Exposing the tragic fabrication of a saviour of the world

reply to post by racasan

. . . the place where Jesus is said to have been born . . .

These spots were picked out by the Emperor's mother, Saint Helena.
She traveled to Palestine and chose these spots according to some prophecy she was in possession of.
So you can't really blame Christians so much as the Roman Empire for these places being handed down.

reply to post by jmdewey60


That's funny, isn't the Vatican Roman?

I guess old power really does stay in the family.

reply to post by wildtimes

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.[3]"

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.[4]"

[3] Vita Constantini, IV,36
[4] Vita Constantini, IV,37

Without recreating the chart, Glenn Davis has listed early authors (pre Constantine) who quoted New Testament verses. That indicates their existence before the theorized invention of the New Testament by Eusibius. His material is mostly from Metzger, Bruce M., The Canon of the New Testament:Its Origin, Development, and Significance.Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1987.

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)
  

reply to post by wildtimes

Why do we bother, do ya think? I mean, psychologically...why do we bother?

Probably not wanting to be oppressed. If you empower yourself to be able to make your own decisions, then you can get to a point to where you do not have to bow to a power pretending to be more authoritative than your own intelligence.
Now that does not mean being arrogant, so that if you do meet, for example, Jesus and he is doing miracles and giving true prophecies, then you can concede to the spiritual trumping the intellectual.

The person on the web site, ex-minister, is quoting a book written by a dentist in the 1800's calling itself the book of Eskra. That is just something someone wrote as their theory, and not a historical source.

reply to post by pthena

I would be of the opinion that Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica ( Preparation of the Gospel ) would be the work that met the criteria stated here:

I think that would be a good solution to what that quote in ex-minister was talking about.

Here's the link to what ex-minister is citing as far as the making of copies of the Bible goes

"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39)

ex-minister
found at book 4 of Eusebius' Life of Constantine, chapters 36 and 37 on page 549 at
internet archive
I don't find in the actual book what the web-site owner seems to be claiming it does say (in my quote above). I does say what he quotes below that.

"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 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.

reply to post by jmdewey60


So one of the holist places in Christendom was randomly chosen by Constantine’s mum, I have heard the same was done in the case Nazareth – I am beginning to see a pattern

reply to post by racasan

So one of the holist places in Christendom was randomly chosen by Constantine’s mum . . .

That was something I read in Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus by Joseph Atwill.
What he was doing was making a connection between the Imperial Family, and the writers of the Gospels, so the implication is by Atwill that it is not "random" as you suggested, but that she knew the key to match actual geographical locations with the Gospel Stories. That was not what I was arguing for in my earlier post, but apparently the family members of the Flavians (which Constantine was a member of) connection to naming the sites.

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.


Cheers.

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.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Tony Bushby is a complete quack! Here's a review of a book by him: Tony Bushby's The Bible Fraud: A Critique

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 [15]. 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. [41] Some stories in the Gospels, like the Temple cleansing, are actually about Khrestus [67] 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 [84]

Now, it seems he has a new book out: The Christ Scandal that seems to pretty much say there is no Jesus? What about the Celtic king Lud then?

I guess his MO is to churn out a new book every time he gets a wild idea, state it as fact, even though it may completely contradict other books he's written.

Maybe I'll email him with a new book idea:

Christianity was invented by King James, and introduced in 1611, with the Original King James Bible. Many people then forged all the ancient documents. Bushby can then gain sole secret access to documents that show the fraud(he's good at seeing books that no one else has seen in 400 years).

reply to post by wildtimes


Has anyone on this thread remembered this verse from 2 John 1:7?

"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Yeshua The Messiah has come in the flesh; such a person is a deceiver and antichrist."

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.

reply to post by dirtylinguist
I think your post would be a prime example of what John was warning against.

The name of Jesus is, Jesus (or, Iésous, in the Greek way of spelling it).

You have changed the text of the Bible, and created a lying rendition of scripture.

The word is, Christ, in the verse, 2 John 1:7.

Your version is translated in such a way as would fit an anti-christian agenda.

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?

That it was effective and everyone wanted to appropriate some of it?

Like the Mithras fables that are similar to Christianity, people accuse early Christians of copying Mithraic Mysteries. When you actually investigate these Mithraic Mysteries, you find that they actually post-date Christianity and not vice-versa. It is far more likely that Mithraism copied Christianity. Wikipedia - Mithraic Mysteries

The origins of Christianity are in the Torah and predate Christs incarnation by thousands of years. The likelihood that the 800 Torah prophecies about the Messiah could be fulfilled in any person other than Jesus Christ is almost non existent.

reply to post by dirtylinguist

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.

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.

Go figure.

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.
...Go figure.

Hey, wildtimes, looking through some older threads...saw this one...have read through a good bit of it, and...see that nothing has been added for quite a few months.
Wondering at what, if any, progress you've made in the substantive question that began this thread...?
Seems to me that most detractors have pointed to the works & research of others for debunking...but, I'm wondering what you might have found.
I have looked into these same questions...found some of the allegations wanting, found some to be very interesting (if nothing else)...and generally found that, without access to the same "records" (to verify for myself), I will ever be left wondering.
What say you?
(Should you reply - Thanks - otherwise...have fun with your more current dilemma/s. )

reply to post by WanDash


Hi, there, Wan-Dash!

Yes, like you, I think I will be ever wondering as long as I draw breath....