Thursday, April 02, 2015

The religion of Saul of Tarsus

I read with much interest RPK's Islam is politics over at his blog Malaysia-Today.

I hope my reading of what he's telling us is correct, that both Christianity (as different from Judaism) and Islam started as political movements, to change the then respective existing religio-socio-political systems.

Mind you, even the concept of a Christianity, a religion as we know of it today, and its denomination or name (Christianity) did not exist then; it was at that time essentially an attempted overhaul of a hierarchical religio-socio-political system of Judaism, one mandated and thus controlled by the antiquated Judaic authorities of that time.

Both the respective leading proponents of the religio-socio-political overhaul at their respective time in history, Yehoshua ben Yosef and Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim (Muhammad), were obviously not popular with the respective ruling authorities for their political movements, to say the least.

The former was deemed a rebel and executed by crucifixion whilst the latter went on to become the last prophet of god and its latest version of the Abrahamic religion, one we know today as Islam.

I personally see the Judaism of that time as somewhat akin to a quasi Hindu caste system of Sanhendrin (Brahmins), the royalty like Herod and their generals (Kshatriya) and the Judean hoi polloi (Vaishyas and Shudras), though the Judean class stratification wasn't as oppressive as the Hindu varna system.

Why is the Hindu varna system considered oppressive? Read my post Cast not thy untouchable shadow on doctors - and some Hindus dare to claim that the varna is just a grouping of complementary occupations in Hindu societies? My bloody balls!

Rig Veda III.34.9 - He gained possession of the Sun and Horses, Indra obtained the Cow who feedeth many. Treasure of gold he won; he smote the Dasyus [dark skinned people], and gave protection to the Aryan color;

Rig Veda IX.73.5 - Blowing away with supernatural might from earth and from the heavens the swarthy skin which Indra hates.

Anyway, in Yehoshua ben Yosef's political movement (as RPK termed it), the Judean rabbi must have wanted to change the stagnancy, corruption and class-consciousness of the Judaic religion, but as we all know, he failed. It was his disciple Paul who succeeded, but in a new form of religion called Christianity, though Paul himself did NOT call it Christianity.

The believers in the preaching of Yehoshua ben Yosef was of him as the god-promised messiah that Judeans had been waiting for a thousand years. They called themselves 'assembly' (Greek word ecclesia) and were all Jews.

That's right, their belief in Yehoshua ben Yosef was of him as the promised messiah from the tribe of Judah rather than the son of god, though as we now realize, everything that the Israelite-Judean god promised, prophesied or proclaimed (eg. the Israelites were the Chosen People) was written by ... hello there, wakakaka ... the tribe of Judah, so what do you expect, more so after having listened to UMNO-PERKASA-ISMA versions of their ketuanan Chosen-ness for decades, wakakaka!

Mind, some people especially the American Christian Right and I suspect also the Malaysian Christian Right (Chinese and Indians) still believe in every word of the bible.

Okay, the paragraphs RPK has written which caught my attention were:

Both Muhammad and Jesus propagated war, war against the system. In fact, the Jews had been at war with the Romans for quite some time. But Jesus was not only at war with the Romans. He was at war with those who collaborated with the Romans as well, the lackey of the Romans in the Jewish hierarchy.

Paul, of course, disagreed with this. He was a Roman citizen so he felt that the church must work with the Romans. Others such as Peter, Paul [hello, was there another Paul? maybe just a typo!], etc., disagreed. So there was a falling out between Paul and those from the original Jesus movement. Paul then moved to Rome to continue his compromising brand of Christianity, in opposition to Peter, who was also in Rome, who preached his more firebrand form of Christianity.

My take, wakakaka - ironically or as poetic justice would have it, Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin, a tribe massacred/eliminated to near-genocidal levels by King David and his tribe of Judah. The sorry saga of fratricidal near-genocide occurred after David, the treacherous son-in-law of King Saul, murdered his father-in-law, his male lover Ishbosheth (Jonathan, son of Saul) and the entire Saulide family, whence he then maliciously turned on the tribe of Benjamin.

David was certainly even more treacherous than his eponymous ancestor, Israel a.k.a Jacob, who avariciously cheated both his father Isaac and twin elder brother Esau.

Yes as mentioned, David was responsible for the murder of his patron and father-in-law King Saul who loved and doted on him, and even went to the extent of f**king Saul's son Ishbosheth (Jonathan) just to get to the throne. David and Ishbosheth were lovers, although David also married Michal, Saul's daughter and Ishbosheth's sister.

Samuel 18:1-4 (KJV) tells us: And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. ... Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

David and Jonathan

Though both his lover Ishbosheth and his wife Michal helped the treacherous bloke all the time, he nonetheless had both of them murdered eventually as he did to their father King Saul and their entire family.

The evil that David did to the Saulide Dynasty was so horrendous that up to today, many biblical scholars, both Jews and Christians, are still writing about his heinous Machiavellian malevolent murderous treachery. His undeserved biblical status was what one author termed as an 'invented hero'.

For more on the evil of David, read:

(i) Gary Greenberg's The sins of King David which informs us: David arranged the murder of Saul, the popular first king of Israel; had Saul's seven sons hanged; did not slay Goliath; and had an affair with Bathsheba, impregnated her, and arranged the murder of her husband. Finally, David allied himself with the Philistines, the enemies of Israel. In sum, he was deceitful, corrupt, a tyrant and a murderer.

(ii) Cephas T. A. Tushima's The Fate of Saul's Progeny in the Reign of David which informs us that: Contrary to the traditionally readers' views of Saul as evil and David as heroic, David was unjust and calculating in his dealings with the Saulides and, like other Near Eastern usurpers, perpetrated heinous injustices against the vanquished house of Saul.

(iii) Joel Baden's The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero which informs us: The Historical David exposes an ambitious, ruthless, flesh-and-blood man who achieved power by any means necessary, including murder, theft, bribery, sex, deceit, and treason. As Baden makes clear, the historical David stands in opposition not only to the virtuous and heroic legends, but to our very own self-definition as David’s national and religious descendants.

... and many more books on the bible's 'invented' hero.

Though, based on secular logic and justice, I'm not one to believe in the biblical nonsense about the sins of the father being visited upon the children, the Judeans believed in that as per:

Exodus 34:7 (KJV) - Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.


Deuteronomy 5:9 (KJV) - Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

... thus it's only fitting (poetic justice) that a Benjaminite, whose tribe suffered horrendous injustice from David and his tribe of Judah, started the religion of Christianity whose followers would come to punish and persecute the Judeans (almost all from David's tribe of Judah) for nearly two thousand years.

And make a guess what was Paul's original name and who he was named after?

Yes, while Paulus (Paul) was his Latin name as he was a citizen of Rome, Saul was his Hebraic name as per the first king of the Israelites, King Saul, the man murdered by his protege and son-in-law David.

The bible informs us that prior to his 'road to Damascus', Saul of Tarsus (Paul) was giving hell to those Judean followers of Yehoshua. I wonder whether he was then harbouring a 1000-year old Benjaminite grudge against the tribe of Judah, wakakaka.

But unlike Peter, the so-called 1st Apostle who by his behaviour and attitude would be considered a Judean racist, or the other 11 apostles, Paul was what we would called a far-thinking inclusive humanist-socialist who was above petty provincial parochial mentality, and who wanted to spread the teachings of Yehoshua ben Yosef beyond the bounds of ethnic Judeans and that strip of land called Judea, and to allow gentiles (non-Jews) to join the 'assembly' (ecclesia).

And the gentiles would NOT be required to follow the rites, rituals and laws of the Judean religion. In allowing gentiles into the religion, Paul pissed off many Jews who became extremely hostile to his inclusive non-racial approach and teachings. Hello there, suddenly I'm thinking of Dato' Onn Ja'afar!

Thus it can be said that if there is one man who did more for Christianity than any other man, it was the Apostle Paul, who incidentally was NOT a member of the original 12 apostles.

Paul's influence and efforts were so great that he was referred to by Christian theologians as the joint founder of Christianity. The term 'joint founder' was a respectful concession to you-know-who, wakakaka. In reality Paul was THE founder of Christianity because Yehoshua ben Yosef did NOT claim to have found a new religion different from Judaism.

As mentioned, Paul contributed to the popularity of Christianity by being inclusive and available to gentiles (like looes74, wakakaka) on an equal basis.

At one stage Paul rebuked the apostle Peter for not ‘breaking bread’ together with the new (gentile) converts, who were then considered by the original disciples of Jesus as ‘unclean’ and more or less ‘second class’ adherents - oh my god (excuse the pun), shades (excuse my 2nd pun) of caste-conscious 'untouchables'?

Galatians 2:11-14 informs us:

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Thus, even in those days, despite being whacked kau kau by the Babylonians, Assyrians, etc and then freed by the Persians and subsequently whacked again by the Macedonians and Romans, the Judeans were unrepentantly racists as some of today's Israelis are.

Secondly, Paul turned the indignity and shame of the crucifixion of Christ into a saga of incredible sacrifice by the 'Son of God' so that the ‘people could be saved’.

In essence, by promoting the concept of Jesus' earthly 'sacrifice' to save the believers, he salvaged the day for the church, for otherwise it would have been ridiculous for the so-called Son of God to die ignominiously like a common criminal, totally ignored by his Heavenly Father.

Yehoshua ben Yosef was ignored, wasn't he? One would have expected thunder, lightning, fire and brimstone raining from heaven at that moment when he was at Golgotha.

if Lot and his family (except for his wife) could be saved,
why not Yehoshua ben Yosef?

But Paul, not unlike the post-WWII British who turned the rout and resounding defeat of British troops at Dunkirk into a magnificent 'victory', turned the shameful crucifixion of Yehoshua ben Yosef into the central pillar of Christianity, that of a divine saviour sacrificing himself for the salvation of mankind.

Now, it has been acclaimed that the most significant factor Paul instituted that led to the spread of Christianity was the abandonment of the requirement for circumcision.

Recall what I have written earlier, that Paul decided that the gentiles (non-Jews) who joined the religion would not be required to follow the rites, rituals and laws of the Judean religion.

For Judeans who kept faith with God, circumcision was mandatory, as the act was a symbol of their covenant with God as per 
Genesis 17:9-11.

9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Indeed the (OT) biblical instructions have specific details as to who must be circumcised.

Because of this, those originally converted to the teachings of Yehoshua ben Yosef had to be circumcised because the religion, despite being 'adjusted and amended' by Yehoshua, was still Judaism.

And Judaism followed many practices of the ancient Egyptians including circumcision, non pork taking (see my post Why Orthodox Jews Don’t Eat Pork!) family inheritance and lineage through a matriarchal line, etc. 

Gulp, I don't like the look of what appears to be a pair of pliers (on right)
Hey, what's that tool on the left?

As I had mentioned in my post Why 'God' loved Isaac more than Ishmael:

... that circumcision was then an Egyptian practice. The Egyptians were probably the first people to conduct circumcision, but then only among the royals and nobility.

Please note that when we refer to the biblical Egyptians we’re NOT talking about today’s Egyptian who are and have been mainly Arabs, and of course mainly Muslims since Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) introduced Islam to the Middle-Eastern world.

The biblical Egyptians were a different race, no, not even the people of Ptolemy’s and Cleopatra’s who came later and were mainly Macedonians and Greeks, remnants of Alexander’s army. The original Egyptians were a race of a much earlier era, and have since long gone; no one other than perhaps historians of ancient Egypt or Egyptologists know where they are now - perhaps in Padang and Negeri Sembilan? Wakakaka.

But Paul did away with the foreskin snipping, believing that the circumcision wasn't necessary for salvation.

Paul revolutionized (threw away) many Jewish traditional practices making it convenient for gentiles wishing to follow his teachings. I wonder again whether his 1000-year old Benjaminite grudge was then in action, executing his tribe's long-overdue payback against the tribe of Judah, wakakaka.

In the Book of Joshua*, Chapter 5, it was shown that circumcision was indeed not an original Hebraic religious tradition. As mentioned above, it was an Egyptian practice.

* by the by, the English name 'Joshua' is exactly the same as the Judean name 'Yehoshua', so you could say there were at least two 'Jesus' in the bible, one in the OT and one in the NT. They appear to us as if they were different names because of the 'cleverness' or deceitfulness' or 'act dunno' of the biblical authors, who must have wanted to keep the name 'Jesus' exclusive to one person. 

The bible tells us that after Joshua carried out his god's instruction to circumcise those who were born after leaving Egypt and were thus still uncircumcised, their god said (Joshua 5:9):

And the LORD said unto Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Wherefore the name of the place is called Gilgal unto this day.

Modern biblical scholars take that to mean, with the circumcision the Israelites were no longer in disgrace in the eyes of the Egyptians who previously viewed them with contempt because of their uncircumcised state.

Okay, a kaytee's question for you, wakakaka: Why the f**k would the Israelites or their god bother about the reproach of Egypt, one where the Egyptians looked down upon the Israelites with contempt because of the latter's uncircumcised state?

Weren't those Egyptians their mortal enemies, whose innocent first born were all massacred by the Israelite god? Shouldn't the Israelites and their god be happy not to follow the Egyptian customs and rites?

And just to help you along with your thinking as to why, wakakaka, I am going to reproduce below part of what I wrote in Why 'God' loved Isaac more than Ishmael:

On Egypt as a perennial sanctuary for the Israelites-Judeans, it may worthwhile venturing across into the New Testament to recall Matthew 2:13 which advised Yosef (Yehoshua’s dad, you know, Joshua or with the Greek name of Jesus) in a dream, of Herod’s murderous hunt for the newborn messiah:

Arise, He said, take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt and stay there until I bring the word ………

Flee to and take refuge in Egypt? Wait a ding dong minute, wasn't Egypt the land of the Israelite-Judean's mortal enemies?

Mind, daddy Yosef and mummy Mariam were not the only Israelites or Judeans who sought sanctuary in Egypt.

When the Israelites were threatened by the advancing Babylonians, their so-called prophet Jeremiah threatened them against running to Egypt for refuge, by relaying their god’s message (Jer 42:18):

“As my anger and wrath have been poured out on those who lived in Jerusalem, so will my wrath be poured out on you when you go to Egypt”.

But the Israelites wisely (wakakaka) ignored him and scooted off to seek sanctuary in Egypt, allegedly the land of their mortal enemies.

Guess who went with them? Wakakaka, Jeremiah of course, despite and in spite of his god's dire warning of divine wrath being poured on those who disobeyed (Jer 43:4-6). I suppose he only went with them in order to be able to rail against them (with god's messages) just in case they picked up Egyptian worship (Jer 44), wakakaka.

And most surprising of all, in Deuteronomy, under 23: Exclusion From the Assembly, the Israelite god warned the Israelites not to allow the neighbouring nationalities to enter the assembly of the Lord, even unto the tenth generation, except for the Edomites and the Egyptians.

The Edomites were of course also Hebrews, ‘cousins’ to the ketuanan Israelite people, as they were descendants of Esau, the firstborn of Isaac, who lost his birthrights to Jacob through trickery and deceit.

In fact, Deuteronomy 23:7-8 read:

You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land; the children of the third generation born to them may enter the congregation of the Lord.

The Edomites I can understand, but why this special treatment for their so-called mortal enemies, the Egyptians, those oppressors who supposedly kept the Hebrews in bondage for 430 years, and required a series of terrifying divine-sent plagues to intimidate the Pharaoh before he released them from slavery.

Indeed why?

I am afraid that again, I’m going to leave all the above for you to find out, wakakaka. Call me a bloody tease if you like, wakakaka.

Indeed, wakakaka!


  1. I wouldn't care two figs about the o
    issue. ....... wakakakaka. ......

  2. The Chinese also believe they are the Chosen people , right ?
    Zhongguo literally means Middle Country, but the mentality behind it is that they are the Centre of the World.

    Only they haven't made a religion out of it.....

    1. you could be right, though in those ancient days, what with China isolated on the East and South by seas and oceans, on the North by the Arctic and the West by near impassable mountains and deserts, it could make them feel as if China must be the centre of the (known) world, one surrounded by seas, mountains, deserts and the icy north.

      Their difference from the Israelites is as you mentioned, they didn't go around claiming they were "chosen" (wakakaka) by their god or gods - and commonsense tells us why would a creator god choose only one race out of so many thousands to be his pet subjects, bearing in mind of course that "god" spoke only through his so-called priesthood caste, who we must listen or suffer divine wrath, wakakaka

    2. Rightly so.

      & the BIG question is WHY they didnt/dont propagate their 'centralist' belief outside their keep.

      After all, during THAT time in history, they r, indeed, the cultural centre of the mothership earth.

      U might want to bring in the Egyptian, The Incas etc. But the BIG question, again, is where r these old civilizations NOW.

      So, what's yr point?????

    3. My point? Hello there. Was it me who raise the issue of "centre of the world"?

      This post is about Paul or Saul of Tarsus

    4. why so jumpy & impulsive in defending yr takes?

      I'm not talking about U - in this posting! It's directed to anon943.

    5. The Chinese are the Jews of Malaysia.
      Equally objectionable

    6. Though I might have a faint idea of what you mean, it's better for you to explain why you reckon Chinese Malaysians are the Jews of Malaysia.

      We need to note that "Jew" unlike Chinese is NOT just an ethnic description but in the main a total religious-cultural-ethnic entity, whereas the Chinese in general would be a cultural-ethnic personality (with unknown or varied religious affiliation) and the Chinese Malaysian in general would be only an ethnic one, some having been culturalized locally (baba-nyonya) while others still retain original Chinese culture, with many probably having mixed (Malaysian) culture (rojak Cina)

    7. huannas of malaya & borneo are all bumiputeras but only a few of them are umnoputeras aka brahmins or the chosen people. some of the non-huannas belong to the club. so, i don't find it strange when lim sr wanted to be admitted into the club as well or else susah cari makan nak hidup.

      as for the untouchable, in the malaysia's context, it can be modified to read as useful/less depending on the seasons i.e. pre & post-elections.

      one question kt, how come the peranakan community is not recognized or given the bumiputera status since they were already in malaya long before the benggali puteh? cakap melayu, ikut adat melayu to a certain extent, only bukan islam. most importantly, they came in peace.

    8. Why peranakan community is not elegible to be bumi:
      Maybe the following should shed some light on who is eligible to be Malay or bumi:

      1) Najib's UMNO 2010 AGM speech, see paragraph 31.

      As reported by Helen Ang:
      copy here:

      2) Amanah Saham website on eligibility of Bumi schemes:
      click on the "ELIGIBILITY TO INVEST" link

  3. KT,

    One question – where do the Modern biblical scholars source their researches, besides Torah, OT, NT & the non-canonical scriptures etc?

    Any alternative sources that r outside this god-forsaken region, & the realm of this belief?

    Something liken to the Macro Polo penned his China visit (different region & thinking). Or Admiral ZengHe mentioned about the sociopolitical scenes of the places he’d visited.

    Or what other same temporal religious doctrines talked/mentioned about this hierarchical religio-socio-political system of Abrahamic faiths! Like Toaism talking about Hinduism in contemporary sense.

    Otherwise, what u have been writing, & in fact, all those books/thesis about the Abrahamic faiths, CAN be considered as BULL, since they r all involved in a historical incestuous cross-referencing.

    They r ALL family in-fighting folk-lores, that have the believers blindly follow to their doom!

    & that’s NOT rigorous scholastic works!

    1. there are all sorts of biblical parchments discovered earlier of recently, such as the Judas scroll which paints a totally different light on Judas Iscariot, who was NOT the arch traitor or betrayer the Church has painted him but rather Yehoshua ben Yosef's best disciple. Even the available bibles undergoing a modern enlightened rigorous reexamination have shed new light on what happened, such as the nasty character of King David.

      History would include records of family in-fighting

    2. what kind of answer is that?

      did u learn it from ahjibgor?

      after all the cockaroos, u r still talking about family flouts with incestuous cross-referencing!

      admit it, there r no, zilch, outside source referencing u can used to verify all these Abrahamic thrash!

    3. what "outside source referencing" do you have in mind, and please define "outside source"?

      incidentally about ahjibgor (since you brought him up), his brothers' recent disagreement with him about their father's wealth would one day be historically records of family in-fighting, wakakaka

    4. "outside source referencing"?

      see - 'Something liken to the Macro Polo penned his China visit (different region & thinking). Or Admiral ZengHe mentioned about the sociopolitical scenes of the places he’d visited.

      Or what other same temporal religious doctrines talked/mentioned about this hierarchical religio-socio-political system of Abrahamic faiths! Like Toaism talking about Hinduism in contemporary sense.'

      a case of poor reading skill, as defined by yr sifu?

      about the ahjibgor's 'historically records of family in-fighting', let me postulate another possibility.

      if the siblings keep quiet, then it implies ahjibgor's earlier family heirloom was true.

      Thus, raise the question of how & where this family heirloom came about! No good for the razak family - it was a can of worm as many umno elites knew that many of the umno's collected assets, which was parked under razak's nominee, suddenly disappear when he died. Food for thought...ehhh?

      Moreover, it also called into effect about the ability of the siblings, vis-a-vis razak's influence as in the case of ahjibgor getting a fast-track in political ascendency when razak died. It could be said that among the siblings, only one has earned his keep while the others r all getting ahead with wish-washy means.

      To prove what they have accumulated was/is through their own 'ability', surely a public denial in such a circumstances is unquestionably required. Otherwise, they r all rats on the same sinking ship. Yes?

      keep this in mind for yr future wakakaking blog writing. u need it!!!

    5. biblical scholars use a variety of ancient records, contemporary of those eras or as contemporary as they could be at that time in the biblical stories, to verify the biblical accounts, like Egyptian hieroglyphic records, letters from kings of that region in correspondence with each other, trade documents, Babylonian & Assyrian & Persian records, and most reliable Roman records & Greek records, archaeological findings, inscription on monuments, steles, pottery, etc.

      There is no known such record of massacre of babies as depicted in the Book of Exodus when the Israelites claimed their god killed all Egyptian first born, or when King Herod supposedly ordered the execution of all Judean babies aged 2 and below in and around Bethlehem in order to kill Yehoshua ben Yosef.

      Scholars believe the latter was a fabrication to enable the "fulfillment" of Jeremiah's prophesy, No other source other than the gospel by Matthews made this claim of massacre by Herod.

      Much as the bible (especially the OT) contains a lot of "creative" renditions, and fabricated justifications, mitigation and falsifications to protect the prophets, kings (especially David) and in general the House of Judah, it's necessary to examine such narrations as many biblical scholars in the west have done and are still doing, to separate the truth from bullshit.

      As for ahjibgor's disagreement with hsi brothers on their father's wealth, this post is not about that so I won't discuss it here. I only raised it as an example of what you dismissed so easily as "family in-fighting".

      Finally, I am not sure why you're so agitated about such investigations and my post bringing to light some of those findings, though I admit the Benjaminite link to Paul has been my very own, wakakaka.

    6. I'm in NO way agitated by yr writing in whatsoever way!

      I just want to point out, once again, that a lot of the so called judaic/biblical/islamic researches were/are products of incestuous cross-referencing, ie all in the family.

      Suck kind of researches, at best, can ONLY be termed as syok-sendiri ego trip, simply bcoz nothing could be conclusively verified!

      Something like what u, yrself, have admitted as in the case of the Benjaminite link to Paul!

      Creative writing at best - thus the conclusion drawn is also at best, creative imagination, short of reputed outside 3rd party confirmation.

    7. that Paul was Benjaminite is undeniable as the various gospels say so, but that he might have membalas dendam (taken revenge) against the tribe of Judah is of course my cheeky suggestion and which I qualified in my post - besides, my post is not an academic biblical research paper, wakakaka

  4. history (script) is being repeated over & over again. only diff are the actors, enablers, time & situation. why can't we have different script writers & directors? it seems that we have one & only playwright which we have no choice but to live with it.

  5. In my student days I had an 8-track cartridge music player (anyone old enough to know what that is ?)
    It played in an endless loop until you turned it off. The same set of songs over and over again, non-stop.

    History often feels like that.

    1. ever changed cartridge? wakakaka

    2. Ai yah....being a poor student, I only had a limited supply of those cartridges. So often I just kept the music playing on and on....wakakakakkaka

    3. aiseh. "limited" supply means you could change mah, wakakaka

    4. Yeah, the 8 tracks were actually 4 'sides' x 2 stereo channels (L/R). You press a button to move the head to select the side you want. I think cartridge machines are useful for continuous music requiring less attention, like car stereo.

      Looking at the internal workings of the device I used to marvel at the way the spool winds in at one end and the other end slips out at the centre to make the continuous loop.

      It is one of the earliest recording media to go extinct, followed by Betamax/VHS tape , cassette tape, 5-1/4 inch floppy disk, 3-1/2 inch floppy disk, 35mm camera film....

  6. There are few or no non-Biblical records of the Jews in ancient antiquity either in Palestine or Egypt.
    That is because they were really a very minor and marginal tribe, in addition to the account of many events in the Bible being heavily self-inflated by the Jewish tribe.

    It is a serendipitous accident of history that minor tribe gave rise to Yeshua bin Yussof, whose cult eventually became the religion of the Roman Empire, which became the religion of almost all of Europe, which together with White North America, came to dominate the world politically, economically, and technologically, in the process exporting their religion as well.

    Interesting, the way history winds its way around.... I mean can you imagine the strange comedy of us, probably a bunch of Chinamen, Indians and Malays and maybe Dayak or Kadazan , arguing about the Jewish and Christian religion in the language evolved of the Anglo-Saxon tribe originally of North Germany.

    1. your first sentence is very very near the TRUTH - read my two posts (this one and on why "God" loves Isaac more than Ishmael) again to discover the real TRUTH, wakakaka - I left clues all over

  7. Chineses have god meh?
    Chineses believe in hereafter? Heaven, hell and limbo concept?
    The terracotta warriors is the closest idea for Chinese's when it comes to the after death concept?
    After you die, you will turn into terracota.That guy could have made the warriors from iron, gold, aluminum or other material.

    1. sometimes it's best not to open your mouth (or write your thoughts/beliefs down in black & white) wakakaka because it shows how much you know, wakakaka again

  8. As an atheist, I often find that the promoters of both Christianity and Islam have the hallmarks of snake-oil salesmen

  9. Chinese basically worship money.
    All else is peripheral.

    Even the ancestral worship rituals are focussed around ensuring continued prosperity for the living.

    1. CBMF,

      u should be more specific!

      Can I say all melayus r equally moneyed, since the greediness of the umno elites know NO bound?

      Do u honestly believe these scumbag elites fight for the melayus out of AlifBaTa? In yr wildest 72-virgin dream maybe!

      WRT rituals, of all sorts, what r u paying to Allah for? The deads? Or the continued prosperity for the living?

      U r surely one hell of the hypocrite! Tak da cermin dekat rumah ke?

    2. People pray/praise because they don't want anything from god(s) ?


  10. its not PKR doing the shit-stirring on Altantuya, but Mahathir.

    1. notice how quiet that kaytee is

      Perhaps, Kaytee is yearning for Rosmah bobbies

    2. looes is really a low class cibai

  11. Kaytee,
    While penang was burning.......hahahaha, you wanna talk about god........hahahahaha

    You must be damn happy when Jibby win bigs, Rosmah would give you a face massage with her bobbies

    1. you're not even a Penang lang and you (hypocritically) want to worry about Penang - balik Sing lah, and incidentally your vulgarity has grossly and sadly gone through the roof - are Methodists all like you?? wakakaka

    2. My dad was born in sungai bakap. When I was very young, we used to go to penang on almost weekly basis especially my dad studied in USM. You know where the fuck USM is.

      Ayer Itam.......Yormarder la........I knew one penang laksa man who sent his daughters to Yingerand for further studies. Hahahaha!

      Nong nong time ago one of my dad lecturer (USM) had his sculpture placed in one of roundabout in Penang Island. Hahahaha! I used to run around in his house.......somewhere in penang island

      Me not penangite enough........Hahahahaha! Fuck you la!

    3. looes

      Any idea what's conveyed through the sculpture ?


    4. aiyoh, like that only cibai looes want to claim kamcheng with Penang, Podah wakakaka


    Islam is a religion where it is OK to Kill to defend Islam.

  13. Recently celebrated Cheng Beng. It's prayers for the dead and offering food and whatnot. It's a Part of Taoists religion.

    I wonder about those whose ancestors are non-Taoists eg Moslems, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jews, communists etc.

    During these period, do their ancestors steal the food and offerings of the Taoists ancestors?

    Furthermore, in Taoism, only the Gods reside in heaven wherelse human beings all landed up residing in Hell after they are dead.

    So, maybe someone creative long long ago promised their tribes a better deal by saying they can go to heaven if you are a believer in this so so religion which gives a better deal.

    All because they and everyone knows, nobody ever came back from being dead and can tell about Heaven and Hell.

    I wonder those

    1. actually ancestral worship is not part of Taoism but Confucianism. Some years back,the Catholic Church approves ancestral worship by its Chinese followers, after realizing that the Confucian tradition among Chinese in the general case is far too strong to overcome by mere faith in a foreign god.

      The ancestral worship of Confucianism is more related to showing filial piety, a quality stressed by the doctrine so that society can be in harmony, when son respects father, juniors respect ekders, students respect tecahersm and subjects respect the emperor

      Heaven, god (or gods), Hell, etc would be from Chinese folk religions, Christainity and Islam rather than Taoism, Confucianism or Buddhism

    2. My personal experienc of this Believers/ Infidels and Heaven / Hell thingy.
      I have Muslim nephews and nieces as my sister married a Muslim. She has remained close to our family and the kids love their grandparents.
      One day the boy came back from school crying because his Agama teacher had told him all non-believers will go to Hell and suffer eternal damnation.

      He knows his grandparents are Buddhists , so the kid was very distraught.

      I really wonder what poison the Education system is teaching Muslim pupils in school.

    3. Thanks Benji, I'll be blogging on this sad aspect soon - as a general case

  14. It is virtually impossible to draw a clear-cut line between Taoism and Confucianism .The two are intertwined over 2,500 years of syncretion.

    Confucious made no religious judgements or teachings.. So any prayers and religious rituals which Chinese engage in are strictly speaking, not Confucianism. He did teach the importance of respecting ones elders, either in the family or in Society.
    So worshiping one's ancestors is a kind of extension of Confucianist ideals into the spiritual realm. But we have to be clear, they are not the teachings of Confucious, per se.