# Codex Sinaiticus



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2014)

Why no mention of a resurrection in Mark in this oldest version of the Bible?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2014)

Anyone?


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 13, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Why no mention of a resurrection in Mark in this oldest version of the Bible?



That's debatable.

FWIW, I don't think Vaticanus mentions it, either.  I don't have a lot of my manuscript info handy, so I'll try to post more later.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2014)

Thanks for the input. I knew I could count on you.
I know there are a few of the earliest that do not mention it and it gets my brain in gear wondering why.


----------



## Sargent (Nov 13, 2014)

Here's what I found:
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/m...chapter=16&lid=en&side=r&verse=8&zoomSlider=0

Mark 16:6-7



> 6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.
> 
> 7 But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you.



It however omits Jesus interacting with the disciples later.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2014)

Sargent said:


> Here's what I found:
> http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/m...chapter=16&lid=en&side=r&verse=8&zoomSlider=0
> 
> Mark 16:6-7
> ...



It also fails to mention WHICH corrections, amendments and additions were added for over 800 years.
The site shows the final version.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 13, 2014)

I briefly checked one of my sources at lunch, and it noted that Sinaiticus originally contained the last twelve verses of Mark, but they had been erased.  You can see this in Sargent's link above (column #2.)


----------



## 660griz (Nov 13, 2014)

Resurrection omitted from Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark code-named ‘K’ by analysts. Some manuscripts of the 15th and 16th centuries have the fictitious verses written in asterisks, a mark used by ancient scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document. Resurrection narratives are also absent in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, and a number of Sixth Century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version. That is because the resurrection narratives in today’s Gospels of Mark are later priesthood forgeries. 

Does any of it really matter? No. You can't expect the foundation of the Christian view to go down without a fight. 
I am sure we(not religious) find it more interesting.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2014)

I found a source that listed this:


The shock discovery of an ancient Bible The_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ.jpgThe 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" (Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759). 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. It was discovered by Dr Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874), a brilliant and pious German biblical scholar, and he called it the Sinaiticus, 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.
During his lifetime, Tischendorf had access to other ancient Bibles unavailable to the public, such as the Alexandrian (or Alexandrinus) Bible, 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, the Sinaiticus, in the British Library in London. During his research, Tischendorf had access to the Vaticanus, the Vatican Bible, believed to be the third oldest in the world and dated to the mid-sixth century (The Various Versions of the Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1874, available in the British Library). 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 ("Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?", Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, lecture, 1869, available in the British Library).
Today, there are several other Bibles written in various languages during the fifth and sixth centuries, examples being the Syriacus, the Cantabrigiensis (Bezae), the Sarravianus and the Marchalianus.

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 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, saying that "...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". 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.
The revelations of ultraviolet light testing 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.
Before I summarise 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. 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 (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938).
Forgery in the Gospels 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 recognised 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.
Of importance is the fact that the Sinaiticus carries three Gospels since rejected: the Shepherd of Hermas (written by two resurrected ghosts, Charinus and Lenthius), the Missive of Barnabas and the Odes of Solomon. Space excludes elaboration on these bizarre writings and also discussion on dilemmas associated with translation variations.
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. One 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).
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 Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible 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 asterisksÑmarks used by scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document.
The Church claims that "the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available. A resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non ("without which, nothing") of Christianity (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), confirmed by words attributed to Paul: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain" (1 Cor. 5:17). The resurrection verses in today's Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying "the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation" (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"). Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity.
The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues. The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus' resurrection to his disciples. The Church admits: "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" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 17, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I found a source that listed this:
> 
> 
> The shock discovery of an ancient Bible The_Resurrection_of_Jesus_Christ.jpgThe 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" (Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759). 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. It was discovered by Dr Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874), a brilliant and pious German biblical scholar, and he called it the Sinaiticus, 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.
> ...



Interesting.  Bullet can you link the source?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 17, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Interesting.  Bullet can you link the source?



https://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/doc_view/11-the-forged-origins-of-the-new-testament


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 17, 2014)

Tks


----------



## Day trip (Nov 17, 2014)

I have heard that there is much debate about the brief ending to Marks gospel and the best we can guess is the ending was lost or the author didn't finish it.  There is alternate versions of the ending that are often excluded because they are not thought to be from the original.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 17, 2014)

It is easy to assume that it was all over so no more story to tell..... but the abrupt ending, the story being written after the fact, the author knowing what has happened, unlike a reporter whom writes as things happens, not knowing tomorrows news, this abrupt ending leads me to believe that the real ending was lost... and some nut tried to fabricate an ending.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 17, 2014)

Interesting read Bullet. I have often pondered this subject of Jesus getting sensationalized in the NT. For me, even if he did, I still maintain the basis of my belief. I have asked myself.... why do I believe as I do? It is strange but I feel as though it was decided for me... just like my gender. Strange, I know, but I thought you might find that interesting.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Interesting read Bullet. I have often pondered this subject of Jesus getting sensationalized in the NT. For me, even if he did, I still maintain the basis of my belief. I have asked myself.... why do I believe as I do? It is strange but I feel as though it was decided for me... just like my gender. Strange, I know, but I thought you might find that interesting.



Always interesting 1gr8.
Can't say I agree with anything being decided for you but...that another topic.


----------



## Israel (Nov 17, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Always interesting 1gr8.
> Can't say I agree with anything being decided for you but...that another topic.



Do you believe your sig line?
What does potassium know of itself?
Calcium, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, et al?
What is...life?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 17, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Interesting read Bullet. I have often pondered this subject of Jesus getting sensationalized in the NT. For me, even if he did, I still maintain the basis of my belief. I have asked myself.... why do I believe as I do? It is strange but I feel as though it was decided for me... just like my gender. Strange, I know, but I thought you might find that interesting.



Do you mean gender or sex?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2014)

Israel said:


> Do you believe your sig line?


Yes


Israel said:


> What does potassium know of itself?


I am only guessing here, but probably nothing.


Israel said:


> Calcium, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, et al?


 Building blocks


Israel said:


> What is...life?


There are many definitions.
here are a few:
1
a :  the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b :  a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c :  an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2
a :  the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual
b :  one or more aspects of the process of living <sex life of the frog>


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2014)

Israel said:


> Do you believe your sig line?
> What does potassium know of itself?
> Calcium, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, et al?
> What is...life?


Without the right amounts of potassium calcium carbon oxygen hydrogen neither one of us could type a sig line let alone believe a sig line.
Products of chemistry without a doubt.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 17, 2014)

Sargent clearly pointed out that your assertion in the OP was wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sargent clearly pointed out that your assertion in the OP was wrong.



And yet somehow the conversation continues.
Centerpin mentions another early Bible version of Mark that does not mention it and neither do other of the earliest versions of Mark.
As I research more I am finding that Sinaiticus has been added to, subtracted from, edited and had replacements of passages. The ultraviolet testing has revealed passages that have been erased as traces of the original ink still remain but it still does not say ,with so many editors doing revisions, when that ink was inserted and when that ink was erased. Being that the same text is not present in other early versions of Mark is it quite possible it was added in Sinaiticus later and then removed as a correction again after another editors revision. 

I will continue to try to research other of the earliest versions of Mark and see where it leads.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 17, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Do you mean gender or sex?


LOL, I had to google this, there is a difference. LOL, I learn something everyday. Yesterday it was that a cedar tree on a hedge row is no good. The good cedar wood comes from a cedar tree under the canopy of surrounding big woods.


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 18, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Do you mean gender or sex?



There is no such thing as transgender.  Just confused people not praying enough.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 18, 2014)

bullethead said:


> And yet somehow the conversation continues.
> Centerpin mentions another early Bible version of Mark that does not mention it and neither do other of the earliest versions of Mark.
> As I research more I am finding that Sinaiticus has been added to, subtracted from, edited and had replacements of passages. The ultraviolet testing has revealed passages that have been erased as traces of the original ink still remain but it still does not say ,with so many editors doing revisions, when that ink was inserted and when that ink was erased. Being that the same text is not present in other early versions of Mark is it quite possible it was added in Sinaiticus later and then removed as a correction again after another editors revision.
> 
> I will continue to try to research other of the earliest versions of Mark and see where it leads.



From everything I have read CS has been heavily edited.  What I did find interesting is that there is a very high correlation between CS and CV.  Over 90% according to some excerpts I read.  From what I gather this adds to the historical integrity of both documents.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 18, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> There is no such thing as transgender.  Just confused people not praying enough.



Agreed.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2014)

I found this site while checking around:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_40.htm

Now I am going to have to check into MORE stuff.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2014)

http://christjesusthesaviour.blogspot.com/2010/09/forged-origins-of-new-testament-1.html

There are 6 parts to this. The links can be found on left of main page.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2014)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm


----------



## 660griz (Nov 18, 2014)

All of this could have been avoided if God would have wrote the book. Hard to find good help.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2014)

660griz said:


> All of this could have been avoided if God would have wrote the book. Hard to find good help.



Isn't that the truth.

Mark, who was the first to write a Gospel, did not witness any of it as he wrote down what Peter told him.
Not a very accurate way of getting details right.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2014)

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/


----------



## 660griz (Nov 18, 2014)




----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2014)

Good one Griz.
A LOT of house cleaning went on in the early church and many texts were purposely destroyed, changed, added to etc.
I am trying to research the reasoning behind why ancient texts were ordered to be treated in such manners..


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 18, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Agreed.



Well...... I mighta been funnin' a bit.  Cause if praying worked on them, then folks with things like Spina bifida could pray themselves whole.


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 18, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I found this site while checking around:
> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_40.htm
> 
> Now I am going to have to check into MORE stuff.



"They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses"  
This quote from the page reminds me of the effort to convert as children.  You know, before they get other ideas in their heads.

I never have believed that Constantine was a Christian.  It just makes sense that he would make stuff up to control people.  Seems to me that is what religion has always been about.  Control and keeping people ignorant.


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 18, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Good one Griz.
> A LOT of house cleaning went on in the early church and many texts were purposely destroyed, changed, added to etc.
> I am trying to research the reasoning behind why ancient texts were ordered to be treated in such manners..



Because the texts didn't fit into the narrative attempting to be written at the time.  Much easier to do that when most of society was unwashed ignorant masses.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 18, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Isn't that the truth.
> 
> Mark, who was the first to write a Gospel, did not witness any of it as he wrote down what Peter told him.
> Not a very accurate way of getting details right.


Yes and Matthew and Luke copied from Mark.  Not a very accurate way of recording anything. Leaves lots of room for embellishments


----------



## bullethead (Nov 18, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Yes and Matthew and Luke copied from Mark.  Not a very accurate way of recording anything. Leaves lots of room for embellishments



Indeed.

Have you looked into Matthew and Luke being written much later than claimed and under orders from the early church in order to tell more details?

A lot of Esubius's writings really has me wondering about some of the Gospels.
Most of the earliest known copies are 4th century and that is about the time the church is involved. I can't help but think that some of that writing is original as per church orders.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 18, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Have you looked into Matthew and Luke being written much later than claimed and under orders from the early church in order to tell more details?


No but signs do exist that it was late enough that Jewish ways were no longer remembered. An example is that Jewish lingo was that they sometimes repeat things, Like "riding on a wave, a big wave". The text says Jesus came riding on a donkey the foal of a donkey. So Matthew not knowing this Jewish meaning has Jesus riding on both. Our translations have covered it up but the greek says that he came riding on "them". 
Edit, I was surprised that many I looked up do use "them". This is about half of what biblehub had listed. Most the remainder use "them"


"Say to Daughter Zion, 'See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.'"

New Living Translation
"Tell the people of Jerusalem, 'Look, your King is coming to you. He is humble, riding on a donkey--riding on a donkey's colt.'"

English Standard Version
â€œSay to the daughter of Zion, â€˜Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.â€™â€�

New American Standard Bible 
"SAY TO THE DAUGHTER OF ZION, 'BEHOLD YOUR KING IS COMING TO YOU, GENTLE, AND MOUNTED ON A DONKEY, EVEN ON A COLT, THE FOAL OF A BEAST OF BURDEN.'"

King James Bible
Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an CensoredCensoredCensored, and a colt the foal of an CensoredCensoredCensored.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Tell Daughter Zion, "Look, your King is coming to you, gentle, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden." 

International Standard Version
"Tell the daughter of Zion, 'Look, your king is coming to you! He is humble and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt of a donkey.'" 

NET Bible
"Tell the people of Zion, 'Look, your king is coming to you, unassuming and seated on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.'" 

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
â€œSay to the daughter of Zion, 'Behold, your King comes to you meek and riding on a donkey and upon a colt, the foal of a she donkey.'â€�

GOD'S WORD® Translation
"Tell the people of Zion, 'Your king is coming to you. He's gentle, riding on a donkey, on a colt, a young pack animal.'"





They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on.

New Living Translation
They brought the donkey and the colt to him and threw their garments over the colt, and he sat on it.

English Standard Version
They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them.

New American Standard Bible 
and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid their coats on them; and He sat on the coats.

King James Bible
And brought the CensoredCensoredCensored, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
They brought the donkey and the colt; then they laid their robes on them, and He sat on them. 

International Standard Version
They brought the donkey and the colt and put their coats on them, and he sat upon them. 

NET Bible
They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And they brought the donkey and the colt and they placed their garments on the colt and Yeshua rode upon it.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
They brought the donkey and the colt and put their coats on them for Jesus to sit on.

Jubilee Bible 2000
and brought the CensoredCensoredCensored and the colt and put on them their clothes, and he sat upon them.

King James 2000 Bible
And brought the donkey, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they sat him thereon.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 18, 2014)

I'm gettin' a pretty good "grassy knoll" vibe from this thread.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 18, 2014)

The answer to this:



ambush80 said:


> Do you mean gender or sex?



Completely changes the context of this:



1gr8bldr said:


> Interesting read Bullet. I have often pondered this subject of Jesus getting sensationalized in the NT. For me, even if he did, I still maintain the basis of my belief. I have asked myself.... why do I believe as I do? It is strange but I feel as though it was decided for me... just like my gender. Strange, I know, but I thought you might find that interesting.



Don't you think?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm gettin' a pretty good "grassy knoll" vibe from this thread.



You can believe the Warren Commission, Bible, and Sandy Hook Advisory Commission all you want.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm gettin' a pretty good "grassy knoll" vibe from this thread.



So did Mark witness Jesus in action or did he write down as how Peter remembered?
And did Matthew and Luke use Mark as their reference?

I plan on starting here and seeing where it takes me.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 19, 2014)

bullethead said:


> You can believe the Warren Commission, Bible, and Sandy Hook Advisory Commission all you want.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 19, 2014)

bullethead said:


> So did Mark witness Jesus in action or did he write down as how Peter remembered?



Probably some of both.




bullethead said:


> And did Matthew and Luke use Mark as their reference?



As an apostle, Matthew would not have needed to use anything as a reference.  As for Luke, here is what he said:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.  With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Probably some of both.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I guess the Church has got it wrong then.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2014)

"The Great Insertion" and "The Great Omission"


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 Jesus "and was carried up into heaven", but this narrative does not appear in any of the oldest Gospels of Luke available today ("Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels", 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 ascension of Jesus Christ, and this falsification clearly indicates an intention to deceive.


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:

    "The character of these passages makes it dangerous to draw inferences"

    (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. ii, p. 407).

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 Tischendorf found 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 God" ("Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?", op. cit.)


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2014)

Gospel authors exposed as imposters


There is something else involved in this scenario and it is recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia. 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:

    "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."

    (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

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.



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.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 19, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Gospel authors exposed as imposters
> 
> 
> There is something else involved in this scenario and it is recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia. 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:
> ...



I don't think it reveals that at all.  Quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia are getting tossed out a lot, and your sources are leaving out some stuff:


_The second word common to the titles of the canonical Gospels is the preposition kata, "according to", the exact import of which has long been a matter of discussion among Biblical scholars. Apart from various secondary meanings connected with that Greek particle, two principal significations have been ascribed to it. Many authors have taken it to mean not "written by", but "drawn up according to the conception of", Matthew, Mark, etc. In their eyes, the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship, but to state the authority guaranteeing what is related, in about the same way as "the Gospel according to the Hebrews", or "the Gospel according to the Egyptians", does not mean the Gospel written by the Hebrews or the Egyptians, but that peculiar form of Gospel which either the Hebrews or the Egyptians had accepted. Most scholars, however, have preferred to regard the preposition kata as denoting authorship, pretty much in the same way as, in Diodorus Siculus, the History of Herodotus is called He kath Herodoton historia. At the present day it is generally admitted that, had the titles to the canonical Gospels been intended to set forth the ultimate authority or guarantor, and not to indicate the writer, the Second Gospel would, in accordance with the belief of primitive times, have been called "the Gospel according to Peter", and the third, "the Gospel according to Paul". At the same time it is rightly felt that these titles denote authorship, with a peculiar shade of meaning which is not conveyed by the titles prefixed to the Epistles of St. Paul, the Apocalypse of St. John, etc; The use of the genitive case in the latter titles Paulou Epistolai, Apokalypsis Ioannou, etc.) has no other object than that of ascribing the contents of such works to the writer whose name they actually bear. The use of the preposition kata (according to), on the contrary, while referring the composition of the contents of the First Gospel to St. Matthew, of those of the second to St. Mark, etc., implies that practically the same contents, the same glad tidings or Gospel, have been set forth by more than one narrator. Thus, "the Gospel according to Matthew" is equivalent to the Gospel history in the form in which St. Matthew put it in writing; "the Gospel according to Mark" designates the same Gospel history in another form, viz, in that in which St. Mark presented it in writing, etc. (cf. Maldonatus, "In quatuor Evangelistas", cap .i). _


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2014)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm

Authorship

All early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and St. Peter, Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached. We have just seen that this was the view of Papias and the elder to whom he refers. Papias wrote not later than about A.D. 130, so that the testimony of the elder probably brings us back to the first century, and shows the Second Gospel known in Asia Minor and attributed to St. Mark at that early time. So Irenæus says: "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what was preached by Peter" (Against Heresies III.1 and III.10.6). St. Clement of Alexandria, relying on the authority of "the elder presbyters", tells us that, when Peter had publicly preached in Rome, many of those who heard him exhorted Mark, as one who had long followed Peter and remembered what he had said, to write it down, and that Mark "composed the Gospel and gave it to those who had asked for it" (Eusebius, Church History VI.14). Origen says (ibid., VI, xxv) that Mark wrote as Peter directed him (os Petros huphegesato auto), and Eusebius himself reports the tradition that Peter approved or authorized Mark's work (Church History II.15). To these early Eastern witnesses may be added, from the West, the author of the Muratorian Fragment, which in its first line almost certainly refers to Mark's presence at Peter's discourses and his composition of the Gospel accordingly (Quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit); Tertullian, who states: "The Gospel which Mark published (edidit is affirmed to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was" ("Contra Marc.", IV, v); St. Jerome, who in one place says that Mark wrote a short Gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome, and that Peter authorized it to be read in the Churches ("De Vir. Ill.", viii), and in another that Mark's Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing (Petro narrante et illo scribente--"Ad Hedib.", ep. cxx). In every one of these ancient authorities Mark is regarded as the writer of the Gospel, which is looked upon at the same time as having Apostolic authority, because substantially at least it had come from St. Peter. In the light of this traditional connexion of the Gospel with St. Peter, there can be no doubt that it is to it St. Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, refers (Dialogue with Trypho 106), when he says that Christ gave the title of "Boanerges" to the sons of Zebedee (a fact mentioned in the New Testament only in Mark 3:17), and that this is written in the "memoirs" of Peter (en tois apopnemaneumasin autou--after he had just named Peter). Though St. Justin does not name Mark as the writer of the memoirs, the fact that his disciple Tatian used our present Mark, including even the last twelve verses, in the composition of the "Diatessaron", makes it practically certain that St. Justin knew our present Second Gospel, and like the other Fathers connected it with St. Peter.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 19, 2014)

bullethead said:


> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm
> 
> Authorship
> 
> All early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and St. Peter, Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached. We have just seen that this was the view of Papias and the elder to whom he refers. Papias wrote not later than about A.D. 130, so that the testimony of the elder probably brings us back to the first century, and shows the Second Gospel known in Asia Minor and attributed to St. Mark at that early time. So Irenæus says: "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what was preached by Peter" (Against Heresies III.1 and III.10.6). St. Clement of Alexandria, relying on the authority of "the elder presbyters", tells us that, when Peter had publicly preached in Rome, many of those who heard him exhorted Mark, as one who had long followed Peter and remembered what he had said, to write it down, and that Mark "composed the Gospel and gave it to those who had asked for it" (Eusebius, Church History VI.14). Origen says (ibid., VI, xxv) that Mark wrote as Peter directed him (os Petros huphegesato auto), and Eusebius himself reports the tradition that Peter approved or authorized Mark's work (Church History II.15). To these early Eastern witnesses may be added, from the West, the author of the Muratorian Fragment, which in its first line almost certainly refers to Mark's presence at Peter's discourses and his composition of the Gospel accordingly (Quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit); Tertullian, who states: "The Gospel which Mark published (edidit is affirmed to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was" ("Contra Marc.", IV, v); St. Jerome, who in one place says that Mark wrote a short Gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome, and that Peter authorized it to be read in the Churches ("De Vir. Ill.", viii), and in another that Mark's Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing (Petro narrante et illo scribente--"Ad Hedib.", ep. cxx). In every one of these ancient authorities Mark is regarded as the writer of the Gospel, which is looked upon at the same time as having Apostolic authority, because substantially at least it had come from St. Peter. In the light of this traditional connexion of the Gospel with St. Peter, there can be no doubt that it is to it St. Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, refers (Dialogue with Trypho 106), when he says that Christ gave the title of "Boanerges" to the sons of Zebedee (a fact mentioned in the New Testament only in Mark 3:17), and that this is written in the "memoirs" of Peter (en tois apopnemaneumasin autou--after he had just named Peter). Though St. Justin does not name Mark as the writer of the memoirs, the fact that his disciple Tatian used our present Mark, including even the last twelve verses, in the composition of the "Diatessaron", makes it practically certain that St. Justin knew our present Second Gospel, and like the other Fathers connected it with St. Peter.



Sounds legit to me.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Sounds legit to me.



So which is it?

When I asked you if Mark wrote what Peter told him or did he witness Jesus you said probably some of both.
Now you agree he wrote what Peter told him.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 19, 2014)

bullethead said:


> So which is it?
> 
> When I asked you if Mark wrote what Peter told him or did he witness Jesus you said probably some of both.
> Now you agree he wrote what Peter told him.



I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.  A traditional view is that the young man in Mark 14:51 was Mark himself.  Therefore, he had seen Jesus personally.  Also, as a disciple of Peter, he would have undoubtedly relied on Peter's recollections.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2014)

No offense because I do enjoy you sharing your thoughts but I am wondering what the facts are and not traditional views.
I have been looking into this  for a few days and have been finding all the different views. Taking all those into account I am now digging deeper for the actual facts.
There is info out there saying everything from the traditional view that you shared all the way to having the Gospels ordered written by the church in the 4th century.
I am hoping to find some truth in the middle.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 19, 2014)

Hey Bullet, where can I find the best, most interesting of what you have been looking at. Especially the differences in the oldest text compared to what we have today. I googled a few things... but I need the game highlights, not the whole game. Those first few I looked at were to slow showing the point. LOL, even though I am Christian, LOL, by my deffinition, I find this stuff super interesting


----------



## bullethead (Nov 19, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Bullet, where can I find the best, most interesting of what you have been looking at. Especially the differences in the oldest text compared to what we have today. I googled a few things... but I need the game highlights, not the whole game. Those first few I looked at were to slow showing the point. LOL, even though I am Christian, LOL, by my deffinition, I find this stuff super interesting



So far what I have been doing is using the links I had posted above and have been highlighting some key words and sources listed in those links and doing searches on them. I have not saved any to my bookmarks yet but I am currently doing some reading on http://www.vatileaks.com 
There is the website and blog that shares some info that I am sifting through..highlighting..and searching some more.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Bullet, where can I find the best, most interesting of what you have been looking at. Especially the differences in the oldest text compared to what we have today. I googled a few things... but I need the game highlights, not the whole game. Those first few I looked at were to slow showing the point. LOL, even though I am Christian, LOL, by my deffinition, I find this stuff super interesting



Start here
http://www.vatileaks.com/_blog/Vati_Leaks/post/What_the_first_Gospels_DIDN'T_say/

Then go down to the sources it lists at bottom of article.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 20, 2014)

bullethead said:


> No offense because I do enjoy you sharing your thoughts but I am wondering what the facts are and not traditional views.
> I have been looking into this  for a few days and have been finding all the different views. Taking all those into account I am now digging deeper for the actual facts.
> There is info out there saying everything from the traditional view that you shared all the way to having the Gospels ordered written by the church in the 4th century.
> I am hoping to find some truth in the middle.





bullethead said:


> So far what I have been doing is using the links I had posted above and have been highlighting some key words and sources listed in those links and doing searches on them. I have not saved any to my bookmarks yet but I am currently doing some reading on http://www.vatileaks.com..
> There is the website and blog that shares some info that I am sifting throughhighlighting..and searching some more.



Does a website named "Vati Leaks" sound like it's interested in facts?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Does a website named "Vati Leaks" sound like it's interested in facts?



All of the things that you did not highlight in blue explain my methods...but...just pick what you want instead of reading it all.

Is VatiLeaks interested in facts??
I wouldn't know until I read through it and check the sources it uses and then research those sources to see where they got their information from.
I trust that you refuse to read past the link I posted so I am not sure you know what may be truthful or not.

Maybe you have not figured this out from me just yet but I don't take much at face value. I try to check all the sources and the sources they list as sources in order to see what can be verified. I have what is listed in the Bible. I have what apologetic sources tell me and I have some examples that are a bit extreme going in the opposite direction.
 I am not hanging onto the edge of my seat while reading these shocking revelations but I am getting information that allows me take another avenue to check into.

Using Mark as an example I have never found the Bible to point out that earlier versions of Mark may be different than later versions. I have found some sources that show early Mark is different. Now I can use both as examples to research into it more and find out what I can find out about it. It seems that the truth lies somewhere in the middle with not just Mark, but with a bunch of Biblical "facts".
When getting into the hows and whys a clearer picture is had.

History has shown that the "church" isn't exactly the most honest bunch of God's representatives and accurate quotes from church hierarchy tend to lean towards a smidge of misrepresentation regarding the Bible and it's contents. Starting with Constantine and Eusebius.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 20, 2014)

bullethead said:


> History has shown that the "church" isn't exactly the most honest bunch of God's representatives and accurate quotes from church hierarchy tend to lean towards a smidge of misrepresentation regarding the Bible and it's contents. Starting with Constantine and Eusebius.



One thing I have learned from reading this forum is that there is no mischief that will not be attributed to Constantine and Eusebius.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> One thing I have learned from reading this forum is that there is no mischief that will not be attributed to Constantine and Eusebius.



No sense pointing fingers where they don't belong. If they were on trial they would sweating profusely.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> One thing I have learned from reading this forum is that there is no mischief that will not be attributed to Constantine and Eusebius.



If you would could you please make a post/start a thread about Constatine's and Eusebius's roles in the early church?
Could you provide how they came to choose one God as the official god of worship and how long that process took? What Gods were considered? What guidelines were given etc etc??
My understanding is that it was a lengthy process.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 20, 2014)

bullethead said:


> If you would could you please make a post/start a thread about Constatine's and Eusebius's roles in the early church?



I'm not much of a thread starter.  I'll leave it to someone else.




bullethead said:


> Could you provide how they came to choose one God as the official god of worship ...



Who said they did?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm not much of a thread starter.  I'll leave it to someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I appreciate your involvement so far but you are schooled in the necessary things that you want to know and only seem to want to talk about your understanding of it.
There are many things written about the early church outside of the circle that you are familiar with. There is no need to discuss "Who said they did" if you are not familiar with the other side of things.
Thanks for what you have included so far.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 20, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm not much of a thread starter.  I'll leave it to someone else.


I thought maybe you would share what you knew of the two.






centerpin fan said:


> Who said they did?



Edward Gibbon
Dr. Robert L. Wilken
Paul L. Maier
Encyclopedia Biblica
just to get a few out there for you to research.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 20, 2014)

bullethead said:


> There are many things written about the early church outside of the circle that you are familiar with.



... but are they Looney Tunes conspiracy theorists?  I ask because much of what I read in this forum regarding Constantine and Eusebius would make a good screenplay for an Oliver Stone film.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 20, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I thought maybe you would share what you knew of the two.



Constantine was a Roman emperor who converted to Christianity.  He founded Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) and made it the capital of the eastern Roman empire.  He was marginally interested in theology but, as a politician, was very interested in a stable empire.  Therefore, he convened the Council of Nicea to debate the teachings of Arius.  Constantine was close to Eusebius, a bishop with Arian leanings.




bullethead said:


> Edward Gibbon
> Dr. Robert L. Wilken
> Paul L. Maier
> Encyclopedia Biblica
> just to get a few out there for you to research.



Gibbon is the only one I've ever heard of.  (I read _Decline and Fall_ ..., but it's been awhile.)  Tell me exactly what he said.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 20, 2014)

bullethead said:


> If you would could you please make a post/start a thread about Constatine's and Eusebius's roles in the early church.



The basic idea promoted here and on many of the linked websites is that Christianity was "X" before Nicea, and it was "Y" after Nicea.  Constantine and his evil toady Eusebius plotted together to remake Christianity into a new religion.

That is an alternate view of history which I believe is false.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 20, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> The basic idea promoted here and on many of the linked websites is that Christianity was "X" before Nicea, and it was "Y" after Nicea.  Constantine and his evil toady Eusebius plotted together to remake Christianity into a new religion.
> 
> That is an alternate view of history which I believe is false.


I agree, the majority did believe Jesus was God at this time, only the Arians believed Jesus to be lesser than God. That was snuffed out for a time period. But not a major change being that both sides believed he was God... in this local. Many writings were lost due to the banning of opposing writings. Burnt, gone forever. No way to see the opposing argument except through what the winner of "orthodox" wrote about his opposition, mostly misrepresenting them to make them look bad. Major loss but still not a dividing line of Christianity before and after nicea. The trinity as we know it today was not even on the table at this time. Beginnings were close at hand being that Eusibius had 17 times before wrote "in my name" but after nicea, he wrote the three part baptism formula. I believe it was anthasius, something like that whom faught and won orthodox for trinitarianism in about 425. In my opinion, this is a better example of Christianity was this before and then this after


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 21, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> The basic idea promoted here and on many of the linked websites is that Christianity was "X" before Nicea, and it was "Y" after Nicea.  Constantine and his evil toady Eusebius plotted together to remake Christianity into a new religion.
> 
> That is an alternate view of history which I believe is false.





> The basic idea promoted here and on many of the linked websites is that Christianity was "X" before Nicea, and it was "Y" after Nicea.



That's just not accurate.
The basic idea promoted here, based on the available information, is that "Christianity" was "X", "Y" and "Z".
The council decided "we are going with "Z" and used political and physical power to remove "X" and "Y" from the game. 
"Z" may have been the most believed at the time but it was ensured it would stay that way. 
How many examples do you want of what was most believed turning into the least believed when it was allowed to run its course?
How do you stop that from happening?
Make it really dangerous to choose "X" and "Y".
THAT is what is promoted here because THAT is what the available historical information tells us.
This -


> Christianity was "X" before Nicea, and it was "Y" after Nicea.


Is what you have always maintained regardless of how many times "we" have explained the above.
In all of our conversations on this subject, you have never shown the above available historical information to be false or inaccurate. 
Where I/we do agree is -


> That is an alternate view of history which I believe is false.


Because I/we don't believe, based on historical information, that the council came up with anything "new", they just determined "Z" was the choice you would make under the threat of serious discomfort.
Instead of looney tunes and mischief and evil toady comments, SHOW us, using historical information, that the above is wrong or inaccurate or just made up.
As 1gr8blder said -


> Many writings were lost due to the banning of opposing writings. Burnt, gone forever


Seems to support the understanding that "we" have.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> ... but are they Looney Tunes conspiracy theorists?  I ask because much of what I read in this forum regarding Constantine and Eusebius would make a good screenplay for an Oliver Stone film.



I would guess to you anyone that gives responsibility to those two guys in any way that goes against mainstream Christian beliefs, even through sound research, on the beginnings of the early Church would get labeled a Looney Tune.
Although if we are talking epic screenplays Zombies rising from the dead are all the rage now.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Constantine was a Roman emperor who converted to Christianity.  He founded Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) and made it the capital of the eastern Roman empire.  He was marginally interested in theology but, as a politician, was very interested in a stable empire.  Therefore, he convened the Council of Nicea to debate the teachings of Arius.  Constantine was close to Eusebius, a bishop with Arian leanings.


You should read up on them a little more. There is more information out there.





centerpin fan said:


> Gibbon is the only one I've ever heard of.  (I read _Decline and Fall_ ..., but it's been awhile.)  Tell me exactly what he said.



Edward Gibbon, speaking of Eusebius wrote:

 "The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related what might rebound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries" (Gibbon, Rome, vol. ii., Philadelphia, 1876).



Gibbon also wrote:



 "It must be confessed that the ministers of the Catholic Church imitated the profane model which they were impatient to destroy. The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of Paganism if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. The religion of Constantine achieved in less than a century the final conquest of the Roman empire; but the victors themselves were insensibly subdued by the arts of their vanquished rivals" (Gibbon, Rome, vol. iii. p. 163).


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> The basic idea promoted here and on many of the linked websites is that Christianity was "X" before Nicea, and it was "Y" after Nicea.  Constantine and his evil toady Eusebius plotted together to remake Christianity into a new religion.
> 
> That is an alternate view of history which I believe is false.



I think that is the way you make it portrayed on our end in order to try to water our arguments down some.
History shows there was much more than the 3 or 4 sentences you have written about Constantine and Eusebius and History shows that the earliest of beginnings of the Church and what it made "official" was absolutely done through long negotiations, outright banning of material and definitely the destruction of anything that went against the orders of what story is to be told.

You stick to your notion that these councils were on the up and up but History shows that not to be the case.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2014)

Dr. Robert L. Wilken, first Protestant scholar to be admitted to the staff of Fordham University recently wrote:

 "Eusebius wrote a history of Christianity in which there is no real history. Eusebius was the first thoroughly dishonest and unfair historian in ancient times".  (The Myth of Christian Beginnings, History's Impact on Belief, Chapter III: The Bishop's Maiden: History Without History,  p73, p57)


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2014)

Another scholar, Joseph Wheless charged that Eusebius was one of the most prolific forgers and liars of his age in the church, and a great romancer; in his hair-raising histories of the holy Martyrs, he assures us "that on some occasions the bodies of the martyrs who had been devoured by wild beasts, upon the beasts being strangled, were found alive in their stomachs, even after having been fully digested"! (FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion, 1930; quoted Gibbon, History, Ch. 37; Lardner, iv, p. 91; Diegesis, p. 272)


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2014)

Paul L. Maier (1999) wrote:



“They cannot deny their crime: the copies are in their own handwriting, they did not receive the Scriptures in this condition from their teachers, and they cannot produce originals from which they made their copies. Some have even found it unnecessary to emend the text but have simply rejected the Law and the Prophets, using a wicked, godless teaching to plunge into the lowest depths of destruction. They have not been afraid to corrupt divine Scriptures, they have rescinded the rule of ancient faith, they have not known Christ, they ignore Scripture but search for a logic to support their atheism. If anyone challenges them with a passage from Scripture, they examine it to see if it can be turned into a common syllogism. Abandoning the holy Scripture of God, they study "geometry" [earth measurement], for they are from the earth and speak of the earth and do not know the One who comes from above.” (Eusebius: The Church History, from Book 5 section 28)


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2014)

Paul Maier again:

 “Many manuscripts are available because their disciples zealously made copies of their "corrected" ― though really corrupted ― texts. This sinful impudence can hardly have been unknown to the copyists, who either do not believe the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit and are unbelievers or deem themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit and are possessed.”


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2014)

St. Irenaeus wrote:
"It is not possible that the gospels be either more or fewer than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principle winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world and the pillar and ground of the Church is the gospel, it is fitting that we should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side" (Catholic Encyclopedia vol. VI, pg. 659). 



As for the writings of Paul, the Encyclopedia Biblica states categorically:
"With respect to the Canonical Pauline Epistles, none of them are by Paul.  They are all, without distinction, pseudographia (false writings). The group (ten epistles) bears obvious marks of a certain unity, of having originated in one circle, at one time, in one environment, but not of unity of authorship" (Encyclopedia Biblica III pg. 3625-26).


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2014)

Is it pure coincidence that our earliest known copies of the Gospels date back to around the 4th century which is about the same time all these other texts were destroyed?
We praise the virtually unchanged state of all future copies off of these 4th century ones, but nobody can produce any earlier originals to compare them with.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Another scholar, Joseph Wheless charged that Eusebius was one of the most prolific forgers and liars of his age in the church, and a great romancer; in his hair-raising histories of the holy Martyrs, he assures us "that on some occasions the bodies of the martyrs who had been devoured by wild beasts, upon the beasts being strangled, were found alive in their stomachs, even after having been fully digested"! (FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion, 1930; quoted Gibbon, History, Ch. 37; Lardner, iv, p. 91; Diegesis, p. 272)



Maybe it was metaphor.  Maybe it was real.  BEHOLD THE POWER OF THE LORD!!!


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 21, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> That's just not accurate.
> The basic idea promoted here, based on the available information, is that "Christianity" was "X", "Y" and "Z".
> The council decided "we are going with "Z" and used political and physical power to remove "X" and "Y" from the game.



OK, so what was X and Y?

I've asked this question at least a half dozen times before, and the response is always the same:


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 21, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Many writings were lost due to the banning of opposing writings. Burnt, gone forever.



... yet Arianism remains to this day.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> You should read up on them a little more. There is more information out there.



I've read more than my fair share about C&E, and I've posted about them in this forum _ad nauseum_.  They're just not the criminal masterminds you make them out to be.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Another scholar, Joseph Wheless charged that Eusebius was one of the most prolific forgers and liars of his age in the church, and a great romancer; in his hair-raising histories of the holy Martyrs, he assures us "that on some occasions the bodies of the martyrs who had been devoured by wild beasts, upon the beasts being strangled, were found alive in their stomachs, even after having been fully digested"! (FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion, 1930; quoted Gibbon, History, Ch. 37; Lardner, iv, p. 91; Diegesis, p. 272)



Rather than dealing with each of these quotes separately, I'll go back to one of your previous posts and ask some simple questions:


_Is the Warren Commission report universally accepted?

Does everybody believe the official 9/11 story?

Are they just testing stealth planes out at Area 51?_


Pick almost any major point in history, and I'm sure you can find an alternative history or conspiracy theory about it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Nov 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> We praise the virtually unchanged state of all future copies off of these 4th century ones, but nobody can produce any earlier originals to compare them with.



... but we can read Bible quotes from ante-Nicene writers, and they are no different than what I read in my Bible.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I've read more than my fair share about C&E, and I've posted about them in this forum _ad nauseum_.  They're just not the criminal masterminds you make them out to be.



I am not the scholars(plural) that have found fault with C&E.
You deny the facts I present .


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Rather than dealing with each of these quotes separately, I'll go back to one of your previous posts and ask some simple questions:
> 
> 
> _Is the Warren Commission report universally accepted?
> ...



We are talking about Euseubius here. Not any of that other stuff. By your standards EVERYTHING is true as taught and written by the side that wants the story told a certain way and anything otherwise is a conspiracy theory or alternative to history.
You are flat wrong.
The truth trumps what tries to be hidden. Eusebius's own writings prove he made up his own history. Research done by scholars literally shows us the proof. They are not wild unfounded claims. They prove what they are claiming.
You have fallen short in proving your claims if your defense is "What I say is right and anything else is a conspiracy theory"


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> ... but we can read Bible quotes from ante-Nicene writers, and they are no different than what I read in my Bible.



Some


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 21, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, so what was X and Y?
> 
> I've asked this question at least a half dozen times before, and the response is always the same:


You've been given the information numerous times before. Look up the threads. This information will be the same as that information.
You don't have to believe the historical information you have been provided but don't pretend like it doesn't exist or that it hasn't been given to you.
Are you seriously claiming there was one and only one view/set of beliefs?
And you still haven't shown all this information you are being given to be false or made up. Saying nuh-uh doesn't quite get it.
You confuse me. You are well read and knowledgeable yet at times you seem to play dumb.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 21, 2014)

“What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!” ~ Pope Leo X.


----------



## Israel (Nov 22, 2014)

I found this, not to vindicate a pope, (he answers or will answer for himself) but simply in response to what was posted as "verbatim":


It is found here: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message605817/pg1

 I noticed that Saxon on another thread posted this alleged quote from Pope Leo X, variously rendered as "It has served us well, this myth of Christ", or "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!" 



> The quote is from a satirical work of John Bale, a sixteenth century English playwright, entitled The Pageant of Popes, as follows:
> 
> Leo the tenth was a Florentine borne, of the noble house of Medicea, and called ere he were Pope John Medices. He being Deacon and Cardinal of Saint Maries, contrarie to all hope was chosen to succede Julius. He beinge diligetly from his youth trained up in learning under learned schoolmaisters, and especially one Angelus Politianus, did afterward greatly favour learned men. When he was but. xiv. yeres olde he was made cardinall by Innocentius the. viii. and at the yeres of xxxviii. he obtained the papacie. This Leo was of his owne nature a gentil and quiet person: but often times ruled by those that were cruell and contencious men, whom he suffered to do in many matters according to their insolent wil. He addicting himselfe to nicenesse, and takinge ease did pamper his fleshe in diverse vanities and carnal pleasures: At banqueting he delighted greatly in wine and musike: but had no care of preaching the Gospell, nay was rather a cruell persecutour of those that began then, as Luther and other to reveale the light thereof: for on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuouse aunswere saiying: All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie: Sleidan faith he sente letters and bulles of pardons into all nations for suche as woulde give money for them, the effectes of his pardons were diverse, some especially to sell licence to eate butter, chese, egges, milke, and fleshe upon forbidden dates, and for this purpose he sent divers treasurers into al coutreis, and namelye one Samson a monke of Millaine into Germany, who by these pardons gathered out of sundrie places such hewge sommes of money that the worlde wondered at it, for he offered in one day to geve for the Papacie above an hundred and twentie thousand duckates


----------



## bullethead (Nov 22, 2014)

Israel said:


> I found this, not to vindicate a pope, (he answers or will answer for himself) but simply in response to what was posted as "verbatim":
> 
> 
> It is found here: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message605817/pg1
> ...



Thanks for finding that.
I will look into it further.
Here are two that I have to research.


    Widely attributed to Leo X, the earliest known source of this statement is actually a polemical work by the Protestant John Bale, the anti-Catholic Acta Romanorum Pontificum, which was first translated from Latin into English as The Pageant of the Popes in 1574: "For on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuous answer saying: All ages can testifie enough how profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie." The Pope in this case being Leo X. Later accounts of it exist, as recorded by Vatican Librarian, Cardinal Baronius in the Annales Ecclesiastici (1597) a 12-volume history of the Church.
    In a more modern polemic, "The Criminal History of the Papacy" by Tony Bushby, in Nexus Magazine Volume 14, Number 3 (April - May 2007), it is stated that "The pope's pronouncement is recorded in the diaries and records of both Pietro Cardinal Bembo (Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, 1842 reprint) and Paolo Cardinal Giovio (De Vita Leonis Decimi..., op. cit.), two associates who were witnesses to it."


----------

