Closing Of Errancywiki And Merger With Messianic Apologetic

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1249
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Closing Of Errancywiki And Merger With Messianic Apologetic

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Apr 01, 2020 3:50 pm

JW:
A few weeks ago I saw Mel Gibson's Jesus' movie (forgot the name), re-read The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ and meditated on the traditional moral authority of the Church (especially its handling of male children). For the first time I understood how a mythical story of Jesus suffering for a few hours on a stake thousands of years ago explained the reason for the historical fact of most of my innocent relatives being tortured and murdered over a 5 year period by Nazis from a Christian country in a Christian continent in modern times.

My good friend, Rabbi Singer, head of Outreach Judaism, had the exact same experience so we began to study JP Holding's website, Tektonics.org, together while periodically rereading Isaiah Chapter 53 (but only the KJV version) and Steven Avery's Thread here convicting Cy Naticus of homotuliecuton by lying with Simonides posts here in light of the new information which this website provided us not to mention considered the significance of a unknown known undated 1st century dated provenanced unprovenanced textually accurate variant of GMark and avoiding all articles by Dr. Richard Carrier and Neal Godfree (except for the ones about Israel/Jews being falsely accused of everything the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims surrounding them that they are trying to defend themselves from being actually guilty of). It wasn't long before we found the truth that we were looking for, that if you start with the conclusion that Jesus Christ was the prophesied Jewish Messiah according to the Tanakh, than you will conclude that Jesus Christ was the prophesied Jewish Messiah according to the Tanakh. Hallelujah Amen.

Effective immediately ErrancyWiki will be closed and then merged with Messianic Apologetic as an evangelistic tool.


In Hymn, Joseph Elizabeth Wallack

MessianicApologetic

User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Closing Of Errancywiki And Merger With Messianic Apologetic

Post by arnoldo » Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:15 pm

:sources:

perseusomega9
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Closing Of Errancywiki And Merger With Messianic Apologetic

Post by perseusomega9 » Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:38 am

look at the date arnoldo

Stuart
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Closing Of Errancywiki And Merger With Messianic Apologetic

Post by Stuart » Thu Apr 02, 2020 3:00 pm

The Nazis were Pagans not Christians.

Hitler hated his Catholic upbringing and the imprisoned many clerics. He built a new man myth, similar to the Communists, wanted to bring back the pre-Christian religion of the Norse-German myths.

What it shows more is where Christian nations in the west go after they lose Christianity.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Closing Of Errancywiki And Merger With Messianic Apologetic

Post by Joseph D. L. » Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:53 am

Stuart wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 3:00 pm
The Nazis were Pagans not Christians.
Nazis universally identified as Christians.
Hitler hated his Catholic upbringing and the imprisoned many clerics. He built a new man myth, similar to the Communists, wanted to bring back the pre-Christian religion of the Norse-German myths.
That's factually not true at all. Hitler espoused views similar to those of the Christian Positivists. His antisemetism was inspired by Luther.

Image

Image

Image

Image

The church supported Hitler, and he in turn offered them protection.

And can you explain to me what you mean by "He built a new man myth, similar to the Communists...". As a Marxist-Leninist I haven't any clue what you're talking about here. Is freeing the proletariat from the yoke of capitalists creating "a new man"?
What it shows more is where Christian nations in the west go after they lose Christianity.
Okay, I guess.

Stuart
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Closing Of Errancywiki And Merger With Messianic Apologetic

Post by Stuart » Fri Apr 03, 2020 1:54 am

The Pan-German Aryan Man, the Master Race, formed through cleansing of the bloodlines. It was a work in progress.

It's actually a point of historical contention, as Hitler espoused a new form of Christianity he called "Positive Christianity" which stripped it of it's core tenets, injecting his racial formula into it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

It's debatable as to whether this was mere expedience to keep Christianity around or to replace it with Paganism followed by the men he appointed to run the SS and build the master race, Himmler and Heydrich. He was an opportunist who pulled together whatever sayings from whomever he found to support his positions. Luther's late life turn against Jews when they failed to convert to his reformed Christianity was quite vile and nasty. Hitler made use of those writings. There is considerable evidence of a dual message, in public saying he was pro Christianity (Germany was 95% Christian after all), in private conversations very negative, espousing views closer to his SS leaders. It must be noted the last time Hitler ever attended church was age 18 shortly before he left his family home.

Goebbels, another key member of his inner circle, led the persecution of the Church; famously wrote "after the war it has to be generally solved .... There is, namely, an insoluble opposition between the Christian and a heroic-German world view."His the persecution of independent thinking Church leaders because Hitler's view was religion should be subservient to the State. Adalbert Probst murder is an example of this policy. (China today is probably the most similar case).

Many prominent Nazis were anti-Christian, such as Alfred Rosenberg, and Martin Bormann who called for hanging the the bishop of Munster when he opposed the Nazi euthanasia program. There are dozens of other examples at the core of Nazi leadership and thinking to suggest Christianity played no role.

But that let's off common Germans and those in the churches who followed the Nazi's and supported their extermination machine. I distinguish between the leadership and the commoner, since the leadership defined Nazism. And the OP was claiming Nazi's were by definition Christian. This is not an accurate statement in my opinion. I am not alone, historians are split on the subject.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Ulan
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Closing Of Errancywiki And Merger With Messianic Apologetic

Post by Ulan » Fri Apr 03, 2020 9:41 am

Hitler was a good Catholic boy, until the end. He never stopped paying his church dues. Also, membership in the SS was forbidden for non-believers.

It sure is a bit contentious between historians, but I guess there's still reason to think that Hitler's hate of Jews had at least one of its roots in Catholicism's centuries-old anti-Judaism, which is, of course, something many believers will harshly deny. The point becomes wrong if you want to make it the only reason, but it's there. It's one point in the mix.

Anyway, I try to think how often I've seen the first post by now. It returns every year, like clockwork.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Closing Of Errancywiki And Merger With Messianic Apologetic

Post by Joseph D. L. » Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:49 am

It's actually a point of historical contention, as Hitler espoused a new form of Christianity he called "Positive Christianity" which stripped it of it's core tenets, injecting his racial formula into it.
Then why did you say this?
Hitler hated his Catholic upbringing and the imprisoned many clerics. He built a new man myth, similar to the Communists, wanted to bring back the pre-Christian religion of the Norse-German myths.
I distinguish between the leadership and the commoner, since the leadership defined Nazism.
That is extremely idiotic. It is the populace that gave support to the Nazi party that allowed them to gain power. That and unabashed capitalist interests like Krupp, but that's a different subject.

Hell you can even say Hitler was a stone cold Athiest. He still used the religious sentiments of the German people to gain support, especially in regards to antisemitism.

The people are responsible for the leaders that come to power.
And the OP was claiming Nazi's were by definition Christian. This is not an accurate statement in my opinion. I am not alone, historians are split on the subject.
Then why are you talking as if it is an indisputable fact?

Ken Olson
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Closing Of Errancywiki And Merger With Messianic Apologetic

Post by Ken Olson » Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:19 pm

If I may be permitted to interject some data into this discussion, the entry of 21 October 1941 from Hitler's Table Talk reveals a lot about Hitler's personal beliefs (as opposed to his publicly stated opinions, or those of the other Nazi leaders, or those of the German people in general).
When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity
by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is
ashamed to realise how little we have since evolved. I didn't
know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such
clear-sightedness on Christianity and Christians. You should
read what he says on the subject.

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism
the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later
was called the Christ, intended something quite different. He
must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position
against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had
probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it's certain that Jesus
was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son
of a whore—of a whore and a Roman soldier.

The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of
St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for
purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galilean's object was
to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself
against Jewish capitalism, and that's why the Jews liquidated
Him. [Note: the capitalization of the pronouns was provided by
the English translators}.

Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to
Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely.
When he learnt that Jesus's supporters let their throats be cut
for His ideas, he realised that, by making intelligent use of the
Galilean's teaching, it would be possible to overthrow this
Roman State which the Jews hated. It's in this context that we
must understand the famous "illumination". Think of it, the
Romans were daring to confiscate the most sacred thing the
Jews possessed, the gold piled up in their temples! At that
time, as now, money was their god.

On the road to Damascus, St. Paul discovered that he could
succeed in ruining the Roman State by causing the principle to
triumph of the equality of all men before a single God—and by
putting beyond the reach of the laws his private notions, which
he alleged to be divinely inspired. If, into the bargain, one
succeeded in imposing one man as the representative on earth
of the only God, that man would possess boundless power.

The ancient world had its gods and served them. But the
priests interposed between the gods and men were servants of
the State, for the gods protected the City. In short, they were
the emanation of a power that the people had created. For that
society, the idea of an only god was unthinkable. In this sphere,
the Romans were tolerance itself. The idea of a universal god
could seem to them only a mild form of madness—for, if three
peoples fight one another, each invoking the same god, this
means that, at any rate, two of them are praying in vain.

Nobody was more tolerant than the Romans. Every man could
pray to the god of his choice, and a place was even reserved in
the temples for the unknown god. Moreover, every man prayed
as he chose, and had the right to proclaim his preferences.
St. Paul knew how to exploit this state of affairs in order to
conduct his struggle against the Roman State. Nothing has
changed ; the method has remained sound. Under cover of a
pretended religious instruction, the priests continue to incite the
faithful against the State.

The religious ideas of the Romans are common to all Aryan
peoples. The Jew, on the other hand, worshipped and continues
to worship, then and now, nothing but the golden calf.
The Jewish religion is devoid of all metaphysics and has no
foundation but the most repulsive materialism. That's proved
even in the concrete representation they have of the Beyond-—
which for them is identified with Abraham's bosom.

It's since St. Paul's time that the Jews have manifested
themselves as a religious community, for until then they were
only a racial community. St. Paul was the first man to take
account of the possible advantages of using a religion as a
means of propaganda. If the Jew has succeeded in destroying
the Roman Empire, that's because St. Paul transformed a local
movement of Aryan opposition to Jewry into a supra-temporal
religion, which postulates the equality of all men amongst
themselves, and their obedience to an only god. This is what
caused the death of the Roman Empire.

It's striking to observe that Christian ideas, despite all St.
Paul's efforts, had no success in Athens. The philosophy of the
Greeks was so much superior to this poverty-stricken rubbish
that the Athenians burst out laughing when they listened to the
apostle's teaching. But in Rome St. Paul found the ground prepared
for him. His egalitarian theories had what was needed to
win over a mass composed of innumerable uprooted people.
Nevertheless, the Roman slave was not at all what the
expression encourages us to imagine to-day. In actual fact, the
people concerned were prisoners of war (as we understand the
term nowadays), of whom many had been freed and had the
possibility of becoming citizens—and it was St. Paul who introduced
this degrading overtone into the modern idea of Roman
slaves.

Think of the numerous Germanic people whom Rome welcomed.
Arminius himself, the first architect of our liberty,
wasn't he a Roman knight, and his brother a dignitary of the
State? By reason of these contacts, renewed throughout the
centuries, the population of Rome had ended by acquiring a
great esteem for the Germanic peoples. It's clear that there was
a preference in Rome for fair-haired women, to such a point
that many Roman women dyed their hair. Thus Germanic
blood constantly regenerated Roman society.

The Jew, on the other hand, was despised in Rome.

Whilst Roman society proved hostile to the new doctrine,
Christianity in its pure state stirred the population to revolt.
Rome was Bolshevised, and Bolshevism produced exactly the
same results in Rome as later in Russia.

It was only later, under the influence of the Germanic spirit,
that Christianity gradually lost its openly Bolshevistic character.
It became, to a certain degree, tolerable. To-day, when
Christianity is tottering, the Jew restores to pride of place
Christianity in its Bolshevistic form.

The Jew believed he could renew the experiment. To-day as
once before, the object is to destroy nations by vitiating their
racial integrity. It's not by chance that the Jews, in Russia,
have systematically deported hundreds of thousands of men,
delivering the women, whom the men were compelled to leave
behind, to males imported from other regions. They practised
on a vast scale the mixture of races.

In the old days, as now, destruction of art and civilisation.
The Bolsheviks of their day, what didn't they destroy in Rome,
in Greece and elsewhere? They've behaved in the same way
amongst us and in Russia.

One must compare the art and civilisation of the Romans—
their temples, their houses—with the art and civilisation represented
at the same period by the abject rabble of the catacombs.

In the old days, the destruction of the libraries. Isn't that what
happened in Russia? The result: a frightful levelling-down.

Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages,
the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was
in the name of Christianity. To-day, it's in the name of
Bolshevism.

Yesterday, the instigator was Saul: the instigator to-day,
Mardochai.

Saul has changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx.

By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of
which our soldiers can have no idea.
(Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H Stephens; Richard Carrier has pointed out severe defects in the English edition. I have checked that this entry is indeed found in Werner Jochmann's German edition, Monologe in Führerhaupquartier 1941-1944, and spot-checked the translation; I can post the German text if anyone is interested).

Stuart
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Closing Of Errancywiki And Merger With Messianic Apologetic

Post by Stuart » Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Joseph,

You should live in China for a time to understand totalitarian states.

If you blame the entire population, then you are in a position to say "kill them all, God will know his own." I cannot accept that sort of morality. There are many in societies who go along with brutal and immoral leaders because of necessity, survival or opportunism. That doesn't mean they buy into all the leadership backs.

Your thinking is exactly the same as many Palestinians and others you think killing any Jew is justified because of the policies of Israel. I cannot go there. I am perhaps too Christianized, believing that nobody carries the sins of their kin.

The post was a corrective to the claim that the Nazi's were a Christian movement. That was a false overstatement, no question. And there is no question that the top leadership of the SS was not Christian, but wished to bring back a neo-Paganism. It is true it only extended so far down the ranks. But here a separation between the antisemitism of European society (still around today, and extant in the US from both the Left and Right) and the religious beliefs, such as they were of the Nazi leadership and movement. And I stated "as fact" the opposite position taken in the OP which was stated a "as fact." Hence corrective. When we get into discussion, the nuance comes out. Statements start the conversation, not end it -- overstatements are useful in that respect.

I would compare the Nazi view on Christianity to that of the Chinese Communists on Buddhism, Christianity and Islam, in that there is an active effort to replace the texts (this is very active with the Koran, but also ongoing with the Bible and many Buddhist writings) the with those in line with "socialism with Chinese characteristics" or 中国特色社会主义 as they write it. (My wife is from the PRC and I have regular contact and visits there.) The Communists are athiets, but they recognize a third of the population are active followers of one of the religions and the majority at least ritualistically (they under count the numbers of all on purpose, especially Muslims and Christians). So instead the effort is to coop them and replace the core teachings with their brand of socialism. The Nazis were the same. The War slowed the efforts, much as it did with the Soviet Communists, because they needed the entire society behind the war effort.

In fact the War masks a great deal of the Aryan project and how it would have impacted German religious practice, so there is a tendency to think the War time policy of the Nazis toward Christianity was their true policy. But this was no more true than it was for the Soviets.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

Post Reply