Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ever wonder who you have to thank that you are a Bible-believing Christian today?
Hint: It's not Jesus Christ or Paul or any of the apostles or any of the gospel writers or any of the early church forefathers.
It's one man: Emperor Constantine.
That's right. Without Constantine Christianity might have been relegated to one of the hundreds of obscure backwater religions circulating in the first 300 years after Jesus' death. It was Constantine and his infamous "Council of Nicaea" who "invented" Christianity by sorting through hundreds of gods
brought before him as candidates for who would be the "official" god of the Roman Empire.
By an extremely clever series of political maneuverings, favor buying, negotiations among a rabble of "church leaders" who were no more than ignorant peasants with "wild texts, gospels, epistles, legends, myths" that became the riot of scriptures upon which the future Bible would have to be based
Quote:
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
Zeus
(Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325).
In a thumbnail:
Quote:
Julius Caesar (the initials JC and the name itself is very similar to Jesus Christ) was hailed as "God made manifest and universal Saviour of human life" as this new god would take on those same attributes i.e. God in the flesh (a contradiction of scripture as YHVH denied ever being a man or the son of man Numbers 23:19), and his successor Augustus was called the "ancestral God and Saviour of the whole human race" (Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952).
Julius was known as “Julius Christos” making it very easy for his followers to accept the new god “Jesus Christ”....was not recognized in the Eastern parts of the realm or Oriental writings. So Constantine was forced to include the Eastern realm god Krishna (or Christ in English).
Constantine had a political problem that required a religious solution it is that simple. He never had a "conversion" to serve YHVH through Yahshua as we were led to believe. This "political problem" required he create a “god” that those who worshiped Julius would accept that would be acceptable to the factions in the Eastern and Orient who worshiped Krishna.
So history records how Jesus Christ was a conglomerate of Julius Caesar, Krishna, and a little known Druid god, Hesus to placate Constantine's pagan subjects in Britain, often pictured as a "shepherd with a staff in one hand and a lamb in the other.
This is history, folks---not the "sanitized" versions we hear from the pulpits of Christian preachers (if they even bother to touch on this topic) but the actual cold, hard facts as recorded by the best historians of the age.
A few links gives more details of how Christianity actually came about.
NOTE: I have no wish to try to "destroy" Christianity as many accuse me off. My sole interest has always been to uncover the "truth", regardless of how offensive or uncomfortable that truth might be.
If you're interested in getting a different view--one you've never been told about--read the two links above before posting insults.
Ever wonder who you have to thank that you are a Bible-believing Christian today?
Hint: It's not Jesus Christ or Paul or any of the apostles or any of the gospel writers or any of the early church forefathers.
It's one man: Emperor Constantine.
That's right. Without Constantine Christianity might have been relegated to one of the hundreds of obscure backwater religions circulating in the first 300 years after Jesus' death. It was Constantine and his infamous "Council of Nicaea" who "invented" Christianity by sorting through hundreds of gods
brought before him as candidates for who would be the "official" god of the Roman Empire.
By an extremely clever series of political maneuverings, favor buying, negotiations among a rabble of "church leaders" who were no more than ignorant peasants with "wild texts, gospels, epistles, legends, myths" that became the riot of scriptures upon which the future Bible would have to be based
In a thumbnail:
So history records how Jesus Christ was a conglomerate of Julius Caesar, Krishna, and a little known Druid god, Hesus to placate Constantine's pagan subjects in Britain, often pictured as a "shepherd with a staff in one hand and a lamb in the other.
This is history, folks---not the "sanitized" versions we hear from the pulpits of Christian preachers (if they even bother to touch on this topic) but the actual cold, hard facts as recorded by the best historians of the age.
A few links gives more details of how Christianity actually came about.
NOTE: I have no wish to try to "destroy" Christianity as many accuse me off. My sole interest has always been to uncover the "truth", regardless of how offensive or uncomfortable that truth might be.
If you're interested in getting a different view--one you've never been told about--read the two links above before posting insults.
This is yet another attack on Christianity and on the Bible. The second site you posted - The Forged Origins of The New Testament quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia which apparently makes the following claim.
''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).''
Refuting that claim, Dan Wallace states the following.
These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.
It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934. [Bolding mine] Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered? - Daniel B. Wallace
Dr. Wallace goes on to say that the first century fragment (the dating still needs to be confirmed) is from the gospel of Mark. This refutes the following statement made in the article which again quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia..
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).
The claim made by your second website that Eusebius (A.D. 260-340) created the gospels is ridiculous. As already mentioned, Dr. Wallace stated that one of the world's leading paleographers dated to the first century a fragment of Mark's gospel.
Tatian's 'Diatessaron' dated to A.D.170-175 is a harmony of the four gospels. This means that Tatian produced his gospel harmony from previously existing gospel manuscripts. Here is Tatian's 'Diatessaron'. - Diatessaron
This is yet another attack on Christianity and on the Bible. The second site you posted - The Forged Origins of The New Testament quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia which apparently makes the following claim.
''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).''
Refuting that claim, Dan Wallace states the following.
These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.
It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934. [Bolding mine] Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered? - Daniel B. Wallace
Dr. Wallace goes on to say that the first century fragment (the dating still needs to be confirmed) is from the gospel of Mark. This refutes the following statement made in the article which again quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia..
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).
The claim made by your second website that Eusebius (A.D. 260-340) created the gospels is ridiculous. As already mentioned, Dr. Wallace stated that one of the world's leading paleographers dated to the first century a fragment of Mark's gospel.
Tatian's 'Diatessaron' dated to A.D.170-175 is a harmony of the four gospels. This means that Tatian produced his gospel harmony from previously existing gospel manuscripts. Here is Tatian's 'Diatessaron'. - Diatessaron
Your claim, and the claim of both of those websites you posted, that Constantine created Christianity is ridiculous and false.
I never touched on the gospels themselves, though one of the links I provided did. My sole aim was to demonstrate how history records that Constantine's choice for Jesus Christ as the official God for the Roman empire had so many political underpinnings to it that we can never fully understand nor appreciate exactly what went on in this council. However, all the shenanigans notwithstanding, it doesn't negate the truth of Contantine having to meld numerous gods into one, Jesus Christ nor does it negate the fact that Jesus Christ lived, or that he was the Messiah, or that He rose from the dead. All that is incidental to the dilemma Constantine faced in having to find a practical solution to a mob of pagan clergy that were threatening to tear his newly-formed empire apart, all of whom were jockeying and currying political favor with Constantine to get their god chosen as the official "god".
Constantine made a series of brilliant concessions, tradeoffs, and other skullduggeries to get Jesus Christ at the top of the ballot. He, more than anyone else, history shows, is responsible for Christianity spreading to all corners of the earth.
In this sense he may have been Christianity's "greatest" apostle.
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart; and lean not unto your own understanding". (Proverbs 3:5)
This verse sums it up for all true Christians.
ditchlights, don't be afraid to confront the truth of the origins of our religion. I can still think of myself as a Christian because I accept the basic tenant that Jesus was a ransom for me in a way I don't understand, but I accept it on faith. That still doesn't make me fearful to explore the origins of Christianity despite the ocean of dirty politics that smear it. Christianity doesn't have to be pure as the driven snow to be valid. In the last two thousand years so many evil men have tainted and sullied Christianity that you'd feel filthy every time you pick up a Bible, yet that doesn't make the truths to be found inside it any less true.
Don't hide behind cutesy little Christian platitudes to bolster your faith. Confront the dirt head on. It will make you a stronger Christian or it will break you. But you will be challenged, unless you choose to run and bury your head in the sand as so many Christians do when confronted with the bald truth.
Ever wonder who you have to thank that you are a Bible-believing Christian today?
Hint: It's not Jesus Christ or Paul or any of the apostles or any of the gospel writers or any of the early church forefathers.
It's one man: Emperor Constantine.
That's right. Without Constantine Christianity might have been relegated to one of the hundreds of obscure backwater religions circulating in the first 300 years after Jesus' death. It was Constantine and his infamous "Council of Nicaea" who "invented" Christianity by sorting through hundreds of gods
brought before him as candidates for who would be the "official" god of the Roman Empire.
By an extremely clever series of political maneuverings, favor buying, negotiations among a rabble of "church leaders" who were no more than ignorant peasants with "wild texts, gospels, epistles, legends, myths" that became the riot of scriptures upon which the future Bible would have to be based
In a thumbnail:
So history records how Jesus Christ was a conglomerate of Julius Caesar, Krishna, and a little known Druid god, Hesus to placate Constantine's pagan subjects in Britain, often pictured as a "shepherd with a staff in one hand and a lamb in the other.
This is history, folks---not the "sanitized" versions we hear from the pulpits of Christian preachers (if they even bother to touch on this topic) but the actual cold, hard facts as recorded by the best historians of the age.
A few links gives more details of how Christianity actually came about.
NOTE: I have no wish to try to "destroy" Christianity as many accuse me off. My sole interest has always been to uncover the "truth", regardless of how offensive or uncomfortable that truth might be.
If you're interested in getting a different view--one you've never been told about--read the two links above before posting insults.
JC= Julius Caesar=Jesus Christ is total nonsense, that combination is manufactured as T=Thrillobyte= doubting Thomas. There are better sources to find where Jesus Christ comes from. Constantine was a sun worshiper and he made the pagan Roman church the preeminent church (CC), which she claims to be till today, but he was not the founder of Christianity, the church was birthed in Jerusalem and the NT comes from the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. The RCC laid a wrong foundation, but the true church is Jesus Christ as Head and solid Rock, nobody can destroy, it is not an organization or institution nor a building, but a living body of saints who know their master and follow Him.
Jesus Christ is a butchered down transliteration of Yahushah Hamashiach. Jesus was a Hebrew, so he has a Hebrew name back then just like every one else: Paul( Shaul), John (Yôḥānān), Matthew(Matityahu), etc
Ever wonder who you have to thank that you are a Bible-believing Christian today?
Hint: It's not Jesus Christ or Paul or any of the apostles or any of the gospel writers or any of the early church forefathers.
It's one man: Emperor Constantine. (etc., etc., blah, blah, blah.)
Your entire post is a combination of a pitiful ignorance of history boiled together with the most patently absurd twaddle.
Let's explode a few of your many errors, shall we?
Quote:
It was Constantine and his infamous "Council of Nicaea" who "invented" Christianity by sorting through hundreds of gods brought before him as candidates for who would be the "official" god of the Roman Empire.
This is idiotic nonsense. The main reason that the Council of Nicaea was called was to establish the date to be used for celebrating the annual Christian feast of the Resurrection of Christ, although the primary work of the Council -- which was not "infamous" -- turned out to be a doctrinal definition of the the nature of the relationship between God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. All of the attendees were Christian bishops (some of whom had suffered severely for their faith under earlier pagan emperors such as Decius and Diocletian), and no one gave a single thought to any god other than the Christian God.
Quote:
By an extremely clever series of political maneuverings, favor buying, negotiations among a rabble of "church leaders" who were no more than ignorant peasants with "wild texts, gospels, epistles, legends, myths" that became the riot of scriptures upon which the future Bible would have to be based
More rubbish. All of the books of the Bible were already written,and already in use for centuries. The orthodox, catholic Christian canon of the Old Testament is in fact almost identical to the Greek Septuagint, which was translated in the Second Century B.C. Considering that Constantine was not 500 years old in A.D. 325, he had nothing to do with the compilation. As for the New Testament, Irenaeus -- who did around A.D. 202 -- clearly stated that there were no more and no fewer than precisely four gospels, exactly as Christians believed at Nicaea, and still believe today.
Quote:
So history records how Jesus Christ was a conglomerate of Julius Caesar, Krishna, and a little known Druid god, Hesus
"History" records absolutely nothing of the kind; this is an utter invention on your part -- or rather, on the part of the source from which you cut-and-pasted this, as I doubt you are clever enough to have cooked up this farrago on your own.
Before you continue embarassing yourself in public by actually seeming to take seriously the ridiculous tripe to which you provided links, you should acquire a better grounding in ecclesiastical history,and in the pre-Nicene Christian writers.
Here, for example, is Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who was martyred in A.D. 258, writing (with many citations from Scripture) about the unity of the church, and the authority fo bishops: CHURCH FATHERS: Treatise 1 (Cyprian of Carthage)
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who died about A.D. 200 (that is, more than a century before the Council of Nicaea), produced a formidable work called "Against Heresies", which refuted erroneous opinions that arose in the Christian Church, and set forth the orthodox position. You can read that work here: CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus)
Here is the Didache, or the Apostolic Teachings, which dates from the First Century, and already shows the foundation of the Christian practices of today: CHURCH FATHERS: The Didache
And finally, here is Eusebius, the historian of the Council of Nicaea. Unlike the silly folk you have quoted to us, Eusebius actually was AT the Council, so his description has more weight than yours. Here is Book 3 of his "Life of Constantine", which describes the origins of the Council of Nicaea: CHURCH FATHERS: Life of Constantine, Book III (Eusebius)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
good grief.
