National Vanguard — a White Nationalist website which purports to continue the work of the late Dr. William Pierce — recently published an essay entitled, “Jesus The Jew” by Thomas Dalton, PhD — which enumerates many of the anti-Christian talking points that both Dr. Pierce and the late Revilo Oliver have already made.
We previously addressed another anti-Christian essay published by National Vanguard — Yahweh Did Not Create Us — which attempted to claim that the God of the Bible has no historical or racial connection to White Europeans — and that it was forced upon our ancestors under the threat of death.
Here we would like to address the criticisms that Dalton directs toward Christianity point by point, but before we start, we would most certainly acknowledge that the vast majority of “judeo-Christian” denominations today certainly deserve the criticisms that many White Nationalists have brought against it — the most important and valid being that it has allowed Jews to infiltrate, subvert, and destroy our White, historically-Christian nations.
However, the reason that Jews have infiltrated and subverted Christianity is that it was a serious threat to Jewish power rather than an instrument of Jewish domination. And Jews began infiltrating the Catholic Church very early on as “conversos” who worked feverishly to “judaize” the faith — and corrupt the European bloodline.
And then Jews openly supported the Protestant movement in order to break up the hegemony of the Church — for the self-serving strategy of divide and conquer Christendom by replacing our hereditary aristocracy with judeo-Masonic bankers and their willing executioners.
That said, we will now address each of Dalton’s talking points.
“It’s hard to believe in the present day, but yes, it’s true, there are still a lot of Christians out there in the world. According to some estimates, they number around 2.4 billion or about 30% of humanity. In terms of sheer numbers, the US technically has the most: about 245 million, representing around 75% of the country — although many of these undoubtedly are so weakly religious (“Christmas and Easter Christians”) that they would barely pass any theological litmus test. The next three largest Christian populations are hardly an honor roll (Brazil, Mexico, and Russia), and the countries that, percentage-wise, are the most Christian, are mostly laughable: East Timor, Armenia, New Guinea, Haiti, and Paraguay, among the Top Ten.”
[CFT: It shouldn’t be “hard to believe” that Christianity is still a dominant religion, considering that for the last 2,000 years it has been the faith of the White European race which colonized the entire world.
But while it is true that most Christians today in America are merely “Sunday Christians” or cultural Christians at this point — that same criticism can be laid on most Nationalists who have never read the Constitution or Bill of Rights, and express their watered-down patriotism a couple of times a year by displaying an American flag on Memorial Day and the Fourth of July while they drink beer and grill hot dogs with their mixed race grandchildren and non-white neighbors.]
“Obviously, there is a huge variety in specific beliefs among these millions of Christians. The World Christian Encyclopedia infamously notes that, globally, there are some 33,000 “distinct denominations” of the Church, including 242 Catholic, 9,000 Protestant, and over 22,000 “independent.” We can only imagine the variation in beliefs among these groups — and of course, only one (at most!) can be right. I’d hate to pick the wrong one! (Do I hear, “Going to Hell,” anyone?)”
[CFT: Yes, there are a lot of Christian sects, but once the Catholic Church lost its monopoly on the Bible in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, it was inevitable that each new sect would create schisms and splinter groups. Once Christians could read the Bible for themselves, they took the words of 2 Timothy 2:15 to heart:
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
It was also inevitable that there would arise false teachers promoting false gospels, as both Paul and Peter warned,
“For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.”–2 Corinthians 11:4
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”–2 Peter 2:1
In Romans, Paul warns Christians that there will false teachers who cause divisions of the faith:
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”–Romans 16:17
Paul tells Christians that they must study the Gospels and discern what is true — and what is false:
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”–2 Thessalonians 5:21
So all these thousands of Christian sects are not de facto proof that Christianity is false, but rather are proof that Christians have continued to try to practice the one true faith by breaking away from false teachers — an essential part of the faith.]
“But presumably they all must share at least a few core beliefs, simply in order to call themselves Christian. We can guess what these might be: (1) there exists a personal, moral God who loves us; (2) believers will prosper in the afterlife and non-believers will suffer; and (3) Jesus is the son of God and humanity’s redeemer and personal savior…”
[CFT: Dalton here greatly over-simplifies these banal “core” beliefs — which can be summed up under the term “Christianity Lite” — a watered-down faith that has very little to do with the original Gospels. The notions that Christ is “humanity’s redeemer” and a “personal savior” appear nowhere in the gospels — and are merely proof that Christians have been mislead by not taking Paul’s warnings to heart.
It’s no wonder that Luke questioned that when Christ returned whether He would find any true believers:
“When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?”—Luke 18:8
“First, I should note that there is a high likelihood that no such man ever existed. We can say this with confidence because there is no — literally, zero — contemporaneous evidence for his existence, either as a miracle-working Son of God, or even as a rather ordinary rabbi. We can understand the latter case — most ordinary rabbis from 2,000 years ago are lost to history — but not the former.
If Jesus was anything close to the miracle-worker that the Bible describes, there would be a mountain of testifying evidence: documents, carvings, engravings, letters, etc. And these would exist from his followers, his skeptics, his critics, and the Romans who ruled the region. There would be a vast and well-documented account of a man who walked on water, raised the dead, healed with a touch, calmed storms, and fed thousands with “five loaves of bread and two fish.” These testimonies would all date to the time of his alleged ministry, roughly, 27 to 30 AD. And yet, from that time period, we have… nothing.”
[CFT: This is patently false — the synoptic Gospels are documented first-hand, eyewitness testimonies to the historical existence of Jesus Christ — and they are far more detailed and consistent historical accounts than most other historical figures of that time.
Not only that, the Roman historian, Flavius Josephus, does mention Jesus in his writings, but we must also acknowledge that Catholics later embellished Josephus’ original text by inserting obvious self-serving Christian doctrines into it — which the early Church dubbed the Testimonium Flavianum.
That said, the original text from Josephus’ Antiquities read as follows,
“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”
Dalton is under the misapprehension that there was some sort of “mass media” in Roman-occupied Judea at the time of Christ. There were no newspapers, books, etc. — and the Romans recorded only what was important to themselves — and a religious leader of a small sect in Judea would not have been newsworthy or worthy of historic preservation to the Romans.
We know from the Gospels that the Pharisees and Sadducees conspired to slander Christ and portray Him as a revolutionary who desired to overthrow Roman rule in Judea — and brought these false accusations to Pilate — the Roman governor of Judea. Pilate looked into these accusations — and after interviewing Jesus and looking at the evidence — he found these charges against Him to be false — and decided not to get involved in this internecine religious dispute.
The fact that there are no written Roman records of this dispute shows that Pilate did not take these accusations of sedition seriously — after all, if he had taken them seriously and put Jesus on trial, there most likely would have been independent Roman records of such a trial.
And we don’t have any additional “Jewish” written records of this dispute between the Pharisees and Christ — and His subsequent crucifixion — for the simple fact that the Romans destroyed their Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD — and all their documents archived there were lost.
That said, the Babylonian Talmud does acknowledge the existence of Jesus — and how and why he died:
“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.'”–The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, p.203
However, aside from the written record, we do have archeological discoveries that confirm the historicity of Jesus Christ — such as the ossuary of James, the brother of Christ — and an early Christian tomb that pre-dates the writing of the Gospels — and a Nazarene inscription from circa 68 AD showing how the Jews attempted to deny the resurrection of Christ — and a Caesarian inscription circa 35AD confirming that Pontius Pilate was a real historical figure, not simply a fictional character made up by the Gospel writers — and archeological artifacts confirming Luke’s account of riots in Ephesus — and the discovery of the tomb of Philip, apostle of Christ, in Hierapolis, Phrygia.]
“In fact, nothing even close. In fact, nothing for literally decades. According to conventional dating, the earliest reference of any kind is in the letters of Paul, the earliest of which — Galatians and First Thessalonians — date to around 50 AD, two full decades after our man got crucified. The rest of Paul’s letters, intermixed with a few fraudulent ones attributed to him, appear between 50 and 70 AD, by which time (a) Paul had died, and (b) the Jews were defeated in Jerusalem by the Romans, and their temple destroyed.
Only then did some other Jews — presumably followers of Paul — decide to write about Jesus’ life and sayings in their “gospels.” The gospel writers are formally anonymous; we know nothing about who they are, their motives, or the circumstances. The names attached (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) mean nothing; it would be like saying “Bob’s Novel” or “Joe’s Cookbook.” But based on textual evidence, scholars can roughly date the Gospel of Mark to around the year 70; Matthew and Luke to 85; and John to 95. We can only imagine how much veracity they contain, given that they claim to quote Jesus precisely and cite details of his life, 40, 50, or 60 or more years after his death. The obvious answer is: not much!”
[CFT: Based on internal evidence, the Gospels must have been written before 70 AD for the simple fact that the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans that year — and if the Gospels were written after that event, all of them would have noted that catastrophic event in their writings. After all, Christ predicted the destruction of the Temple in the Gospel of Luke (21:5-38) — and if Luke already knew that this prophecy had been fulfilled, he surely would have mentioned it.
So would have all of the Gospel writers — after all, they mention that Christ prophesied His own death and the fulfillment of that prophecy. The fulfillment of the of the destruction of Jerusalem would have been treated the same way — as proof of His foreknowledge and therefore diety, yet none of the Gospel writers mention it — for the simple reason that it hadn’t happened yet.
As far as suggesting that there is any kind of “consensus” among biblical scholars concerning the post-70AD dating of the Gospels, this is simply false — we would suggest you read William Craig Lane’s essay on the early dating of the Gospels, which clearly shows that the post-70AD date for their writing makes no sense based on internal evidence in the Gospels and Paul’s epistles.
And by the way, the earliest histories of Alexander the Great were written 200 years after his death — and there are no surviving first-hand eyewitness accounts written by his contemporaries. Yet no one doubts Alexander’s historical existence.]
The likeliest conclusion to this mess is that the Jew Paul and the anonymous Jewish gospel writers made it all up: that there was no miracle-working Son of God, no virgin birth, and no resurrection. They did so, not for fame or money, but because they believed that promulgating a pro-Jewish, anti-Roman theology would aid the Jewish cause. (Pro-Jewish, because the Christians are to worship the Jewish God, the Jewish rabbi Jesus, and the Jewish ‘virgin’ Mary; anti-Roman, because “the worldly powers” of Rome are a manifestation of Satan and must be defeated.) And in the end, it did. Judeo-Christianity flourished, ideologically defeated Rome, and then took up residence in Rome itself. “Without doubt, Rome has been conquered,” as Nietzsche said.”
[CFT: Here Dalton resorts to ad hominem attacks against Paul and the Gospel writers whom he dismisses as “Jews” who cannot be trusted — taking advantage of his White Nationalist audience’s innate and visceral hatred and distrust of anything involving “Jews”.
But the “Jews” — the Israelites of the southern kingdom — who wrote the New Testament — were not the same people who masquerade as “Jews” or Judah today — and you will be hard pressed to find any White Nationalist who is willing to acknowledge that fact, even though the Jews themselves have admitted to this identity theft in the 1980 Jewish Almanac:
“Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a Jew or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew.”
If Dalton were honest, he would acknowledge that today’s “Jews” are most closely allied with the Pharisees who conspired to murder Christ rather than with those Israelites who wrote the Gospels, but that would undermine his entire argument, so it’s best that he completely ignore the fact that Judaism as we know it today came out of Babylon, not Roman-occupied Judea at the time of Christ:
“Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes in name . . . the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives, unaltered . . . From Palestine to Babylonia; from Babylonia to North Africa, Italy, Spain, France and Germany; from these to Poland, Russia, and eastern Europe generally, ancient Pharisaism has wandered . . . demonstrates the enduring importance which attaches to Pharisaism as a religious movement . . .”—Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, “The Pharisees. The Sociological Background of Their Faith”, 1938
“Judaism was not evolved in Judah; it was in Babylon that Judaism first became that which it was and still is.”—”The Hebrew Peoples” written by Dr. H. Winckler, L.M. King, Dr. R. G. Brandis, and H. R. Hall. On pages 1781-4, Vol. 3, appearing in Helmsworth’s “History of the World”
“But to the point: Although there is no direct evidence for either a miracle-Jesus or a rabbi-Jesus, I suspect that some such man by that description did live, and die, in Judea. And the reason is simply this: Since Paul and friends claimed something as true — a miracle-Jesus — that certainly did not exist, and that they knew did not exist, they were liars. Whether they were ‘noble’ liars or malicious liars, I will leave to another time. But liars they were. And any lie works best with a kernel of truth. Therefore, I consider it likely that an ordinary mortal, the rabbi Jesus, did live, likely did agitate on behalf of the oppressed Jews, and likely did get himself crucified — end of story.
So let’s assume that a mortal Jesus did exist. What, then, do we know about him? Virtually nothing for certain. Apart from a few tidbits from Paul, literally everything that we think we know about him comes from the highly-dubious four Gospels; there simply is no other source. And in the Gospels, we find a striking claim: Jesus was a Jew.”
[CFT: So Dalton first claims there is no evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ, but then he concedes that such a figure probably existed. He refused to accept the Gospels without offering any evidence for them being “highly dubious” — yet if we had such eyewitness accounts of a non-religious figure in Roman Judea, they would have to be taken more seriously. For Dalton the eyewitness Gospels are “dubious” simply because he refuses to acknowledge any kind of divine being.]
“Wait a minute!” says the Christian, with alarm. “Jesus can’t be a Jew! He’s the original Christian — the ur-Christian, we might say. He can’t possibly be a Jew!” Indeed — many Christians, both in the past and today, have attempted to argue that Jesus was a non-Jew, a Gentile, even an Aryan. They seemingly cannot bear the thought that their beloved Savior might be a Jew, and that therefore they must worship a Jew. And yet, all the evidence says he was.
In fact, the evidence suggests that Jesus was a double-Jew: ethnically and religiously. Let’s first see what it says in the Gospels themselves (which Christians must believe!).”
[CFT: We’re not aware of anyone with any credibility who would claim that Jesus was a “gentile” — if by “gentile” they mean someone who is not from the tribes of Israel of the southern kingdom — Judah, Benjamin, and Levi — collectively referred to in Greek as “Ioudaios” — which is misleadingly translated as “Jew” in English.
And since Jesus was from the Israelite tribe of Judah, He would have technically been a “Ioudaios” from the Greek-Roman perspective — but that doesn’t mean He was a “Jew” in today’s parlance — those related to Jerry Seinfeld, Rodney Dangerfield, and Barbara Streisand — which Dalton would like us to believe.
As far as those who like Wesley Swift believe that Jesus was an “Aryan”, this too is inaccurate. While the original “Aryans” — or ancient Persians — were, in fact, descendants of Noah’s son Shem — making them Shemites — they were not Israelites, so Jesus, while distantly related to the ancient Aryans, He should never be counted as one of them.]
“Start with his mother, the “virgin” Mary; she clearly was a Jewess. Mary was a blood relative of Elizabeth, of the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5, 1:36). When Jesus was born, she, along with Joseph, “performed everything according to the [Jewish] law of the Lord” (Luke 2:39). And she and Joseph attended Passover services in Jerusalem “every year” (Luke 2:41). Since Mary was a Jew, this alone makes Jesus a Jew (on the orthodox reading) because Jewishness is matrilineal, being passed along by the mother; if you are born of a Jewess, you are a Jew.
What about Jesus’ father? Let’s set aside the nonsense about God being his father, which is nothing more than regurgitated Homeric mythology about demi-gods on Earth. Joseph was of the “House of David,” as Luke (1:27) informs us. And as noted above, Joseph rigorously followed Jewish law and attended Passover annually. He was clearly an observant Jew, and (presumably) the biological father of Jesus.”
[CFT: Dalton really shows his ignorance here. While today’s ersatz “Jews” do track “Jewish” identity through the mother, the ancient Israelites always derived their identity through the father — and the “Jews” switched to matrilineal descent sometime around 200 AD, long after Christ had died — proving that they cannot be legitimate Israelites.
Mary was an Israelite through her father, not through her mother. And Jesus’ earthly father’s genealogy is provided in Luke, which shows that Joseph also was an Israelite through his father, not his mother — both conforming to patrilineal descent for all legitimate Israelites.]
“Paul obviously thought Jesus was a Jew. In the early Galatians (4:4) he says that Jesus was “born under the [Jewish] law,” and in Romans (9:5), he declares his own Jewishness (“my kinsmen by race…are Israelites”), adding that “of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.”
[CFT: Yes, Paul describes himself as a “Ioudaios” — because he was from the tribe of Benjamin, an Israelite from the southern kingdom, but this doesn’t mean he’s related to Marty Feldman or Mark Zuckerberg — Ashkenazi Jews descendant of the Khazars who were completely unrelated to Paul’s bloodline.]
“Likewise, the Gospel writers clearly viewed their Savior as a Jew. Jesus is repeatedly called ‘rabbi’. He was circumcised (Luke 2:21) and celebrated Passover (John 2:13). The Gospel of Matthew opens with these words: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.” Even the non-gospel Hebrews remarks that “it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah” (7:14). Jesus regularly attended the local synagogue (Luke 4:16). He himself told the people that he came “to fulfill the [Jewish] law and the [Jewish] prophets” (Matt 5:17). And of course, everyone thought of him as “king of the Jews” (Matt 2:2; John 19:3).
It could hardly be clearer: Both by genetic heritage and according to his evident beliefs and practices, Jesus was a Jew. He was a biological Jew — surely embodying all those wonderful Jewish phenotypical characteristics — and he was a religious Jew.”
[CFT: Again, Dalton relies on his readers’ complete ignorance that the Israelites of the Gospels are not the same people who pass themselves off as “Jews” or “Hebrews” or “God’s Chosen People” today — and he uses the trigger term “biological Jew” so as to manipulate this readers into rejecting Jesus, Paul and the Gospel writers.
The term “biological Jew” comes from the title of a book by that same name by Eustace Mullins — but what Dalton doesn’t seem to know is that Eustace Mullins did not believe that today’s “Jews” were real Israelites — which he makes clear in his book The Curse Of Canaan — wherein he shows that today’s Jews are actually descendants of the ancient Canaanites, one of the eternal enemies of the ancient Israelites — yes, the Israelites who wrote the Gospels.
“The few Christians willing to engage with this issue and to defend a non-Jewish Jesus typically offer one of two responses. First, “Jesus was from Galilee, and Galilee was a Gentile stronghold.” But this is a persistent myth, propagated by those averse to the notion of a Jewish Jesus. Over 100 years ago, E.W. Masterson wrote of a “Jewish Galilee,” one that was “hemmed in on all sides by hostile [Gentile] neighbors”. More recently, we now have such works as The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (2002) by Mark Chancey, who acknowledges the stubborn idea but notes “how little data there is to support such a claim [of a Gentile Galilee].” Archeological evidence from Nazareth is scarce, but what we do have shows “evidence for Jewish inhabitants at several sites, [but] very little evidence for Gentiles.” Of the major, nearby town of Sepphoris, evidence of Gentiles is “extremely limited” during Jesus’ life; by contrast, says Chancey, there is “ample evidence” of Jews there at that time. In sum, while not denying that some Gentiles lived there, evidence for them is “practically invisible”; and as a confirmation, Chancey notes that Gentiles “are not prominent in literary discussions of Galilee either”.
[CFT: Here again, Dalton shows off his superficial understanding of the issues at hand. There were, in fact, Israelites from the ten northern tribes in Galilee — and because they were not practicing the faith of the Hebrews — and because they’d lost their identity as Israelites — they would have been grouped under the term “gentile”.
But this is irrelevant because Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah in Galilee — as were many of His disciples — so it didn’t matter where he was born per se — ethnicity is independent of geography — just as Paul was a Benjamite born in the largely “gentile” Tarsus — but he was still an Israelite.]
“Despite all this, some on the dissident-right, such as Internet bad-boy Andrew Anglin, who, despite his trenchant and humorous critiques of Jews, periodically displays his (apparently sincere) Christianity, occasionally railing against those who dare assert that Jesus was a Jew. Nick Fuentes dodges the question when put to him, saying “Jesus fulfills the law” and that the Jews “who remain” held on to “old sacrifices and old ways of doing things,” ultimately becoming “Talmudic Jews.” Obviously Jesus had no chance to become a Talmudic Jew, given that the Jerusalem Talmud was not written until the 300s (in Galilee!) and the Babylonian Talmud not until the year 500. Thus, despite the evidence, both men cling to their myth of a Gentile Jesus even as they (rightly) condemn Jewish domination and corruption in present-day society.”
[CFT: Dalton fails to mention why Andrew Anglin denies that Jesus was a “Jew” — and as far as we know, Anglin probably is aware — unlike Dalton — that today’s so-called “Jews” are not the same Israelite people of Roman-occupied Judea in the first century.
As far as Nick Fuentes goes, he’s a card-carrying Catholic, and Catholics are largely under the same misapprehension that Dalton is — that today’s “Jews” are legitimate Israelites. But Fuentes is correct that today’s Jews are descendants of those who wrote the Babylonian Talmud — and that Talmud did exist at the time of Christ but only in the “oral traditions” of the elders as practiced by the Christ-hating Pharisees — it just wasn’t written down until much later.]
“The second defense one occasionally sees is both contorted and confused: that the teachings of the Old Testament represent “true” religion and that the Hebrews deviated from this true path, degenerating into a rabbinical and ultimately Talmudic Judaism. But Jesus, they say, adhered to the true, original teachings, to the Law and the prophets — later to be called “Christianity” — thus putting him into conflict with the fallen and erroneous Jews. This essentially admits that Jesus was an ethnic Jew, but that, implicitly, it is irrelevant. Furthermore, it overlooks the fact that the Talmud, and later documents like the Shulchan Aruch, are elaborations on Old Testament teachings, not deviations from them. But the main point is that simply because Jesus (the Jew) had (alleged) conflicts with other elite Jews, this does not mean that he wasn’t an ethnic Jew, and it doesn’t mean that he adhered to any “true” religion distinct from Judaism.”
[CFT: This apparently is Dalton’s idea of a “gotcha” moment — but the reality is that the Pharisees did practice proto-Talmudism despite being Israelites — but since today’s Jews aren’t Israelites though they still practice Talmudism, all of this line of argument is irrelevant. Christ was from the Tribe of Judah — today’s Jews are not, and that’s not a crucial point that Dalton is willing to address.
And Dalton completely misrepresents the Shulchan Aruch — published in the 16th century — which is completely removed from the Old Testament — and its “elaborations” are in direct opposition to the Torah because its writers are heavily under the influence of rabbinical Talmudism.]
“The implications of this short exposé are devastating for Christians and Christianity. Given the total lack of corroborating evidence, we can say with certainty that the miracle-man Jesus did not exist; therefore, Christianity is a farce and the Gospels are at least half fiction. If they contain even a shred of truth, then Jesus was an ordinary Jew whose life mission was to validate Old Testament prophecies and “fulfill the Law,” thus saving his fellow Jews from the evil Romans. In this case, Christians need to admit that they are worshipping a long-dead ordinary Jew who has no ability whatsoever to “save their souls.” Finally, in the case that there was no Jesus character at all, then Paul and the Gospel Jews are flat-out liars and need to be viewed with total contempt.”
[CFT: If there is anything “devastating” about Dalton’s argument, it is devastating to his own cause — exposing just how ignorant and superficial his understanding is of Jewish identity — and who today’s Jews really are — and who they are not.
We highly doubt that Dalton’s essay would undermine the faith of any Christian — even misguided “judeo-Christians” who erroneously believe — just like Dalton does — that today’s Jews are the same people of the Bible.
And it is the ultimate irony that Dalton’s “contempt” for Christianity — and for Jesus Christ — is based on the false idea that Christ was the equivalent of a modern-day Jew — the exact same reason why judeo-Christians foolishly worship today’s Jews.
“Where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise.–Thomas Gray, Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College, 1742
“Any way we look at it, it’s bad news for Christians. Under any plausible scenario, they have been duped into believing in a long-dead Jewish rabbi and his fake sayings — all constructed, years after the fact, by a handful of Jews interested in undermining the hated Romans, and indeed all Gentiles.”
[CFT: Again, Dalton shows his ignorance of the Gospels here — the “Jews” who wanted to overthrow the Romans were the Pharisees — not Christ and His followers. It was the Pharisees who rejected Christ as the promised Messiah of Israel because He wasn’t an earthly king who would overthrow their oppressors. It was the (Talmudic) Pharisees who falsely accused Christ of insurrection — and goaded Pilate into having Christ put to death for these false charges.
The “conspiracy theory” that the “Jews” invented Christianity to overthrow Rome and subjugate the “gentiles” is preposterous — Christ said “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” — and the Pharisees hated Him for it because He refused to take their bait.
And after His crucifixion, these Pharisees and their Christ-rejecting followers found common cause with the Romans — and encouraged the Romans such as Nero to persecute and destroy Christians — because they were a threat to their control over the Israelite people. And today’s so-called “Jews” continue with that anti-Christ fervor — intent on wiping Christianity off the map — just as Dalton — who is truly one of their “useful idiots” — does as well.]
“But what would we do without Jesus?” cry the believers. How about this: Build your life and your worldview around basic, universal, and age-old ethical ideals; defend and protect the Earth, which sustains all life; defend human dignity against corrupters, liars, and deceivers; work toward a transparent, human-scale society; spend time with your children and grandchildren; and celebrate the accomplishments of human creativity and the human spirit without yielding to Judaic nonsense.”
[CFT: In other words, adopt a Christian worldview — and the values that have sustained European Christendom for the last 2,000 years.
The “judaic nonsense” is anything that undermines that worldview — and promotes the false idea that Jesus was a parasitical hook-nosed Khazarian Jew who promotes this nation-wrecking agenda. If anyone is promoting “judaic nonsense” it is Thomas Dalton — his “PhD” not withstanding.]