What Bible Really Says

<div class="clearfix" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15.359999656677246px; zoom: 1;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyY1HMgeSK7cI32O4qbFWp4gs2fkO2awD85dO8UeU-sTI27Padf6BuTScsqEda3MeIMvnKL_1HCZQKpNGrl0jMihJboeiVSob_u38Aezwy86vl7MKDkZciSzLYx8rLD28ialAe4LO8O0BA/s0/bible1.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 0em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyY1HMgeSK7cI32O4qbFWp4gs2fkO2awD85dO8UeU-sTI27Padf6BuTScsqEda3MeIMvnKL_1HCZQKpNGrl0jMihJboeiVSob_u38Aezwy86vl7MKDkZciSzLYx8rLD28ialAe4LO8O0BA/s0/bible1.jpg"/></a></div> <h2 class="_5clb" style="font-size: 24px; line-height: 28px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></h2><h2 class="_5clb" style="font-size: 24px; line-height: 28px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 20px;">I started reading a book titled "What the Bible REALLY Says." It is a collection of chapters written by different theologians, each on a different topic. The chapter titled "The Future" was written by James D. Tabor. I'm not familiar with him, but his work on the topic seems to be very thorough.</span></h2></div><div class="_5k3v _5k3w clearfix" style="line-height: 20px; margin-top: 16px; word-wrap: break-word; zoom: 1;"><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">The reason I'm writing this is because there is scriptural justification for the belief that we go to the hereafter immediately after death, and also justification for the belief that we wait until "Judgment Day." In addition, there is justification for the belief that when you die, you die. Period.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Let's start with the first references to the hereafter in the Bible and work forward. The early Hebrew Bible says "when you die, you die." The Early Jews saw the universe as divided into three basic realms: the Firmament (Sky) or Heavens, the dwelling place of God and his divine angelic court, as well as the place of the sun, moon, planets, and stars. Here no mortal belonged. Then there was the realm of earth below, what the first chapter of Genesis calls "the dry land." It is the proper human place, shared with all the other forms of life -- a thoroughly mortal realm. The earth was seen as a flat disk; at the edges were the threatening waters of chaos, held back by the command of God. Finally, below the earth was the dark realm of the dead, which was called Sheol by the Hebrews and Hades by the Greeks.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">The ancient Hebrews saw a particular order arise from this cosmological configuration. They saw the "proper place" of gods (Elohim) and angels as being in the heavens (inhabiting the upper heavenly realm and not subject to death). Such heavenly bodies were able to come down to earth in human form to visit (Gen 11:5-7; 18:20-21; Exod 3:1-6). But clearly the immortal beings, or "gods," belong in heaven -- it is their proper sphere, while they only visit the earth below. Conversely, humans are mere mortals, placed on the earth, with no idea whatsoever of any future in heaven. Their only permanent movement is down, to the lower world of the dead.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Basically, the ancient Jews, death was a one-way trip. There is no return. Job says:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">But man dies, and is laid low; man breathes his las, and where is he? As water fail from a lake, and a river wastes away and dries up, so man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more HE WILL NOT AWAKE, or be aroused out of his sleep. (Job 14:10-12)</blockquote><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">All dead go down to Sheol, and there they lie in sleep together -- good or evil, rich or poor, slave or free (Job 3:11-19). It is described in Psalms as the "land of forgetfulness," "the Pit," a region "dark and deep," cut off from God and human life above. It is clearly, in the mind of Job, a nothingness.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Deuteronomy, I Kings, and II Samual bear this same view of death. It is the "great equalizer." One could accurately say that the ancient Jews had no view of the future for the individual human person,</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Eccliastes tells us the same thing:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust, again.</blockquote><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Scattered here and there in the Hebrew Prophets, a dramatically different vision of the future begins to emerge in later texts. This view is built around the vision of a restored Israel, but it also sets forth the hope of a transformed cosmos, extending from the heights of heaven to the depths of Sheol, and including all normal cycles of nature and human history. In this view, all that led the author of Ecclesiastes to cry out, "vanity of vanities, all is vanity." will be reversed. Isaiah describes a time when even the violence of nature, "red in tooth and claw," will end:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leapard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them.</blockquote><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">This transformation is like a second creation. Isaiah terms it "a new heaven and a new earth." Total peace reigns. The desert blooms. Death itself is swallowed up forever, suggesting a resurrection. But it is interesting to note that in this idealized version of a hereafter, all are still here on the same earth, albeit a transformed earth. This suggests a compressed cosmos where the three realms are all melded into one. The immortal heavenly realm above "comes down" to earth, and the world of death below is eliminated or "moved up" through resurrection. In this view, salvation is eschatological (connected to the afterlife, and not of this life). It comes at the end of history, through divine intervention in the affairs of this world, as the new transformed age is inaugurated.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">During Greek and Roman times (the fourth century BCE to the first century CE), the view of the future was pictured as taking place "away from the earth," without any required end of history, with the soul leaving the body and the earthly realm at death and obtaining immortal life in heaven above.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">The Book of Daniel paints a totally different view of the future. Following a succession of world kingdoms (Babylon, Persian, Greek, and Roman, as they were subsequently interpreted), an evil ruler would come, march into Palestine, defile the Temple at Jerusalem, persecute God's people for a very limited time (about three and a half years), then be completely crushed by the sudden intervention of God. The resurrection of the death and final judgment would follow. This scenario became the backbone of all the Apocalyptic accounts laid out in the NT.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Solomon saw no hereafter for the wicked:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">Short and sorrowful. is our life, and there is no remedy when a man comes to his end, and no one has been known to return from Hades. Because we were born by mere chance, and hereafter we shall be as though we had never been;</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">because the breath in our nostrils is smoke, and reason is a spark kindled by the beating of our hearts. When it is extinguished, the body will turn to ashed, and the spirit will dissolve like empty air. Our name will be forgotten in time,</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">and no one will remember our works. (2:1-4)</div></blockquote><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">But later, in 21-24, Solomon strongly supports a view that is the very opposite of Ecclesiastes:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. In the eyes of the foolish they SEEMED to have died and their departure was thought to be an affliction, and their gong from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For though in the sight of men they were punished,their hope is full or immortality. (3:1-4</div></blockquote><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">He goes on to say that at the time of their visitation they will "come forth" (be resurrected) and will end up governing and ruling nations in the Kingdom of God (3:7-8)</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">The NT goes a step further. The Sadducees held the position that when you are dead, you're dead, but Jesus refuted that position, arguing for some kid of continued existence after death as well as a FUTURE resurrection (Mark 12:18- 27) In Acts 23:6-10, Paul also makes a point of distinguishing his faith in resurrection of the dead from the view of the Sadducees.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">What the early Christians meant by "resurrection," however, is not altogether clear. While the accounts of Jesus' resurrection suggest that he was literally resuscitated, walked among them, ate, drank, and presumably exercised all bodily functions, John 20-19 tells of this body coming through locked doors, and Paul defends the idea of some sort of "spiritual" body that is definitely NOT flesh and blood. REsurrecton, throughout the NT, is at the end when Jesus returns with the clouds of heaven to gather his elect people together (Luke 20_34-36, Matt 11-20-24; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15; I Thess. 4:15-17; I Cor, 15:51-52, II Tim 4:1; Rev 11:18). The only exceptions appear to be when Jesus Himself rose from the dead, and the few times when He personally raised some people from the dead.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Paul prefers the image of the dead being "asleep" intil the Judgment Day, but he also believed that the "spirit" of a departed Christian went to "be with Christ" (Phil 1:19-26; II Cor. 5:6-10; I Thess. 4:14).</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">Several places in the NT we clearly find the notion that the dead are conscious, dwelling somewhere in the heavenly realms beyond, and awaiting, either in torment or comfort, the final judgment (Luke 16:19-31, 23:43; I Pet. 3:18-20; 4:6; Rev. 6:9-11; 7:9-12).</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">As you can see, ALL views of the hereafter are biblical, depending on which culture you choose to think "got it right." Those who say that when you die, you die, are merely echoing the views of the ancient Jews and, later, the Sadducees. If somebody who believes differently says that the humanists and atheists who hold that view are adopting a philosophy of despair, they are being critical of their own theological roots.</div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "helvetica neue", helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">[Source: What The Bible REALLY Says, By Marilyn Burge]</div></div>

What Bible Really Says

I started reading a book titled "What the Bible REALLY Says." It is a collection of chapters written by different theologians, ...

What Bible Really Says

I started reading a book titled "What the Bible REALLY Says." It is a collection of chapters written by different theologians, ...

Read more »

The Forged Origin of The New Testament

<div class="separator" style="clear: both;display:none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKKUgm_g7ED3BdR6FIcKC99cPAYquKQa5BTMznA3khuAx5HfYzh7mZ498BTJs9gug9ifWOLdXQRYtiDmcgxUxQqF8r4vqtxUSUfZCeQs4esYzqoMZgEo4CYVy42fm0lsghkUnxFDxszOTv/s0/bible-2.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKKUgm_g7ED3BdR6FIcKC99cPAYquKQa5BTMznA3khuAx5HfYzh7mZ498BTJs9gug9ifWOLdXQRYtiDmcgxUxQqF8r4vqtxUSUfZCeQs4esYzqoMZgEo4CYVy42fm0lsghkUnxFDxszOTv/s0/bible-2.jpg"/></a></div><div class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4jlAAb7uQHcRP0mX7jtlJohPuCJ1vZLDFfu7MocsJi_AZMbHfq0BdaEoYv-ZfQ4yNPOrYjh9jSIdDDtI8edqmMt3J2A4TDBF1TLEuLBIlIV7wVhrQFN5mJ_IJj5kxEJT_wxwmnEI8qaQ/s1600/img-SevilleOrangeeee.jpg" imageanchor="1" style=""><img border="0" data-original-height="464" data-original-width="499" height="auto" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4jlAAb7uQHcRP0mX7jtlJohPuCJ1vZLDFfu7MocsJi_AZMbHfq0BdaEoYv-ZfQ4yNPOrYjh9jSIdDDtI8edqmMt3J2A4TDBF1TLEuLBIlIV7wVhrQFN5mJ_IJj5kxEJT_wxwmnEI8qaQ/s280/img-SevilleOrangeeee.jpg" width="280" /></a></div><br />By <strong>Tony Bushby</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bibliotecapleyades.net%2Fbiblianazar%2Fesp_biblianazar_42.htm&h=hAQH56eU1&s=1" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Spanish version</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">March 2007</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Extracted from Nexus Magazine</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Volume 14, Number 4 (June - July 2007)</div><div style="text-align: justify;">from <a href="http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nexusmagazine.com%2F&h=IAQEj5V9i&s=1" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">NexusMagazine</a> Website</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">About the Author</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Tony Bushby, an Australian, became a businessman and entrepreneur early in his adult life. He established a magazine-publishing business and spent 20 years researching, writing and publishing his own magazines, primarily for the Australian and New Zealand markets.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">With strong spiritual beliefs and an interest in metaphysical subjects, Tony has developed long relationships with many associations and societies throughout the world that have assisted his research by making their archives available. He 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).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Copies of these books are available from the NEXUS website and the Joshua Books website address here: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/notes/cah-bagus-answering-christianity/the-forged-origin-of-the-new-testament/%3C/span%3E%3C/span%3Ehttp://www.joshuabooks.com"></a><a href="http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joshuabooks.com%2F&h=DAQFdHGca&s=1">http://www.joshuabooks.com</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As Tony Bushby vigorously protects his privacy, any correspondence should be sent to him care of NEXUS Magazine, PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560, Australia, fax +61 (0) 7 5442 9381.</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong><br /></strong><strong>WHAT THE CHURCH DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It has often been emphasized that <em>Christianity</em> 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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Church agrees, saying:</div><div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."</div><br />(<b>Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712</b>)</blockquote><div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings,</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">"the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era"</div><br />(<b>Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel <em>Jesus Christ</em>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that,</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD"<br /><br />(<b>Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a <em>Jesus Christ</em> walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history. There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (<strong>Constantine</strong>, originally <em>Custennyn</em> or <em>Custennin</em>) (272-337) who authorized the compilation of the writings now called the <em>New Testament</em>. After the death of his father in 306, Constantine became King of Britain, Gaul and Spain, and then, after a series of victorious battles, Emperor of the Roman Empire. Christian historians give little or no hint of the turmoil of the times and suspend Constantine in the air, free of all human events happening around him. In truth, one of Constantine's main problems was the uncontrollable disorder amongst presbyters and their belief in numerous gods.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress the truth about the development of their religion and conceal Constantine's efforts to curb the disreputable character of the presbyters who are now called "Church Fathers" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1). They were "maddened", he said (<em>Life of Constantine</em>, attributed to Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171; The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, cited as N&PNF, attributed to St Ambrose, Rev. Prof. Roberts, DD, and Principal James Donaldson, LLD, editors, 1891, vol. iv, p. 467).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The "peculiar type of oratory" expounded by them was a challenge to a settled religious order (<em>The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art</em>, Oskar Seyffert, Gramercy, New York, 1995, pp. 544-5). Ancient records reveal the true nature of the presbyters, and the low regard in which they were held has been subtly suppressed by modern Church historians.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In reality, they were:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">"...the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses ... they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets ... they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables ... and still the less do they understand ... and they write nonsense on vellum ... and still be doing, never done."</div><br />(<b>Contra Celsum ["Against Celsus"], Origen of Alexandria, c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim</b>)</blockquote><strong></strong></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Clusters of presbyters had developed "many gods and many lords" (1 Cor. 8:5) and numerous religious sects existed, each with differing doctrines (Gal. 1:6). Presbyterial groups clashed over attributes of their various gods and "altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience (Optatus of Milevis, 1:15, 19, early fourth century). From Constantine's point of view, there were several factions that needed satisfying, and he set out to develop an all-embracing religion during a period of irreverent confusion. In an age of crass ignorance, with nine-tenths of the peoples of Europe illiterate, stabilizing religious splinter groups was only one of Constantine's problems.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The smooth generalization, which so many historians are content to repeat, thatConstantine "embraced the Christian religion" and subsequently granted "official toleration", is "contrary to historical fact" and should be erased from our literature forever (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. iii, p. 299, passim). Simply put, <em>there was no Christian religion at Constantine's time</em>, and the Church acknowledges that <em>the tale of his "conversion" and "baptism" are "entirely legendary"</em> (<em>Catholic Encyclopedia</em>, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Constantine "never acquired a solid theological knowledge" and "depended heavily on his advisers in religious questions" (<em>Catholic Encyclopedia</em>, New Edition, vol. xii, p. 576, passim). According to Eusebeius (260-339), Constantine noted that among the presbyterian factions "strife had grown so serious, vigorous action was necessary to establish a more religious state", but he could not bring about a settlement between rival god factions (<em>Life of Constantine</em>, op. cit., pp. 26-8). His advisers warned him that the presbyters' religions were "destitute of foundation" and needed official stabilization (ibid.).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Constantine saw in this confused system of fragmented dogmas the opportunity to create a new and combined State religion, neutral in concept, and to protect it by law. When he conquered the East in 324 he sent his Spanish religious adviser, Osius of Córdoba, to Alexandria with letters to several bishops exhorting them to make peace among themselves. The mission failed and Constantine, probably at the suggestion of Osius, then issued a decree commanding all presbyters and their subordinates "be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public, and travel to the city of Nicaea" in the Roman province of Bithynia in Asia Minor.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">They were instructed to bring with them the testimonies they orated to the rabble, "bound in leather" for protection during the long journey, and surrender them to Constantine upon arrival in Nicaea (<em>The Catholic Dictionary</em>, Addis and Arnold, 1917, "Council of Nicaea" entry).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Their writings totaled,</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">"in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of godsand saviors, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them"</div><br />(<b>Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA AND THE 'MISSING RECORDS'</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious <em>order of Sol Invictus</em>, one of the two thriving cults that regarded <em>the Sun as the one and only Supreme God</em> (the other was <em>Mithraism</em>). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (<em>Catholic Encyclopedia</em>, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" (<em>Ecclesiastical History</em>, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea,Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said,</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">"Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing"</div><br />(<b>Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr <strong>Richard Watson</strong> (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as "a set of gibbering idiots" (<em>An Apology for Christianity</em>, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, "On Councils" entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that "the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronized the vilest abominations" (<em>An Apology for Christianity</em>, op. cit.).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and <em>the theological creation of Jesus Christ</em>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are "strangely absent from the canons" (<em>Catholic Encyclopedia</em>, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly what happened to them. However, according to records that endured, Eusebius "occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor's behalf" (<em>Catholic Encyclopedia</em>, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. "Seventy Eastern bishops" represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (<em>Ecclesiastical History</em>, ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage traveled from Africa, Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It was at that <em>puerile assembly</em>, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 "bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (<em>An Apology for Christianity</em>, op. cit.). By this time, a huge assortment of "wild texts" (<em>Catholic Encyclopedia</em>, New Edition, "Gospel and Gospels") circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo, Fragapatti, Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus, Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis, Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph, Saturn, Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes</div><br />(<b>God's Book of Eskra, anon., ch. xlviii, paragraph 36</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods -Apollo and Zeus- but the great bulk of common people idolized either <em>Julius Caesar</em> or<em>Mithras</em> (the Romanized version of the Persian deity <em>Mithra</em>). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death (15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as "the Divine Julius". The word "Savior" was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being "one who sows the seed", i.e., he was a phallic god.</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">Julius Caesar was hailed as, "God made manifest and universal Savior of human life", and his successor Augustus was called the "ancestral God and Savior of the whole human race"</div><br />(<b>Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Emperor <strong>Nero</strong> (54-68), whose original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (37-68), was immortalized on his coins as the "Savior of mankind" (ibid.). The Divine Julius as Roman Savior and "Father of the Empire" was considered "God" among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was the deity in some Western presbyters' texts, but was not recognized in Eastern or Oriental writings.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion.</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">"As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter... For one year and five months the balloting lasted..."</div><br />(<b>God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">At the end of that time, <strong>Constantine</strong> returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">Caesar<br />Krishna<br />Mithra<br />Horus<br />Zeus<br /><br />(<b>Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, <em>Hesus</em>, be joined with the Eastern Savior-god, Krishna (<em>Krishna</em> is Sanskrit for <em>Christ</em>), and thus <em>Hesus Krishna</em> would be the official name of the new Roman god.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one <em>God</em>. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified byConstantine (<em>Acta Concilii Nicaeni</em>, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion; and because there was no letter "J" in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into "<em></em></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><em>Jesus Christ".</em></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>HOW THE GOSPELS WERE CREATED</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">His instructions were:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">"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."</div><br />(<b>God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31</b>)<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly"</div><br />(<b>Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Eusebius</strong> 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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Merging the <em>supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna</em> with <em>British Culdean beliefs</em>effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce,</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">"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"</div><br />(<b>ibid.</b>).<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">"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"</div><br />(<b>Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the <em>New Testament</em> in the historical record.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">With his instructions fulfilled, <strong>Constantine</strong> then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the "<em>word of the Roman Savior God"</em> (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.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Some council records also survived, and they provide alarming ramifications for the Church. Some old documents say that <em>the First Council of Nicaea</em> ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle to establish a god was so fierce that it extended "for four years and seven months" from its beginning in June 325 (<em>Secrets of the Christian Fathers</em>, op. cit.). Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title "<em>Great and Holy Synod"</em>, assigned to the assembly by the Church in the 18th century.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Earlier Churchmen, however, expressed a different opinion. The Second Council of Nicaea in 786-87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as,</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">"a synod of fools and madmen" and sought to annul "decisions passed by men with troubled brains"</div><br />(<b>History of the Christian Church, H. H. Milman, DD, 1871</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">If one chooses to read the records of <em>the Second Nicaean Council</em> and notes references to "affrighted bishops" and the "soldiery" needed to "quell proceedings", the "fools and madmen" declaration is surely an example of the pot calling the kettle black.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called <em>pagan beliefs into a new religious system</em> brought many converts. Later Church writers made him "the great champion of Christianity" which he gave,</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire"<br /><br />(<b>Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, New York, 1994, p. 86</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Historical records reveal this to be incorrect, for it was "self-interest" that led him to create Christianity (<em>A Smaller Classical Dictionary</em>, <strong>J. M. Dent</strong>, London, 1910, p. 161). Yet it wasn't called "Christianity" until the 15th century (<em>How The Great Pan Died</em>, Professor <strong>Edmond S. Bordeaux</strong> [Vatican archivist], Mille Meditations, USA, MCMLXVIII, pp. 45-7).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine's New Testimonies were expanded upon, "interpolations" were added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122). For example, in 397 John "golden-mouthed" Chrysostom restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and <em>made them part of the New Testimonies</em> (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Latinized name for <em>Apollonius</em> is Paulus (<em>A Latin-English Dictionary</em>, J. T. White and J. E. Riddle, Ginn & Heath, Boston, 1880), and the Church today calls those writings the <em>Epistles of Paul</em>. Apollonius's personal attendant, Damis, an Assyrian scribe, is <em>Demis</em> in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:10).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Church hierarchy knows the truth about the origin of its Epistles, for Cardinal Bembo (d. 1547), secretary to Pope Leo X (d. 1521), advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto, to disregard them, saying,</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"put away these trifles, for such absurdities do not become a man of dignity; they were introduced on the scene later by a sly voice from heaven"<br /><br />(<b>Cardinal Bembo: His Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, A. L. Collins, London, 1842 reprint</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">The Church admits that the <em>Epistles of Paul</em> are forgeries, saying,</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors"<br /><br />(<b>Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645</b>).</blockquote><span style="text-align: justify;">Likewise, St Jerome (d. 420) declared that the </span><em style="text-align: justify;">Acts of the Apostles</em><span style="text-align: justify;">, the fifth book of the New Testament, was also "falsely written" ("The Letters of Jerome", Library of the Fathers, Oxford Movement, 1833-45, vol. v, p. 445).</span><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>THE SHOCK DISCOVERY OF AN ANCIENT BIBLE</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The New Testament subsequently evolved into a fulsome piece of priesthood propaganda, and the Church claimed it recorded the intervention of a divine Jesus Christ into Earthly affairs. However, a spectacular discovery in a remote Egyptian monastery revealed to the world the extent of later falsifications of the Christian texts, themselves only an "assemblage of legendary tales" (<em>Encyclopédie</em>, Diderot, 1759).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">On 4 February 1859, 346 leaves of an ancient codex were discovered in the furnace room at St Catherine's monastery at Mt Sinai, and its contents sent shockwaves through the Christian world. Along with other old codices, it was scheduled to be burned in the kilns to provide winter warmth for the inhabitants of the monastery. Written in Greek on donkey skins, it carried both the Old and New Testaments, and later in time archaeologists dated its composition to around the year 380.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It was discovered by Dr <strong>Constantin von Tischendorf</strong> (1815-1874), a brilliant and pious German biblical scholar, and he called it <em>the Sinaiticus</em>, the Sinai Bible. Tischendorf was a professor of theology who devoted his entire life to the study of New Testament origins, and his desire to read all the ancient Christian texts led him on the long, camel-mounted journey to St Catherine's Monastery.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">During his lifetime, Tischendorf had access to other ancient Bibles unavailable to the public, such as the <em>Alexandrian</em> (or Alexandrinus) <em>Bible</em>, believed to be the second oldest Bible in the world. It was so named because in 1627 it was taken from Alexandria to Britain and gifted to King Charles I (1600-49). Today it is displayed alongside the world's oldest known Bible, <em>the Sinaiticus</em>, in the British Library in London. During his research, Tischendorf had access to <em>the Vaticanus</em>, the Vatican Bible, believed to be the third oldest in the world and dated to the mid-sixth century (<em>The Various Versions of the Bible</em>, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1874, available in the British Library).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It was locked away in the Vatican's inner library. Tischendorf asked if he could extract handwritten notes, but his request was declined. However, when his guard took refreshment breaks, Tischendorf wrote comparative narratives on the palm of his hand and sometimes on his fingernails ("<em>Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?",</em> Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, lecture, 1869, available in the British Library).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Today, there are several other Bibles written in various languages during the fifth and sixth centuries, examples being the <em>Syriacus</em>, the <em>Cantabrigiensis</em> (Bezae), the <em>Sarravianus</em> and the <em>Marchalianus</em>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A shudder of apprehension echoed through Christendom in the last quarter of the 19th century when English-language versions of the Sinai Bible were published. Recorded within these pages is information that disputes Christianity's claim of historicity. Christians were provided with irrefutable evidence of willful falsifications in all modern New Testaments. So different was the Sinai Bible's New Testament from versions then being published that the Church angrily tried to annul the dramatic new evidence that challenged its very existence.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In a series of articles published in the London Quarterly Review in 1883, <strong>John W. Burgon</strong>, Dean of Chichester, used every rhetorical device at his disposal to attack the Sinaiticus' earlier and opposing story of <em>Jesus Christ</em>, saying that,</div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">"...without a particle of hesitation, the Sinaiticus is scandalously corrupt ... exhibiting the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with; they have become, by whatever process, the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders and intentional perversions of the truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of God".</blockquote><span style="text-align: justify;">Dean Burgon's concerns mirror opposing aspects of Gospel stories then current, having by now evolved to a new stage through centuries of tampering with the fabric of an already unhistorical document.</span><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>THE REVELATIONS OF ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT TESTING</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 1933, the British Museum in London purchased the Sinai Bible from the Soviet government for £100,000, of which £65,000 was gifted by public subscription. Prior to the acquisition, this Bible was displayed in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg, Russia, and "few scholars had set eyes on it" (The Daily Telegraph and Morning Post, 11 January 1938, p. 3). When it went on display in 1933 as "the oldest Bible in the world" (ibid.), it became the centre of a pilgrimage unequalled in the history of the British Museum.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Before I summarize its conflictions, it should be noted that this old codex is by no means a reliable guide to New Testament study as it contains superabundant errors and serious re-editing. These anomalies were exposed as a result of the months of ultraviolet-light tests carried out at the British Museum in the mid-1930s. The findings revealed replacements of numerous passages by at least nine different editors.</div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">Photographs taken during testing revealed that ink pigments had been retained deep in the pores of the skin. The original words were readable under ultraviolet light. Anybody wishing to read the results of the tests should refer to the book written by the researchers who did the analysis: the Keepers of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum (<em>Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus</em>, H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938).<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>FORGERY IN THE GOSPELS</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;">When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified. These amendments can be recognized by a simple comparative exercise that anybody can and should do. Serious study of Christian origins must emanate from the Sinai Bible's version of the New Testament, not modern editions.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Of importance is the fact that <em>the Sinaiticus</em> carries three Gospels since rejected:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">1. the Shepherd of Hermas (written by two resurrected ghosts, Charinus and Lenthius)<br />2. the Missive of Barnabas<br />3. the Odes of Solomon</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Space excludes elaboration on these bizarre writings and also discussion on dilemmas associated with translation variations.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Modern Bibles are five removes in translation from early editions, and disputes rage between translators over variant interpretations of more than 5,000 ancient words. However, it is what is not written in that old Bible that embarrasses the Church, and this article discusses only a few of those omissions.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One glaring example is subtly revealed in the <em>Encyclopaedia Biblica</em> (Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899, vol. iii, p. 3344), where the Church divulges its knowledge about exclusions in old Bibles, saying:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">"The remark has long ago and often been made that, like Paul, even the earliest Gospels knew nothing of the miraculous birth of our Saviour".</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>That is because there never was a virgin birth.</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It is apparent that when <strong>Eusebius</strong> assembled scribes to write the New Testimonies, he first produced a single document that provided an exemplar or master version. Today it is called the <em>Gospel of Mark</em>, and the Church admits that it was "the first Gospel written" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 657), even though it appears second in the New Testament today. The scribes of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were dependent upon the Mark writing as the source and framework for the compilation of their works. The <em>Gospel of John</em> is independent of those writings, and the late-15th-century theory that it was written later to support the earlier writings is the truth (<em>The Crucifixion of Truth</em>, Tony Bushby, Joshua Books, 2004, pp. 33-40).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Thus, the <em>Gospel of Mark</em> in the Sinai Bible carries the "first" story of <em>Jesus Christ</em> in history, one completely different to what is in modern Bibles. It starts with <em>Jesus</em> "at about the age of thirty" (Mark 1:9), and doesn't know of Mary, a virgin birth or mass murders of baby boys by Herod. Words describing <em>Jesus Christ</em> as "the son of God" do not appear in the opening narrative as they do in today's editions (Mark 1:1), and <em>the modern-day family tree tracing a "messianic bloodline" back to King David is non-existent in all ancient Bibles</em>, as are the now-called "<em>messianic prophecies</em>" (51 in total).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The <em>Sinai Bible</em> carries a conflicting version of events surrounding the "raising of Lazarus", and reveals an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection appearances of <em>Jesus Christ</em> and his <em>ascension into Heaven</em>. No supernatural appearance of a resurrected <em>Jesus Christ</em> is recorded in any ancient <em>Gospels of Mark</em>, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Despite a multitude of long-drawn-out self-justifications by Church apologists, there is no unanimity of Christian opinion regarding the non-existence of "resurrection" appearances in ancient Gospel accounts of the story. Not only are those narratives missing in the Sinai Bible, but they are absent in the <em>Alexandrian Bible</em>, the <em>Vatican Bible</em>, the <em>Bezae Bible</em> and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark, code-named "K" by analysts. They are also lacking in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, in sixth-century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version and ninth-century Anglo-Saxon Bibles. However, some 12th-century Gospels have the now-known resurrection verses written within asterisks-marks used by scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Church claims that "the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief" (<em>Catholic Encyclopedia</em>, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected <em>Jesus Christ</em> is recorded in any of the earliest <em>Gospels of Mark</em> available. A resurrection and ascension of <em>Jesus Christ</em> is the <em>sine qua non</em> ("without which, nothing") of Christianity (<em>Catholic Encyclopedia</em>, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), confirmed by words attributed to Paul:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain"<br />(<b>1 Cor. 5:17</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">The resurrection verses in today's Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as<strong>forgeries</strong> and the Church agrees, saying,</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">"the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation"</div><br />(<b>Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading "The Evidence of its Spuriousness"; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading "Canons"</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it <em>the basis of Christianity</em>.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues. The final chapter of the <em>Gospel of John</em> (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing <em>Jesus</em>' resurrection to his disciples.<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Church admits:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel"<br /><br />(<b>Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>'THE GREAT INSERTION' AND 'THE GREAT OMISSION'</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Modern-day versions of the Gospel of Luke have a staggering 10,000 more words than the same Gospel in the Sinai Bible. Six of those words say of <em>Jesus</em> "and was carried up into heaven", but this narrative does not appear in any of the oldest Gospels of Luke available today ("<em>Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels</em>", F. C. Conybeare, The Hibbert Journal, London, vol. 1, no. 1, Oct 1902, pp. 96-113). Ancient versions do not verify modern-day accounts of an <em>ascension of Jesus Christ</em>, and this falsification clearly indicates an intention to deceive.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Today, the Gospel of Luke is the longest of the canonical Gospels because it now includes "The Great Insertion", an extraordinary 15th-century addition totaling around 8,500 words (Luke 9:51-18:14). The insertion of these forgeries into that Gospel bewilders modern Christian analysts, and of them the Church said:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"The character of these passages makes it dangerous to draw inferences"<br />(<b>Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. ii, p. 407</b>).</blockquote><span style="text-align: justify;">Just as remarkable, the oldest Gospels of Luke omit all verses from 6:45 to 8:26, known in priesthood circles as "The Great Omission", a total of 1,547 words. In today's versions, that hole has been "plugged up" with passages plagiarized from other Gospels. Dr Tischendorffound that three paragraphs in newer versions of the Gospel of Luke's version of the Last Supper appeared in the 15th century, but the Church still passes its Gospels off as the unadulterated "word of </span><em style="text-align: justify;">God"</em><span style="text-align: justify;"> ("</span><em style="text-align: justify;">Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?"</em><span style="text-align: justify;">, op. cit.)</span><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>THE 'EXPURGATORY INDEX'</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As was the case with the New Testament, so also were damaging writings of early "Church Fathers" modified in centuries of copying, and many of their records were intentionally rewritten or suppressed.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Adopting the decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-63), the Church subsequently extended the process of erasure and ordered the preparation of a special list of specific information to be expunged from early Christian writings (<em>Delineation of Roman Catholicism</em>, Rev. Charles Elliott, DD, G. Lane & P. P. Sandford, New York, 1842, p. 89; also, The Vatican Censors, Professor Peter Elmsley, Oxford, p. 327, pub. date n/a).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In 1562, the Vatican established a special censoring office called <em>Index Expurgatorius</em>. Its purpose was to prohibit publication of "erroneous passages of the early Church Fathers" that carried statements opposing modern-day doctrine.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">When Vatican archivists came across,</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"genuine copies of the Fathers, they corrected them according to the Expurgatory Index"<br /><br />(<b>Index Expurgatorius Vaticanus, R. Gibbings, ed., Dublin, 1837; The Literary Policy of the Church of Rome, Joseph Mendham, J. Duncan, London, 1830, 2nd ed., 1840; The Vatican Censors, op. cit., p. 328</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">This Church record provides researchers with,</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"grave doubts about the value of all patristic writings released to the public"<br /><br />(<b>The Propaganda Press of Rome, Sir James W. L. Claxton, Whitehaven Books, London, 1942, p. 182</b>).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Important for our story is the fact that the <em>Encyclopaedia Biblica</em> reveals that around 1,200 years of Christian history are unknown: "Unfortunately, only few of the records [of the Church] prior to the year 1198 have been released". It was not by chance that, in that same year (1198), Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) suppressed all records of earlier Church history by establishing the <em>Secret Archives</em> (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xv, p. 287). Some seven-and-a-half centuries later, and after spending some years in those Archives, Professor <strong>Edmond S. Bordeaux</strong> wrote <em>How The Great Pan Died</em>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In a chapter titled "<em>The Whole of Church History is Nothing but a Retroactive Fabrication</em>", he said this (in part):</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">"The Church ante-dated all her late works, some newly made, some revised and some counterfeited, which contained the final expression of her history ... her technique was to make it appear that much later works written by Church writers were composed a long time earlier, so that they might become evidence of the first, second or third centuries."</div><br />(<b>How The Great Pan Died, op. cit., p. 46</b>)</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Supporting Professor Bordeaux's findings is the fact that, in 1587, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) established an official Vatican publishing division and said in his own words,</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Church history will be now be established ... we shall seek to print our own account"<br /><br />(<b>Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759</b>).</blockquote><span style="text-align: justify;">Vatican records also reveal that Sixtus V spent 18 months of his life as pope personally writing a new Bible and then introduced into Catholicism a "New Learning" (</span><em style="text-align: justify;">Catholic Encyclopedia</em><span style="text-align: justify;">, Farley ed., vol. v, p. 442, vol. xv, p. 376). The evidence that the Church wrote its own history is found in </span><em style="text-align: justify;">Diderot's Encyclopédie</em><span style="text-align: justify;">, and it reveals the reason why PopeClement XIII (1758-69) ordered all volumes to be destroyed immediately after publication in 1759.</span><br /><span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>GOSPEL AUTHORS EXPOSED AS IMPOSTERS</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There is something else involved in this scenario and it is recorded in the <em>Catholic Encyclopedia</em>. An appreciation of the clerical mindset arises when the Church itself admits that it does not know who wrote its Gospels and Epistles, confessing that all 27 New Testament writings began life anonymously:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">"It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves ... they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings."</div><br />(<b>Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6</b>)</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">The Church maintains that "the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship", adding that "the headings ... were affixed to them" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. i, p. 117, vol. vi, pp. 655, 656). Therefore they are not Gospels written "according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John", as publicly stated. The full force of this confession reveals that there are no genuine apostolic Gospels, and that the Church's shadowy writings today embody the very ground and pillar of Christian foundations and faith.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The consequences are fatal to the pretence of Divine origin of the entire New Testament and expose Christian texts as having no special authority. For centuries, fabricated Gospels bore Church certification of authenticity now confessed to be false, and this provides evidence that Christian writings are wholly fallacious.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">After years of dedicated New Testament research, Dr <strong>Tischendorf</strong> expressed dismay at the differences between the oldest and newest Gospels, and had trouble understanding...</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="text-align: justify;">"...how scribes could allow themselves to bring in here and there changes which were not simply verbal ones, but such as materially affected the very meaning and, what is worse still, did not shrink from cutting out a passage or inserting one."</div><br />(<b>Alterations to the Sinai Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1863, available in the British Library, London</b>)</blockquote><span style="text-align: justify;">After years of validating the fabricated nature of the New Testament, a disillusioned Dr Tischendorf confessed that modern-day editions have "been altered in many places" and are "not to be accepted as true" (</span><em style="text-align: justify;">When Were Our Gospels Written?</em><span style="text-align: justify;">, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1865, British Library, London).</span><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>JUST WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY?</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The important question then to ask is this: if the New Testament is not historical, what is it?<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Dr <strong>Tischendorf</strong> provided part of the answer when he said in his 15,000 pages of critical notes on the Sinai Bible that,</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"it seems that the personage of Jesus Christ was made narrator for many religions".</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">This explains how narratives from the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, appear verbatim in the Gospels today (e.g., Matt. 1:25, 2:11, 8:1-4, 9:1-8, 9:18-26), and why passages from the Phenomena of the Greek statesman Aratus of Sicyon (271-213 BC) are in the New Testament.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Extracts from the <em>Hymn to Zeus</em>, written by Greek philosopher <strong>Cleanthes</strong> (c. 331-232 BC), are also found in the Gospels, as are 207 words from <em>the Thais </em>of Menander (c. 343-291), one of the "seven wise men" of Greece. Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek poetEpimenides (7th or 6th century BC) are applied to the lips of <em>Jesus Christ</em>, and seven passages from the curious <em>Ode of Jupiter</em> (c. 150 BC; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Tischendorf's conclusion also supports Professor Bordeaux's Vatican findings that reveal<em>the allegory of</em> <em>Jesus Christ</em> derived from <em>the fable of Mithra</em>, <em>the divine</em> <em>son of God</em> (Ahura Mazda) and messiah of the first kings of the Persian Empire around 400 BC. His birth in a grotto was attended by magi who followed a star from the East. They brought "gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh" (as in Matt. 2:11) and the newborn baby was adored by shepherds. He came into the world wearing the Mithraic cap, which popes imitated in various designs until well into the 15th century.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Mithra, one of a trinity, stood on a rock, the emblem of the foundation of his religion, and was anointed with honey. After a last supper with Helios and 11 other companions, Mithra was crucified on a cross, bound in linen, placed in a rock tomb and rose on the third day or around 25 March (the full moon at the spring equinox, a time now called <em>Easter</em> after the Babylonian goddess <em>Ishtar</em>). The fiery destruction of the universe was a major doctrine of Mithraism - a time in which Mithra promised to return in person to Earth and save deserving souls. Devotees of Mithra partook in a sacred communion banquet of bread and wine, a ceremony that paralleled the Christian Eucharist and preceded it by more than four centuries. Christianity is an adaptation of,</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><ul><li>Mithraism welded with the Druidic principles of the Culdees </li></ul><ul><li>some Egyptian elements (the pre-Christian Book of Revelation was originally called The Mysteries of Osiris and Isis) </li></ul><ul><li>Greek philosophy </li></ul><ul><li>various aspects of Hinduism</li></ul></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>WHY THERE ARE NO RECORDS OF JESUS CHRIST <em> </em></strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to <em>Jesus Christ</em>and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This confirmation comes from <strong>Frederic Farrar</strong> (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."<br /><br />(<b>The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874</b>)</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. DrTischendorf made this comment:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life ofJesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."<br /><br />(<b>Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London</b>)</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"<br /><br />(<b>Cardinal Bembo: His Letters..., op. cit</b>.).</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">[Source: <a href="http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bibliotecapleyades.net%2Fbiblianazar%2Fesp_biblianazar_40.htm&h=oAQEwKHv5&s=1" rel="nofollow" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">bibliotecapleyades.net</a>]</div>

The Forged Origin of The New Testament

By  Tony Bushby Spanish version March 2007 Extracted from Nexus Magazine Volume 14, Number 4 (June - July 2007) from  NexusMagazine  Website...

The Forged Origin of The New Testament

By  Tony Bushby Spanish version March 2007 Extracted from Nexus Magazine Volume 14, Number 4 (June - July 2007) from  NexusMagazine  Website...

Read more »

The Resurrection Story

<div class="_5k3v _5k3w clearfix" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; margin-top: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; word-wrap: break-word; zoom: 1;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3y5hHZBNbW-8LpenBzTGr0YJ8s3hxOGBvsK0IufFzoxeVmGL262qdiZZMFv926zfymuFVBaM3UCq4kz7pM1PQilSvv0JnKxofYpOcZ3xctudXn01wDdTHJR5A7qZDD3VP8tPjm8GRrKGC/s1600/Resurrection.jpg" style="margin-left: 0em; margin-right: 0em;"><img border="0" height="auto" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3y5hHZBNbW-8LpenBzTGr0YJ8s3hxOGBvsK0IufFzoxeVmGL262qdiZZMFv926zfymuFVBaM3UCq4kz7pM1PQilSvv0JnKxofYpOcZ3xctudXn01wDdTHJR5A7qZDD3VP8tPjm8GRrKGC/s280/Resurrection.jpg" width="280" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: Roboto;">Let's check these out!</span></div><ul style="list-style-type: square; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px 10px 0px 25px;"><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><strong><span>Who went to the tomb?</span></strong><span face=""helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"> Matthew-2 Marys; Mark-2 Marys and Salome; Luke-at least 5 women; John-Mary Magdalene.</span></span></li></ul><ul style="list-style-type: square; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px 10px 0px 25px;"><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><strong><span>What was seen?</span></strong><span face=""helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"> Matthew-Earthquake with angel sitting outside on the recently-moved stone; Mark-Stone already moved and a young man sitting inside; Luke-Stone already moved with two men standing inside; John-Stone moved. No one seen on 1st visit, but two angels sitting inside after two earlier visits.</span></span></li></ul><ul style="list-style-type: square; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px 10px 0px 25px;"><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><strong><span>When did the woman/women leave to go to the tomb?</span></strong><span face=""helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"> Matthew-Towards dawn; Mark-Very early; Luke-At early dawn; John-Still dark (NB. John states it was still dark when Mary arrived at the tomb).</span></span></li></ul><ul style="list-style-type: square; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px 10px 0px 25px;"><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><strong><span>What did man/men/angel/angels say?</span></strong><span face=""helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"> Matthew-Jesus was risen and disciples to go to Galilee; Mark-As Matthew; Luke-Jesus had risen: John-Asks why Mary is crying.</span></span></li></ul><ul style="list-style-type: square; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px 10px 0px 25px;"><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><strong><span>What do the women/woman do next?</span></strong><span face=""helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"> Matthew-they run away but meet Jesus who repeats angel's instruction; Mark-They flee and SAY NOTHING TO ANYONE. This obviously contradicts the other three in which the women do go and tell the disciples (original Mark ended at 16:7); Luke-They go and tell disciples; John-Mary meets Jesus and they talk.</span></span></li></ul><ul style="list-style-type: square; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px 10px 0px 25px;"><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><strong><span>What is 1st conversation with the risen Jesus?</span></strong><span face=""helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif"> Matthew-Women on way from tomb; Luke-The two disciples on road to Emmaus; John-Mary Magdalene.</span></span></li></ul><ul style="list-style-type: square; margin: 10px 0px; padding: 0px 10px 0px 25px;"><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><span><strong>The time between the resurrection and ascension?</strong> </span><span face=""helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif">Matthew-At least the time to reach Galilee (60-70 miles north); Luke-clearly one day only (see 24:13,33,36,50 - it is made very clear that Jesus rose, made all his appearances and ascended back to heaven on the same day); John-at least a week accepting John 20 as the original end to the Gospel, but with the John 21 appendix this means it was even longer as this has a Galilean appearance; Acts-40 days.</span></span></li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">An attempt to reconcile John's visit of just Mary Magdalene whilst still dark with the Synoptics where there are several women and it is daytime, is by saying John's was an earlier one, ie. the one in the Synoptics was a second one. However this cannot be so as John has Mary Magdalene seeing the empty tomb (20:1) and in the Synoptics when the women go to the tomb they ask about who would roll the stone away (Mark 16:3). However Mary Magdalene was with them (Mark 16:1) and she had already seen the stone had been moved away and there -fore they would already know this from her 1st visit.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">Furthermore, Luke makes any appearance at, or journey to Galilee absolutely impossible as it has everything happening in the area of Jerusalem with the disciples being told to stay there until Pentecost, and the conclusion being Jesus' ascension from nearby Bethany.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">This is made clear - in Luke the first appearance is to the two travelling to Emmaus (10 miles West of Jerusalem) and 24:13 states this was "that very day"; the two then go "that same hour" to the eleven in Jerusalem (24:33); Jesus then appears whilst they are still explaning what they had seen (24:36). Jesus then tells them to STAY IN JERUSALEM UNTIL PENTECOST (24:49).</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">As Luke 24:51 has the ascension on the same day as the resurrection this prevents any Galilean appearances by Jesus to the eleven as in Matt and John.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">Luke's account makes nonsense of Matt having Jesus tell the women to instruct the disciples to go up to Galilee (Matt 28:10) if he was going to see them himself later that day (as in Luke and John), and furthermore see them in Jerusalem. Also, Luke makes it clear that the eleven were told to stay in Jerusalem from the day of the resurrection to Pentecost, but Matt has them traveling up to Galilee (28:16) as does John (21:1ff). Important to note is Mark 16:7, ie. that the women 'said nothing to anyone' - all three Gospels contradict this by them telling the disciples which then leads into their accounts. Because of Mark 16:7, this is really made impossible.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">Luke also has Jesus appearing to "the eleven" on the same day as the resurrection (24:33-36), but John states Thomas was missing on this appearance and it was a week later that Jesus actually appeared to all eleven - with Thomas then being present (20:24,26).</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><span face=""helvetica neue" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif">In stark contrast to the Gospel accounts saying Jesus rose physically, Paul makes it clear he believed Jesus rose as a spirit and not physically- 1 Cor 15:44,45,50. The early Christian dummies couldn't even agree on this - </span><strong><span>pathetic!</span></strong></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">[Source: HolySmoke.Org]<strong> </strong></span></div></div>

The Resurrection Story

Let's check these out! Who went to the tomb?  Matthew-2 Marys; Mark-2 Marys and Salome; Luke-at least 5 women; John-Mary Magdalene. What...

The Resurrection Story

Let's check these out! Who went to the tomb?  Matthew-2 Marys; Mark-2 Marys and Salome; Luke-at least 5 women; John-Mary Magdalene. What...

Read more »

Dating Saul of Tarsus

<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEElPCzd14EfPufoZMJT_ZzdgXmx74r3M8uAvIT79wJkAUyArmyOrFV4arQpXJmCXSaW6wGde4-3wchc1BO3DvCkMx2ZF5pv6Vy0nmsqDfX-Jl1Nw5EfHP2emNUFf7VAyytrU4rKddlpI/s0/KADRUN-6.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 0em 0px; text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="379" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEElPCzd14EfPufoZMJT_ZzdgXmx74r3M8uAvIT79wJkAUyArmyOrFV4arQpXJmCXSaW6wGde4-3wchc1BO3DvCkMx2ZF5pv6Vy0nmsqDfX-Jl1Nw5EfHP2emNUFf7VAyytrU4rKddlpI/s0/KADRUN-6.jpg" /></a></div><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">The date of Paul's conversion, as suggested in the "infallible inerrant Bible" indicates he saw the risen Christ before Christ even died. Using Acts and Gal together, the following is arrived:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Paul's conversion (Acts 9:3ff, Gal 1:16) = 31 AD.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">First visit to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26,Gal 1:18). This was 3 years after conversion (Gal 1:18) = 34 AD.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">Second visit to Jerusalem (Acts l5:2-4, Gal 2:1-10). 14 years after lst Jerusalem visit = 48 AD.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">Paul visits the churches (through Syria and Cilicia to Derbe and Lystra, through Phrygia and Galatia to Troas and Macedonia, through Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessalonica (3 weeks - Acts 17:2), to Beroea, then Athens and onto Corinth (Acts 15:40-18:1). Say 1 year = 49 AD. (NB. This is known as "Paul's second missionary journey").</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">Paul arrives in Corinth (Acts 18:1); after l.5 years (Acts 18:11) he then appears before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12-16) (NB. Paul leaves Corinth in Acts 18:18) = Summer 51 AD.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">NOTES:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">(N1). With regard to (5), an inscription from Delphi includes a letter from the emperor Claudius (41-54 AD) and in this there is a ref to Gallio as proconsul; the date is the 26th acclamation of Claudius and as the 22nd, 23rd and 24th were all made in 52 AD and the 27th was before August 52 AD - the 26th would therefore be in Spring/Summer 52.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">The term of office as a proconsul was just one year - beginning in the late Spring or early Summer; therefore as Gallio's time is factually known, the Acts story in chapter 18 can be located in Spring/Summer 51 or 52 - most likely 51. Therefore in dating Paul's life up to Acts 18, it leads up to this specific date as it is absolutely definite. No one disputes this.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;">(N2) In 18:2, Paul meets two Jews who had been expelled from Rome; this edict of banishment was in 49 AD and supports the date given in (4).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">(N3) Taking Acts and Gal as being accurate, yet more problems arise:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">(a) Is the 3 years of Gal 1:18 to be dated from Paul's conversion or his returning to Damascus?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">(b) How long did the missionary work in (4) take? The above includes a year.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">(c) When does the 14 years in Gal 2:1 begin - his conversion (his starting point in the passage) or the 1st Jerusalem visit mentioned just before?</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Therefore, it appears from the above table that Paul's conversion took place in the year after Christ died and yet much was supposed to have occurred between these events, ie. all that is included in Acts 1:1 - 9:1.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Furthermore the minimum times possible have been allowed in the above so there cannot be any accusation that it has been formulated in a way to presuppose anything, or deliberately cause problems.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For example, in (4) - it would be most unlikely all this travelling could be done in just one year. If it was (say) two years because there is a fixed point (ie. (5).) as 51 AD which is known to be correct and can't be altered, the starting point has to be moved back to fit in the extra year into the schedule and Paul's conversion is then dated as 30 AD. However that would mean Paul was converted by seeing the risen Christ before he even died.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The same applies with Gal 1:18 - if the 3 years begins from Paul returning to Damascus and not the conversion, there would have to be time also included for Paul's antics in Arabia (Gal 1:17) and being included in the time before 51 AD would again would push Paul's conversion back to something like 29 AD. In fact some Christians do state Jesus' death was 33 AD and this would mean Paul was converted by seeing the risen Christ (ie. 29 AD) before Christ had even started his three-year ministry (30 AD) let alone had died and risen.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Dating Paul's conversion as 31 AD and Christ's death in 30 AD creates many problems, ie. it is known that the Jewish Passover (8th April - the Jewish 15 Nisan) fell on a Saturday in the year 30 AD; but the Synoptics make it clear that Jesus was crucified on the Passover but the following day was Saturday and they therefore date the Passover as a Friday. The Passover began on Thursday evening (the Jewish day begins the previous evening) and ended Friday evening - ie. Mark 14:l2 to 15:42. In sum, the different narratives cannot be reconciled and appear to be divorced from historical fact.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It should also be mentioned that with regard to working out when Paul was converted, that whilst just 1 year for Paul's 2nd missionary journey was given, others say it was longer, eg. the evangelical New International Version (Bible) in its schedule of Paul's life says it was 2 years (ie. this then makes Paul's conversion 30 AD). Furthermore they date the time between Christ's ascension and Paul's conversion (ie. Acts l:l-9:l) as SEVEN YEARS.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;">If this figure was used above then it would make Paul's conversion remain as 31 AD (this cannot be changed or made later), but Christ's death/ascension would be 7 years earlier, ie. in 23 AD. However, this cannot be so as Luke (3:1) states that Christ's ministry began in the fifteenth year of Tiberius and as there is no doubt about the time of his rule, the l5th year is definitely 28-29 AD.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">Therefore using the information that the Bible itself supplies, the accounts given of Christ's death and/or Paul's conversion, etc, are shown to be ficticious. Furthermore one question that must be asked is why the New Testament writers appear to have this amazing difficulty in locating Jesus in a chronological setting if he really existed?</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Roboto;">[Source: HolySmoke.Org]</span></div></span>

Dating Saul of Tarsus

The date of Paul's conversion, as suggested in the "infallible inerrant Bible" indicates he saw the risen Christ before Christ...

Dating Saul of Tarsus

The date of Paul's conversion, as suggested in the "infallible inerrant Bible" indicates he saw the risen Christ before Christ...

Read more »

Serious Problem With Luke's Cencus

<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOW8Or8HMgQZu_UIY5PAh29kcA1RsnUz77hJclrDcrQKoYfkDFWge7Nf8KNwf7cVhhe5SonTkAFUP5Z0QNZVVfRqw2AoQXAkUuV-K_ZgIJqd_008DUKqiYALaxKav9beR2HXnhdVwdcTdK/s0/roman+cencus.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 0em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" data-original-height="311" data-original-width="415" heigh="auto" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOW8Or8HMgQZu_UIY5PAh29kcA1RsnUz77hJclrDcrQKoYfkDFWge7Nf8KNwf7cVhhe5SonTkAFUP5Z0QNZVVfRqw2AoQXAkUuV-K_ZgIJqd_008DUKqiYALaxKav9beR2HXnhdVwdcTdK/s0/roman+cencus.jpg" width="100%"/></a></div><div style="font-family:helvetica,sans,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:1.3em;text-align:justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><h1 style="font-size: 14pt; letter-spacing: -0.15pt; margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt; page-break-after: avoid; text-align: center;"></h1><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">Excerpted from God, Reason, and the Evangelicals</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">(Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1987), </span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">pp. 145-49, Copyright held by N. F. Gier</span></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;">          Much has been said about Luke's excellence as an historian.  Luke did indeed emulate the models of historical narrative which were current in his day.  But to claim that Luke is a consummate historian by modern standards--as many evangelicals do--is a position which cannot be maintained.  In a letter to me, F. F. Bruce concedes that conservative apologists have been too eager to declare Luke's inerrancy.  So eager was W. M. Ramsey to prove Luke correct about the enrollment in Bethlehem that he, according to Bruce, "unwisely damaged his well-founded reputation as a very considerable scholar."  In his Anchor Bible commentary Catholic scholar J. A. Fitzmyer lists other historical mistakes in Luke's writing and offers the most definitive argument against Ramsey's claims about the famous Christmas census.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">          There is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree that "all the world should be enrolled" (Lk. 2:1).  The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events.  Not only is Luke's census not in these records, it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history.  Roman documents show that taxation was done by the various governors at the provincial level.  As we shall see later, the property tax was collected on site by travelling assessors, thus making unnecessary Joseph's journey away from what little property he must have owned.  Gleason Archer quotes a census expert who claims, without documentation, that "every five years the Romans enumerated citizens and their property to determine their liabilities.  This practice was extended to include the entire Roman Empire in 5 B.C.E." [1]  This goes against the fourteen-year cycle which Archer himself uses to argue that Quirinius was pulled from his busy duties in Asia Minor to do a Syrian census in 7 B.C.E., fourteen years earlier than the one recorded in Josephus and Acts 5:37.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">          Many have joined Archer in the hypothesis that Quirinius had an unrecorded term as Syria's governor during the time of Jesus' birth.  Some misuse the "Tivoli" inscription which they say proves that some Roman official served twice in Syria and Phoenicia.  First, the name is missing, so this is no proof that Quirinius is involved.  Second, the inscription has been mistranslated.  It should read:  "legate of Augustus for a second time" not a second legate in Syria as the harmonizers insist.  Archer does not refer to the Tivoli inscription directly; but still argues that since Luke knew of the census of 6 C.E., he correctly called this one Quirinius' "first" (prote).  But Fitzmyer shows conclusively that the grammar clearly indicates that this was the first census in Judea, not Quirinius' first enrollment. [2]</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">          It has long been known that Tertullian held that S. Sentius Saturninus, not Quirinius, was governor at the time of Jesus' birth.  Saturninus ruled from 9-6 B.C.E., the period most likely to be Jesus' birth time.  P. Quintilius Varus was governor during the next most likely period of 6-4 B.C.E.  M. Titius was in Syria ca. 10 B.C.E.  Quirinius himself was very much occupied during this time, having been assigned to the campaign in Cilicia in Asia Minor from ca. 11-3 B.C.E.  Archer's theory is that Quirinius was given a special assignment to do the census in the interval between Saturninus' and Varus' terms.  There is of course no extant evidence for this, but this does not seem to be necessary for the harmonizing that takes place in evangelical "historical" theology.  In fact, there is much to say against it.  Fitzmyer paraphrases one authority:  "...It was unheard of that a proconsul would become a legate...twice in the same province." [3]</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">          F. M. Heichelheim speculated that Herod himself took the census to which Luke refers.[4]  Realizing the problematic nature of his solution, Heichelheim takes great pains to qualify his pro-Luke interpretation.  He describes Luke 2:1-5 as "an extremely difficult passage," and then proceeds to give it an interpretation that has no basis in the text.  Heichelheim uses the 4th Century church historian Eusebius to support Joseph's presence in Bethlehem at the census.  Eusebius speculated that Joseph's family "most probably had a small holding near Bethlehem up to the reign of Domitian."  Heichelheim interprets the idios in "each to his own (idios) city" as meaning the private possessions of the Jewish royal family, who would collect the poll and land taxes and send them to Rome.  This rendering of idios is supportable, but it is not compatible with Jesus' own use of the word.  In each of the places where we find the famous saying "a prophet has no honor in his own country (en ten idia patridi)" (Jn. 4:44; Matt. 13:57; Mk.  6:4), the adjective idios is used in a way quite different from Heichelheim's proposal.  And from the context it is also clear that Jesus claimed the country of his father to be Galilee and the town to be Nazareth.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">          Heichelheim's thesis is highly speculative and open to the following general objections. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">(1) Given the conflicting genealogies of Matthew and Luke (which cannot be gratuitously solved by giving one to Mary), the descent of Joseph from David is highly problematic.  </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">(2) The idea of Joseph owning property in Bethlehem stands in stark contrast to his destitute status and Jesus' birth in a strange stable. (The property would at least had a few shacks on it.) Matthew does have Mary and Joseph living in a house in Bethlehem (2:11), and only after the flight to Egypt do they settle in Nazareth.  </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">(3) It would not have been necessary for Mary, nine-months pregnant, to make the arduous three-day journey.  </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">(4) Not all descendants of David would have owned property in Bethlehem, and yet Luke would still require them to return from distances far greater than from Galilee.  </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">(5) E. W. Barnes states that "any such census under Herod is highly improbable, inasmuch as it would be made for purposes of taxation; and Herod managed, and showed great skill in managing, his own finances." [5]  Finally </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">(6), even if there had been a Herodian census, Luke would still have been wrong about Augustus' universal census and wrong about Quirinius administering it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">          In Josephus' account of the census in 6 C.E., he explicitly states that those people taxed were assessed of their possessions, including lands and livestock.  In other words, the census takers were also the tax assessors.  In Egypt these tax assessors went from house to house in order to perform their duties.  With this in mind, let us look at a crucial error in Luke's account.  Luke has Joseph and Mary making a three-day journey away from their home in Nazareth to register in theiralleged ancestral home Bethlehem.  But an Egyptian papyrus recording a census in 104 C.E. explicitly states that "since registration by household is imminent, it is necessary to notify all who for any reason are absent from their districts to return to their own homes that they may carry out the ordinary business of registration...." [6]  Unlike Matthew, who does not mention a census nor Nazareth as Mary and Joseph's home, Luke describes Nazareth as "their own city" (Lk.2:39).  If the rules of this Egyptian census applied to Palestine, then Joseph and Mary should have stayed in Nazareth to be enrolled.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">          Imagine a system of taxation based on people returning to their ancestral homes, going back a thousand years in the case of Joseph.  By this time the Jews were spread out all over the known world.  Can we seriously believe that the Romans would have required them to come back to Palestine, carrying everything they owned?  How would the tax officials have assessed their land?  In The Rise of Christianity the former Bishop E. W. Barnes remarks:  "The Romans were a practical race, skilled in the art of government.  It is incredible that they should have taken a census according to such a fantastic system.  If any such census had been taken, the dislocation to which it would have led would have been world-wide.  Roman historians would not have failed to record it." [7]</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">          In his famous book entitled Jesus, Charles Guignebert states:  "It is all outside the plane of reality....It is incredible that such an unusual and disturbing proceeding, as the census spoken of by Luke must necessarily have been, should have escaped all notice in Josephus...."  Guignebert continues:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">         "We will not unduly stress the peculiarity of the mode of census taking implied in our text, but it is to be noted that it is a very strange proceeding.  The moving about of men and families which this reckless decree must have caused throughout the whole of the Empire is almost beyond imagination, and one cannot help wondering what advantage there could be for the Roman state in this return, for a single day, of so many scattered individuals, not to the places of their birth, but to the original homes of their ancestors.  For it is to be remembered that those of royal descent were not the only ones affected by this fantastic ordinance, and many a poor man must have been hard put to it to discover the cradle of his race.  The suspicion, or rather, the conviction, is borne in upon us at first sight that the editor of Luke has simply been looking for some means of bringing Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, in order to have Jesus born there.  A hagiographer of his type never bothers much about common sense in inventing the circumstances he requires" [8]</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">          We can now understand why Jesus never mentions his birth in Bethlehem; and that, except for the birth stories, Jesus is always connected with Nazareth.  The writer of John apparently does not know of Jesus' alleged birth in Bethlehem.  Nathanael does not know it (7:46) and no one answers the challenge of thecrowd when they say "Is the Christ to come from Galilee?  Has not the scriptures said that the Christ...comes from Bethlehem?..." (7:42).  In Evidence That Demands a Verdict evangelical Josh McDowell challenges skeptics to assess the evidence for the Christian faith.  McDowell uses the mistranslated Vatican inscription and ascribes it to Quirinius without good scholarly reasons.  He even cites the Egyptian papyrus above, but astonishingly enough implies that it required people to return to their ancestral homes.9  Concerning the birth stories of Jesus, the evidence demands this verdict:  most of the details are legendary and Jesus was in all probability born in the Galilean town of Nazareth.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Note</b>: Simply for the sake of balance I offer a defense of Luke's census by Ronald Marchant.  To his credit Marchant summarizes the objections to historicity mentioned about, but nonetheless offers a quite convoluted defense. Click <a href="http://www.ibri.org/04census.htm">here</a> for his article, linked to the fundamentalist Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute.  I find at least three major problems:<br /><br />1) Marchant assumes the Joseph owned land in Bethlehem;<br />2) that Quirinius somehow had authority in Judea when two other governors ruled during the most likely times of Jesus' birth; and<br />3) that the Egyptian census of 104 CE supports the idea of returning to ancestral homes.. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div>ENDNOTES<br /><ol><li><i>Gleason Archer, An Encyclopedia of Biblical Differences (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), p. 366. Such an empire-wide census, if it did indeed happen, would still have been  too  late for Archer's 7 B.C.E. date.</i></li><li><i>Joseph A. Fitzmyer The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to Luke. Two Volumes. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1981, 1985), p. 401..</i></li><li><i> Ibid., p. 403.  Fitzmyer also counters Archer's attempt to demote Quirinius to something less than an official legate.Fitzmyer shows that the use of hegemon as real legate is found also in  Josephus (p. 402).</i></li><li><i>Tenney Frank, , ed., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1938), vol. 4, pp. 160-62.</i></li><li><i>E.W. Barnes, The Rise of Christianity (London: Longmans, Green, 1947), p. 75.</i></li><li><i> Quoted in Fitzmyer, p. 405.  Check<a href="http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/ancdocs.html"> this link</a> for a copy of an Egyptian census declaration. Look under K. C. Hanson's Collection of Ancient Documents (Greek).</i></li><li><i> Barnes, p. 75.</i></li><li><i>Charles Guignebert, Jesus (London: Kegan Paul, 1935), pp. 99, 101.</i></li><li><i>Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San Bernadino, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972), vol. 1, p. 73. </i></li></ol></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: 12pt; margin: 0in 0.5in 0.0001pt 30pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -30pt;">[Source: <a href="http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/census.htm">uido.edu</a>]</div></div>

Serious Problem With Luke's Cencus

Excerpted from God, Reason, and the Evangelicals (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1987),  pp. 145-49, Copyright held by N. F....

Serious Problem With Luke's Cencus

Excerpted from God, Reason, and the Evangelicals (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1987),  pp. 145-49, Copyright held by N. F....

Read more »