Submission Statement: This sub, while ostensibly a conspiracy forum, is filled with posters who are so attached to their religion, that they refuse to even engage in good faith with research that uncovers the lies of their worldview. If Christianity is "off limits" to you, then you are everything that this sub detests.

I try to cut as much slack as I can. I am a Christian after all! ;)

Your comment is precisely my point, though. I myself find great Truth and, how I'd say, "orientation", with the Passion, and the Sermon on the Mount, and basically the entirety of "the New Gospel." The most important line stated in the the entire NT is "The Kingdom of God is within you". Well, that's my opinion anyway. I find that everything, the entire "point", if you remove all the ritual and gloss, is contained within that phrase. The Kingdom of God is within you. It expresses many, many things, both exoteric and esoteric.

Precisely, and very eloquent

This is exactly why I said Atwill may be wrong here and there about specific points, but his thesis of the NT being Roman Propaganda is precisely right. He alone didn't arrive at that idea, and in fact you SHOULD be arriving at that idea if you read Eisenmann, Carrier, Erhman.

Carrier has a point in that piece, in that some of the specific claims by Atwill are untenable, like Josephus himself writing the NT. But that's almost a distraction. If you read Eisenmann, you are shown quite clearly that whoever wrote the Gospels, and Acts, they WERE using Josephus' writings as underlying source material. That is literally verifiable fact. Various places in the NT have the exact sequence of chronology/topics as Josephus' works, occurring at very coincident moments.

My research arrived at very similar conclusions as Atwill (broadly) without ever picking up one his books. You can find it all by MUCH better writers and researchers.

The thesis works literally - literally - just as well if we recognize SOMEONE close to the household of Ceasar was writing the Gospels. All you have to do is read Paul's letters, and realize he is name-dropping specific persons within Ceasar's house, and make the connection that there is a hyper-literate group of artists/philosophers (such as Philo of Alexandria) who were more than capable of collaborating into creating the works eventually known as the Gospels.

Just because Atwill thinks it DEFINITELY was Josephus, instead of another highly-connected official, doesn't mean you throw the rest of the research away. You literally arrive at 95% of Atwill's book by reading Eisenmann, Carrier, Ehrman (like I said.) That's why I said they're better. They give you everything Atwill is saying, but even more.

What a strawman with your paraphrase about my argument.

Atwill: A B C and Z

Others: A B C and Y which is alllllmost Z but slightly different as to keep the whole theses fairly similar

Good point, pretty diverse mix we have here. What I'm actually "upset" by is that the conspiracy Christians still seem to accept all the GOP Christian's premises, instead of doing actual independent searching for themselves.

I actually think what you've just commented is a rather unfair portrayal of me and the issue I've brought up, but hey, if that's what you genuinely think and don't think I have a point, so be it. I accept that if I wish to change people's minds, it is incumbent upon me to change them, not just wail about why everyone doesn't change their own mind. Insofar as that is true, you're right. But I still think you're being a bit disingenuous in your characterization of the issue.

Why is the villain the Roman empire then?

Have you read the NT? Should I remind you that Pontius Pilate washed his hands clean of Jesus' blood, and the Jews "took on themselves" the murder of Jesus? Why would ostensible "Jews" be so antisemitic to create the blood libel? Seems rather strange, no?

Why is it that Peter receives a "rooftop vision" before meeting a Roman Centurion teaching Peter to "not separate clean from unclean"?

Would you REALLY like to argue this point? The Romans are painted in a VERY positive light, as are the Samaritans. Why?

Jesus, a new king setting up a kingdom in contrast to Caesar. And how would this benefit Rome?

What I'm about to say is the crux of the concept: the Romans create an other-worldly, "spiritual kingdom" for "Christians" so they would separate the earthly empire of Rome and their spiritual kingdom of Heaven. They will tolerate whatever earthly powers rule them so long as they have their Jesus, and God, and the Holy Spirit. If you cannot see how this works in the Romans' favor, then I suppose we're at an impasse. The Israelite religion had NO CONCEPT of separating "the spirit" and "the earthly". That is why the Israelite Messiah is an EARTHLY PROPHET-KING A LA DAVID. He is not Jesus, a supernatural Redeemer figure. Not even close. He is a KING with an earthly KINGDOM. This is why the Judean population REFUSED ANY submission to Rome, and refused to recognize them as rulers, and refused to ever pay their tax. What a coincidence that the new religion to infiltrate the population made SPECIFIC points to "separate" the earthly and spiritual, submit to earthly rulers, and pay your tax.

Hmm. Really activates the almonds.

Your post is precisely what I'm talking about. Your very first sentence is a non-sequitur.

Jesus was a Jew, so it's pretty clear that anti-semitism isn't a thing in the New Testament

Sure. Here's where I say that the writers of the NT almost certainly didn't know the real Jesus, including Paul. Here is where I tell you the writers almost certainly were not Jews themselves, as evidenced by their a) anti-semitism, and b) lack of knowledge about the Israelites themselves. Here is where I tell you that both Peter and Paul say very anti-semitic things (WHERE DO YOU IMAGINE THE BLOOD LIBEL CAME FROM?)

You're just taking orthodox doctrine and saying "See? Actually you're wrong."

A close inspection of literally everything you said shows that it really doesn't reflect reality whatsoever. But the problem is, we can't even have this talk because you're literally just going to throw orthodox doctrine at me without any actual inspection or evidence. It blows my mind that on a conspiracy forum you won't even begin to fathom that the underlying premises of Christianity are wrong or invented.

I AM SO GLAD YOU ASKED!

Acts is, in my opinion, the most vile trick ever played on the human race. The level of distortion of real history has echoed down to our time. It is the origin of the blood libel, that the blood of Jesus is willingly on the Jewish people, all the Jewish people, and that they are an accursed people because of it. (Note: I'm an Irish-Swedish-French Christian with purely Catholic heritage)

Acts 2:23 (Peter delivering a speech) "This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."

Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”

Acts 3:13-15 "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life..."

Acts 5:30 "The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross."

So firstly, Peter himself is acknowledging Jesus' blood is on the hands of the Jews. All the Jews. He makes the exact same speech roughly five or six times in Acts, where he accuses the Jews of killing Jesus Christ. If you refuse to acknowledge that this is the progenitor of modern anti-semitism and hatred of the Jews, well then that your prerogative.

Next, you have STEPHEN, the "archetypal Gentile convert to Christianity" (but is really just a stand-in for James, "brother of Jesus") giving a similar speech.

Acts 7:51-53 "You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it."

Lovely. Might I ask, by the way, where the early Christians, Paul and Peter in particular, and also now Stephen, are getting this idea that "the Jewish people have killed all her prophets?" Can you find me where in the Old Testament this is true? Before the New Testament, where came this idea that the Jews murdered their own prophets and were forsaken by God because of it? I think you'll find that it's quite a disingenuous portrayal of the Israelites and their religion.

Let's keep going.

Paul says the exact same thing in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16: "For brothers, you become the imitators of the Assemblies of God in Judea... because you also suffered the same thing from your own countrymen they did from the Jews, WHO BOTH KILLED JESUS AND THEIR OWN PROPHETS and expelled you, displeasing God and BEING THE ENEMIES OF THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE."

Wow. How fucking lovely of Paul. Oh, you remember Paul, the "Jew"? Or was it Saul. Or was it Saulus? Hmmm...

Let's keep looking at Peter and Paul:

Acts 10:28: (Peter talking) "You know that it is not lawful for a Jewish man to join himself with or come near one of another Race."

You can tell this wasn't written by a Jew (really, none of it was) because this literally isn't true about the Israelite religion. It has nothing to do with "not coming near one of another race". HOWEVER, it certainly LOOKS like that is the Jewish law from OUTSIDE the Jewish community. So there you go.

Paul's letters:

1 Corinthians 5:6-8: "Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

...Paul is literally crafting a polemical metaphor deriding "the old bread" of Judaism as "malicious and wicked". Yeah... sure Paul... you're a Jew... and yet saying this.

Would you like to read all the parts of Paul's letters likening circumcision to a curse? Would you like to read all the parts of Paul's letters where he condemns the Law? Or wait, would you like to read what he said about Moses, the FOUNDER of the Israelite religion?

2 Corinthians 3:13: "We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away."

There you have it. You have Paul, the founder of the Christian religion, literally saying in his letter that Moses specifically wore the veil when descending Mt Sinai to DECEIVE THE ISRAELITES AND HIDE THE FACT THAT THE GLORY OF GOD'S LAW (the entire fucking Jewish religion) IS NO MORE.

Paul is literally calling Moses a liar. Yeah. Paul "is Jewish." Uh huh. I don't think there is another case of a founder of one world religion saying something so vile about another. The anti-semitism is all there. Most people just kinda ignore it because the miracles and poetry are prettier.

Sure. Well, I'm not the only one with these ideas, and I can claim credit for naught one of them. Smarter men than myself showed me the truth, and I simply follow it in earnest. If we're at an impasse, we're at an impasse.

Peter is literally preaching the faith

Yeah, your response is 9/10 the response to this. The entire point is that intrinsic IN THE FAITH as Paul invented it, is anti-semitism. That's the point. The Romans hated the Jews with a passion - they gave them headache after headache after headache. The Jews were a serious pain to rule over.

I have read the Bible, and I'm well aware there are DOCTRINAL REASONS for everything written there. But that's a) beside the point and b) intentional obfuscation.

For example - Paul writes extensively about why you don't need to be circumcised, and there are several reasons for it, specifically you are saved by Christ not enslaving yourself to the Law.

ON ONE HAND - you have a very beautiful articulation of the New Gospel, a whole soteriological worldview, a whole new redemption. How lovely.

ON THE OTHER HAND - WHAT IS THE LITERAL REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCE OF SUCH A DOCTRINE? Well the Jews are just labelled as an accursed people, anyone who doesn't convert to the new Gospel is cursed, preaching 'wickedness and malice", etc etc. You're trying to explain to me the doctrine, but I'm well aware. There's more to the Bible than the doctrine.

Shall I go on?

Before you read this, you have to understand brother - I CONSIDER MYSELF TO BE A CHRISTIAN. I'm not Paul's Christian, and my ideas wouldn't be welcome in most orthodox churches, but I consider myself a Christian. If we were to examine it, our two Christs wouldn't be all that different in substance. I'm NOT trying to yell at people to change their minds. I'm just trying to have interesting conversations, friend.

Now then

But it is not inherent that the Jews were evil or cursed

Ask Paul. He dances around the issue but says more or less - if you don't convert to my new gospel and stick to the old ways of Judaism, you're willingly enslaving yourself and bringing a curse on yourself.

It was theologically neccessary for them to demand the death of Christ.

Well... you're certainly right about that. Most of the NT isn't literal history, it's written to make a theological point/claim. Listen to what you're saying here - I'm not "arguing", I'm being sincere. The Jews HAD to demand Jesus die or it wouldn't be as meaningful. Jesus HAD to be betrayed by Judas or it wouldn't be as meaningful. Jesus HAD to be crucified and return 3 days later or it wouldn't be as meaningful.

We are talking literature here. I agree with you Jesus has to be presented in his passion in such a way for the theological necessity of his life, his divinity, his resurrection, etc etc etc. You're misunderstanding what I'm talking about, and we're talking past one another.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING - that 90% of the NT didn't happen, or happened in a way completely contrary to presented. You want me to argue about the theological points, but I'm explaining to you the theological points are invented. We're talking about two different levels of analysis here. I KNOW THE DOCTRINAL REASONS why Peter says X, or Paul says Y, etc etc.

But there are motivations that you, and the majority of others, refuse to acknowledge. You know Christianity at one point didn't exist, and actually had to be written down, yes? It's a completely fair line of inquiry to look at the writers of this religion, Paul included, and do some investigative work.

And what do you find? You find that Paul, and his lackeys in the "household of Caesar" had motivations completely removed from anything written in the NT. The historical Paul seems to be doing all sorts of other shit than what he's presenting himself as doing in his letters and Acts, SO THEN YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO READ ACTS AND HIS LETTERS KNOWING HE IS DOING SOME OTHER NEFARIOUS SHIT. And then his letters start looking real fishy, because it's quite a coincidence that his letters seem to be accomplishing exactly what his historical person is trying to accomplish - destroy the Jewish populations of Judea by basically recruiting enough gentile converts to "Paul's side" to outnumber the Jews. And they did. Demographic replacement, plus a little murder and genocide and war.

The Jews werent as toublesome as might think. There were to uprisings almost 100 yrs apart. Also, The Romans were pretty good at the killing part of conquest that creating a whole new religion seems like unneccessary work.The Jews were more like a disobediant child than a major threat to Rome. If they got uppity Rome would simply smack them down.

I was with you until this second half of your post, and I disagree vehemently. It's almost like a tangent at this point, but a comprehensive reading of the first century BC AND first century AD of Palestine/Judea/Israel really disproves most of what you said here. The Jews were literally the number 1 problem for Rome in the Eastern half of their territory, and even then they had Jews preaching in Rome and creating unrest. You have not only the Jewish revolt, but in the FIRST HALF of the century, a DIFFERENT revolt by "Judas the Galilean" (whole other story that ties into my research) over "paying the tax to Rome". Then in the next century the Bar Kochba revolt, which is just the conclusion of these conflicts. You can't look at separate wars and then say they're disconnected. Galilean-Jewish War/Revolt-Bar Kochba Revolt are one single war spread out in separate periods, all converging over the same/similar issues. The only differences are the personae dramatis, the actual characters themselves.

As for the point you make about "whole new religion seems like unnecessary work" - you're correct, but incorrect. It seems from my research, and others, that Paul and his Roman lieges had NO CLUE how well their religion would do. They couldn't have even begun to imagine 2000 years later it would have become what it is now. ALL THEY WERE DOING WAS TRYING TO CONVINCE THE JUDEAN POPULATIONS TO STOP TRYING TO OVERTHROW ROME, by offering a different route of Salvation. Because that was the real crux, a Jewish population that believed their Salvation was imminently coming on the horizon in the form of a David-reborn and they would wage apocalyptic war against the Romans and be saved and live for "a thousand generations." You can't rule a population that believes that. So you offer something else, and it is massively successful.

Remember, the story about the origin of Christianity doesn't just stop with Paul and his friends - it continues for several more centuries. Once the Romans realized how well their plan worked in Judea, they realized with a few more modifications their new religion could become a STATE religion, and work 10x better. (EDIT: The point I'm making is that Christianity SERIOUSLY CHANGED from Paul to Constantine to current Catholicism, etc etc etc. Paul's Christianity was changed after him as well) That's my understanding anyway. So you're right, creating a whole new religion "seems" unnecessary when the Romans could just destroy them, but that's because that's a slight mis-orientation. They only intended to calm these people down in the wake of fighting them. Because the Romans had fought them before, and before, and before, over and over in small-to-large conflicts, and they were tired of it. The Jews weren't ever going to be defeated "once-and-for-all" in the oppressive sense, militarily, they needed to be CHANGED.

THE NEW TESTAMENT IS NOT BY JESUS. I don't understand where this disconnect is coming from. Let's take as an axiom that a Jewish revolutionary Jesus existed.

That has nothing to do whether Paul understood a single thing about him. That has nothing to do whether the writers of the Gospels actually knew Jesus. That has nothing to do whether the writers were Jewish themselves. That has nothing to do with whether the written Gospels are an accurate portrayal of Jesus, his followers, and first century Palestine.

You are literally taking everything there as a premise, which is actual nonsense. You aren't examining a single one of those premises, just taking them at face value. That's why you're orthodox. Jesus is who Paul and his lackeys say he is, and therefore, it can't be anti-semitic, because Jesus was Jewish.

Circular logic and lack of inspection. That's all there is here.

but I'm just going by the texts that we have

Well, my point is that I'M going by the texts, meaning I have looked outside of the Bible to learn more about the Bible, meaning I have read quite a lot of non-Biblical texts that found their way into the traditions in the NT. I could, by the way. I didn't come up with this, actual researchers did.

the burden of proof

No. We are literally both making claims. Each of us has to provide the proof of our claims. YOU ARE SAYING THE NT BOOKS ARE EXACTLY AS THEY APPEAR?

Prove. It. I can prove the alternate, just read Robert Eisenmann's book "James, the Brother of Jesus" and "The New Testament Code". That's about 2000 pages of reading. Would you like me to hold your hand and show you exactly what I know? No, obviously not. You don't get to just cite orthodoxy then say PROVE ITS WRONG.

Exactly what I stated with this post in the first place. You're not even engaging in good faith. Nothing you said has been in defense of the NT, it's just been ignoring any point I make and citing doctrine. Which is fine. Free country, believe what you want. But doctrine isn't an argument. It's doctrine.

Not entirely sure you understand what you're asking.

The conclusion I (and others) requires knowledge of the Old Testament, so dated whenever you place them. So stretching from 1000BC to the first century BC. THEN it requires knowledge of the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated from 0-60AD (note: before the gospels and concurrent with Paul). Then it requires knowledge of Josephus, latter half of the first century.

Then a smattering of writers through 400 AD, including the church fathers, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and others.

Except they literally do. You just haven't actually investigated what I'm talking about, and on the basis of your lack of investigation, declaring I must be wrong. Go do your homework, then when you have an interesting retort to what I'm saying, I'll be happy to argue. As of yet, you're literally just citing doctrine and then making me disprove doctrine, when we share the exact same burden of proof. No thanks.

overlay a metanarrative that disallows critical thought.

This is EXACTLY what I'm trying to say, you've articulated it well. And I agree with the rest of what you said as well

The best thing we can do is ignore and/or downvote what you don’t agree with and be very cognizant that any attempt to contradict their beliefs will be ignored, at best, or result in personal attacks, at worse. Keep rocking, guys.

...the best thing we can do is that? That sounds like... the opposite of the best thing to do. We're just forever burdened by ignorance and should just accept that? Ignoring and downvoting what you don't agree with is just "I'm ignorant and don't want to be any other way."

I have literally no clue what you're talking about

The following very well cited book examines the New Testament and the concurrent extra-biblical writings that influenced/were influenced by the NT, and it says I am exactly right.

"James, the Brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenmann, Dead Sea Scrolls scholar responsible for getting the scrolls released to the public.

Also his follow up, "The New Testament Code".

I don't know what you think your post contradicts in my own posts. Care to share?

I'd love to! I'm only on my phone at the moment so I'll come back soon and give you a good reply

As for "thoughts on Lucifer?" I'll have to pass until you ask more specific questions - not that I don't have a decent line of thought on the topic, rather I have so many lines of thought! Not sure what you'd like to talk about.

As for Gospel of Thomas - that's the answer to your next question! For a variety of reasons, I think reading the Gospel of Thomas gives readers a more genuine reading of a possible historical Jesus than ANY other document. 1) Jesus makes no "high claims" of Divinity, no claims that he is literally God/Son of God in the divine sense. Rather, we are all potential Sons of God, an idea borrowed from Israelite religion, basically "chosen by God" "adopted by God", etc. 2) MANY of Jesus' parables from Gospel accounts of Jesus' life, including the Sermon on the Mount, are found in Gospel of Thomas. Many others appear. It makes much more sense that a creative writer would take parables from a list of sayings and apply it to the "life account"/biography/synopsis of Jesus' life, rather than the alternative of someone manufacturing a list of semi-connected sayings out of the biographical account. One is clearly borrowing more inspiration from the other. Insofar as this is true, Thomas can boast a level of primitive primacy over the Gospels. Finally, and most simply: 3) it's a list of Jesus' sayings basically offering an esoteric, spiritual narrative of self-introspection to meditate on the nature of God, a reality, etc etc etc,

Which brings me to the most important point! This readings leads one to the idea that JESUS the Galilean Jew was probably a local preacher that amassed a lot of SAMARITAN GENTILE disciples, and at one point spoke the things said in the Gospel of Thomas/ OR SOMETHING QUITE SIMILAR TO IT to his immediate, mostly illiterate disciples. But one wrote them down. A list of sayings of the wisest man he'd ever met. A Buddha, a Socrates, a Christ.

The real Jesus was a flash of light from God into this dark, dark world, and taught an important set of messages. The RUMOR and whisper heard of this "Jesus", or a man who is our Salvation, reaches one PAUL/SAUL/SAULUS, Herodian Jewish convert, agent of the Romans, who picks up the message of this man Jesus, and has a "divine revelation" of Christ Jesus, the Redeemer, and CO-OPTS THE UNDERLYING NARRATIVE OF JESUS' MESSAGE and adds into it, literally admitting to collaborating with Roman authorities on his "New Gospel in Christ Jesus". Literally.

I actually, unironically believe "my" version and reading of history is anything but MORE beautiful, more interesting, more meaningful than orthodox doctrinal history. MY Christianity involves a more real Christ than properly understand. The real Jesus is like a Buddha figure, a baton-bearer in the cosmic, karmic cycle. Blinked into history, taught a message, and blinked out. Leaving a group of humans scrambling to tell the story of a very, very wise man. Or rather, co-opt and MANAGE! the story. A la the Church.

everything you said is IMO, pretty obvious at an intuitive level

Agreed - that's what's so funny about it. I actually believe I have the LESS COMPLICATED, more interested version of history over on "my side".

As to everything else you said, I agree, for sure. You have a point, and perhaps this is a rather niche argument, and the outcome won't be a wholesale changing of the guard in their minds, but I'm really writing for people like you, who comment and want to talk about more. I think a lot of people - non-religious included - come here and aren't brave enough to call out the ideas of the majority, and so passively by sheer osmosis just kind of absorb all the majority's implied axioms and premises. Christianity great, history is as we know it, etc etc etc don't pull back the curtain.

Some really, genuinely want to rip the curtain away and see what's left of this whole sham.

Any thoughts on the God of the OT actually being a demiurge or an Archon(from the gnostic gospels)

I'm going to blow your mind! Let's go one step of convoluted extra dimensional supernatural powers further!

In my understanding of it (I actually have NOT extensively read the Gnostic Bibles, just a smattering here and there, so I'm actually not even close to being as well-versed here as, say, historical topics) that the Demiurge is the creator of physical reality. He created the heavens and the earth etc etc etc, he's Mr Genesis 1.

Many people then go and say "Well the Demiurge is evil, the Demiurge is the God of the OT, etc etc etc." WELL TRY THIS ON FOR SIZE.

The Demiurge ain't evil. The Demiurge appears evil to us, mere mortals, because the only thing "wrong" with the Demiurge is that he created, and his creation is flawed. Our physical reality seems "evil" to the gnostic mystics and sages, but what they simply mean is its flawed. Suffering and corruption and death destroy us because this is NOT true creation.

...but what's this? Some demon, perhaps just a very powerful Archon, a real parasite if there ever was one, donning the guise of a volcano/fire/wind god Yahweh reveals himself to someone or other of this iron age, illiterate band of Semites, convincing them that he is a) God, b) the creator.

I actually do not think the God of the OT is the Demiurge. He fucking wishes! The God of the OT is as close to a "satan" if there ever was one. Meditate on the nature of a potential satan. He has attributes similar to a few Lord of the Rings/Tolkien/Silmarillion characters (Melkor, Sauron, others). He cannot even create! He can only mold creation. He can only alter, destroy, corrupt, etc. And so the parasite taking the name Yahweh convinces a desert tribe that he is the only true god, and uses them as a beast of burden, growing stronger and stronger as they make blood sacrifice to him year after year, feeding the ego of the pretender deity. Yahweh is just Moloch (and I literally mean this) who enslaved the Semitic people by tricking them into a Covenant (remember, Covenant just means Contract! Would GOD make a contract, or would satan?) by which they glorify him, listen to his every word, make sacrifices to him, etc.

Sophia would be Wisdom would be, like the Demiurge himself, a product of True Creation, who cannot specifically Create without flaw - but a spark of her, Sophia, "her son", a "piece" of "divinity" could make its way from heaven (non-physical, extra-dimensional realm of Spirit) into the flawed, corrupted world of the living and appear as a man... in Galilee... wise as the Buddha... offering his band of Samaritan disciples the keys to enlightenment and the kingdom of heaven from whence he came.

Neat story huh

Always a fair criticism, if a little unnecessary

Your post is precisely what I'm talking about. Your very first sentence is a non-sequitur.

Jesus was a Jew, so it's pretty clear that anti-semitism isn't a thing in the New Testament

Sure. Here's where I say that the writers of the NT almost certainly didn't know the real Jesus, including Paul. Here is where I tell you the writers almost certainly were not Jews themselves, as evidenced by their a) anti-semitism, and b) lack of knowledge about the Israelites themselves. Here is where I tell you that both Peter and Paul say very anti-semitic things (WHERE DO YOU IMAGINE THE BLOOD LIBEL CAME FROM?)

You're just taking orthodox doctrine and saying "See? Actually you're wrong."

A close inspection of literally everything you said shows that it really doesn't reflect reality whatsoever. But the problem is, we can't even have this talk because you're literally just going to throw orthodox doctrine at me without any actual inspection or evidence. It blows my mind that on a conspiracy forum you won't even begin to fathom that the underlying premises of Christianity are wrong or invented.