Jesus is everywhere

Any theological pronouncement is a possible source of long, tedious, tangled, didactic, pedantic, scrutinising debate. Aside from the fact that a god ought to get his story straight at the very least before he appears before us, he could also make sure it is easy to follow for our weaker minds.

Jesus, it appears, did not rate these qualities as being important for a religious figurehead. One might almost assume he, or those who wrote his mythologies, longed for mystery and enigma.

Biblical study, in its purest forms such as studying original texts is a laborious and specialised feat of mental athleticism. So the Inquisition has arranged through the text below a series of links to easily readable documents that challenge the accepted views of Jesus and ought to educate the rest of us mere simpletons.

No Primary Sources

Verified primary or contemporaneous sources or mentions of Jesus are few and far between.

Tacitus’ mention of Jesus may be faked, but nevermind because he was not writing during Jesus’ life, but instead long after. Josephus’ mention almost certainly was as evidenced in many ways – the Testimonium Flavianum.

Lots of documents about Jesus which pretend to being primary sources have later been shown as forgeries. But they continue to be quoted nonetheless. The Inquisition’s favourite is a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar – the very notion of a relatively minor colonial commander sending a report to Caesar about an individual is fantastic. This is without the fact that Jesus’ legacy was not realised until after his death. On reading the text, the true comedy shines through. Pontius Pilate must have been a rank amateur governor, doing business meetings while having a stroll; “When the Nazarene made His appearance I was having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with an iron hand”.

In any case the oldest verified christian texts date from at least 300 years after Jesus.

He didn’t look like we think

Of course we don’t. We don’t even know what race Jesus belonged to. That’s why there has been so much confusion on how to depict him. Most people’s image of Jesus was given to us by Warner Sallman. Jesus was probably a far more swarthy fellow – if he was as striking as later images suggest, then surely one gospel would mention this?

In fact we know very little about him

There is a vast area of religious study which attempts to discover the true nature of the earthly Jesus. For all that was written about him, very little, it seems, recorded him as a person. In fact many early texts are now considered apocryphal by the mainstream churches – they presumably didn’t like the messages conveyed and felt the statements (which are closest to being contemporaneous to Jesus’ own) needed sanitising.

Serious academic commentators now consider much of the gospels to be works of fiction, most notably perhaps Luke and Matthew’s nativities.

Jesus was probably not a carpenter.

He didn’t clearly say he was God.

Actually we know very little of what Jesus said. Jesus never clearly stated his divinity. No matter what later apologists claim, he simply did not, the matter of Jesus’ true nature was left unclear. That is the reason the Council of Nicea was convened.

He definitely had a brother

According to the King James Bible’s version of Galations Jesus had a brother and he was called James. Many interpreters will choose to see this as an oblique reference to fellow man like it was written in communist lingo or jive. Again, clear language would have been preferable in a revered text purporting to tell all of us, stupid and smart, how to live.

He wasn’t original

Few aspects of the stories about Jesus are unique to him. Obviously these are contentious claims to Chrsitians. There is a lot to be lost in this regard. For theists, it would be very hard to accept a godhead who is not unique. But there are many similarities between the figureheads of most major religions. For example nearly all have felt the need to be made flesh to promote their messages.

Zoroaster had already done lots of the things attributed to Jesus, although as many people wish to obviate these similarites as to prove them. Although any web search for Zoroaster and Jesus will yield legions of froth-mouthed christians vehemently denying any links, it is widely supposed the Bible’s three wise men were Zoroastrian kings.

Jesus and Buddha preached many similar doctrines, which is not surprising in two religions based on peace, acceptance and love.

Horus is regularly trotted out as a proto-Jesus. Horus was often represented in a cross shape and may have been crucified. But there are other contenders for the original cross.

He may not even have existed

It is entirely possible that Jesus didn’t exist.

No-one who knew him has written anything: A majority of biblical scholars‚ conservative and liberal alike‚ concur that the authors of the gospels did not know Jesus personally, but merely relayed stories about him. A majority of biblical scholars‚ conservative and liberal alike‚ concur that the authors of the gospels did not know Jesus personally, but merely relayed stories about him.

One oft-touted proof of Jesus’ existence is the concept of embarrassment. Scholars would have us believe that honour was so important in Judaea that his followers would never have lied about such things as crucifiction.

He had an amazing sixpack

Abdominally at least Jesus was a true god. Unfortunately for a church in Oklahoma, his musculature was not at all family-friendly.

He has become an abstract emblem of a mindset

He is used as a totem, a flag of animosity towards others.
The US military is rumoured to have inscribed biblical texts on some of its weapons.

Finally

Jesus was a zombie. Now he is just everywhere.

Original content created by: The Inquisition

The most famous Blemmy of all - The Dolph Lundgrenophagus, both terrifying and strangely alluring

The Blemmys, or Blemmyae, were a genuine historical Nubian tribe, who may gradually have become demonised and fictionalised. Successive writers metaphorically removed their heads and shifted their faces to their chests, until they became fantastic headless humanoids, most often seen in medieval bestiaries and fantasies.

Blemmyae brought to the global stage

Blemmyae found resurgent fame in early English colonialism. Sir Walter Raleigh flounced back to civilisation from his travels among the uncouth and savage Amazonian residents describing them to his peers as having “their eyes in their shoulders, and their mouths in the middle of their breasts”.

We would assume that anyone hearing those reports must have questioned their veracity, as they would have been familiar with these traditionally fictitious and quasi-human forms. Today’s equivalent would be astronauts returning from Mars reporting a series of uber-mensch wearing tight shiny clothing with red capes and their underpants on the outside. Why not throw in the facts that they carry a mortal fear of green crystal and they all go around sporting heavily greased quiffs? We simply would not believe it.

A Blemmy featured in The Nuremburg Chronicle

Nonetheless, William Shakespeare lapped up this stuff, and cogged it in Othello, and thereby muddied the mythological waters:
“And of the Canniabals that each other eat,
The Anthropophagi, and men whose heads
Do grow beneath their shoulders.”

Unsurprisingly, Shakepeare’s writing confused many at the time, and since. The mythic cannibalistic race, the Anthropophagi have consistently been confused with, and as a result interchangeable with Blemmyae; ie they have eaten people and had their heads submerged into their chests.

At least there is some consensus – Shakespeare is indeed inexact and confusing, and not just for students.

The Anthropophagi were earlier referred to by Herodotus and he did so in an equally interchangeable manner with the Blemmyae. The former were reported to be cannibals who wore their victims’ scalps bound to their chests. This may have been the genesis for the idea of beings with heads on their chests.

Approximately 500 years later in 75CE, Pliny cleared the air in his Naturalis Historiae, if inventing mythical beasts can be said to be clearing up anything, “It is said that the Blemmyae have no heads and that their mouth and eyes are put in their chests.”

So Walter Raleigh’s claims of headless humanoids, to be fair to him, did not come from nowhere. There was a certain traceable lineage of Blemmyae appearing in literature, particularly travellers’ tales and natural histories.

Most recently Umberto Eco had a fantastic image of a Blemmy in his book, Baudolino, “Then Baudolino offered him a large piece of cheese. The blemmy put it to his mouth, which suddenly became the same size as the cheese, which vanished into that hole.”

Bibliography
Baudolino
Naturalis Historiae by Pliny
Blemmyes – the factual, historical, bona fide tribe
Blemmyes – the factual, historical, bona fide mythical creatures
Baudolino, Umberto Eco, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002
Anthropophagi
The Travels of Sir John Mandeville fantstic tales of a fictional traveller
The City of Z, David Grann, Simon & Schuster, 2009

Original content created by: The Inquisition