. . . the place where Jesus is said to have been born . . .
So...can you provide links showing that the excerpts above are less factual than they might be?
Fifty Bibles of Constantine
According to Eusebius, Constantine I wrote him in his letter:
"I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practised in their art."
About accomplishing the Emperor's demand:
"Such were the emperor's commands, which were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form."
 Vita Constantini, IV,36
 Vita Constantini, IV,37
The Development of the Canon of the New Testament
An early Christian authority is included in this survey if he or it gives important evidence on the development of the canon of the New Testament (perhaps even having some influence on it) and did so before ~400 CE, when the first complete manuscripts of the Vulgate were issued. The early 'authorities' fall into these categories:
- early Church fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Didymus the Blind)
- early heretics and their followers (Marcion and Marcionites, Valentinus and the Valentinians)
- lists of canonical books (Muratorian Canon, Athanasius' Festal Epistle)
- a single manuscript collection (codex Sinaiticus)
- series of manuscripts (Pe#ta, Vulgate)
Why do we bother, do ya think? I mean, psychologically...why do we bother?
I think that would be a good solution to what that quote in ex-minister was talking about.
I would be of the opinion that Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica ( Preparation of the Gospel ) would be the work that met the criteria stated here:
"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39)
So the owner of the web-site, ex-minister, seems to be alternating between Eusebius and God's Book of Eskra and "accidentally" putting the wrong citation to the "astonish" statement.
"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"
So one of the holist places in Christendom was randomly chosen by Constantine’s mum . . .
Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by wildtimes
Christianity was the ultimate product of religious syncretism in the ancient world. Its emergence owed nothing to a holy carpenter. There were many Jesuses but the fable was a cultural construct. The nativity yarn is a concatenation of nonsense. The genealogies of Jesus, both Matthew's version and Luke's, are pious fiction. Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs. With multiple authors behind the original gospel story it is no surprise that the figure of "Jesus" is a mess of contradictions. Yet the story is so thinly drawn that being a "good Christian" might mean almost anything. The 12 disciples are as fictitious as their master, invented to legitimise the claims of the early churches. The original Mary was not a virgin, that idea was borrowed from pagan goddesses. The pagan world knew all about virgins getting pregnant by randy gods: The Mythical "Virgin Mother".
The above is, of course, based on one person's interpretation/opinion of the Christian gospels and other various in-paths to the story of Jesus Christ. This person is entitled to their opinion... they have a right (in my opinion) to spread their own version of that aforementioned gospel.
Moreover, it is currently trendy in a cultural sense to slam Christianity. One must expect this kind of thing.
Yes it is trendy to slam Christians it takes no balls to do so, it would take real balls to slam Islam becase if you do they will cut your head off. Maybe Christians should take up the sword and do the same.
Let's start with a summary of the plot:
Jesus married Mary Magdalene as well as two other women in his lifetime. Mary was a descendant of King Herod and Jesus was a descendant of a Celtic king named Lud. (I don't know how a Celtic managed to work his way to, and survive in, Jewish Palestine, where he'd stick out like the sorest thumb this side of Los Angeles.)
Jesus' line eventually fostered Constantine . However, Jesus and a twin brother named Judas Khrestus (?!) were "conceived by rape or adultery" between a member of Herod's family and the Emperor Tiberius.  Some stories in the Gospels, like the Temple cleansing, are actually about Khrestus  and this Khrestus escaped a sentence of crucifixion imposed by Caligula in 37 by appealing to an "age-old tradition" that allowed him to have someone sub in for him 
Originally posted by Starchild23
It is interesting to find that, when one researches the origin of God, one is lead to a plethora of other gods and religions...
What does this tell us about Christianity?
I'm not stating an opinion, but it is interesting that the Bible warned against anyone investigating or even mentioning whether or not Josh actually existed.
Originally posted by wildtimes
...Does it? Hmmm. It's not my handbook, so I guess it wasn't intended for me. Glad I have the option to investigate and mention it without fear of punishment. Haven't been struck by lightning yet. No natural disasters in my experience except a couple of tornadoes that swept near my home. I feel lots of peace and hope emanating from within. I feel connected to the Essence, one with it, and joyful every day that I live.
...So, I choose to continue not using that archaic and confusing handbook that was written for a diaspora of people with whom I have no claim of membership.