House of Cards

A note to the believer:

For those who believe, unless you want your invisible means of support to be shaken, perhaps toppled, I would ask that you stop reading at this point. Still here? That is your choice.

Christianity’s history is rife with forgery and fraud. The Christian tale has always been difficult to swallow yet countless people have been able to overlook the rational mind and willingly believe it, though they may equally as easily dismiss the nearly identical stories of other cultures. Even saint Augustine admitted “I should not believe in the truth of the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church forced me to do so.” Others, like early church father Terullian expressed his incredulity in his famous statement: “I believe, because it is unbelievable”.

Joseph Wheless who wrote “Forgeries in Christianity”, said “The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates.” None of the gospels were written by the claimed authors and no mention of any New Testament text can be found in writings prior to the 2nd century C.E. . Since all of these gospels have been found spurious forgeries, and since that is where  we find the story of Jesus Christ, we must also be doubtful of the story as well. (souce: “The Christ Conspiracy” by Acharya S. )

The four Gospels were written in Greek, and no translation into other languages was made of them until the 3rd Century.

Forgeries in the early church were rampant and during this period because of the common frauds occurring the phrase “Pious Fraud” was originated to describe it.

Mangasarian in “The Truth about Jesus”, states: The church historian, Mosheim, writes that, “The Christian Fathers deemed it a pious act to employ deception and fraud” “The greatest and the most pious teachers were nearly all of them infected with this leprosy.” He asks: “Will not some believer tell us why forgery and fraud were necessary to prove the historicity of Jesus?”

The Gospel of The Lord.  The “Gospel of the Lord” written by Marcion decades before the canonical gospels, contains the basic gospel story without the later changes that were made in the canonical gospels. In it, Jesus was not a Jewish man, there was no childhood history, and Jesus was not born but came down at Capernaum. He suddenly appeared in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.

The Gospel of Luke: 170 C.E.

The canonical gospel of Luke was created from the “Gospel of the Lord” plus many other works, over 30, around 170 C.E. to 180 C.E. . The writer of Luke inserted material and removed material in an effort to make a history for the story and to change the main character into a Jewish man. A genealogy and a childhood were both created in Luke. For example: to establish his Jewish heritage…

In Marcion’s work a passage reads:

Saying, the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be put to death, and after three days rise again

In the Luke version reads:

Saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things , and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”

Passage after passage was added in the course of manufacturing the history. Words previously attributed to the “Almighty Lord” were assigned to Jesus.

The Gospel of Mark: 175 C.E.

Like Marcion Mark has no history. Unlike Marcion the story begins with John the Baptist, added to include the Nazarenes/Mandaeans.

The style of language used indicates that Mark was written probably in Rome, by a Roman convert to Christianity whose first language was Latin, not Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. The work Mark reveals an ignorance of geography in Palestine which reveals that the author was not a Palestinian Jew.

The Gospel of John: 178 C.E.

The tone of this gospel is anti-Jewish, revealing it’s writer as a non-Jew. This is reinforced by the authors lack of knowledge about the geography of the Palestine area. The author speaks of areas like Aenon, Bethany, or the city of Samaria, which were unknown to other writers. The author also says that Bethsaida was in Galilee, and such a city never existed there. St. John was born in Bethsaida, and would have known it was on the other side of the sea of Tiberias instead of where it was placed.

John is the only gospel that includes the Egyptian myth of the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

It is said that the Gospel of John was created in an effort to refute the Gnostics or usurp their authority and bring them into the Christian “fold”.

The Gospel of Matthew: 180 C.E.

The Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek. In Matthew 16:17-19 the dominance of the Roman Church was declared in which Jesus states that Peter is the rock upon which the church is to be built, and that Peter is the keeper of the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

 

It is clear that the four canonical books were forged at a late date, long after the purported authors were gone. In these forgeries we have the only history of the Jesus of Nazareth. Despite the contradictions between them, and knowing that these are of late forged origin, believers continue to claim that they were nevertheless inspired by God and are infallible.

Non-Bible references.

There are no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian during and after Jesus supposed appearance.

Flavius Josephus

With the exception of one forged passage  made by Bishop Eusebius in the 4th century, Flavius  makes no mention of his miracle working fellow countryman.

Other forgeries were made in the works of Pliny 62-113 C.E. and Tacitus 55-120 C.E.,

Not one Pagan source can be cited for reference of the fabulous story rendered in the Gospels. The very existence of Jesus at the time seemed unknown.

Even the Jewish references cited by some do not fit the story of Jesus, or the timeline presented in the Gospels.

(Source for the majority of this blog is “The Christ Conspiracy” by Acharya S.)

This entry was posted in Religion and Reason. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to House of Cards

  1. Gawaine says:

    Boy you really did your homework here! This is great stuff. Lately I\’ve been telling Fundies that the King who funded the KJV was homosexual or bisexual. This is well supported by historians, not in the least by Simon Schama and Will and Ariel Durant.

  2. D says:

    That was a bit of information that I never came upon in my looking for references. I did know that the King\’s intent was to use religion to create more loyal subjects. Nevetheless, despite the effort to create a blog which held adequate references, either the piece is too overwhelming or people have decided not to comment on it. It is also published via the local papers blog site. On that site I have only received a couple of responses. http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=7f5301fce3104100910e1ba731e0907e&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=7f5301fce3104100910e1ba731e0907e&plckPostId=Blog%3a7f5301fce3104100910e1ba731e0907ePost%3ab51a972d-2357-42e1-a240-bb514eb6d8b0&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s