Free Thought 1912/1

Text in Hungarian to translate into English

The unborn Jesus

The unborn Jesus. . . I hear two busy bands speaking in the wake of this sentence. He begins with the gentle ringing of Christmas bells and tells the story of the birth of one and the child Jesus, the manger and the three kings, but then he continues to scream priestly curses and end up in a big drum puff of curse against the godless weeds. His other instruments are the roar of sympathetic laughter that mocks naive belief in God, the great voice of arrogant contempt that revels in the god of miracles and sends his friendly greetings to the brave god-denier. But all the strings and winds of this concert understand equally: it is about the unborn Jesus, so he denies the deity of Christ.

The goddesses see a god, a god who has become a man in Christ, the anti-gods see a man, a man exalted as a god in Jesus on the wing of faith. But they both see that the story of the unborn Jesus can only be about the denial of the born Christ. They think I deny the deity of Christ, even though I deny the humanity of Jesus. Christ, the god: reality. Jesus, the man: fiction. Christ, the reality of God, is a reality living in the faith of millions of millennia. Jesus, man is only a creature of modern “liberal” theology. Christ, the god in human history, in the past of the human worldview, is a great flower of thought, a seedling of emotion, sprouted from the rocks of real reality, hard economic life, harsh class struggles.

Today, however, Christ, the god, is also dead and the news of his death is spreading dizzyingly fast all over the world. It wasn't the sound of the forest rumbling like the death of the great Pan for Kadmos, but the horn of the factories, the siren of ocean steamers, the rustle of electric turbines. Christ, the god, has suffered from doubt, at the cross of the sciences, Jesus, the homunculus, is now being born in the flask of liberal theologians.

Ever since the earth entered the planetary ranks of the sun and man has joined one of the chapters of zoology, it cannot be proclaimed that the earth was occupied by three hours of dense darkness at the death of Christ and no longer believe that gods can be born from heaven and the dead will be resurrected. . So theologians are now distilling Christ into Jesus, making God human. They exterminate all tangible lies and unlikely things from the Gospels, decipher the naive miracles from them, and construct a “historical” Jesus whose word is not paralyzed, the blind do not see, but who preaches a wise and profound philosophy, who founded religion and martyrdom faith. This is how the image of the gentle rabbin, the defiant proletarian, or the superior Übermensch is formed in their writings. They cannot save the great god, so they create the great man. The Jesus of Renan and Harnack is not the Christ of the Gospels, for the fine French skeptic and the neck-sober, sober German could not believe in the birth and fabulous youth of the divine child, conceived by a virgin, and through Joseph from the royal house of David to Jerusalem at the same time. irrational impossibilities of his intrusion. So not as a miracle, but with the great suggestive power of his person, they explain the enormous effect and world-success success of his agitation. And they do not realize that this idea that Jesus, the young rabbi alone, created Christianity, the world domination of Catholicism, is more miraculous than all the miracles of the gospel combined.

Yet before and after this turn of theology, theology-free historiography worked from Bruno Banner and David Strauss to present-day Kalthoff and Pfliderer and wreaked terrible destruction in the writings of early Christianity. There was no stone left in the life of Jesus. It has become certain that there are hardly any of the early Christian writings that the person whose name is concerned has written, that they are much later than their date, that they are formatted by additions and reworkings, and that those gospels do not come from Jesus' contemporaries. Even the oldest gospel originated at least half a century later than when Jesus' death was made. So who dares to say that even a single word of Jesus, a single sermon, is authentic, without shorthand, recorded fifty years after their narration.

Serious historiography found no evidence to support the Gospels of Jesus. Neither pagan, nor Jewish, nor Christian writings write a single word of historical authenticity about it. But he found data all over the sea that proves the Christ of the Gospels. The birth of Jesus is a naive and ignorant tale, every word of which has been proven to be a historical impossibility. The birth of Christ is one of the turning points in world history, the explanation of which is provided by the whole forest. Christianity, the Christian church and its great symbol: the birth of Christ required the great unification of three worlds. Just as English capitalism, the French Revolution, the great synthesis of German philosophy created the system of thought of socialism: by soldering together the proletarianism, class struggle, and developmental dialectics, so did the Jewish religion, Greek philosophy, and Christianity of Roman economic life. Jewish messianic faith, Greek ethics, Roman proletariat - these are the three pillars of the dome building of Christianity around the world. Pogány József.

The origin of Christianity

The Unborn Jesus. . . I hear two jingle bands singing in the wake of this sentence. At the gentle ringing of Christmas bells, he begins by telling the birth of one and the Jesus child, the manger and the three kings, but then proceeds to scream at priestly syllables and curses at the drum-beating of the denials. His other instruments are the roar of laughter that mocks the naïve belief of God, the great voice of sublime contempt, which delights in the god of miracles and sends his greetings to the brave denialist. But all the strings and winds of this concert understand the same thing: it is about the unborn Jesus, but denies the deity of Christ.

The goddesses see God, the man who became man, in Christ; But they both see that the story of the unborn is only a denial of the born Christ. They think that I deny the deity of Christ, even though I deny the humanity of Jesus. Christ the God: reality. Jesus the Man: Fiction. Christ, the reality of God, is the reality of millions of millennia of faith. Jesus, man, is only the creature of modern "liberal" theology. Christ, the god in human history, in the past of the human worldview, is a great seed of thought, thrown from the realities of reality, from the rocks of hard economic life, to the rigid class struggles.

Today, however, Christ, the God, is dead, and the news of his death is spreading all over the world at a dizzying pace. The sound of the forest was not shaking like the death of the great Pan for Kadmos, but the horns of factories, the siren of ocean steamers, the rustling of electric turbines. Christ, the god, suffering misgivings, at the crossroads of science, Jesus, the homunculus, is now being born in the flask of liberal theologians.

Since the earth has entered the planetary line of the day and man has entered a zoological chapter, it has not been possible to proclaim that the earth has been thrown for three hours by the darkness of Christ's death and no longer believe that gods are born from heaven and the dead are resurrected . So theologians are now distilling Christ into Jesus, making God human. They obliterate all manifestly untrue and unlikely things in the gospels, unmask their naive miracles, and construct a "historical" Jesus whose word is not for the lame, the blind, but who preaches a wise and profound philosophy, who founded a fish and a martyr. faith. This is how their writings evoke the image of the gentle rabbin, the defiant proletarian or the superior Übermensch. The great god cannot be saved, so they create the great man. Renan and Harnack's Jesus is not the Christ of the Gospels, for the fine French skeptical and the sober, sober German could not believe in the birth of the divine child and the fabulous youth, conception of the virgin and at the same time two asses to Jerusalem from Jerusalem. and the irrational impossibilities of its intrusion. Not as a miracle, but with the great suggestive power of his person, they explain the enormous influence and success of his agitation in the world. And they do not realize that the idea that Jesus, the young rabbi alone, created Christianity, the world dom in Catholicism, is more miraculous than all the miracles of the gospel combined.

However, before and after this turn of theology, theologian-free historiography worked from Bruno Banner and David Strauss to today's Kalthoff and Pfliderer and carried out terrible destruction in the writings of the Pope Christianity. Jesus' life was not set on a stone. It became clear that there were hardly any of the early Christian records written by anyone whose name was worried that they were much later than their date, that extensions and reworkings had rendered them out of shape and that the Gospels did not come from Jesus' contemporaries. Even the oldest gospel was born at least half a century later than the death of Jesus. Who dares to say that only one word of Jesus, one sermon, is authentic, without the use of shorthand, fifty years after they were spoken.

Serious historiography has not found any data to justify the Gospels of Jesus. Neither pagan nor Jewish nor Christian writings speak of it with any word of historical authenticity. But they have found a sea of ​​data that justifies the Christ of the Gospels. The birth of Jesus is a naive and ignorant tale, proven by every word to be a historical impossibility. The birth of Christ is one of the turning points in world history, explained throughout the forest. Christianity, the Christian Church, and its great symbol: the birth of Christ, required the great unification of three worlds. Just as English capitalism, the French Revolution, and the great synthesis of German philosophy created the system of thought of socialism: by combining proletarianism, class struggle, and the dialectic of development, so did Christianity, the Greek philosophy, and the Christian economy. Jewish messianic belief, Greek ethics, Roman proletariat - these are the three pillars of Christianity's globally domed building. József Pogány.

The origin of Christianity

[3] Did Jesus live? It is a question of history that will surely be supported by old and new arguments from both sides for a long time to come, until it is decided to the right or left, which, however, does not really belong to understanding the origins of Christianity. It does not matter whether Christ founded Christianity or whether Christianity created Christ in His own image; it is indifferent whether a man held together the doctrines on which Christianity is based, or whether they developed slowly, unnoticed, without the Messiah, in collective thinking; it is certain that the latter case is also possible, just as, for example, revolutionary syndicalism has not found such a universal advertiser to whose name it would be attached. And in the latter case, a separate explanation is needed as to why and how he made such great significance among the many Messiahs, prophets, founders of the religion of Christ, how did his teachings become a movement, a religion, and then an institution, conquer Israel, Greece, and the world conqueror, Rome?

A more in-depth examination of the events of history, which, exploring the springs of social views, ideas, and movements, went deeper and deeper into the study of economic forces from the surface of ideas, also shed new light on the emergence of Christianity. Historical materialism also gave a huge impetus to research at this point. Christianity, as a mass ideology, cannot be an arbitrary invention of a man. Some elements of Christianity have already been found in the philosophical systems of Jewish and pagan writers, from which Christianity could only develop on appropriate soil. And the ground of ideas and movements is the social system, which again rests on economic conditions and, ultimately, on the mode of production. We need to know this ground if we want to know and understand Christianity in its original reality. thus we can then incorporate Christianity into the course of historical development, freeing it from all the mysticism and prejudice that makes its emergence curious.

The views of historical materialism are most clearly asserted by Kautsky in his work Der Ursprung des Christentums. The germ of Christianity came from Israel. In the time before the start of our era, Israel was in a serious and hopeless situation, both economically and politically. The returnees from Babylonian captivity could nowhere find a suitable place on the farm. The entire population became predominantly urban. Land recession declined, the proletariat increased above the ground, without being able to find suitable employment opportunities. The upper class competed with the alien conqueror in oppression and exploitation.

Several orders emerged in the proletariat that hoped from one means or another to change their sad situation. All the desperations of the Republican [4] helots turned against the foreign oppressor and, filled with revolutionary souls and nationalist ideas, awaited the Messiah, who would end Roman rule and restore the golden age of national rule. The Essenes sought a different way, on economic paths. They formed communities, associations in which they worked together on a communist basis. Of course, a corresponding ideology was also developed in which the guiding idea was equality and love. From these Esseneic associations, or only on the model, the first Christian villages were formed.

However, the area where Christianity developed into a great, mighty one compared to the other destroyed organizations, that is, the real homeland of Christianity was not Israel but Rome. The spread of Christian doctrines alone does not explain anything, only the economic and social system of Rome at that time.

The inhabitants of Rome were originally all equally free peasants. However, with the difference in ownership, class differences developed between them. Whoever acquired more property than he could cultivate with his own family had to look for foreign labor. However, according to the state of the art at the time, family work was the most productive form of farming, there was no shortage of land, and there were not many free peasants who would undertake to cultivate other land. So the labor had to be drawn into the family, forced to work, enslaved. thus, in addition to free peasants, the class of landlords and slaves developed.

The more iridescent the household developed into an exchange economy and the greater the momentum of industry in addition to farming, the greater the importance of slaves in economic life. First a large number of slaves were employed in the mines, later in all branches of industry. Production in this way was quite cheap. The slaves were supplied with food and raw materials by the owner's land, which had now grown into a latifundium. And slave material was abundantly provided by the ongoing and victorious wars.

However, the slave economy can only be extensive. Prerequisites are the abundance of land and slaves. As soon as the estate no longer produces enough to supply the slaves in nature, but has to buy the goods needed for their livelihood with money, as soon as, on the other hand, their numbers run out and so the goods rise, production becomes more expensive.

And this happened in the Roman Empire at a time when wars ceased to be successful and a multitude of prisoners of war were poured into Rome, and the fertility of the estate declined as a result of land-based robbery. Acquiring a free wage worker does not cost money, he only receives the amount needed to maintain his daily wage, while the purchase price of a slave is high; the free worker should not be spared, the slave should not be overworked, because with his destruction value is wasted. The internal, natural disadvantages of slave labor become no less noticeable. An exploited, unlawful slave is held in hatred for his master; if it can, it hurts him, he cannot be entrusted with costly work equipment, as a result of which all technical innovations become impossible, ignorant and lazy and he only works under the whiplash of supervisors.

While slave farming thus made itself impossible at some stage of development, on the other hand it led to the oppression and extermination of free peasants.

The peasant could not compete with the extensive slave labor. He was heavily burdened by the military, both in taxes and in military service. The wars, which meant a new slave consignment for the landlords, distracted the peasant from his field work. His destruction was inevitable: when he returned home from the war, he found his land uncultivated, he was forced to apply for a usury loan, he could rarely pay, and so it was easy to deprive him of his possessions. The usurer acquired latifundium, and the wealthy and undeserved peasantry exposed to his estate flocked to the city and formed the class of the ancient proletariat.

This proletariat was a whole special formation of the Austrian world. Kautsky strikingly contrasts the naive: “The whole of society today rests on the work of the modern proletariat. Only this work needs to be stopped and it is basically shaking. The anti-assembled proletariat did not do work, and even the work of the free peasant and the remnant of artisans was indispensable. It was not society that lived then from the proletariat, but the proletariat from society. It was completely unnecessary and could have disappeared without any loss to society. It would even have made society easier. The work of slaves was the foundation on which society rested. ”

This growing mass, made absolutist by lawlessness, landless by the great estate, the slave-factory forced out of industry, deprived not only of its wealth and earnings, but even of the possibility of earning it, this miserable and starving mass was fit for Christianity. to carry over and further develop its ideologies developed in the East, especially the messianic faith and the revolutionary spirit. The economic order and the economic turmoil could offer no hope for the improvement of his destiny, therefore he turned more to the supernatural, the idea of ​​the Savior. His organizations were not economic, like those of the Essenes, but rather ideological, reflecting their economic and social situation and desires. Renan’s analogy is very characteristic: if you want to picture yourself in ancient Christian villages, look at a socialist union. Just as the ideology of the landless class is still communism, so were the rich, against wealth, against the desire to live, proclaiming community, equality, love. Of course, ideological factors also differed in that the old proletariat was economically different from today's productive, self-conscious work.

In the ever-declining, depopulated empire, which had gone so far [6] that Roman citizens had escaped from the burdens of arbitrariness, taxes, and the military from troops to neighboring barbarian tribes, the revolutionary spirit of Christianity meant order and organization, which they longed for life. also frustrated and economically struggling owners. Perhaps the general economic downturn also made them more inclined to embrace the doctrines of the end of the world and of salvation. thus Christianity slowly spread among them as well, entering the upper classes and offices. In order to become an official religion, it was not necessary to deprive it of its revolutionary color and to make its teachings against wealth and the existing social order symbolic. The ruling class appropriated Christianity for itself, but at the same time deprived it of its original character. With the Milan edict, Christianity came to power, but revolutionary Christianity ceased to be a proletarian movement. Sándor Fazekas

Did Jesus Live?

Historical data provide no basis for anyone whose name is associated with the founding of the religion that has played the greatest role in history ever lived. The writers who lived at the time when Jesus traditionally founded the Christian religion, i.e. Josephus Flaüius, Philon Judaeus and Justus of Tiberias, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, know nothing about the coming, miraculous life and even more miraculous death and resurrection of the Messiah.

Philon in Alexandria from the 20th year before the Christian year to the 54th year of their year. He writes about Jewish theology, but he does not know a single letter about the Messiah who came.

Tiberiasi Justus Kr. U. In his work of 100 years, he wrote much about the Jewish kings and the conditions of Galilee. His work was not left to us, but Bishop Photius of Constantinople, who had read his work, remarked in amazement that the lifeblood of David's seed knew nothing.

Pliny the Younger, who AD. He wrote his work around 112. He writes about Christians as a new and peculiar misconception prevalent in the province, but in the words of the German Catholic Encyclopedia, “the least can be understood is that persecuted Christians would have revered Christ, the Messiah, as a god”.

Tacitus already knows something about Jesus. "Annales" -ei XV. In chapter 44 of his book on the persecution of Christians in the Nero period, he recalls that Pontius Pilatus, the vicar of Tiberius, executed the founder of the Christian sect. He wrote his annales in 115-117, so at a time when Christianity was already widespread, when he could already hear the story from Christians.

The crown witness remains: Josephus Flavius. His "Antiquitatum iudaicarum libri XX." c. XVIII. in his book he writes, “A wise man named Jesus lived in this time, if we can call him a man at all. For he accomplished more and more unbelievable things, and was a teacher to those who loved the truth. In this way he gathered many Jews and Gentiles around him. He was the Christ. Although Pilate sentenced him to death at the urging of the nobles of our people, his old followers had not yet become unfaithful to him. Why on the third day he appeared to them alive again, as prophesied by the messengers of God, the prophets, and thousands of phenomena. And to this day live the people of the Christians, who took their name from him. ” Miraculously, however, he goes on to say: "At this time, even more plagues befell the Jews, and disgraceful things happened in Rome, in the temple of Isis." This sentence is not a logical consequence of the previous paragraph at all, but we will find the connection immediately if we omit the paragraph. Because before the paragraph it is about the cruel repression of a Jewish rebellion.

It becomes even more suspicious when we know that Origen, who lived between 184 and 254, complains that Josephus Flavius ​​knows nothing about Christ and that only Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, discovers this passage much later. It is the same Eusebius who saw with his own eyes, and even copied and translated, the letters of Jesus, a copy of which was later condemned by Pope Galesius as a forgery that severely compromised the church. (Because the church gave Eusebius the name “father of church history.”) And since the oldest manuscript of Josephus-Flavius ​​is from the 5th century, it is certain that this passage was forged by someone in post-Origen times, and in all likelihood it is “ father of church history ”.

These are the aspects that G. Tschirn, H.R. Francé and Friedriech Steudel warn us of when evaluating historical data.

Paul 14 knows nothing about the earthly form of Christ. He always has the name of Christ as a symbol, pictorial expression, or parable.

But no less important is the fact that Steudel warns us that the existence of the city of Nazareth dates back to IV. it cannot be detected at all before the 20th century. It is not mentioned by Josephus, or even the Talmud, who lists 60 Galilean locations, thus providing the complete geography of the district.

Internal contradictions and improbability also weaken faith in the historical person of Jesus. Jesus teaches in the temple at a time when the temple is not a place for teaching at all, but only a place for purely religious ceremonies. Despite the strict prohibition of mischra laws, the council sits in law on the largest Jewish holiday, and during the night the jury finds a whole bunch of witnesses to the impromptu sitting. An armed church guard arrests Jesus on Saturday night when Jews are strictly prohibited from wearing weapons. The Dutch Brandt and the Jewish theologian Joel [8] point to a series of such impossibilities, and Brandt concludes that the possibility that Jesus was actually summoned and formally condemned by Jesus is self-defeating. The story of the tax-bearer shows money bearing the image of Caesar, and it is already well-known that Caesar struck extra money without Caesar's image to spare the sensitivity of the Jews.

When Jesus was born, according to Matthew, Herod was still alive. Yet Herod died four years before Jesus was born according to the Church. According to Luke, he was born at a time when "the Emperor of August was commanded that all the earth should be baptized, 2. (This capitulation was first made in Syria by Reverend Zirene.") This happened seven years before Jesus' accepted birth.

So how can the legend of Jesus be explained? The backbone of the legend is provided by the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the coming of the Messiah. Messiah will be of the tribe of David (Jeremiah XXIII.5.6) and will therefore undoubtedly be born in the city of David's tribe, Bethlehem (Mich. V. 2). .) a preacher will prepare his way (Ezsaiah XL. 3) "your king who rides on a donkey" (Zechariah IX. 9), is poor and sits on a donkey, and his successor is called Jesus (Moses V. 31: 7).

Add to that the rest of the legend in the Greeks and Romans, which is already well known in the Buddha Legend, the emergence of one of the most beautiful legends of humanity is clear.

But it is also clear that we either accept the existence of Christ, the Son of God, the Redeemer, or we must drop the teaching that Jesus was not alive.

The Gospels do not provide a basis for Renan's 50 percent agreement. Miklós Timár.

Did Christ establish a church?

criticism. He endured that David Friedrich Strauss called the Gospels religious rhetoric. He endured the Reform Catholics and took them to Canossa as well, the church endures its own immorality: the church can endure everything. Did you endure it and why? We are always in a good mood if Ottokár Prohászka answers for us: - For someone became a Christian not by professing to teach Jesus, the rabbi's offspring, but by admitting himself into the Christian community, professing what they teach, submitting himself in religious matters to what the heads of these communities are good and true spoken.

Therefore. We can tell them what we want. We can resurrect Jesus himself and be summoned as a crown witness. Reason will be denied as Jesus has been denied for a millennium by honoring in him a pattern of tolerance for meekness and humility, misery, as opposed to the true Jesus we know from the gospel, who was revolutionary and above all: anti-priesthood.

The church is an organization of power. This is not what we say, but Ottokár Prohászka. Because it is not what the scripture says that happens, but what the bishops say. It does not do what the writing prescribes, but what the community establishes. It is not writing that dissolves the shackles and scruples of conscience, but community. You will ask: but where is Jesus then? We ask that too. Reform Catholics also asked this. Bible commentators also asked this, and thinking “believers” asked. This is what people will ask forever, whenever they are upset, amazed, and think about the things of the Church [12]: where is Jesus?

And what is the Church responsible for? He takes the scripture and quotes from the gospel because Matthew says, "For somewhere two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." And Jesus will always be there because they always gather in his name. As long as the church becomes a mighty, strong organization, as long as it has wealth, as long as the vast majority of humanity has little free time, without interruption and continuity, it will be the case that Jesus will always be there and they will always gather in his name. For Frémont says, "The gospels are not the foundation of the church, but the church is the foundation of the gospel."

The Church is so vast that it can embrace all the results of biblical criticism and arrange a new edition of the books of David Friedrich Strauss, Kalthoff, Schell, Loisy, and other reformers. He could make them cheap cheap editions, sell or distribute them in his churches, advertise these indexed books while preaching, all this would not hurt him, the Church would still triumphantly with the one eternal and unchanging tactic: “to protect all the mighty influence ’.

The Church, in its degrading supremacy of all modern culture, imposes on every child born today that: the Savior, in order to restore communion with God to human representation of his divine aspirations, created the visible Church, headed by the Pope of Rome.

Reform Catholicism fell silent. He was right. What to do with the church in which the Gentile Constantine the Great, who led the Council of Nicea, who needed a state religion in which he himself did not believe that all present were clearly declaring the deity of Christ, silenced 2,000 bishops except 300 by force. Then the majority doubted the deity of Christ, today bishops and priests all stand on the teachings of the Church. What would the Reform Catholic minority, who taught the church to be shattered by foody people, be worth it?

So it is not worth and cannot be argued with the Church. But because the question is raised and because we in Hungary can still raise such a question, we answer, not in the belief that we are dealing a sensitive blow to the Church with it, but we answer as we would respond to someone who e.g. it would call into question the principle of conservation of energy. He fell victim to the reactionaries of the age of Jesus, to the scribes and Pharisees who blackmailed the teachings of Moses for their own benefit. His head became uncertain when he saw the wealth of the Jewish priesthood, its busy, lucrative jobs threatened by the open speeches of Jesus. The Jewish clergy saw it too darkly and judged it. Jesus and his disciples lived in the belief that the end of the world would soon come and the last [14] judgment would follow. “Do not be diligent about tomorrow and take the example of the heavenly fighters who are more vile than man and yet the Lord sustains them,” Jesus said. We must turn away from the Jews who seek worldly advantage. The world will perish, the only good thing you can do is, by practicing virtues, make you worthy of the kingdom of God. Ede Hartmann, in his critique of Christianity, says: Jesus and his disciples were similar to the impatient people gathering in the waiting room. They waited for the train to depart, which takes them to pleasures incomparable to nothing. They didn't care about anything that was happening outside the waiting room. Their best effort was not to be late for the train. If this earthly life is only a preparation for a great happiness, then it is only right to act on what we can hope for happiness. thus understandable Christian communism was done by the apostle Peter.

And does the idea of ​​a church founded forever fit with the proclamation of contempt for earthly life? Isn't it.

Loisy says in L'évangile et l'église:

Food came from people who filled with the teachings of the gospel, which in their former form were impossible to keep. And after the people waited in vain for the coming of the kingdom of the promised god, they organized the church to satisfy the weary excitement and anticipation of the crowd.

The stubborn belief in the doomsday mood and the destruction of the earth, the existence of this belief is a historical reality. It is in this reality that the theorem of the founding of the Church of Christ fails. Béla Kőhalmi.

Issue Informations

Src: http://mtdaportal.extra.hu/szabadgondolat/1912/1912_01.pdf
Original Publication: Szabadgondolat, 2.1, January 1912
Other Languages:

Lge	Name
DE
FR	Libre Pensée 1911/7
ES	El Pensamiento Libre 1912/1