The New Testament: A Fourth Century Fabrication. The 7 Signs of a Christian Charlatan

The New Testament: A Fabrication, created for Social Control. The Conclusions of Historical and Textual Studies of the New Testament.

Lucifer



Since most of our ancestors were relatively illiterate and uneducated, I think it appropriate to consider most of them to have been and "victims" rather than the perpetrators of this fraud. Nevertheless in the modern world, most of the Christian Internet propagandists are at least "semi literate" and have a modern education, and thus do not have this excuse for their ignorance and their attempt to hypnotise others and to spread this deception.

Since the Religious Reformation of the 16th century, with the ending of the monopoly of the Roman Church on Christianity, we have seen the rise of numerous different corporations and flavours of the Capitalist Jesus business, usually all claiming to sell salvation to the gullible in the name of the "true" form of Christianity, and usually all based on the "truth" of a totally fabricated, edited and re-edited piece of childish fiction, the New Testament.



Those who have been indoctrinated and hypnotised by the professional hypnotists (i.e., the professional priesthood, clergy) of the multi-billion dollar Jesus business continue in the 21st century to attempt to infect others with their own delusions; delusions which are by no means harmless, since the Biblical deity is clearly, as Richard Dawkins has stated "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully," Unfortunately those who do not consider such qualities to be morally repugnant are likely to manifest such qualities themselves, and the long and bloody history of Christianity is ample testimony to this.



More on the thread: "The Dangers of Religious Hypnosis and Indoctrination: The genocidal faiths of Christianity & Islam, on: www.abovetopsecret.com...




The Seven Signs of a Christian Charlatan.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
Mark 16.

Consider the 7 Signs of those who are allegedly "not" condemned according to the Gospel of Mark

1: You must believe.
2: You must be baptised.
3: You must be able to perform exorcisms.
4: You must be able to speak in New Tongues.
5: You must be able to pick up serpents.
6: You must be able to safely drink any deadly poison.
7: You must be able to lay hands on the sick and miraculously cure them.


If you do not have the 7 signs, you are allegedly condemned by the first century religious fanatic and fake healer Jesus and you won't get to spend all eternity with other Christian fake healers and religious charlatans.

It was also stated by the Jesus of the Gospels that his followers would do even "greater things than he."



I think that the "belief only" theology was possibly developed because the professional Christian hypocrites realised that many of the teachings of Jesus were either too hard or impossible to follow.

We know that Christians cannot safely drink poison or miraculously cure leprosy and blindness, and since the professional Christian hypnotists know this also, they have just developed this much easier "belief only" theology, where you just become a rambling religious fanatic, talk incessantly about the teachings of Jesus, and yet reject the teachings of Jesus, and the religion of Jesus (fundamentalist Judaism) apart from a few ethical maxims about love and so forth, which were common to that era; it is really just all about "believing" and about acting like a total hypocrite and being eternally rewarded for that.

Unfortunately many professional hypnotists of the multi-billion dollar Jesus business do claim to be able to perform miracles and simply prey on the sick, the elderly, the disabled and the vulnerable.

Literary and Historical Criticism of the Bible.

A common response to the 7 signs is to argue that this text is a later addition to the Gospel of Mark; however this is generally just a "selective" argument which ignores the overall conclusions of Biblical historical and literary criticism; if such an argument is accepted, one may as well discard the entirety of the Bible as an edited, re-edited and fabricated document.

The Dialogue Fallacy

The "dialogue" fallacy is a common fallacy used by Christians who simply selectively "cherry pick" and "quote mine" the Gospels for statements which they agree with and statements which they reject; those statements which they reject (such as no shoe wearing, no money carrying, no more than one robe, obey the (Mosaic) Law and the Prophets) are often responded to with the "dialogue fallacy," which is essentially the position that "some" of the unpopular teachings of the allegedly unchanging, perfect Jesus (whose teachings will allegedly last till the end of time) are not relevant today, and were only relevant to his contemporaries to whom he was referring; the "dialogue fallacy is a "fallacy" of course, because "all" of Jesus's teachings are in the form of dialogues where he was addressing other persons; thus one might as well reject the entirety of his teachings on this basis

Lux

"The criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism." Marx




_________________________

The Forged Origins of the New Testament.

by Tony Bushby

March 2007

Extracted from Nexus Magazine

Volume 14, Number 4 (June - July 2007)

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


Summary: In the fourth century, the Roman Emperor Constantine united all religious factions under one composite deity, and ordered the compilation of new and old writings into a uniform collection that became the New Testament.

About the Author


Tony Bushby, ... is the author of The Bible Fraud (2001; reviewed in NEXUS 8/06 with extracts in NEXUS 9/01—03), The Secret in the Bible (2003; reviewed in 11/02, with extract, "Ancient Cities under the Sands of Giza", in 11/03) and The Crucifixion of Truth (2005; reviewed in 12/02) and The Twin Deception (2007; reviewed 14/03).

Copies of these books are available from the NEXUS website and the Joshua Books website www.joshuabooks.com...

What the Church doesn't want you to know

It has often been emphasized that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical realities.

reply to post by Lucifer777


Thanks for a brilliant post.

I have a couple of simple points to make, which express my beliefs.

1. The bible was written over a long period by many people and therefore it is highly suspect.

2. The name of Jesus is used to trick people, to make money, and to threaten people. The name of Jesus has been misused and abused.

3. I believe that Jesus, or some Jesus-like entity, existed to teach us the things we are not born feeling, necessarily - such as love your fellowman, do not hate him; try and forgive people when they crap on you; try not to take what is not yours; don't murder people etc.

4. Good and evil are locked in battle every day, everywhere. It is up to us which way we go.

What a load of crap 3 4 5 6 7 are not required and those things dont apply to all who would be saved, Why did you try and manipulate that to your own means? Even number 2 is untrue because up to a certain time in ones life they are guilty of no mortal sin... But the way the Bible was most likely wrong through the hands of man during the Council of Trent, must be when they wrote the parts that said Lucifer was good looking and highly intelligent...

reply to post by Lucifer777


You have no proof of what you type.
I agree with the essence of your post but at the same time i cannot prove nor disprove it either.
I think i will just be good to deserving folks and not bother with the others, i should be alright.
But religion is nothing more than a racket.

Originally posted by catwhoknowsplusone
reply to post by Lucifer777

 

Thanks for a brilliant post.

I have a couple of simple points to make, which express my beliefs.

1. The bible was written over a long period by many people and therefore it is highly suspect.

2. The name of Jesus is used to trick people, to make money, and to threaten people. The name of Jesus has been misused and abused.

Yes Christianity is a very profitable business; even more profitable than the heroin business, as the Christian hypnotists simply have no actual product to sell; they are simply selling eternal salvation.




People who are often very insecure in themselves may also feel that if they have a big, bad, human-hating genocidal god on their side that it makes them more powerful. when it really just makes them look rather silly.



Further it is a perfect religion for paternalists (male supremacists) who wish to enslave women.




Further for those who hate themselves and their own nature, Christianity is a perfect religion which reinforces their self hatred.



Further if anyone needs a Jewish Messiah there are much better, more modern and more intelligent Jews who have sought the salvation of humankind and who were not fake miracle workers, such as Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky or Noam Chomsky, that the Christians could revere as a Jewish Messiah, however I suspect that for most Christians that a Jewish Messiah who was Jewish could not be the Jewish Messiah; since I think they are mostly waiting on an anti-Jewish, Jewish Messiah.

3. I believe that Jesus, or some Jesus-like entity, existed

There were numerous Jewish Messiahs 2000 years ago, and the New Testament seems to be based on one of them, however it is now impossible to tell much about who this person was from the texts relating to him as they have been subjected to fabrication, editing and re-editing.



There are still of course, numerous modern fake healers and fake miracle workers that could be worshipped as future Messiahs.

to teach us the things we are not born feeling, necessarily - such as love your fellowman, do not hate him; try and forgive people when they crap on you; try not to take what is not yours; don't murder people etc.

These are all just ethical teachings which have been inserted into the New Testament. There are numerous different quotations from philosophers prior to the Christian era which expounded the Golden rule and similar humanist ethics. If one is going to base one's faith upon humanist ethical maxims, one may as well revere Richard Dawkins as the Messiah.

The danger of Biblical fanaticism is that humanist ethics are sandwiched in between all manner of stupidity and laws which would have genocidal consequences if they were ever re-introduced; even the of first 10 of the 613 Mosaic Laws, 9 of them are executionable offences, and one of them is a genocidal offence (worshipping other gods) which demands the eradication of entire tribes and nations.

4. Good and evil are locked in battle every day, everywhere. It is up to us which way we go.

Unfortunately in Christian doublespeak, absolute evil is defined as absolute goodness. If we were to attribute the qualities of the genocidal and sadistic Biblical deity to a person, I have no doubt that most human beings would consider that person to be genocidally insane.

Lux

_____________

Originally posted by 5StarOracle
What a load of crap 3 4 5 6 7 are not required and those things dont apply to all who would be saved, Why did you try and manipulate that to your own means?

I have not manipulated anything; I have merely quoted the text verbatim. I am entirely aware that most Christians anyway reject the teachings and religion (i.e., fundamentalist Judaism) of Jesus and are openly hositle to them; they are only interested in "cherry picking" and "quote mining" the Bible to suit their own personal beliefs, misinterpretations and prejudices.

But the way the Bible was most likely wrong through the hands of man during the Council of Trent, must be when they wrote the parts that said Lucifer was good looking and highly intelligent...

There is nowhere in the original Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible where Lucifer is even mentioned, and there is nowhere in the Latin translation where it states that Lucifer was good looking and highly intelligent, but thank you for the compliment, though it probably won't make me any more vain than I already am.


Mat 16:20 "Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ"
.
Anyway since I am a "male" and you are forbidden to tell any "man" about Jesus Christ, your response is diabolically blasphemous; please address your comments on Jesus Christ to women only.

Lux
Blasphemy, Heresy, etc.

Since none of this is central to Christianity (or even the Bible, when viewed holistically,) there is sufficient historical evidence to dismiss your claim of "fourth century fabrication", and these are all just standard canned arguments for evangelical atheists, why would anyone who didn't already agree with you view it as a revelation?

Even setting aside the observation that fundamentalists such as yourself are as guilty of "cherry picking" to build a basis as some of the Christians that you deride, what's the point? Adding to the hate and bile that already fills the world is hardly a way to improve it, particularly when your argument is as ineffective as what you've set forth here.

Originally posted by adjensen
Since none of this is central to Christianity (or even the Bible, when viewed holistically,)

Dating the Old Testament and New Testament

Lucifer


The essay above refers only to the New Testament and not to the entirety of the Bible. The Tanak (the Hebrew Bible) existed in written form prior to the Christian era, as did the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Tanak), and numerous scholars in the BCE and early CE periods referred to it. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which are a collection of almost 1000 documents have been dated to between around the second century BCE to the first century CE and contain fragments of every single book of the Old Testament but one.

There is no doubt that the Old Testament is more ancient than the New Testament, but this also does not mean that it was not also arrived at by similar means, since according to the Talmud it is merely a 4th century BCE compilation of writings, which describes mythical events of the ancient world by various authors in different periods.

Even the oldest known copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus derives from the fourth century AD and is written on animal skins, where ink can be scratched out repeatedly, and the original text can be overwritten and it shows evidence of thousands of alterations to the text.

There are numerous dates given for other fragements of the New Testament and there are two main ways of estimating their dates. The main way is paleography (the study of handwriting styles in different periods of history) and the the other is carbon dating.

Paleography.

Paleography is not an exact science. A modern scribe can quite easily copy the harndwriting style of a scribe of an ancient era to make a document look old; for example a person in the 21st century who is famiilar with the handwriting style of the 16th century could quite easily write in the handwriting style of Shakespeare, and when writing documents which are supposed to have ancient authority, it is quite understandable that a scribe would wish to write in a writing style of a previous era.

Carbon dating.

Carbon dating is not an exact science., and there are no truly scientific studies of gospels' fragments.

there is sufficient historical evidence to dismiss your claim of "fourth century fabrication", and these are all just standard canned arguments for evangelical atheists, why would anyone who didn't already agree with you view it as a revelation?

I am not revealing anything which is not already known. The advantage of Internet discussion forums is that one can present evidence and argument to dispute claims. Contradiction without argument and evidence is not a valid form of argument. Any football hooligan can state "I do not agree with you." If you wish to dispute the above claims please feel free to offer argument and evidence, but simple abuse and contradiction is common and will not be sufficient.

Lux

Good thread man....S&F

Might i ask what you do believe in?

Originally posted by Akragon

Might i ask what you do believe in?

See "On the Kabbalah. On Esoteric “Secrets.” A Luciferian Perspective. On the Prophet of the New Aeon," on www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lux

reply to post by Lucifer777


Ahh, crowley and the Kabbalah...

Interesting

reply to post by Lucifer777


You again? Haven't you had enough being proved wrong? Oh well, here we go.

"1: You must believe.
Obviously.
2: You must be baptised.
Not really. Look at the thief on the cross beside Jesus, he never got baptised and was just as saved as I am.
3: You must be able to perform exorcisms.
Nope, not in the least. False statement. Signs and wonders were for the Jew, not for this age bud.
4: You must be able to speak in New Tongues.
Nope. Same as above ↑
5: You must be able to pick up serpents.
Never. Ditto ↑
6: You must be able to safely drink any deadly poison.
False. Once again, these were signs for the apostles, so the Jews would believe what they said about Jesus Christ. See: ↑
7: You must be able to lay hands on the sick and miraculously cure them. "
Not in the least. Even Paul himself could not heal people near the end of his ministry. He had to bring Dr. Luke all over the world with him cause of his thorn in the flesh. (Bad eye sight probably)

I understand your frustration on not being able to understand spiritual matters, so you lash out at the one true God in the hopes of some self comfort. Some people just don't have faith, and then some are just ignorant of the Holy Bible. I'll say your a little of both.

Yet another one.

One of the last ones gave me an insight along with your handle "lucifer". Several ideas on that, light bringer, the lucifer complex??? Or the more traditional?

The Light is awareness, and consciousness/love. And you can look into someone's soul with enough awareness, and propel to their Infinite self and Beyond and find yourself having a metaphysical/spiritual experience just from someone's words or energetic signature.

Think about it. I'm not sure religion or lack of it is as important as seeing with eyes of Light/Love and Progressive Consciousness when you read anything, and knowing Love is: kind, service to others, gentle, and never harms another.

Peace, Love & Enlightenment! I wish you and yours much progression, and positivity.

Though question your motives alot.

I'm a christian hater
a jew hater
ummm
I hate the US too
or
so I'm told

I thought this thread expressed some of the more gaudy inconsistancies quite well.
I practice the ten comandment because I was taught that a wise person finds enough trouble without making more.
I also studied martial arts etc

but just look at the christian on christian conflicts...
not much "god" happening there...
oh wait,
the bankers own ireland now....

reply to post by Lucifer777


You are apparently ignorant on the subject of historical dating of documentary evidence, which has nothing to do with "Carbon Dating". For example, the Nag Hammadi texts are "dated" to the 4th Century, but historical evidence shows them to be 4th Century copies of 2nd Century documents. Similarly, there is historical evidence of the existing Canon of Christian scripture which dates to the late 2nd Century, and there are few (if any) historians who date the texts which comprise said canon later than about 110AD.

Excellent post. Starred and flagged, and would send to Bill Maher if I knew his email address!

I find it odd that a religion that’s supposed to be based on love and human brotherhood needed a department of “attitude adjustment”
www.newadvent.org...

(the Inquisition

the positive suppression of heresy by ecclesiastical and civil authority in Christian society is as old as the Church

the imperial successors of Constantine soon began to see in themselves Divinely appointed "bishops of the exterior", i.e. masters of the temporal and material conditions of the Church. At the same time they retained the traditional authority of "Pontifex Maximus"

the successors of Constantine were ever persuaded that the first concern of imperial authority (Theodosius II, "Novellae", tit. III, A.D. 438) was the protection of religion and so, with terrible regularity, issued many penal edicts against heretics.

And how did the church get people to go along with the new program:

www.jesusneverexisted.com...

Breaking on the Wheel.
The naked heretic had each limb and joint broken precisely to avoid any fatal blows. He was then 'braided' into the spokes of the wheel and hoisted on to a post. There he was exposed to the elements – or left to be twirled by passers by who wanted to join in the fun.

Or

Slow Burn
A 16th century device to lift the victim in and out of the fire, roasting him alive slowly instead of burning him all at once.

more here:
www.jesusneverexisted.com...

These methods aren’t just about getting some uncooperative voices quietly out of the way; this is about instilling terror into the population and to enforce control


There are many threads on ATS about christians concerned with the NWO using force and terror tactics to enforce a new religion – I have to wonder if this is because they know this is how their own brand of religion was origional forced onto the world

reply to post by 5StarOracle


You wrote:

["Even number 2 is untrue because up to a certain time in ones life they are guilty of no mortal sin... "]

Introducing an 'absolute' (people acquiring guilt of mortal sin) doesn't add anything at all, until this absolute itself is validated.

Circle-argumentation which only can lead to: "Is...is not....is....is NOT" etc.

It's not clear what your purpose with this is. Are you representing a competing 'true christianity'?

I wonder what the Original poster does with documents like P52 and P46, which date to the 125-200 AD range. Those papyrii are from texts as varied as Titus and the Gospel of John, yet they are in the same form as much later manuscripts.

If Constantine et al created the New Testament in the fourth century, why is so much of it 150 to 200 years older?

Likewise, the consensus of scholars is that at least part of the mentions of Jesus in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews' is likely authentic. But even if it's not, there's the problem of all the early christian graffiti throughout the classical world.

It is easy enough to say the evidence doesn't exist if you are careful to remain ignorant of any evidence or research. Some of it is problematic, certainly, and the scholarly community is not monolithic about the conclusions. Still, very few of them share the OP's view. I wonder why....


Edit to add:

I kind of skimmed over the thread so far. I had expected to find a discussion of the evidence for a "historical" Jesus. But most of it looks like ravings against Pat Robertson and his ilk. Maybe the thread drifted away from archaeology and into how horrid Christians are. An easier target, I guess.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I wonder what the Original poster does with documents like P52 and P46, which date to the 125-200 AD range. Those papyrii are from texts as varied as Titus and the Gospel of John, yet they are in the same form as much later manuscripts.

P52 is a tiny scrap of Papyrus 3.5 by 2.5 inches which contains lines from the Gospel of John (see en.wikipedia.org... ). Both P52 and P46 have been dated by paeleographic (the study of handwriting styles in different periods of history) methods and as the Wiki article on P46 states [I]"As with all manuscripts dated solely by paleography, the dating of (P)46 is uncertain[I/I] ( en.wikipedia.org... )

All estimates based on paeleography are unreliable, irrespective of the many claims which paeleographers make. Scribes often wrote in the writing style of an earler period to make a document look like a document from that period.

Even in the modern world we have had numerous "fake Shakespeare" documents and even the fake Hitler diaries. I am not suggesting however that the many ancient texts and fragments of the Bible are "faked," merely that they may have been written in a previous style of writing to give the imperssion of a more ancient document.

If Constantine et al created the New Testament in the fourth century, why is so much of it 150 to 200 years older?

Well firstly such documents have not been proven to be older; they are merely estimated to be older based upon paeleography. Secondly the article I have hyperlinked in the OP ( www.bibliotecapleyades.net... ), which is a summary of Tony Busby's book, "The Forged Origins of the New Testament" merely claims that the New Testament was essentially a syncretic (a mixture of various pre-existing sources) combination of what was considered to be the best of "in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviors, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them (Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518)." It does not suggest that the New Testament was a completely original document, but rather based on many previous myths, legends and tales of Saviour gods and miracle workers (stage magicians).

Likewise, the consensus of scholars is that at least part of the mentions of Jesus in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews' is likely authentic. But even if it's not, there's the problem of all the early christian graffiti throughout the classical world.

There are two passages from Josepheus, one which refers to Jesus as a person who was "called the Christ," and the other passage where he is referred to as "Christ" or "the Christ," and where Josepheus allegedly even doubts it being lawful to refer to him as a "man;" ths is considered to be a piece of Christian propaganda which was likely inserted into Jospeheus at a later date.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

en.wikipedia.org...

Josepheus was of course Jewish and not a Christian, and it is highly unlikley that he would have written this; it is much more likely to be a later Christian editing of the text. Further there is a version of the text in the Arabic which reads quite differently, thus

For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews: "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 their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders

Ibid

There is a massive amount of evidence of the editing and re-editing of hardwritten copies of texts to suit the propaganda of the Christian Church; ancient documents written on parchement or papyrus could always be scratched out and overwritten to suit various purposes, and there is ample evidence of this.

It is easy enough to say the evidence doesn't exist if you are careful to remain ignorant of any evidence or research. Some of it is problematic, certainly, and the scholarly community is not monolithic about the conclusions. Still, very few of them share the OP's view. I wonder why....

It is simply due to the effects of religious hypnosis and indoctrination.

Lux

___________________

Originally posted by racasan

www.jesusneverexisted.com...

That is a fascinating Internet Site, and while I am agreement with most of the contents of that book, the central thesis, which is that "Jesus never existed" is a thesis which is impossible to prove or disprove.

2000 years ago there were numerous Messianic sects in Israel and numerous Israelites "took up their cross (i.e., rebelled against the state)," just as in the modern world there are numerous Messianic cults, and numerous people in rebellion against their governments, risking torture, imprisonment and martyrdom.

I think that the Monty Python film "Life of Brian" is actually quite useful in understanding the kind of primitive Messianic religious fanaticism which existed in Israel 2000 years ago. I would be quite surprised if there was "not" a person called Joshua (Jesus is an Anglicisation of a famous Biblical name) 2000 years ago whom the "Jewish Messiah" tale of the Gospels is based upon, however what can be established is that the New Testament was compiled at the time of Constantine and is a syncretisation of numerous saviour deities and magicians.

Even if a person called Joshua existed 2000 years ago and claimed to be the Saviour of the Jews, he was only one of many who made the same claim, and we know almost nothing about him; all that we have is a fourth century fabrication of tales attributed to numerous Saviour gods of the ancient world, which was designed to unite the Empire under a single religion, and numerous other contradictory documents about him.

Breaking on the Wheel.
The naked heretic had each limb and joint broken precisely to avoid any fatal blows. He was then 'braided' into the spokes of the wheel and hoisted on to a post. There he was exposed to the elements – or left to be twirled by passers by who wanted to join in the fun.

Or

Slow Burn
A 16th century device to lift the victim in and out of the fire, roasting him alive slowly instead of burning him all at once.

more here:
www.jesusneverexisted.com...

These methods aren’t just about getting some uncooperative voices quietly out of the way; this is about instilling terror into the population and to enforce control

Yes even Constantine demanded the beheading of those who had texts which contradicted his "New Testaments;" it was certainly a means of unifying the empire under a "One Empire" religion.

How the Gospels were created

Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council.

His instructions were:

"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly"

(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39).

Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars.

.....Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce,

"fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art"
(ibid.).

"These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms"

(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36).

They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.


With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the "word of the Roman Savior God" (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonizing in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council "burnt" and declared that "any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders" (beheaded) (ibid.).

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

There are many threads on ATS about christians concerned with the NWO using force and terror tactics to enforce a new religion – I have to wonder if this is because they know this is how their own brand of religion was origional forced onto the world

The "Second Coming" prophecies predict the coming of a genocidal global dictator (a king of kings) who will exterminate all his opponents; it seems to me that the Christians would be the ultimate allies of the NWO dictatorship, which is essentially the International Dictatorship of Captialism, and indeed since most Christians are anti-Communists, that seems also to fit their agenda.

Lux

Originally posted by Lucifer777

P52 is a tiny scrap of Papyrus 3.5 by 2.5 inches which contains lines from the Gospel of John (see en.wikipedia.org... ).

Whether it is a 'tiny scrap' doesn't change the fact that it contains verbatim the Gospel of John on both sides, consistent with being a page out of a codex that was inscribed with the gospel of John. Blood droplets are also 'tiny scraps" of evidence in court cases. Does their size make them irrelevant?

All estimates based on paeleography are unreliable, irrespective of the many claims which paeleographers make.

Yet when documents have been carbon dated, the dates have been consistent with established paleography. (that's where the paleography comes from!). If you choose to discount a major field of research, it's certainly your choice, but it also means you're moving the bar of acceptability higher than a lot of people. I am fascinated by the fact that "ALL estimates" are unreliable. Such a universal sweeping statement could be a useful tool in future research....

Scribes often wrote in the writing style of an earler period to make a document look like a document from that period.

Logically false, if your previous statement that "all" paleography is unrealiable. How would you know?

There are two passages from Josepheus, one which refers to Jesus as a person who was "called the Christ," and the other passage where he is referred to as "Christ" or "the Christ," and where Josepheus allegedly even doubts it being lawful to refer to him as a "man;" ths is considered to be a piece of Christian propaganda which was likely inserted into Jospeheus at a later date.

How so, based on paleography? Most scholars feel that since at least the mention of "Chrestus" appears consistently in that same passage of Antiquities, it is probably authentic, although the different wording in different texts hints that it has been reworked by various Christian editors.

An interesting philosophical question arise from the fact that the 10 or so ancient copies of Josephus were maintained by some of the same monasteries that are sources for the war commentaries of Julius Ceasar. In fact, while it was years ago that I read on this, I remember that not a single ancient copy of Ceasar's work exists apart from libraries that also contained Josephus. By your rubric, we'd need to re-eavluate a LOT of what we think we know about history.

Josepheus was of course Jewish and not a Christian, and it is highly unlikley that he would have written this; it is much more likely to be a later Christian editing of the text. Further there is a version of the text in the Arabic which reads quite differently, thus

So are you saying that a Christian scribe re-worked the text, but that the Arab scribe did NOT? They both talk for a paragraph about a wonder-worker named Jesus, you've posted additional evidence for Christianity's existence hundreds of years before Constantine....

It is simply due to the effects of religious hypnosis and indoctrination.

But your beliefs are not? So everyone who has different opinions from you is a brain-washed hypocrite? Man, you sound like the sort of fanatic you preach against. You claiming a priveleged view for yourself that is every bit as doctrinaire as anyone else. I don't doubt your sincerity, or the effort you have applied to your research; what is disturbing is your ....disdain...for others...