What the Church doesn't want you to know It has often been emphasised that Christianity 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. The Church agrees, saying:
"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."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)
The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example,
when discussing the origin of those writings, "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" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed.,
vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6). This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the
earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the
Gospel Jesus Christ. In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "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" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7). That is
some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ 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.
It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or
Custennin) (272–337) who authorised the compilation of the writings now called the New
Testament. 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.
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 ( Life of Constantine, attributed to
Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171; The Nicene and Post-Nicene
F a t h e r s, cited as N & P N F, attributed to St Ambrose, Rev. Prof. Roberts, DD, and
Principal James Donaldson, LLD, editors, 1891, vol. iv, p. 467). The "peculiar type of
oratory" expounded by them was a challenge to a settled religious order (The Dictionary
of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, 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. In reality, they were:
"...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
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.
by Tony Bushby
© March 2007
Correspondence:
c/- NEXUS Magazine
PO Box 30
Mapleton, Qld 4560, Australia
Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
JUNE – JULY 2007
For one year and
five months the balloting lasted..." (God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S.
L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii,
paragraphs 36, 41).
At the end of that time, Constantine 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: Caesar, Krishna,
Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c.
325). 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, Hesus, be
joined with the Eastern Saviour-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit
for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of
the new Roman god. A vote was taken and it was with a majority
show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one
God. 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
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 wilful
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. In a series of articles published
in the London Quarterly Review in 1883, John W. Burgon, Dean
of Chichester, used every rhetorical device at his disposal to
attack the Sinaiticus' earlier and opposing story of Jesus Christ,
glaring example is subtly revealed in the Encyclopaedia Biblica
(Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899, vol. iii, p. 3344), where
the Church divulges its knowledge about exclusions in old Bibles,
saying: "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". That is because there never was a virgin
birth.
It is apparent that when Eusebius 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
Gospel of Mark, 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 Gospel of John is independent of
those writings, and the late-15th-century theory that it was written
later to support the earlier writings is the truth (The Crucifixion of
Truth, Tony Bushby, Joshua Books, 2004, pp. 33-40).
Thus, the Gospel of Mark in the Sinai Bible carries the "first"
story of Jesus Christ in history, one completely different to what
is in modern Bibles. It starts with Jesus "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 Jesus
Christ as "the son of God" do not appear in the opening narrative
as they do in today's editions (Mark 1:1), and the modern-day
family tree tracing a "messianic bloodline" back to King David is
non-existent in all ancient Bibles, as are the now-called
"messianic prophecies" (51 in total). The Sinai Bible 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 Jesus Christ and his ascension into Heaven. No
supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded
in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500
words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).
JUNE – JULY 2007
Christianity was invented by crazy bull****ters.DB
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=11&Itemid=7.
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. The Church agrees, saying:
"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."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)
The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example,
when discussing the origin of those writings, "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" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed.,
vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6). This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the
earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the
Gospel Jesus Christ. In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "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" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7). That is
some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ 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.
It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or
Custennin) (272–337) who authorised the compilation of the writings now called the New
Testament. 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.
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 ( Life of Constantine, attributed to
Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171; The Nicene and Post-Nicene
F a t h e r s, cited as N & P N F, attributed to St Ambrose, Rev. Prof. Roberts, DD, and
Principal James Donaldson, LLD, editors, 1891, vol. iv, p. 467). The "peculiar type of
oratory" expounded by them was a challenge to a settled religious order (The Dictionary
of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, 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. In reality, they were:
"...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
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.
by Tony Bushby
© March 2007
Correspondence:
c/- NEXUS Magazine
PO Box 30
Mapleton, Qld 4560, Australia
Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
JUNE – JULY 2007
For one year and
five months the balloting lasted..." (God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S.
L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii,
paragraphs 36, 41).
At the end of that time, Constantine 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: Caesar, Krishna,
Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c.
325). 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, Hesus, be
joined with the Eastern Saviour-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit
for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of
the new Roman god. A vote was taken and it was with a majority
show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one
God. 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
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 wilful
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. In a series of articles published
in the London Quarterly Review in 1883, John W. Burgon, Dean
of Chichester, used every rhetorical device at his disposal to
attack the Sinaiticus' earlier and opposing story of Jesus Christ,
glaring example is subtly revealed in the Encyclopaedia Biblica
(Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899, vol. iii, p. 3344), where
the Church divulges its knowledge about exclusions in old Bibles,
saying: "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". That is because there never was a virgin
birth.
It is apparent that when Eusebius 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
Gospel of Mark, 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 Gospel of John is independent of
those writings, and the late-15th-century theory that it was written
later to support the earlier writings is the truth (The Crucifixion of
Truth, Tony Bushby, Joshua Books, 2004, pp. 33-40).
Thus, the Gospel of Mark in the Sinai Bible carries the "first"
story of Jesus Christ in history, one completely different to what
is in modern Bibles. It starts with Jesus "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 Jesus
Christ as "the son of God" do not appear in the opening narrative
as they do in today's editions (Mark 1:1), and the modern-day
family tree tracing a "messianic bloodline" back to King David is
non-existent in all ancient Bibles, as are the now-called
"messianic prophecies" (51 in total). The Sinai Bible 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 Jesus Christ and his ascension into Heaven. No
supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded
in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500
words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).
JUNE – JULY 2007
Christianity was invented by crazy bull****ters.DB
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=11&Itemid=7.
