Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 08-03-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexus

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.

Extracted from Nexus Magazine,
Volume 14, Number 4 (June - July 2007)

Its a large article.
Here's the first few paras:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEXUS

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.

Jayco · 08-03-2007, 08:54 PM

How is Nexus as a magazine, by the way? I just went to their website and was almost blinded by the disorienting arrays of eye-candy.

But seriously, is their magazine better than their website?

Toto · 08-04-2007, 03:24 AM

Quote:

NEXUS is an international bi-monthly alternative news magazine, covering the fields of: Health Alternatives; Suppressed Science; Earth's Ancient Past; UFOs & the Unexplained; and Government Cover-Ups.

This article is by Tony Bushby, who also wrote "THE CRIMINAL HISTORY OF THE PAPACY" Far from being pious followers of Jesus Christ, as the Catholic Church would have us believe, a great many of the popes performed acts of corruption, cruelty, debauchery, genocide, greed, terror and warfare.

I was going to recommend that the article be evaluated for what it says, ignoring where it is published. However, I started reading the article, but I could not get past this howler:

Quote:

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 new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite. 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 "Jesus Christ".

What is Bushby smoking? When do the reptiles take over?

I think life is too short to spend much time on this.

Roger Pearse · 08-04-2007, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This article is by Tony Bushby, who also wrote "THE CRIMINAL HISTORY OF THE PAPACY" ...

I was going to recommend that the article be evaluated for what it says, ignoring where it is published. However, I started reading the article, but I could not get past this howler:

Quote:

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)...

What is Bushby smoking? When do the reptiles take over?

I think life is too short to spend much time on this.

Interesting to see the bogus reference to the HE.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Amaleq13 · 08-04-2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Interesting to see the bogus reference to the HE.

Is there anything even remotely resembling the claim in the text?

Roger Pearse · 08-04-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Interesting to see the bogus reference to the HE.

Is there anything even remotely resembling the claim in the text?

Not a shred.

As far as I can tell the HE ends before the Council of Nicaea anyway...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto · 08-04-2007, 06:19 PM

ccel

Quote:

The work with which we are especially concerned at this time is the Church History, the original Greek of which is still extant in numerous mss. It consists of ten books, to which is added in most of the mss. the shorter form of the Martyrs of Palestine (see above, p. 29). The date of the work can be determined with considerable exactness. . . .. On the other hand, not the slightest reference is made to the Council of Nicæa, which met in the summer of 325; and still further the tenth book is dedicated to Paulinus, at one time bishop of Tyre and afterward bishop of Antioch (see Euseb. Contra Marc. I. 4, and Philost. H. E. III. 15), who was already dead in the summer of 325: for at the Nicene Council, Zeno appears as bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius as bishop of Antioch (see for further particulars Lightfoot, p. 322). We are thus led to place the completion of the History in the year 324, or, to give the widest possible limits, between the latter part of 323 and the early part of 325 a.d.

BALDUCCI · 08-04-2007, 06:32 PM

As far as I know there are original manuscripts of gospel texts way prior to the 4th Century, and if that is so, this whole hypothesis is nonsense. I have always believed the gospels were heavily redacted and interpolated for current political reasons, but the Nexus claims sound like a farce to me

mountainman · 08-04-2007, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BALDUCCI

As far as I know there are original manuscripts of gospel texts way prior to the 4th Century, and if that is so, this whole hypothesis is nonsense.

Well unfortunately BALDUCCI that claim is not as simple
as it sounds. The claim needs to be stated this way:

"We have papyrii copies of some of the NT, and
papyrii fragments from the Oxyrynchus rubbish
dump - none of which have been carbon dated.

However the hand-writings on the papyrii have been
analysed by a number of paleographists, (1920's ??)
and their claim is that the dating of the handwriting
on the papyrii is pre-Constantinian."

This is not what I'd call conclusive.
By any stretch of the imagination.

The most ancient codexes we have date from either
the late fourth or early fifth centuries.

Quote:

I have always believed the gospels were heavily redacted and interpolated for current political reasons, but the Nexus claims sound like a farce to me

The Nexus claims rise and fall on their own merits.
I ran across the article posted elsewhere.

I am astounded that this post attracted more attention
that three posts in which I presented articles and
references from Robert Lane-Fox's "Pagans and Christians".

The Robert Lane-Fox claims also rise and fall
on their own merits.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

BALDUCCI · 08-04-2007, 07:54 PM

I am not able to comment on the reliability of any of these sites, but there appear to be scholars arguing that the earliest gospel manuscripts are certainly earlier than the 4th Century

http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papy...nuscripts.html
http://www.helsinki.fi/~merenlah/opp...sh/newtest.htm
http://catholic-resources.org/John/Papyri.html
http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ine&aid=327815
http://home.att.net/~kmpope/FirstCenturyMSS.html

...and there were many more....if they are all wrong, why is that ?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-03-2007, 08:54 PM	#2
Jayco Veteran Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Crystal Lake, Illinois Posts: 865	How is Nexus as a magazine, by the way? I just went to their website and was almost blinded by the disorienting arrays of eye-candy. But seriously, is their magazine better than their website?

08-04-2007, 06:32 PM	#8
BALDUCCI Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: scotland Posts: 365	As far as I know there are original manuscripts of gospel texts way prior to the 4th Century, and if that is so, this whole hypothesis is nonsense. I have always believed the gospels were heavily redacted and interpolated for current political reasons, but the Nexus claims sound like a farce to me

08-04-2007, 07:54 PM	#10
BALDUCCI Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: scotland Posts: 365	I am not able to comment on the reliability of any of these sites, but there appear to be scholars arguing that the earliest gospel manuscripts are certainly earlier than the 4th Century http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papy...nuscripts.html http://www.helsinki.fi/~merenlah/opp...sh/newtest.htm http://catholic-resources.org/John/Papyri.html http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ine&aid=327815 http://home.att.net/~kmpope/FirstCenturyMSS.html ...and there were many more....if they are all wrong, why is that ?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.