Frederick Engels and Early Christianity

This is the season to remind all our Christian friends of the relationship between Christianity and Marxism-Leninism and the working class movement. Engels (“On the History of Early Christianity”) tells us that there are “notable points of resemblance” between the early working class movement and Christianity.

First, both movements were made up of oppressed poor people from the lower ranks of society. Christianity was a religion of slaves and people without rights subjugated by the state and very similar to the types of poor oppressed working people that founded the earliest socialist and worker’s organizations in modern times.

Second, both movements held out the hope of salvation and liberation from tyranny and oppression: one in the world to come, the other in this world.

Third, both movements were (and in some places still are) attacked by the powers that be and were discriminated against, their members killed or imprisoned, despised, and treated as enemies of the status quo.

Fourth, despite fierce persecution both movements grew and became more powerful. After three hundred years of struggle Christians took control of the Roman Empire and became a world religion. The worker’s movement is still struggling. After its first modern revolutionary appearance as a fully self conscious movement (1848) it achieved a major impetus in the later part of the nineteenth century with the growth of the First and Second Internationals, and the German Social Democratic movement. It too is now a world wide movement with Socialist, Social Democratic and Communist parties spread around the world. [The rise and fall of the USSR was a bump in the road the consequences of which have yet to be determined.]

The Book of Acts reveals that the early Christians were primitive communists sharing their goods in common and leading a collective life style. This original form of Christianity was wiped out when the Roman Empire under Constantine imposed Christianity as the official religion of the state and set up the Catholic Church in order to make sure that the religious teachings of Jesus and the early followers of his movement would be perverted to protect the interests of the wealthy and the power of the state.

With few exceptions, all forms of modern day Christianity are descended from this faux version, based on a mixture of Jewish religious elements and the practices of Greco-Roman paganism, and only the modern working class and progressive movements (basically secular) carry on in the spirit of egalitarianism and socialism of the founder of Christianity.

Engels points out that there were many attempts in history (especially from the Middle Ages up to modern times) to reestablish the original communistic Christianity of Jesus and his early followers.

These attempts manifested themselves as peasant uprisings through the middle ages which tried to overthrow feudal oppression and create a world based on the teaching of Jesus and his Apostles.

These movements failed giving rise to the state sanctioned Christianity of modern times. Engels mentions some of these movements– i.e., the Bohemian Taborites led by Jan Zizka (“of glorious memory”) and the German Peasant War. These movements are now represented, Engels points out, by the working men communists since the 1830s.

Engels reveals that misleadership is also a problem in these early movements (and still today I would add) due to the low levels of education found amongst the poor and oppressed. He quotes a contemporary witness, Lucian of Samosata (“the Voltaire of classic antiquity”). The Christians “despise all material goods without distinction and own them in common– doctrines which they have accepted in good faith, without demonstration or proof. And when a skillful impostor who knows how to make clever use of circumstances comes to them he can manage to get rich in a short time and laugh up his sleeve over these simpletons.” The Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwell types have been around for a long time. I am sure readers can add a long list of names.

Part Two

Engels views on early Christianity were formed from his reading of what he considered “the only scientific basis” for such study, namely the new critical works by German scholars of religion.

First were the works of the Tubingen School, including David Strauss (The Life of Jesus). This school has shown that 1) the Gospels are late writings based on now lost original sources from the time of Jesus and his followers; 2) only four of Paul’s letters are by him; 3) all miracles must be left out of account if you want a scientific view; 4) all contradictory presentations of the same events must also be rejected. This school then wants to preserve what it can of the history of early Christianity. By the way, this is essentially what Thomas Jefferson tried to do when he made his own version of the New Testament.

A second school was based on the writings of Bruno Bauer. What Bauer did was to show that Christianity would have remained a Jewish sect if it had not, in the years after the death of its founder, mutated by contact with Greco-Roman paganism, into a new religion capable of becoming a world wide force. Bauer showed that Christianity, as we know it, did not come into the Roman world from the outside (“from Judea”) but that it was “that world’s own product.” Christianity owes as much to Zeus as to Yahweh.

Engels maintains that The Book of Revelations is the only book in the New Testament that can be properly dated by means of its internal evidence. It can be dated to around 67-68 AD since the famous number 666, as the mark of the beast or the Antichrist, represents the name of the Emperor Nero according to the rules of numerology. Nero was overthrown in 68. This book, Engels says, is the best source of the views of the early Christians since it is much earlier than any of the Gospels, and may actually have been the work the apostle John (which the Gospel and letters bearing his name were not).

In this book we will not find any of the views that characterize official Christianity as we have it from the time of the Emperor Constantine to the present day. It is purely a Jewish phenomenon in Revelations. There is no trinity as God has seven spirits (so the Holy Ghost is impossible Engels remarks). Jesus Christ is not God but his son, he is not even equal in status to his father. Nevertheless he has pretty high status, his followers are called his “slaves” by John. Jesus is “an emanation of God, existing from all eternity but subordinate to God” just as the seven spirits are. Moses is more or less “on an equal footing” with Jesus in the eyes of God. There is no mention of the later belief in original sin. John still thought of himself as a Jew, there is no idea at this time of “Christianity” as a new religion.

In this period there were many end of times revelations in circulation both in the Semitic and in the Greco-Roman world. They all proclaimed that God was (or the Gods were) pissed off at humanity and had to be appeased by sacrifices. John’s revelation was unique because it proclaimed “by one great voluntary sacrifice of a mediator the sins of all times and all men were atoned for once and for all– in respect of the faithful.”

Since all peoples and races could be saved this is what, according to Engels, “enabled Christianity to develop into a universal religion.” [Just as the concept of the workers of the world uniting to break their chains and build a world wide communist future makes Marxism-Leninism a universal philosophy.]

In Heaven before the throne of God are 144,000 Jews (12,000 from each tribe). In the second rank of the saved are the non Jewish converts to John’s sect. Engels points out that neither the “dogma nor the morals” of later Christianity are to be found in this earliest of Christian expressions.

Some Muslims would presumably not like this Heaven, not only are there no (female) virgins in it, there are no women whatsoever. In fact, the 144,000 Jews have never been “defiled” by contact with women! This is a men’s only club.

Engels says that the book shows a spirit of “struggle”, of having to fight against the entire world and a willingness to do so. He says the Christians of today lack that spirit but that it survives in the working class movement. We must remember he was writing this in 1894.

There were other sects of Christianity springing up at this time too. John’s sect eventually died out and the Christianity that won out was an amalgam of different groups who finally came together around the Council of Nicaea (325 AD). Those who did not sign on were themselves persecuted out of existence by the new Christian state.

We can see the analogy to the early sects of socialists and communists, says Engels. We can also see what happened after the Russian Revolution (Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, Bukharinites, Maoists, etc., etc.). Here in the US today we have the CPUSA, the SWP, Worker’s World, Revolutionary CP, Socialist Party, Sparticists, and etc., etc.).

Engels thought that sectarianism was a thing of the past in the Socialist movement because the movement had matured and outgrown it. This, we now know, was a temporary state of affairs at the end of the 19th Century with the consolidation of the German SPD. The wide spread sectarianism of today suggests the worker’s movement is still in its infancy.

Engels says this sectarianism is due to the confusion and backwardness of the thinking of the masses and the preponderate role that leaders play due to this backwardness. The Russian masses of 1917 and the Chinese of 1949 were a far different base than the German working class of the 1890s.

“This confusion,” Engels writes,”is to be seen in the formation of numerous sects which fight against each other with at least the same zeal as against the common external enemy [China vs USSR, Stalin and Trotsky, Stalin and Tito, Vietnam vs China border war, Albania vs China and USSR. ad nauseam]. So it was with early Christianity, so it was in the beginning of the socialist movement [and still is, peace Engels!], no matter how much that worried the well-meaning worthies who preached unity where no unity was possible.”

Finally, for those fans of the 60s sexual revolution, Engels says that many of the sects of early Christianity took the opposite view of John and actually promoted sexual freedom and free love as part of the new dispensation. They lost out. Engels says this sexual liberation was also found in the early socialist movement. He would not, I think, have approved of the excessive prudery of the Soviets.

Part Three

“Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number IS Six hundred threescore AND six.”– Revelation 13:18

In the last part of his essay Engels explains that the purpose of the Book of Revelations (by John of Patmos) was to communicate its religious vision to the seven churches of Asia Minor and to the larger sect of Jewish Christians that they represented.

At this time, circa 69 AD, the entire Mediterranean world much of the of Near East and Western Europe were under the control of the Roman Empire. This was a multicultural empire made of hundreds of tribes, groups, cities and peoples. Within the empire was a vast underclass of workers, freedmen, slaves and peasants whose exploited labor was lived off of by a ruling class of landed aristocrats and merchants. In 69 AD the empire was in essence a military dictatorship controlled by the army and led by the Emperor (from the Latin word for “general”– imperator).

At this time there were peoples but no nations in our sense of the word. “Nations became possible,” Engels says, “only through the downfall of Roman world domination.” The effects of which are still being felt in the Middle East and parts of Europe, especially eastern Europe.

For the exploited masses of the Empire it was basically impossible to resist the military power of Rome. There were uprisings and slave revolts but they were always put down by the legions. This was the background for what became a great revolutionary movement of the poor and the exploited, a movement that became Christianity. The purpose of the movement was to escape from persecution, enslavement and exploitation.
A solution was offered. “But” Engels remarks, “not in this world.”

Another feature of the work is that it is a symbolical representation of contemporary first century politics and John thinks that Jesus’s second coming is near at hand. Jesus tells John, “Behold, I come quickly” three times (22:7, 22:12, 22:20). His failure to show up by now doesn’t seem to pose a problem for Christians.

As far as the later Christian religion of love is concerned, Engels reports that you won’t find it in Revelation, at least as it regards the enemies of the Christians. There is no cheek turning going on here: it’s all fire and brimstone for the foes of Jesus. Engels says “undiluted revenge is preached.” God is even going to completely blot out Rome from the face of the earth. He changed his mind evidently as it is still a popular tourist destination and the pope has even set up shop there.

As was pointed out earlier the God of John is Yahweh, there is no Trinity, it is He, not Christ, who will judge mankind and they will judged according to their works (no justification by faith here, sorry Luther), no doctrine of original sin, no baptism, and no Eucharist or Mass. Almost everyone of these later developments came from Roman and Greek, as well as Egyptian
mystery religions. Zoroastrian elements from the Zend – Avesta are also present. These are the idea of Satan and the Devil as an evil force opposed to Yahweh, a great battle at the end of time between good and evil, [the final conflict] and the idea of a second coming. All these ideas were picked up by the Jews during their contact with the Persians before their return after the Babylonian captivity and transmitted to the early Christians.

Once we realize all this we can also see why Islam was able to rise to the status of a world religion as well. Those areas of the world that were not the home land of Greco-Roman paganism were open to Islam which spread in areas of Semitic settlement and where Christianity had been imposed by force, so could Islam be.

We will give Engels the last word, the Book of Revelation “shows without any dilution what Judaism, strongly influenced by Alexandria, contributed to Christianity. All that comes later is Western , Greco-Roman addition.”

Thomas Riggins is currently the associate editor of Political Affairs online. Read other articles by Thomas.

28 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. The Angry Peasant said on January 2nd, 2009 at 10:22am #

    Mr. Riggins,
    Keep in mind as you have described the rise and fall of the USSR as a “bump in the road” that communism under Stalin in Russia was notadherent at all to the ideals of Marxism or true socialist practice. The term “communism” originally meant “socialism” in The Communist Manifesto, but was adopted by the feudalistic Russians later. And of course “Socialist” appears in the name “USSR.” So the whole USSR failure as an economic ideology was not actually having to do at all with the true tenets of socialism. Unfortunately, it stands as the most blatant example in the eyes of many why “socialism” cannot work as a viable system of government.

  2. bozh said on January 2nd, 2009 at 10:34am #

    interesting,
    but still we r dealing w. mass of cults, mythologies, wishfulness, uncertainties, lies, half truths, imagiantion, etc.

    in talking ab cults, all i can say is that one can tell but not prove.
    but, damn it, it’s still a curioso. thnx

  3. bozh said on January 2nd, 2009 at 10:41am #

    angry peasant,
    socialist structure were destroyed by facsist structures. fascist structures were stronger.
    were they right?
    look at palestine, afgh’n, syria, iq and tell me how right is fascism. thnx

  4. The Angry Peasant said on January 2nd, 2009 at 10:49am #

    Bozh,
    I was hardly calling fascism right, just saying that the USSR’s communist ideology has sadly given socialism as an ideology a bad name.

  5. bozh said on January 2nd, 2009 at 11:06am #

    paesano,
    u did say that socialism cannot work. also by implication, u said all socialisms cannot work.
    it’s important that one ve adequate and accurate. wht destroyed usssr and its socialism was relentless threat by mostly west to destroyed.

    and socialists in order to protect their socialism began industrialization of ussr which cld never compete w. fascist production of armaments.
    and power once again destroyed, oh, like thousands times before justice, fairness, compassion, caring.

    and now for ?all times. 98% of amers r gaga over it!

  6. bozh said on January 2nd, 2009 at 11:11am #

    paesano, u also said that ussr gave socialism a bad name. u do not think that it may have been mostly rich people who gave and give now all socialisms a bad name.
    clarify, please. say things precisely. thnx

  7. The Angry Peasant said on January 2nd, 2009 at 11:22am #

    Okay. Here is what I’m saying. Communism under the USSR was not socialism, even though they called it that. If you have read any of my comments before you will see that I am a devout socialist. I believe it can work. And we should adopt it in lieu of capitalism.
    What I said about socialism is that many people—indeed many commenters in DV— don’t believe socialism can work. They say this primarily because of the failed Soviet Union and other communist nations claiming to be socialists, but in actual fact were, as you said, fascist regimes. They equate these failed dictatorships, whether consciously or unconsciously, with socialism. This is why they are convinced socialism can’t work. I, on the other hand, recognize the difference. I believe in socialism. I think the US should stop trying to save this tired old dinosaur called capitalism and implement socialism.

  8. The Angry Peasant said on January 2nd, 2009 at 11:25am #

    And yes, in essence, rich people—for example, Stalin in his fraudulent “socialist” government— give socialism a bad name. Same difference.

  9. The Angry Peasant said on January 2nd, 2009 at 11:33am #

    Let me also say that if it weren’t for the overwhelming greed and stupidity exhibited by generations of people in this country, capitalism may have reasonably worked. But it was corrupted too early, and in too young, foolish, and inexperienced a country as this. You see most European nations manage to have a capitalist system at their cores, but implement socialist policies like universal health care, good and accessible education, and housing where they need to. As a result, their cultures and standards of living are considerably better than ours. This is because they recognize the basic rights of human beings, whereas the U.S. has long abandoned these all-important notions, turning the majority of its population into livestock.
    We need to abandon this way of life and start again with something more sensible and a hell of a lot more humane. This is why we need a socialist structure of government.

  10. bozh said on January 2nd, 2009 at 11:36am #

    paesano, ok.
    thnx for the clarifaction. i have read all ur posts but do not remember anything u have said ab socialism.
    socialists fail socialism, i agree. in US it can only be established as an incipient social democracy if it is fought for by a party; a much stronger party that uncle sam’s.
    in absence of a second party and existence of enormously strong uncle’s party not much can be improved for many.
    that’s why uncle has a party; one and the only. is he dumb to allow or have two.
    he outlawed communist party! why? thnx

  11. Hue Longer said on January 2nd, 2009 at 1:52pm #

    A point I thought bozh was making was that the failing of Stalin’s Russia wasn’t just due to his (or the rest of their) hijacking of the words, “socialism” or “communism”, but outside and inside capitalist enemies. It’s weird watching US Americans discussing how wrong Castro is concerning Communism as US embargoes, espionage, ecocide and terror are all unaccounted for in their perception of Cuba’s success (not to mention a seeming lack of “flash” that people living real lives have).

  12. bozh said on January 2nd, 2009 at 2:49pm #

    hue,
    all movements deemed by the patricians as a negative to their interests have been destroyed; oft by blood.
    but socialism was hated more than anything else. existence of an incipient socialism in e. europe forced the rulers to give inor face mass uprising. thnx for ur comment.

    if we entirely drop away a word like socialism and think ab how we can improve interpersonal and international relationships, we wldn’t not bog dwn in a mere label and what it may mean.

    especailly since we did not have it yet anywhere. one can’t know an apple save by eating it.
    surely, a society like in UK , canada, or germany waging wars against pals, afghans, iraqis, is a murderous/vile society.

  13. Norman Ball said on January 2nd, 2009 at 4:44pm #

    It’s become pabulum: ‘socialism doesn’t work.’ I’m always suspicious of pabulum, especially at an historic inflection point such as where we are. Of course the statement begs the question, And capitalism does work? Certainly the elite have taken a recent shine to socialist tenets.

    Coincidentally enough, I’ve reading and re-reading the following Engels passage the last couple of weeks, feeling as though it could have been
    written yesterday:

    “Commerce is at a standstill, the markets are glutted, products accumulate, as multitudinous as they are unsaleable, hard cash disappears, credit vanishes, factories are closed, the mass of the workers are in want of the means of subsistence, because they have produced too much of the means of subsistence; bankruptcy follows upon bankruptcy, execution upon execution.

    The stagnation lasts for years; productive forces and products are wasted and destroyed wholesale, until the accumulated mass of commodities finally filter off, more or less depreciated in value, until production and exchange gradually begin to move again.

    Little by little, the pace quickens. It becomes a trot. The industrial trot breaks into a canter, the canter in turn grows into the headlong gallop of a perfect steeplechase of industry, commercial credit and speculation, which finally, after breakneck leaps, ends where it began–in the ditch of a crisis. And so over and over again.”

  14. Hue Longer said on January 2nd, 2009 at 6:00pm #

    it is strange eh, gentlemen? It’s like shooting an unarmed man in the head and claiming that peace doesn’t work. “See?! See?!”

  15. The Angry Peasant said on January 2nd, 2009 at 11:06pm #

    Right. The major dilemma with capitalism at its essence, as Marx and Engels told us, is its cyclical rise-and-fall nature. Look at the last forty years in the U.S.:

    Late 60′s: Big Recession

    Mid-70′s: Big Recession

    Early 80′s: Big Recession

    Early 90′s: Big Recession

    2000′s: One long recession leading to a Depression scare.

    Over and over and over again. The economy booms; the economy busts. Just fine for the wealthy, but the mass majority is hurt over and over during the course of their lives. It needs to stop.

  16. Eric said on January 3rd, 2009 at 4:15am #

    The most interesting thing and most wise comment that I have ever heard a man say, of course besides Christ Jesus himself, is so simple yet most powerful. “The only time a man can be wrong is when he assumes he knows.”

    I kindly suggest that it may be interesting to you to closely examine a modern day organization that is a world class theocratic group, a society in our midst within secular society that practices exactly what you were talking about. Complete reliance on Jesus’ teachings and none other. A society within a society, 7 million worldwide. With the greatest humility I suggest that you may find it interesting to interview one of our Brothers to see how this miraculous organization covers the earth in over 400 languages 236 lands by common unlettered volunteer publishers from every walk of life in every country. We operate in more than 100,000 small congregations, usually numbering less than 100, the world over and are also persecuted down to this day, yes even hated because they like Jesus are no part of this political world. (John 18:36) Our identifying mark is love (John 13:34,35) and in going from house to house preaching to the individual person. (Acts of the Apostles 20:20) Putting doctrine aside for a moment and focusing only on the activities and the unity of this theocratic organization would amaze any thinking individual. I am willing to guess you even know who I am talking about. Many think alot of different things about these people. Many say they know about these people and tell others to stay away. “It’s a cult” is a favorite comment as well as amusing. But an individual can only be wrong about them if he assumes he knows about them.

    Thanks Eric

  17. Michael Kenny said on January 3rd, 2009 at 8:38am #

    And then he goes and spoils it all by saying something stupid …
    “Some Muslims would presumably not like this Heaven, not only are there no (female) virgins in it, there are no women whatsoever.”

    He couldn’t resist sneering at Islam! A wholly gratuitous sneer, too, in an article (supposedly) devoted to the relationship between Christianity and marxism. At that point, the whole article loses its credibility.

  18. bozh said on January 3rd, 2009 at 9:05am #

    michael,
    ab engels. meaning sent may not be meaning received.

  19. bozh said on January 3rd, 2009 at 9:33am #

    eric,
    if u have studied implicatory structure of any language, u wld know that the statement “the only time a person is wrong is when that person thinks s/he knows” is an generalization.
    and a generalization is neither wrong or right. all generalizations r meaningful/meaningless; ie, r interpretative; w, endless meanings; potentially having a different meaning for each person.
    religion clearly shows that, as there are thousands of sects; each claiming to be infallible.

    a propagandist knows this and will get u involved in an endless acrimonial discussion ab what religion, politics, capiatalism, fascsim, socialism, justice, peace, fairness, etc. mean.
    meanwhile, while we r discussing, s’mbody else decides what is to be done.

    ab jesus. no one know what jesus said. one can only tell and tell but never show nor prove. it can be assumed that both torah the whorah and bible the blable r adulterated; thus so much bitterness/hatred/intolerance by pious people. thnx

  20. Dr. Scotch said on January 3rd, 2009 at 7:30pm #

    Michael– I don’t think there was any sneer at Islam. He said “some” and that certainly must be true. There are certainly some crazy Muslims as is true of any group. He also made fun of Christians and even Marxists– of which I think he is one. Lighten up!

  21. The Angry Peasant said on January 4th, 2009 at 1:04am #

    Eric,
    Fuck off.

  22. AaronG said on January 4th, 2009 at 5:30am #

    Some of Paul’s biblical advice to the people living in Corinth (relating to their poorer friends living in Macedonia):

    For if the readiness is there first, it is especially acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what a person does not have. For I do not mean for it to be easy for others, but hard on YOU;  but that by means of an equalizing YOUR surplus just now might offset their deficiency, in order that their surplus might also come to offset YOUR deficiency, that an equalizing might take place. Just as it is written: “The person with much did not have too much, and the person with little did not have too little.” (2Corinthians 8:12-15)

    An equalizing of possessions is not a difficult concept to grasp. Some might want to put a label on this kind of biblical philosophy like ”socialism”. Whatever you call it, it is so simplistic that Milton Friedman wouldn’t be able to grasp it, but my 4yo daughter can. There is no Doctorate in Sharing at the University of Chicago as far as I know.

    Eric, I’m with you brother………………..

  23. Eric said on January 4th, 2009 at 6:30am #

    Implicatory structure of language sounds very eloquent. Implying that it sounds fluent and persuasive. Although that being the case I was not speaking in general terms and instead of fostering meaningless debate it causes it to cease. Two similar responses. Be it lengthly or brief , one being calm another angered. In either case our tendency is to follow the path of least resistance. Of course not knowing for sure anything said or reasoned will not relieve any of us from responsibility all though empty reasoning like mentioning sexual intercourse in a crude manner can make one feel that way.

  24. bozh said on January 4th, 2009 at 9:52am #

    eric,
    w. ur permit, let me explain what implications of any sentence means.
    here’s an example: we went into iraq to establish a democracy. now, let’s hunt for silent assumptions hidden in this statement?
    actually they r not hidden, but profound or hidden to most people.
    the statement above implies:
    it wldn’t be tajiks, uzbeks, or pashtuns who will build the democracy but US which is democratic.
    but US is not a democracy nor do we have anywhere a democracy; perhaps here and there we may have an incipient demo.

    it implies also that nato has an a priori right to invade a land

    it implies that nato/us is correct;doing the butchery w. good intentions.

    it implies that afhg’n and iraq have imperiled the west; in spite of the fact that no afghan or iraqi had hurt a canadian or euro in any matter whasoever.
    and one cld go on. hope u obtained an elucidation. it has nothing to do w. eloquence; eloquence being generalized and meningless uttrances. thnx

  25. Eric said on January 4th, 2009 at 1:09pm #

    Thank You bozh point taken and we see the results of such chaos. But can it not be said that if we adhered closely to the teachings of the greatest man who ever walked the Earth that world conditions would be better? What I meant to relate in my original post was that the worlds religions are looking to ordinary people for guidance which can not succeed. There are a people today, however that are willing to disown themselves and listen to this great teacher Jesus. This is a society that does exist in unity/agreement. In no way should this be in the shadows of being pious ,self rightousness or fostering hatred. No matter if one wants to call it socialistic or communistic the only way to draw a wrong conclusion on the matter is for one to assume to know all about this without an investigation. If one did they would find a true theocracy.

    Humbly submitted

  26. bozh said on January 4th, 2009 at 1:39pm #

    eric, thnx for reading my input. actually, it is not mine but belongs to world lore; i’m just a messenger.
    nearly everything i know, i know from others.

    ab jesus. if u wld read torah or bible several times or over a lifetime; u’l discover many contradictions, verbal brilliances, commandments, etc.

    and we humans r notorious for not learning by commandments. and we do not know what jesus said; we only know what some priests said jesus said.

    eg, jesus was quoted as saying, For u shall always have poor amongst u.
    now, is that what god wishes for some people? poverty?
    he may have said, Meek shall inherit the earth. but how ab children and women of palestine? where is their inheritance? in graves, right?

    but even priests like, robert schuller, says bible is an interpretative writ. so is the constitution but only a plutocratic interpretation is accepted not mine or urs. thnx

  27. Anon2 said on January 4th, 2009 at 2:39pm #

    bozh – you hve interesting things to say –
    yet – like this post
    are DIFFICULT to READ so most P-A-S-S
    becuz you need to SPELL/WRITE correctly.

    More would read your posts that you work so hard to send if you spent more time on HOW you write.

    Please consider.

  28. bozh said on January 5th, 2009 at 4:24am #

    anon2, thnx for letting me know. i also make lotsof typos; even tho i reread my posts.
    it may be that the corrections i make don’t take.
    so there are two problems: typos and abbreviations. thnx