And the probable god of the Bible was one of many equal to the others so the Bible tells us. But if these things, I repeat, if these things are true, whose son is Jesus Christ? And if there is no original sin, what was Jesus Christ sent for?
To free man from the consequences of a stain that doesn't exist? Consequences must be drawn. Now in the next few years you will see the Church abandoning the Old Testament because it can no longer support it and therefore everything will focus on the New Testament but the New Testament exists if the Old Testament contains certain premises because, if it does not contain those premises, the New Testament does not exist.
There is nothing to be done, there is nothing to be done, if there is no God the Father and there is no original sin , Jesus Christ has no reason to. . .
The Jesus Christ invented by theology has no reason to exist. Another thing is the probable historical figure of Yoshua Ben Youssef who is something else, which is something else. But the Christic figure of theology completely loses all.
. . he loses both the instigator and the motive, so to speak.
But what did early Christians think of Jesus Christ? Listen to what Celsus says, it's true he is considered, he was considered a, how to say, a heretic therefore put out by. .
. we are in the second century after Christ and he in his rebuttals to Christians writes - we are in his work "The Speech true" fifth chapter "Now was he the first and the only one to come down here or did others come before ? and in contradiction: in fact, they affirm that others have often come, even in number of 60 or 70 at a time".
That is, Celsus tells us that the Christians said that others like him also came in groups of 60 - 70 at a time. "And they also say that a Messenger came to his own grave, or according to another version two came, and they answered the women that he was no longer there. The son of God apparently could not open the grave by himself but he needed another one to move the stone and yet another presented himself to the carpenter for Mary's pregnancy" and then here I'll tell you something "and yet another to make them flee to Egypt.
So he is far from being the only one of which it is said that he came to visit mankind". And one says: all right but Celsus was a heretic. Then we read Justin Martyr, Saint, father of the Church, he writes to the Emperor Antoninus Pius in his Apology and he writes to defend the Christians and says: but why are you so angry with us?
Ours, the one we believe in is like yours "You know in fact how many sons of Zeus the writers honored by you speak of: Hermes who is the interpretative logos, Asclepius who healed, Heracles, Dionysus. . .
But then if someone reproached the fact that he was crucified but this too is common to the sons of Zeus numbered earlier". I mean ours is the same as yours but why are you picking on us? Justin Martyr, Saint, Father of the Church: our Jesus is equal to yours.
Why are you persecuting us? Do you understand? Then Christianity came to us after the Council of Nicaea and Constantinople, so we have the Riceno-Constantinopolitan creed which codified everything and it's good not to talk about all this stuff here but there is and this is a saint and father of the Church: ours is the same as yours.
Christians say they came in groups of 60-70, ours is like yours why are you picking on us? We said earlier about Daniele being visited by Gabriele do you remember that he arrives being very tired? He says: I saw an "ish" arrive, that is a male individual.
Gabriele first goes to visit Elizabeth, John's mother, and she becomes pregnant and John is born, then he goes to visit Mary and she becomes pregnant without knowing a man. Gabriele is not the name of an individual, Gavriel in Hebrew is what is called the constructed state that is a particular grammatical form that means the "ghever of an El" that is one who exercises power on behalf of an El, the power of an El, then the power of an El visits Mary and she becomes pregnant without knowing a man. Texts contemporary to the so-called canonical ones of the Gospels which tell of the doubts of Joseph who feared that Mary had been deceived by someone who had passed himself off as another, obviously there is no trace of this stuff here in the canonical texts because there it must be the Holy Spirit arrives, does what he has to do and all is well with Joseph.
Ninth! Joseph had very strong doubts that Mary had been deceived by someone who had pretended to be another, so much so that. .
. Then in the sixth book of Genesis it is said that at a certain point the sons of the Elohim saw that the female Adams were " toto" that is, they were attractive, beautiful, suitable for. .
. they united with them and had children. So children of the male Elohim unite with the female Adams and make children who are called "ghibborim" and in the Bible it says - feel how nice for those who have studied a little Greek history, Greek mythology, feel how nice - these "ghibborim" do you remember, I don't know, Hercules, Heracles, Achilles that is the heroes of antiquity who were all half-blood children of one of them and one of us or vice versa of one of them and one of us and they are the great heroes of antiquity.
Then the sons of the Elohim unite with the Adam females and in the Bible it is written that the "ghibborim" are born, i. e. famous men "these are the famous heroes of antiquity".
It's not my translation, we remove this sentence from here and put it in Hesiod, Homer, wherever you want, and we don't have to change anything "These are the famous heroes of antiquity" the half-bloods and they chose the "tovot" ones, that is the beautiful ones. Gabriel comes to Mary and says "kaire kecaritomene" in Greek "kecaritomene" is translated. .
. i. e.
"kaire kecaritomene" is translated with the normal greeting: rejoice, hello full of grace" understood as full of divine grace. No, the verb "karitoo" means to be graceful in the sense of being physically beautiful. "Kecaritomene" is the adjective that derives from the perfect middle passive of the verb "karitoo" which means "rejoice you who have made yourself beautiful" Like: Hello beautiful girl !
meaning: we have chosen you to do what we have to do, we have chosen you, therefore you rejoice that you have made yourself beautiful. Do you understand? And Giuseppe is afraid that she has been deceived by someone who pretended to be another.
And if you read the studies of the Jesuit Danielou, Academician of France, so don't. . .
he clearly says that the figure of the Holy Spirit is none other than the Christian transposition of the Old Testament Gabriel. So the Holy Spirit who covers Mary is Gabriel who covers Mary and she becomes pregnant without knowing a man. In all likelihood the Holy Spirit entered from the usual place.
Study of the Jesuit Danielou, Academician of France, understand, is a very articulated study that starts from the Apocalypse of Isaiah and so on, where he documents that the Holy Spirit is always nothing more than the Christian transposition of the figure of the Old Testament Gabriel he is an "ish" i. e. a male individual.
So maybe this story needs to be completely rewritten, completely rewritten, it will take time but slowly maybe someone will make it in the coming decades. But this comes out and I repeat, it is no coincidence that I have read you Justin Martyr when he says: but ours is like yours so why are you picking on us, ours is like your Hermes, it is like your Dionysus, it is like yours Heracles. What's the difference?
In fact there is no difference if he, if, if. . .
because I repeat I never have the truth, I have not discovered anything I travel by hypotheses and I travel simply by hypotheses that present themselves with the characteristic of being according to common sense that is in being coherent in itself, this is already very important in my opinion because if we take the descriptions of theology those are not even coherent within because they never find correspondence in the texts, then he says: he is like yours and if he is actually a son of an intervention of those there is exactly like theirs, it's exactly like their half-bloods, the same, there is no difference. So I don't know if this is true but it makes sense, it makes sense, that is, it is an element to think about, not something to believe. Believing is something else, it doesn't belong to me in the most absolute way and therefore I don't even want it to belong to those who listen to the things I say, i.
e. I don't want to, sorry, I can't afford to. .
. but towards the things I say that is you don't have to believe. If someone deems them useful, he uses them to reason with them otherwise you throw them in the bin, there is absolutely no problem in the sense that all I do is read, I really do this job a little stupid, all I do is read what is written there.
In the new edition of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, volume twelfth, speaking of Jesus Christ it says "The assumption is specific, the assumption is that God resurrected Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified, died, was buried as a seditious under Pontius Pilate and then manifested himself as the saving Lord. The hypothesis is in itself historically indemonstrable; only the context, the crucifixion of Jesus for reasons of sedition is the object of historical evaluation" not of demonstration, of evaluation "the stories of the resurrection do not contain elements that can constitute object of historical research, they are theological statements". But this is evident, this is evident, it's nice to read it in the latest editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia because it means that in short they are starting to tell us things.
. . do you understand?
