If one continues reasoning in a pure logical way, not restricted by any absurd canons of postConstantine time, he will reach amazing conclusions. As
we know the 4 Gospels are written much later after the resurrection. It is claimed that Matthew wrote the first gospel at the year of 60 AD (no matter
the manuscripts date to 2nd -3 centuries). But let take for a moment that Matthew indeed wrote in 60 AD. Why didn't he mention a WORD about the church
or community of believers after the ascension?
The events after the Ascension are written only in the Acts and mentioned in the Letters mostly by Paul. The Acts are most likely written by the same
who wrote the gospel of Luke. Luke is not even among the 12, he didn't see Jesus. So is Mark. Why are they accepted as canonical, and not the writings
of the other apostles? How is it Luke remembers DETAILS of the WORDING of VIRGIN MARY, while he doesn't write a line of the childhood and adulthood of
Jesus up to 30? Did Mother Mary tell him word by word the entire Magnificat she allegedly pronounced before Elizabeth, and at the same time Mother
Mary didn't rely even one episode of the life of Her beloved Son in the years after 12? It is hard to believe. Rather we have a big cut in the Gospel,
not by Luke but by Rome. And a cult to Mary with that magnificat. Because frankly I can't imagine the humble Mother of Jesus to exalt herself so much,
as to relay THAT to Luke and not the events of Jesus' precious walk on earth.
Again ,we speak of manuscripts found in 2-3 century, hundred+ years after they were allegedly written for a first time decades after the events
themselves (NEVER found as original manuscripts physically existing from that time!). There was plenty of time to be faked, amid bloody persecution
and illiteracy. Isn't it a bit suspicious?
Then we have church structures appeared in Rome and Antioch, and Alexandria, approved as such by Constantine. None of the 7 churches the Revelation
talked about, survived the times. Very, very strange! Selection of who to survive, and which books to be preserved, then canonized in Nicaea and
Revelation canonized last, a century later. The first manuscript dates back at the end of 2nd century and involves only chapter 1. The writer of the
revelation allegedly had a vision of Jesus Christ. That DOES NOT EQUAL the PUBLIC REVELATION of the Son of God while He walked the earth in flesh.
Still the book is canonized, along with Paul's writings and the rest, at the expense of precious writings of other apostles (those which we know,
there might be many more), banned as heretical. This is the worst conspiracy in religion ever in history of the world. That signifies how important
the appearance of the Son of God was indeed. Otherwise, the entire Roman literate ellite wouldn't be involved in faking the great game called
Christianity that shaped the next 20 centuries the planet.
Why did the miracles stop with the first apostles? Did God's power extend to only them?
Of perhaps there is something very very big that we are not told of. More than one thing. One of the secrets would surely be the marriage of Jesus and
his descendants. Because it would be a mortal enemy to the Roman empire at the time the Son of God to have a heir for the earth's throne! But there
are other things hidden as well. Where are the angels promised in John's starting chapters? They are nowhere in the entire Gospels, up until the
moment of Getsemane, not even at the Cross! Then the men in white clothes appear at the tomb, without wings.
Too much to bear and still believe the Gospels are exact words from that time, never changed, and the Acts and Letters are as important as the
Gospels! All other books banned as heretical, exactly those books that speak of other episodes of the life of Jesus - the marriage one of them.
banned by pagan Rome ruled by its own gods and long term agendas.
Enough is enough, in 21st century of information freedom.
edit on 13-12-2014 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)