenist world, ripped apart completely; the tear between Judaism and Hellenism, finally, completely ripping Judaism, once and for all, apart from of its long period of Hellenist apostasy.
Though it is well documented and resolved by many other scholars in the field, Dr. Wilson seems unaware of the ignorance of all things Hebrew (and, therefore, Judaic) by the earliest, Greek-dependent Christians: Hellenist Roman gentile followers of "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate, who wrote all of the earliest extant Christian literature – in Greek!
Since the 1st century
Subsequently, the first Christians – Greek-dependent Hellenists quickly predominated by Roman gentiles – developed into a recognizable distinct entity only well after 135 C.E.
Although these nascent Christians, still in gestation, formed the fetus of a future Christianity and Church, they were Greek-dependent Hellenist Roman gentiles educated in Hellenist philosophy and mythology (Zeus = Deos = Theos, et al). Consequently, they had no clue how to define or understand any aspect of úÌåÉøÈä or to differentiate between (much less define or describe) the many Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate – didn't develop into a critical mass of Christianity or Church until well after 135 C.E.
Though conceived by "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate the Hellenist-syncretized idea of Christianity gestated only thereafter, not becoming fully formed until the birth of Christianity and the Church in the time of Constantine in the 4th century C.E.
No one should be surprised, therefore, by the inability of the first, Greek-dependent, Christians to distinguish between pre-Paul Judaic sects that were described only in Hebrew; or the routine confusing of Judaic sects in the earliest (Greek) Christian writings. The gentile Roman Christians' sources of Judaic information (Hebrew) after the events of 70 C.E. and 135 C.E. was near zero; limited to the Greek – Hellenist – LXX, Ιώσηπος (Josephus) and Φίλων. All three of these Hellenist Greek sources remain no less vital to Christianity today as the sole anchors and definitions of the earliest Christian faith tradition: the same Judaically syncretized Hellenist mythology of 70 C.E. and 135 C.E.– not úÌåÉøÈä Judaism.
Being oriented within the Judaically syncretized Hellenist-Christian tradition assumptions about "Christian history" blinkers Dr. Wilson's view through a Hellenist tunnel-vision lens in which the soil from which Christianity sprouted is only Hellenist-Judaism:
and | vs | "the |
While a split between Christianity and Judaism is conspicuous, this blinkered view precluded Dr. Wilson's from searching where the answer exists; leaving him to speculate and hypothesize about intersectarian divisions within Christianity instead of where the split between Christianity and Judaism occurred. The true split was between Hellenist-Jews and
(which included the | vs | Hellenism and the Hellenist-Christianity of " ( and "the |
These different and mutually exclusive premises (Wilson's vs historical) produce different and mutually exclusive legacies.
The same úÌåÉøÈä-commanded (!) distinction must be extended to differentiate the original and true
Dr. Wilson's book fails to logically propagate rigorously all of the implications of his own premises – some of which are correct. Additionally, he blurs (assimilates) such distinctions between Judaic and Hellenized terms, principles and principals; syncretizing them while criticizing "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate for it. Despite stating that he knows better, he uses "B.C." and "A.D." knowing how offensive it is to Jews to impose the erroneous assumption that the man-god Christ of "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate was, indeed, the prophesied Messiah. Thus, undoubtedly to enable a Christian readership to grasp the material, instead of "smartening readers up" to Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate was doing!
It is not the fault, or any shortcoming, of úÌåÉøÈä that Christians find it, and its language, alien. Christians are wont to shout "What Would Jesus Do?" with no clue that efforts to ask Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate using Hellenizing syncretism methodology) and he was even reluctant to help a Hellenist-Jewess pleading for help, calling her a "dog" (NHM 15.21-28)!
Following the instructions of Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate did. Rather, only by thinking outside of the box of his or her Christian belief framework, it is the non-Jew who must relate to úÌåÉøÈä – on úÌåÉøÈä's, not Christian, terms!.
On the other hand, Wilson's "dumbing down" approach should make his book more clear in making a larger public aware of the great counterfeit conspiracy—that I've written about for decades—confirming, by sophomoric "academic imprimatur," that my books and theses have been historically accurate all along.
Dr. Wilson's worst gaffe, causing his greatest blunder, is assuming the unanimous modern redefinitions of
While Dr. Wilson's assertion that Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate may have some basis, he fails to demonstrate his assertion. Assuming his assertion, he then, incomprehensibly, bases the core belief of his Hellenist Christian syncretism on a creation he has attributed to "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate: asserting that keeping úÌåÉøÈä was no longer required—thereby opening the door to assert that his Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) superseded úÌåÉøÈä!
Another of Wilson's errors is equating the modern rabbinic misunderstanding of the Biblical and historical definition of
Especially if the doctrine of Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate, the implication of this modern – likely deliberate, Paul-like – reinterpretation of Biblical history served as the basis for an Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox rabbinic reform, artificially creating Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate. This divergence from úÌåÉøÈä carries far-reaching repercussions of the direst gravity for
This misunderstanding of Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate's Hellenized Christian "conference" and "St. James" aside, Wilson would be right in maintaining that no Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate's Hellenist Christianity holding that it was no longer necessary nor desirable to keep úÌåÉøÈä.
Yet, Wilson rightly notes, if the "conference" had happened, endorsing what he and modern rabbis define as Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate's "mission to the gentiles" inextricably "binding" the "Christ movement" of "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate to the original "Jesus movement"—Christianity! (Wilson fails to note, however, that this would also imply that modern Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox rabbis are endorsing the same "gospel" of "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate regarding Jesus Cover-up Thesis."
Neither the definition of geir nor the definition of éÀøÅà
The whole, supposedly rabbinic, complementary implication, that úÌåÉøÈä is, therefore, only for Jews (and its extension – that gentiles are, therefore, not permitted to keep úÌåÉøÈä), was born either of "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate or a modern reform by Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox rabbis attempting to appease the wrath of "anti-Semites."
Without úÌåÉøÈä-immune
Since "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate never cites the authority of the "conference" or "St. James", though he obviously would have if he could have, Wilson cites this as corroboration that the "conference" described in "Acts" is a fiction. However, that conclusion is non sequitur. It could have been an oversight, lost by scribes copying a manuscript or an apostate court, perhaps convened by "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate, who concealed the fact. Wilson's asserted fabricating the conference, supposedly endorsing Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate.
Wilson is entirely unaware of the real reason "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate couldn't cite the Jesus movement" (as he offensively and embarrassingly calls the Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate. Here is the split that has been covered up! Neither the non-existent "
Dr. Wilson understood there is a linchpin. He simply couldn't find it, forcing him to improvise one he thought looked the most promising.
The linchpin exists and I have published it for decades. Read the glossary link definitions carefully: neither geir nor éÀøÅà
This is a case of Dr. Wilson perceiving the right answer, then trying to connect dots from current awareness to the perceived solution to figure out how the world got from a to b (where b= not a). His overall theme is correct and an invaluable contribution—bringing academia to where I was about 20 years ago (an improvement of about a decade)—but a couple of the dots are serious errors carrying far-reaching misunderstandings and repercussions. His illumination of the environment within which these events transpire is essential. I've considered much of his book obvious and, therefore, not worthy of "preaching." This appears to have been a serious miscalculation on my part since readers have had a very difficult time understanding my books (although úÌåÉøÈä prohibitions concerning terminology doubtless contribute to their difficulty). Dr. Wilson's book may provide an essential bridge from Oxford historian Parkes' Ph.D. thesis, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, A Study in the Origins of Anti-Semitism, to my books. Thus, despite the problem noted herein, I think this book provides essential insight unavailable elsewhere.
Dr. Wilson seems never to quite recognize that his "Jesus Cover-up Thesis" is simply a counterfeiting conspiracy, which I've long published and called the greatest deception and conspiracy in the history of mankind.
Jesus never became Christian because it (a Hellenized repackaged image, ergo, idol; not "he") was conceived Hellenist-Christian from the start by "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate. It is this central point, the counterfeiting process "cover-up," which most of the world doesn't see, that makes Dr. Wilson's book an invaluable contribution. Although Dr. Wilson still doesn't understand how correctly, he likely would have an advantage if he read my books; and his book may be the key to help many understand my books—that remain difficult because of the úÌåÉøÈä prohibition against Hellenizing the content.
 |
|
 |