It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Exorcising the New Testament

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 10:52 PM
I start with John, since another thread has been diverted to his works. I am not interested in what published authors proffer unless those authors were an integral part of the causation of the Biblical transcripts, or doctrines or historical views we have today. The verses within the Bible itself are so contradictory, not only within themselves but historically, that all one initially needs to credibly review the claims, are the verses themselves.

Thus far, there are believed to be about 300,000 discrepancies in the NT when compared to earlier documents. Of note is that the greatest amount of variation and or revision is found mainly in the most important portions of the New Testament manuscripts; that is, within those parts upon which the crux of official Church doctrine is based, e.g. Christ’s birth and death; his prayer in the Gethsemane, his utterings as he stood crucified; his resurrection, his rise and ascension up to .

John- As presented is the son of Zabadee. He was the leader of the church at Ephesus, supposedly boiled in oil and exiled to Patmos under Domitian. (emp. 81-96) Lucky for him, he was the only of the apostles to have given up the ghost naturally.

Because John the disciple was the son, the real John author, cannot be John the elder without an heir. Therefore, to assume that the writer of the four noted below is one and the same is neither comprehensible nor plausible. And if he were, why would he offer such diverse identification otherwise? Of the Four John books, the author identifies himself as follows:
The Gospel: the disciple whom Jesus loved
Epistle I: An eyewitness
Epistle II: John The Elder
Epistle III: John The Elder.

It is understood that John’s gospel is vastly different and out of order to the other three because it was written while he was in exile, since he was working independently of others. The John gospel also suggests he wrote same because he wanted the information preserved and therefore it is forgone conclusion that he did not know of the other gospels, if they even existed. As “the one whom Jesus loved” he should be better able to record the events more so than any other. Yet, surprisingly, Jesus chose Peter as pope, the man who denied him and the man who despite his hierarchy, contributes exactly nothing to the NT. John’s gospel renders Matthew’s and Luke’s questionable, where an understanding as to the “genesis” of the biblical texts as we know them today, manifests in the markedly dissimilar accounting of events.

To those who believe The Bible is the literal word of God, I can only say this: God must have had a poor memory considering the differences in conveyance of stories. To those who believe it was a rendering atypical of its time and therefore edited in any fashion for clarity or for any reason for that matter, I say this: if it became necessary to edit the word of God, then the word of God was not indisputably or infallibly relayed to the authors, which is not likely. Further, editing of any sort begs one to delve deeper into the historicity of the text, since, same can no longer be trusted to not have undergone other more material changes effecting the basic premise of God’s word by the scribes or leaders who found it necessary to alter such text to begin with.

Relative to John, and most importantly, since he was supposed to have been exiled by Domitian, he could not have written his gospel until at least 37-43 years until after Christ died. That may explain why the ‘signs gospel’ is more point form than in depth, as compared to the gospel all have come to know, but it does nothing to explain the marked differences between the other three, given the above as elucidated, or to those who believe that The Bible is divinely written, why others beside that which they have come to embace pre-existed.

There are only two fragments of John's gospel dated before 200AD, (The Gospel of Signs) in both, John 7:53-8:11 is missing. This is the story of the stoning of the adulteress, which is also excluded from later Latin translations. Rereading John 7 from 45: “Then came the officers from the chief priests to the Phariseees…” they were engaging Jesus in conversation until 8:53 where it says the Pharisees went into their homes, and the Gospel then continues with Jesus moving on to Mount Olive where the adulterous woman’s story comes in. He is through with the Pharisees…or is he? Immediately after the adulterous issue is resolved in 8:11, Jesus speaks once more to? The Pharisees. Not an oddity really since supposedly, the scribes and Pharisees brought this woman to him (8:3). But 8:10 recounts; “When Jesus had lifted up himself, and ”saw none but the woman”…therefore, he could not have addressed those who were not there. Hence, 7:53 through 8:11 is an addition.

Some may question the claim about editing the text, or promote that the four gospels support each other. Such is a circular argument, since there is nothing stopping anyone from expanding on a story with the inclusion of their own myths, the plagiarizing of some words either verbatim or changed somewhat, then presenting it as support for the other. To use the two as proof of each other in the absence of any other material is fairly solid. But when the storyline as it was being developed is uncovered, then the secondary support can only be viewed with scepticism. This is exactly what we have today and more. Where the older texts as they are uncovered differ from the newer texts, it must be accepted that the older texts are more representative of the truth.

John (Gospel of signs) is not the only to fall under the microscope, but of all of the NT books, it is probably the closest to 39AD thus far since the times of Jesus existence. Does it resemble the Gospel of John? Yes, but in hardly a divine way.

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:41 AM
Author Unknown, said to be Mark…Could it be, John Mark, the disciple?

The major issue with the Gospel of Mark is that the manuscripts available to us have one of three different endings. Did it end at 16:8, or where there two other endings? It does seem somewhat peculiar that it should end at 16:8 “And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulcher; for they trembled and were amazed; neither said they or any thing to any man; for they were afraid.” The they being the women, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome. Peculiar but then again, perhaps not. 16:8 speaks to the disciples running away from Jesus as he was arrested, so it is conceivable that the disciples were in fact nothing but cowardly hangers-on, who, when their leader was taken away disbanded into anonymity.

It is unlikely that the church patriarchs as they reviewed the texts, would have allowed this to stand, after all, the men in those days according to Paul were below Christ and above women. How could the church allow such an ending? Even if Mark had died prior to his completing his work, the forgers of Christianity would have had a choice, include this gospel or discard same. The espistles following same as far as this interpreter is concerned, is intended to show the disciples as having found courage they lacked when most needed as a precursor to continuing the Church’s agenda to create a new religion.

The two other endings found in manuscripts are termed the long (Marcan appendix) and the Abbreviated. The longer is what is found today, and originating from manuscripts dated later than those with the abrupt and shorter endings. The latter adds only: "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." This sets the stage nicely for Matthew 28:7, where the angel tells the women to go and find his (cowardly) disciples. Luke however, seems to want to add to the context, and includes one by the name of Joanna at the sepulchre, whereas John mentions only Magdalena. Aside from the different Marys, which in and of itself is circumspect, considering that according to John (19:25) Mary’s sister was also named Mary, these four gospels can’t seem to relay the word of God in synchronicity, much less the authors find originality in their works.

Suffice it to say, the gospels of John and Mark, save for the appendix on Mark, seem to be totally independent of Matthew’s and Luke’s one stop biblical verse shop.

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 06:22 PM
Hi Somehwere inBetween:

It;s been known for more than 100 years that the earliest copies of Mark's gospels ends in mid-sentence in the Greek EPHOBOUNTO GAR [the women said nothing to anyone:] they (fem.) "were afraid because..." at Mark 16:8

In Greek, GAR (for, because of) is always placed second in a sentence, but never last in a sentence, much less a whole book ending with it.

Also the other "synoptic" Gospels of Matthew and Luke follow Mark fairly closely up to the exact point where Mark breaks off at 16:8 and it is at that point that they start to diverge from each other.

The resurrection pericopes in all 4 gospels do not match each other at all past Mark 16:8.

It has also been suggested that the beginning of Mark is also missing: and Luke's "Great Ommission" of some 1400 Greek Words from Mark in a great block of material (approx Mark chapters 6 through 8) means that Luke's copy must have been missing at least 8 contiguous sides (i.e. a whole 4 page QUIRE of papyrus leaves to the book he was using as a source must have fallen out somehow).

In other words, we can see the early church was sometimes faced with fragmentary material with which to work....

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 06:58 PM
Somewhere, you seem to be full of wisdom, can you expound on these verses for me ?
2 Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

and these also:

1Cor 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: [enticing: or, persuasible]
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. [stand: Gr. be]
6 ¶ Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:47 PM
Constantine, the Church and the ultimate conspiracy approved by imperial decree.

Constantine convenes the first Nicean council in order to settle disputes between the warring factions of Christianity, and promises to them should they come to agreement, his declaration of Catholic Christianity to be the one true faith of the world. Out of this, almost 300 years after the fact, was born the edict, by vote, that Jesus was of divine spirit, and thereafter all other religions to suffer great evils under his and the hands of the pious bishops.

Nicean/Apostles Creed. (Henry R. Percival, The Seven Ecumenical
Councils of the Undivided Church; as obtained from Wheaton College
Ethereal Library of Christian Classics, copyright expired.

The First Council of Nicea C325CEest reviewed the following:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion(3)--all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

As adopted: We believe in one only God, Father Almighty, Creator of things visible and invisible; and in the Lord Jesus Christ, for he is the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, life of life, his only Son, the first-born of all creatures, begotten of the Father before all time, by whom also everything was created, who became flesh for our redemption, who lived and suffered amongst men, rose again the third day, returned to the Father, and will come again one day in his glory to judge the quick and the dead. We believe also in the Holy Ghost We believe that each of these three is and subsists; the Father truly as Father, the Son truly as Son, the Holy Ghost truly as Holy Ghost; as our Lord also said, when he sent his disciples to preach: Go and teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

The major differences are underlined. Since to this day it is uncertain whether or not as claimed, the apostles themselves composed the creed in any form despite the evidence before us they had no hand in same. The importance however, is to understand the language contained within.

Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, prominently known for his historical mapping of the church’s ecclesiastical history, who lived c263-339CE. Eusebius recounted one of the many times division played large politically during the time the Catholic Church was coming into kingly prominence. One such event, the Arian heresy, he sheds light on what may have caused such a document to be passed at Nicea, by his reprinting letters(c320CE) from Arius, and Alexander Bishop of Alexandria who charged him with heresy. To give the gist of the issue, I will reprint some of the letters;

Arius wrote of Alexander- “He has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches...all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of His Son…But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that He does not derive His subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten.

Alexander wrote of Arius- "Impelled by avarice and ambition, evil-minded persons have ever plotted against the wellbeing of the most important dioceses. Under various pretexts, they attack the religion of the Church; and, being maddened by the devil, who works in them, they start aside from all piety according to their own pleasure, and trample under foot the fear of the judgment of God… They revile every godly apostolical doctrine, and in Jewish fashion have organized a gang to fight against Christ, denying His divinity, and declaring Him to be on a level with other men…

It is on this account, beloved brethren, that without delay I have stirred myself up to inform you of the unbelief of certain persons who say that "There was a time when the Son of God was not;" and "He who previously had no existence subsequently came into existence; and when at some time He came into existence He became such as every other man is."

Eusebius the historian himself is credited with having advanced the creed which was adopted. Arius lost the battle, and he and those who believed as he were “anathematized,” and all of his writings were ordered burnt by Constantine. The relevance to the historical adaptations as have been unearthed as of today, went up in smoke.

A most notable quote from Athanasius c296-373 quoting Arius; “Why did the Fathers at Nicaea use terms not in Scripture, Of the essence' and `One in essence?”

A chilling aspect to this Nicene council’s dismissal of arius is the fact that it was convened for that purpose by one, Lucifer of Cagliari.

Not of course beginning or even ending there, the council moved to de-legitimize and denounce The Jews, and institute the pagan ritual of Easter, not for any plausible reason which could be traced to Jesus’ words, but out of intense animus and disdain toward the Jews. Constantine, with a sweep of the royal quill spat on Moses and the very creator. He wrote:

From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council:

When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable, than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom[the calculation] of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,(1) we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the saviour's Passion to the present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast.

How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible. /b]But even if this were not so, it would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such wicked people[the Jews].

Besides, consider well, that in such an important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion, and he desired[to establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is, that on the same day some should be fasting whilst others are seated at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts, whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a Divine Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on the one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the custom now followed by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent,
that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa, in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider not only that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common with the Jews.

To sum up in few words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully the divine favour, and this truly divine command; for all which takes place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding from the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together, seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace, and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my beloved brethren.

Ask most Christians today how the Easter came about and they would have absolutely no clue. Never would they accept that the Christian faith they follow has been scandalized and tainted beyond repair by the politics of men, and a Roman Emperor with a hate for 3700 year old faith.

It is interesting indeed to review the only known records of the various councils and or the writings of the earliest church fathers, and how within them, they progress from quoting the OT, and gradually the writings of the Gospels, mostly Paul, as they build their case and church.

Imagine if Constantine had a grave dislike for the Christian crusade and instead convened a council of Jewish rebbes or Hellenistic priests. I suppose to that the Christians say, it was God's plan.

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
Somewhere, you seem to be full of wisdom, can you expound on these verses for me ?
2 Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Certainly. as a preface, let's discuss what we know of the epistles of Timothy. 1) There is nothing mentioned of them priot to 170CE by any of the writings from a historical perspective. 2) He provides for the qualifications of the church's elect ministers, which, if you were familiar with the various councils, you would note the extent to which they went to procure standards for the ordination of same and the reverence they were to be given. In other words, a hierchy, to which these epistles surfaced from nowhere expounding the virtues of the church.

That was by pure design, as the supposed author, Timothy shows his true allegiance by beginning his sermons with : "Paul as an apostle of Jesus Christ..." and fittingly so, for he did not know christ, he was a convert of Paul's. And it was supposedly from his parents oddly enough that Paul was given instruction in the scriptures. Why odd? well Tim's folks couldn't convert him, but the man they converted managed to convert him. Strange indeed.

Now onto your next:

1Cor 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: [enticing: or, persuasible]
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. [stand: Gr. be]
6 ¶ Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

Sweet of Paul to be addressing letters to various churches, their initial or answers we do not have. Nontheless, it seems he had great difficulty convincing many of his charms, or is that wiles? Now aside from I Cor., he also penned the second, which was actually his third to them, where he must have been distraught to find that the church at Corinth was pretty much considering him a fake. And to that and the first part of your question I offer you the first of two answers, 1)The truth is within the Bible, the words which we believe wholeheartedly just as applicable to the evil side of man as to the good. How dangerous the faith without wisdom to ask if the design of the words are intended to purposely steer away from the truth under pretense of blasphemy? the second and final answer which neither you nor anyone else can counter:

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no other saviour.

new topics

top topics

log in