Scriptures under scrutiny

[anadi]

Originally Posted by anadi

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu attacked or denounced too the Maya-vada philosophy

Kalkin714 REPLIED:

And he was wrong.

Dear Kalkin714

He cannot be wrong, see the thread "Defending Sri Caitanya".

[anadi]

The sudden appearance at a certain late date, of a previously

unknown document, which is then attributed to an earlier age and

long since dead writers, is one of the surest earmarks of forgery.

According to the names "supplied" to the Four Gospels, as to

the other New Testament books, the "Apostolic" authors were all of

them Jews; the same is supposedly true of most of the now confessed

apocrypha.

But all of the Gospels, the other New Testament Books,

and the forged “apocrypha”, were written in Greek.

Self-evidently, the unschooled peasant Apostles, speaking a vulgar

Aramaic-Jewish dialect, could neither speak nor write Greek, -- if

they could write at all.

The Old Testament books were written

mostly in Hebrew, which at the time of the “apostles” was a "dead language," which only the priests could read; thus in the synagogues of Palestine the rolls were read in Hebrew, and then "expounded" to the hearers in their Aramaic dialect.

These Hebrew "Scriptures" had been later translated into Greek, in the famous Septuagint version.

The problem is that although the authors of the four so called Gospels were Jews, "they" should have made more references to the later greek Septuagint than to so called “Old Testament”, which is another proof that the four so called Gospels were not written by the "apostoles.

The <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/ /><st1:City w:st=<st1:place w:st=" /><st1:place w:st="on"><ST1:PChurch of <ST1:PJesus says</ST1:P</st1:place>:

"The New Testament undoubtedly shows a preference for the

Septuagint; out of about 350 texts from the Old Testament [in the

New], 300 favor the Greek version rather than the Hebrew." (CE.

iii, 271.)

It was also the Greek Septuagint and Greek forged Oracles, that were exclusively used by the “Greek Fathers” in all the Gospel-propaganda work of the first three centuries.

Obviously, the Gospels and other New Testament booklets, written in Greek and quoting 300 times the Greek Septuagint, were written, not by illiterate Jewish peasants, but by Greek-speaking ex-“Pagan” Fathers and priests far from the Land of the Jews.

[Kalkin714]

<a href="http://www.vedanta.com/christ.html"Christ the Messenger by Swami Vivekananda http://www.vedanta.com/christ.html

[anadi]

The authors of the Gospels and the other books of the so called New Testament were not Jews. Jesus and all the "Apostles" were Jews but the so called originals of all “Gospels” are written in Greek.

“Traditionally”, Jesus and all the "Apostles" are said to be Jews and all their associates and the people of their country with whom they came into contact, were Jews. But throughout the Gospels, scores of times, "the Jews" are spoken of, always as a distinct and alien people from the writers.

A few instances only need be given; they all betray that the writers were not Jews speaking of their fellow Jews.

1. The Greek writer of "Matthew" says:

"this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day" --

showing, too,that it was written long afterwards; a Jew must have said "among our people," or some such.

2. It is recorded by "Mark":

"For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands of it, eat not, holding to the tradition of the elders" (Mk. vii, 3);

no Jew writing for his fellow-Jews would explain or need to explain this Jewish custom, known to and practiced by "all the Jews."

3. “Luke” names a Jew and locates geographically his place of residence:

"Joseph, of Arimathea, a city of the Jews";

an American , speaking to another American of Hoboken, would not say "a city of the Americans" nor did Jews need to be told by a Jew that Arimathea was a "city of the Jews."

4. The Greek priest who wrote "John" is the most prolific in

telling his Pagan readers about Jewish customs and personalities; absurd in a Jew writing for Jews:

"After the manner of the purifying of the Jews" (ii, 6);

"And the Jews' passover was at hand" (ii, 13)

"Then answered the Jews, and said unto Jesus" (iii, 1);

"Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples

[all Jews] -- and the Jews about purifying" (iii, 25);

"And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus" (v, 16);

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him" (v, 18).

More: "And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh" vi, 4);

no American would say to another American "the Fourth of July, a holiday of the Americans,".

These and many like passages prove that

1. No Jews wrote the Gospels;

2. They were written by foreigners for foreigners;

3. These foreigners were Greek-speaking aliens unfamiliar with Jewish customs;

The Four Gospels are thus demonstrated as:

1. Not written by Jews; not written by any of the "Twelve Apostles";

2. not written nor in existence for over a century after the supposed Apostles.

3. When finally the Gospel "according to" Luke came to be written, already, as "Luke" affirms, there were "many" other like "Apostolic Gospel"-biographies of the Christ afloat (Luke, i, 1); he added just another.

[Kalkin714]

 

<font face="Arial"><font face="Arial">The authors of the Gospels and the other books of the so called New Testament were not Jews. Jesus and all the "Apostles" were Jews but the so called originals of all “Gospels” are written in Greek

First off, to say that because they were Jews they wouldn't write in Greek show a lack of knowlede of this time period on your part. Koine, also know as biblical or common Greek, was the language of trade in the area's of the world that were once ruled by Alexander the Great. In Jerusalem at the time of Jesus this language would have been spoken in the market place and in public addresses to a mixed audiance (such as the Jews and Romans living there together at that time).

Second, there are many who believe that they were originaly written in Jewish Aramaic first. But even Greek primacists admit that the book of Mathew was first recorded in Aramacic.

[anadi]

 

First off, to say that because they were Jews they wouldn't write in Greek show a lack of knowlede of this time period on your part. Koine, also know as biblical or common Greek, was the language of trade in the area's of the world that were once ruled by Alexander the Great.

Even if the Apostles would speak koine, which you cannot prove, they wouldn't quote the Septuagint 300 times from 350 quotes regarding the Tanach, The Hebrew scripture, because:

1. They were not scholars.

2. The Septuagint was a later translation of some books of the Tanach, made by the christians, although the christians try your version with Alexander the Great, which is not plausible because of his 12 years short reign, of almost uninterrupted military compains which give little credibility to the introducing of the culture of the conquerer in the occupied territories (not even for modern mass media).

According christian version

"The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/ /><st1:place w:st=<st1:City w:st=" /><st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region>. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then the Scriptures (at least Genesis to Deuteronomy) were translated into the Greek language for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.

The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ rests upon the so-called Letter of Aristeas. The writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus. He claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest, to send with him 72 scholars from <st1:City w:st="on">Jerusalem</st1:City> to <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:City>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region></st1:place>. There they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.

The writer of this letter, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign. He claims to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:place></st1:City> to start the Septuagint translation project. He even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Many of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars.

There are also other evidences that this letter is from a different time period, and was falsified:

The letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how wonderful it was that they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death, so the letter is a fraud.

The supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 345-283) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus.

The other ancient writers rely and add to this story, which makes clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian Septuagint is a fraud. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter is a hoax. Yet the christians persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ.

Please read carefully the previous post, you will find more evidence that the "gospels" were not written by jews "apostles" , for the jews; were written long time after the "apostles" demised, and far away from the land of the Jews.

Feel free to take any evidence presented in the previous post and demonstrate is false.

 

[Apep]

 

Q. Why then only show it in Christianity? Why not show the implications of corruption elsewhere too?

A. Because this is just an attack on Christianity with the pretense of something more noble. And a pretty transparent one at that!

Christianity is a religion of violence if you do not accept their God you in their eyes go to their Christian hell.

Get it?

[Apep]

 

The authors of the Gospels and the other books of the so called New Testament were not Jews. Jesus and all the "Apostles" were Jews but the so called originals of all “Gospels” are written in Greek.

“Traditionally”, Jesus and all the "Apostles" are said to be Jews and all their associates and the people of their country with whom they came into contact, were Jews. But throughout the Gospels, scores of times, "the Jews" are spoken of, always as a distinct and alien people from the writers.

A few instances only need be given; they all betray that the writers were not Jews speaking of their fellow Jews.

1. The Greek writer of "Matthew" says:

"this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day" --

showing, too,that it was written long afterwards; a Jew must have said "among our people," or some such.

2. It is recorded by "Mark":

"For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands of it, eat not, holding to the tradition of the elders" (Mk. vii, 3);

no Jew writing for his fellow-Jews would explain or need to explain this Jewish custom, known to and practiced by "all the Jews."

3. “Luke” names a Jew and locates geographically his place of residence:

"Joseph, of Arimathea, a city of the Jews";

an American , speaking to another American of Hoboken, would not say "a city of the Americans" nor did Jews need to be told by a Jew that Arimathea was a "city of the Jews."

4. The Greek priest who wrote "John" is the most prolific in

telling his Pagan readers about Jewish customs and personalities; absurd in a Jew writing for Jews:

"After the manner of the purifying of the Jews" (ii, 6);

"And the Jews' passover was at hand" (ii, 13)

"Then answered the Jews, and said unto Jesus" (iii, 1);

"Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples

[all Jews] -- and the Jews about purifying" (iii, 25);

"And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus" (v, 16);

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him" (v, 18).

More: "And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh" vi, 4);

no American would say to another American "the Fourth of July, a holiday of the Americans,".

These and many like passages prove that

1. No Jews wrote the Gospels;

2. They were written by foreigners for foreigners;

3. These foreigners were Greek-speaking aliens unfamiliar with Jewish customs;

The Four Gospels are thus demonstrated as:

1. Not written by Jews; not written by any of the "Twelve Apostles";

2. not written nor in existence for over a century after the supposed Apostles.

3. When finally the Gospel "according to" Luke came to be written, already, as "Luke" affirms, there were "many" other like "Apostolic Gospel"-biographies of the Christ afloat (Luke, i, 1); he added just another.

One flaw with that post, though I did enjoy it. Christians worship the old testament and so do jews as well.

The new testament has many factors that comes from the old testament. Yes foreigners did write the new testament but they did so with complete knowledge of the old testament as well with jewish customs and beliefs.

[Kalkin714]

 

Christianity is a religion of violence if you do not accept their God you in their eyes go to their Christian hell.

Get it?

Like I said before making a blanket statment about billions of people like that is the height of ignorance. You don't know what each of those individuals believe or not! And aparently aren't aware of sects that believe differntly. My parents are serious Christians and they don't even believe in hell!

Also, most Hindu's who believe that Christians are evil probably believe they will suffer in their next life. How different is that from some Christians thinking non-Christians go to hell?

Get it?

[Apep]

 

Like I said before making a blanket statment about billions of people like that is the height of ignorance. You don't know what each of those individuals believe or not! And aparently aren't aware of sects that believe differntly. My parents are serious Christians and they don't even believe in hell!

Also, most Hindu's who believe that Christians are evil probably believe they will suffer in their next life. How different is that from some Christians thinking non-Christians go to hell?

Get it?

I don't see how my statements are blank. All those billions of people derive their teachings and beliefs from one source and that is the Bible. Without the Bible their source of belief would cease to be. Without the bible there would be no Christians.

Suffering in the next life is temporary where hell is eternal there lies the difference. I actually don't believe all Christians will suffer in the next world only the zealots who speak of hell and brimfire will. I know there are some good Christians.

The good Christians may be good as individuals ,but one can not help but question the form of beliefs they have chosen.

I only judge the beliefs the way I see them. Christian beliefs is built upon fear of other people with different beliefs. There is no Christian tolerance.

Christianity says follow us or suffer in hell. There may be a tolerance on a individual level but that is about it.

[Kalkin714]

 

I don't see how my statements are blank. All those billions of people derive their teachings and beliefs from one source and that is the Bible. Without the Bible their source of belief would cease to be. Without the bible there would be no Christians.

Suffering in the next life is temporary where hell is eternal there lies the difference. I actually don't believe all Christians will suffer in the next world only the zealots who speak of hell and brimfire will. I know there are some good Christians.

The good Christians may be good as individuals ,but one can not help but question the form of beliefs they have chosen.

I only judge the beliefs the way I see them. Christian beliefs is built upon fear of other people with different beliefs. There is no Christian tolerance.

Christianity says follow us or suffer in hell. There may be a tolerance on a individual level but that is about it.

I said 'blanket' statements. You know, like extreme generalization or stereotyping. And saying that they all derive their belief from the bible is another blanket statement that isn't true in all cases. There were in existance before the Roman church-state decide what was acceptable teachings and doctrine many other sects and scriptures. In fact at the same time they decide which ones were specificly unaccepted and listed them. Now, while the majority of Christians in the world today probably accept the "connonical" bible, there are traditions from that time period still in existance today that developed outside of the Roman church-states reach. There are also neo-gnostic Christians, Universalist Christians who worship under the same roof and right next to Buddhist's, Wiccans and other neo-pagans, and Hindu's; How can you say there is no Christian tolerance? Just because the majority of them are the most intollerant people in the world doesn't make it a quality shared amonges every sect and individual.

[Kalkin714]

 

Even if the Apostles would speak koine, which you cannot prove, they wouldn't quote the Septuagint 300 times from 350 quotes regarding the Tanach, The Hebrew scripture, because:

1. They were not scholars.

2. The Septuagint was a later translation of some books of the Tanach, made by the christians, although the christians try your version with Alexander the Great, which is not plausible because of his 12 years short reign, of almost uninterrupted military compains which give little credibility to the introducing of the culture of the conquerer in the occupied territories (not even for modern mass media).

According christian version

"The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/ /><st1:place w:st=<st1:City w:st=" /><st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region>. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then the Scriptures (at least Genesis to Deuteronomy) were translated into the Greek language for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.

The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ rests upon the so-called Letter of Aristeas. The writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus. He claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest, to send with him 72 scholars from <st1:City w:st="on">Jerusalem</st1:City> to <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:City>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region></st1:place>. There they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.

The writer of this letter, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign. He claims to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:place></st1:City> to start the Septuagint translation project. He even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Many of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars.

There are also other evidences that this letter is from a different time period, and was falsified:

The letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how wonderful it was that they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death, so the letter is a fraud.

The supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 345-283) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus.

The other ancient writers rely and add to this story, which makes clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian Septuagint is a fraud. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter is a hoax. Yet the christians persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ.

Please read carefully the previous post, you will find more evidence that the "gospels" were not written by jews "apostles" , for the jews; were written long time after the "apostles" demised, and far away from the land of the Jews.

Feel free to take any evidence presented in the previous post and demonstrate is false.

 

*sigh* Just pointing out your flawed logic on that point. I never said I believed one way or the other.

 

For the record though it's clear that the bible as we have it today is a compiled and revised work of sayings from Yeshua mixed with Greek mythology and philosophy and early church dogma.

[Guest guest]

I don't want to offend or embarrass anyone, but I think you may need to read up on your New Testament/Early Christian history. It is too much to get into correcting specific errors. I would recommend the books of Prof. Bart Ehrman or Prof. Henry Chadwick as solid introductions to early Christianity and the history of the New Testament. I'm a religious studies major focusing on early Christianity. I grew up a Christian but have been practicing Krishna Consciousness for about 10 years.

 

Most of what I read about "Christian history," particularly the "Jesus in India" and "Jesus as a vegetarian threads," is shoddy scholarship, at best, and would get laughed out of any major university in the world. I always cringe when I see these Christianity posts, and then hear devotees repeating what they picked up on-line. It makes devotees look like idiots. Besides, if you want to play that game, studying the history of scriptures and religions and proving that every other religion was made up, thereby "proving" that our religion is the best, or whatever it is that people think these threads accomplish, well, you should hear what they say about our scriptures. The double edge on that sword is quite sharp. Hare Krishna.

[Apep]

 

I said 'blanket' statements. You know, like extreme generalization or stereotyping. And saying that they all derive their belief from the bible is another blanket statement that isn't true in all cases. There were in existance before the Roman church-state decide what was acceptable teachings and doctrine many other sects and scriptures. In fact at the same time they decide which ones were specificly unaccepted and listed them. Now, while the majority of Christians in the world today probably accept the "connonical" bible, there are traditions from that time period still in existance today that developed outside of the Roman church-states reach. There are also neo-gnostic Christians, Universalist Christians who worship under the same roof and right next to Buddhist's, Wiccans and other neo-pagans, and Hindu's; How can you say there is no Christian tolerance? Just because the majority of them are the most intollerant people in the world doesn't make it a quality shared amonges every sect and individual.

My friend you are a intelligent man for I have seen you in other threads. You are also kind. I want no bickering with you. I thought I might just say this so you know we are having a intelligent disagreement and I am not insulting your integrity.

I must profess my disagreement with you. Even the church traditions out of the Roman Catholic church whether it be Orthodox,Baptist,Lutheran, or any other have the same belief of non-believers in hell.

I have spoke with Gnostic Christians and you are right they do not adhere to the creed of the bible. I would say they are more pantheist than anything. Infact I am not sure if one can even group a agnostic or gnostic person with Christianity. That in itself would sound hypocritical. A agnostic or gnostic is themselves with their own reputation. Christians are Christians.

You must understand that Christianity the majority do not accept those groups because they see them as outside fringe groups of outcasts.

The bible is the bridge of Christianity. If a group does not follow that bridge then it can not be Christian. I have studied Christianity and most world religions I do know what I am talking about.

Also there was a time where there was no bible and supposedly a man named Jesus taught them on a hill. Those days are over in Christianity. It has been for a thousand years or so.

Christianity is a religion of the bible and has been for a long time.

If you read the bible you would know of their hatred of non-Christians. To the Christians the non-Christian is the enemy of their God and the seed of their satan.

That in itself should show you their hatred.

[Apep]

 

I don't want to offend or embarrass anyone, but I think you may need to read up on your New Testament/Early Christian history. It is too much to get into correcting specific errors. I would recommend the books of Prof. Bart Ehrman or Prof. Henry Chadwick as solid introductions to early Christianity and the history of the New Testament. I'm a religious studies major focusing on early Christianity. I grew up a Christian but have been practicing Krishna Consciousness for about 10 years.

Most of what I read about "Christian history," particularly the "Jesus in India" and "Jesus as a vegetarian threads," is shoddy scholarship, at best, and would get laughed out of any major university in the world. I always cringe when I see these Christianity posts, and then hear devotees repeating what they picked up on-line. It makes devotees look like idiots. Besides, if you want to play that game, studying the history of scriptures and religions and proving that every other religion was made up, thereby "proving" that our religion is the best, or whatever it is that people think these threads accomplish, well, you should hear what they say about our scriptures. The double edge on that sword is quite sharp. Hare Krishna.

You should hear what Christian priests say about non-Christians.

I should know I have talked to many in spiritual and religous debates.

Most non-Christians would be surprised to hear that Christian priests learn in missionary school how to divide people in foreign lands so they can get their word of God out on people.

When you divide a people through chaotic rhetoric it is easy to save their souls from the Christian satan.

You would be surprised.

[anadi]

Originally Posted by anadi

The authors of the Gospels and the other books of the so called New Testament were not Jews. Jesus and all the "Apostles" were Jews but the so called originals of all “Gospels” are written in Greek

Reply by kalkin417

First off, to say that because they were Jews they wouldn't write in Greek show a lack of knowlede of this time period on your part. Koine, also know as biblical or common Greek, was the language of trade in the area's of the world that were once ruled by Alexander the Great.

Dear Kalkin417

As you have seen from the previous answer on this allegations, there is no evidence for the so called apostles would have preached, or as illiterate as they were, would have written in koine.

More than that, the very way the so called gospels are made, shows that

1. their writers, were not Jews, and not addressing the Jews,

 

• the four “gospels” were fabricated long time after the narrated stories
• there were other “gospels” … in koine, in circulation before the “divine” four “gospels”, which were rejected by the church</ST1:P of <ST1:PJesus</ST1:P as fake.

There is no flowed logic regarding the authors of the so called canonical gospels, as dully evidenced.

Up to now it has been shown that the so called "apostolic gospels" are not apostolic, being a later fabrication of ... the pavelinic sect of early christians as will be later shown.

If anybody has another opinion regarding the origin of the "gospels" , one should present one's evidence, so that it can be taken under scrutiny.

[anadi]

The Catholic Encyclopedia, cited as CE.( fifteen volumes and published under the Imprimatur of Archbishop Farley; NewYork, Robert Appleton Co., 1907-9.) says

"It is indeed impossible, at the present day, to describe

the precise manner in which out of the numerous works ascribed

to some Apostle, or simply bearing the name of gospel, only

four, two of which are not ascribed to Apostles, came to be

considered as sacred and canonical. It remains true, however,

that all the early testimony which has a distinct bearing on

the number of the canonical Gospels recognizes four such

Gospels and none besides. Thus, Eusebius (d. 340) ... Clement

of Alexandria (d. about 220), ... and Tertullian (d. 220),

were familiar with our four Gospels, frequently quoting and

commenting on them." (CE. vi, 657.)

 

"All the early testimony" come first at the end of second and the beginning of the third century and belong to the the pavelinic sects.

Four only, is not only untrue, but it is contradicted by a true statement on the same page as the last above; it is, too, a further humiliating confession of blind and groping uncertainty with respect to the very foundation stones on which the” Infallible” Church is built. Here is the destructive admission:

"In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers one does not,

indeed, meet with unquestionable evidence in favor of only

four canonical gospels. ... The canonical Gospels were

regarded as of Apostolic authority, two of them being ascribed

to the Apostles St. Matthew and <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place>St.</st1:place> John, respectively, and

two to St. Mark and St. Luke, the respective companions of St.

Peter and <st1:City><st1:place>St. Paul</st1:place></st1:City>. Many other gospels indeed claimed

Apostolic authority, but to none of them was this claim

universally allowed in the early Church. The only apocryphal

work which was at all generally received, and relied upon, in

addition to our four canonical Gospels, is the 'Gospel

according to the Hebrews.' It is a well-known fact that St.

Jerome regards it as the Hebrew original of our Greek

Canonical Gospel according to St. Matthew." (CE. vi, 657.)

Thus, admittedly, "numerous works" of pretended and false

"gospels," some fifty, were forged and falsely "ascribed to some

apostle" by devout Christians; after a century and a half only four

"came to be considered" and were finally "chosen" -- selected -- as

of divine utterance and sanction.

This formally happened at the Council of Nicea. Fortunately the testimonies of two eye-witnesses have been preserved, so there can be little doubt as to the method used in the selection of the Gospels. There were 318 Bishops present in this Council, and one of the two eye-witnesses, Sabinus, Bishop of Heraclea, left a description of their mental capacities. "With the exception of the Emperor (Constantine)" he said, "and Eusebius Pamphilus, these Bishops were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing." About forty Gospels were submitted to these Bishops. As they differed widely in their contents, the decision was difficult. At last it was determined to resort to "miraculous intervention." The method used was known as the Sortes Sanctorum, or "the holy casting of lots for purposes of divination." Its questionable use in the Council of Nicea was described by another eye-witness, Pappus, in his Synodicon to that Council.

It was more an act of force, imposed by the pavelinic sects, backed up by the emperor Constantine, who was told by them, that no pagan religion offered absolution for such crimes as his. He then turned to the Christian Church (of pavelinic wing), who pretended that Christian baptism would expiate any crime, irrespective of its magnitude, and at the same time he was advised that baptism might he deferred to the day of his death without losing any of its efficacy (which is a big distorsion of the original meaning of spiritual initiation - diksha).

Thus, Eusebius relates that,

When he thought that he was near his death, he confessed his sins, desiring pardon for them from God, and was baptized. So that Constantine was the first of all the Emperors to be regenerated by the new birth of baptism, and signed with the sign of the Cross. (Vita Constantin.)

 

[Guest guest]

If I wrote a paper for any of my classes on Christianity trying to defend this thesis, I would get, and deserve, a big fat "F". Christianity as a religion is not my cup of tea, but this stuff you write, I hate to say, is shoddy scholarship. The basic assumption in a Religious Studies department is at best agnostic, and is usually atheistic, so it is not that professors are trying to prove that the Gospels are of divine origin.

 

In fact, the earliest New Testament scholarship was done by German Protestant scholars in the 19th century who actually thought that the ideas about Jesus in the Four Gospels was the work of later writer who covered over the ethical teachings of Jesus with their Christological notions. In short, they wanted to strip away the accretions of later authors to come to the real Jesus. If you want to prove that the Bible is not "true" or "divinely inspired" or under what circumstances it was compiled, well, this has already been done.

 

The general consesus about the New Testament is that these are documents written after the time of Jesus, they are not histories of the life of Jesus, they represent what a variety of Christian communities came to believe about Jesus. These various Gospels span a wide range of notions about who Jesus was and how he saves - from simple sayings of Jesus, to narratives, to some of the Gnostic Gospels which are completely out in left field - and in the end what became the canon were those Gospels which were the most popular among Christian communities.

 

Devotees, it seems, love conspiracy theories and for some reason think that we are the only people on the planet with a brain. If you take the time to study the history with reputable scholars, you'll find that they come to the same conclusions that you are trying to show, namely that the New Testament is a compilation of documents displaying a variety of ways to understand the meaning of the life and teachings of Jesus. The non-canonical gospels simply highlight the fact that the early Jesus movement was incredibly diverse.

 

Please, devotees, don't repeat this "evidence" from the above post in any type of interfaith dialogue, or in any other dialogue, for that matter. Again, it only makes devotees look like idiots. If you want to become an authority on early Christianity, do your homework. It is not that difficult.

[anadi]

Guest said:

Christianity as a religion is not my cup of tea, but this stuff you write, I hate to say, is shoddy scholarship.

Dear Guest,

You say, you don’t understand much about Christianity.

But still you pretend, that what anAdi wrote, is “shoddy scholarship”.

Please bring evidence for your statement.

[anadi]

The Bishop of Lyons," says CE. "Irenaeus (died about 202), who had known Polycarp in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">Asia Minor</st1:place>, not only admits and quotes our four Gospels, [he is the very first to mention them!] -- but argues that there must be just four, no more and no less. He says:

'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 principal 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

and vivifying our flesh. ... The living creatures are quadriform,

and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by our

Lord (?)"! (CE. vi, 659.)

Thus far CE. quoting Irenaeus; but one may follow the Bishop a few lines further in his ratiocinations from ancient Hebrew mythology, in proof of the divine Four:

"For this reason were four principal covenants given to

the human race: One prior to the deluge, under Adam; the

second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the

giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which

renovates man, and sums up all things by means of the Gospel,

raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly

Kingdom. ... But that these Gospels alone are true and

reliable, and admit neither an increase nor diminution of the

aforesaid number, I have proved by so many and such arguments.

For, since God made all things in due proportion and

adaptation, it was fit also that the outward aspect of the

Gospel should be well arranged and harmonized. The opinion of

those men, therefore, who handed the Gospel down to us, having

been investigated, from their very fountainheads, let us

proceed also [to the remaining apostles), and inquire into

their doctrine with regard to God." (Iren. Adv. Haer. III, xi,

8, 9; ANF. i, 428-29.)

The real reason, however, for four finally "chosen" and

accepted Gospels, seem to be rather political, as stated by Reinach, after quoting Irenaeus and other authorities:

"The real reason was to satisfy each of the four principal Churches each of which possessed its Gospel: Matthew at <st1:City w:st="on">Jerusalem</st1:City>, Mark at <st1:City w:st="on">Rome</st1:City>, or <st1:City w:st="on">Alexandria</st1:City>, Luke at <st1:City w:st="on">Antioch</st1:City>, and John at <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Ephesus</st1:place></st1:City>." (Reinach, Orpheus, p. 217.)

This reason for the use of a different Gospel by each of the principal and independent Churches, -- for the special uses of each of which the respective Gospels were no doubt worked up by forging Fathers in each Fold, -- is confirmed by Bishop Irenaeus himself in this same argument. Each

of the four principal sects of heretics, he says, makes use in

their Churches of one or the other of these Four for its own uses,

for instance: Matthew by the Ebionites; Mark by "those who separate

Jesus from Christ"; Luke by the Marcionites; and John by the

Valentinians; and this heretical use of the Four, argues the

Bishop, confirms their like acceptance and use by the True

Churches: "So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest,

that the very heretics bear witness to them, and starting from

these documents, each of them endeavors to establish his own

peculiar doctrine [citing the use by each sect of a different

Gospel as above named]. Since, then, our opponents do bear

testimony to us, and make use of these documents, our proof derived

from them is firm and true." (Iren., op. cit. sec. 7.)

The "canonical Four," verily, as CE. confesses, were manufactured

precisely for the purpose of meeting and confuting the heretics, as

were the gradually developed and defined sacred dogmas of the

Orthodox Church, like that of the Trinity. </PRE>

[anadi]

No written “canonic Gospels” existed until shortly before 185 A.D., when Irenaeus wrote in chapter xxii of his Book II about them.

Evident we see it to be, from the previous post of anAdi, where was quoted from Irenaeus’s Book III, that the sects of “heretics” named, were making use, each of them of one of the just written “Four” as well as of other "spurious gospels".

The Gnostics and other “heretics” were first to reduce some

"gospels" to writing; the “Orthodox” quickly followed suit, in order

to combat the “heretics” by "apostolic" writings.

This is clear from the following, that "the spurious gospels” of the Gnostics prepared the way for the so called othodox canon of Scripture, -- for, as the "canon" was not dogmatically established until 1546, the Four were not "canonized" when Irenaeus wrote in 185, -- when the "way was prepared" for them by the earlier heretical "spurious gospels." Thus CE. writes:

"The endless controversies with heretics have been

indirectly the cause of most important doctrinal developments

and definitions formulated by councils to the edification of

the body of Christ. Thus the spurious gospels of the Gnostics

prepared the way for the canon of Scripture: the Patri-

passian, Sabellian, Arian, and Macedonian heresies drew out a

clearer concept of the Trinity; the Nestorian and Eutychian

errors led to definite dogmas on the nature and Person of

Christ. And so on down to Modernism, which has called forth a

solemn assertion of the claims of the supernatural in

history." (CE. vii, 261.)

The above confirm once again that the actual four Gospel have no divine origin, but were fabricated by anonymous writers as previously shown, as a reaction to other christian doctrines already publicated mostly by those who lately were known as Gnostics.

The four Gospels were later imposed by the combined endeavors of the state power and pavelinic church, all other religions and Christian sects, being brutally “reprimanded”.

[anadi]

Originaly heresy had not the meaning we are familiar today.

Heresy means "Choice"; heretics are those who choose what they

will believe, or whether they will believe at all. It was to

foreclose all choice on the part of believers, that the divinely-

inspired, apostolic fictions of the Four Gospels were drawn up for

the first time to combat the "spurious gospels" of the free

choosers.

The gospels were anti-heretical (no-choice) documents of the late

second century, after Gnosticism first made its cannon.

In this connection it may be mentioned, as complained by

Augustine, that there were some 93 sects of heretics during the

first three centuries of the Christian Faith.

The “inspired” Four Gospels, contradictory in many points, were impossible to believe; they left every one free to disbelieve all, or to believe such as he could.

So incredible, even on their face, were one and all of these “orthodox”

canonical Four Gospels, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">St. Augustine</st1:place></st1:City>, greatest of the Fathers, declared himself in these terms:

"Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae conmoveret Auctoritas. ... Ego me ad eos teneam, quibus praecipientibus Evangelio credidi –

- I would not believe the Gospel true, unless the authority of the Catholic Church constrained me.

... I hold myself bound to those, through whose teachings I have believed the Gospel." (Augustine, On the Foundation, sec. 5, Ed.

Vives, vol. xxv, p. 435; Orpheus, p. 223.)

 

[Guest guest]

 

Guest said:

Christianity as a religion is not my cup of tea, but this stuff you write, I hate to say, is shoddy scholarship.

Dear Guest,

You say, you don’t understand much about Christianity.

But still you pretend, that what anAdi wrote, is “shoddy scholarship”.

Please bring evidence for your statement.

I think you misunderstood me good sir. I mentioned in an earlier post that I am a Religious Studies major, focusing on Early Christianity. I grew up Christian and have been practicing KC for about 10 years, thus when I said that Chrisitianity is not my cup of tea I meant that as far a spiritual life is concerned.

 

I think part of the problem with your "analysis" of the early Christian period is that you only draw from one source (which seems a bit dated) and that you, like many others, seem to want to believe in an institutional conspiracy theory for the origins of Christianity. As for evidence, I would start off by reading Professor Henry Chadwick's book "The Early Church." Some, but by no means all, of your information is factually correct, but your analysis is not well conceived. (I know that none of my professors would take it seriously.)

 

You seem to want to "prove" that Christianity is a false religion, and, like I mentioned earlier, this is the basic assumption in any Religious Studies department, that religion is not of divine origins. Your presentation shows that you have an axe to grind rather than revealing a nuanced understanding of the early Christian period.

 

Every scripture and every religious tradition are run through the ringer in a Religious Studies department. I'm not here to defend Christianity, but before you relish how you've "exposed" Christianity to be a false religion, you should see how they do the same things to our scriptures. Thus, someone could make the same arguments you make about Hinduism as a whole, Vaisnavism in general, and Gaudiya Vaishnavism in particular. In fact, they do. Therefore I think it is silly when devotees pursue this line of religious argument, ostensibly as a way to prove that we are the best religion, and then don't accept the arguments of scholars when it comes to our religion.

 

My realization is that we should prove the worth of our tradition by our example and by our practice. Devotees, and fellow students, sometimes ask me how I maintain my faith amidst all of the historical information and whatnot about religion in general and our religion in particular. Personally, I dont care what academics say. Chanting japa and following the regulative principles work for me, singing and dancing kirtan is always like a breath of fresh air, worshiping my deities makes my mind peaceful, Prabhupada's explanations make sense and correspond with my experiences, there is no food on the planet like prasadam and there are no people on the planet like devotees (even with all of the faults we have). So I don't care that there are hundreds of interpretations of, say, the Bhagavad-gita, and not all come to the same conclusions as Prabhupada. And for that matter, no scholar in the world accepts our conclusion that the Gita is 5000 years old. I don't care about that either - I know the process works, and that is fine with me.

 

If we try to play the "lets discredit every other religion using academic/historical information to show that ours is the only one of divine origin" then, as I also said earlier, we have to deal with the fact that that sword has a sharp double edge, and we look like hypocrits for only accepting that historical information that proves what we want it to prove, and reject everything else. I think that, as well, is called shoddy scholarship.