On the Christ Myth and Nicaea This is a fairly dry read, but a few of SciFor's regulars will surely benefit from this. Some very important details, names and dates, appear within this review; the attendees of Nicaea, the "true name" of "Jesus" (was an argument my detractors lost here two years ago, in this very forum) Sir Francis Bacon drafting the KJV, etc. Enjoy and Beware Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ...>8... "What Was the Church Trying To Hide?" by Robert Adams Article first published in New Dawn Magazine No 71, March 2002 When I first spoke to a close Christian friend of mine about the publishing of Tony Bushby's "The Bible Fraud," her reaction was one that many Christians have expressed, and one that made me aghast. She didn't want the book available because it would "persuade them away from the Bible and the word of God." Further discussions with her and many other Christians around the world about The Bible Fraud all result in the Bible being quoted as the ultimate reference for the apparent "words of God," and therefore the basis for their arguments. The problem lies in that they believe the Bible is infallible. If we examine the oldest known Bible to date, the "Sinai Bible" housed in the British Museum (I believe that, during his many years of research, Tony had a private viewing of this priceless book), we find a staggering 14,800 differences from today's Bible and yet it still remains the word of God? As Tony points out, the history of our 'genuine' Bibles is a convoluted one. Firstly we cannot be sure that we have the full version as it was originally intended. In 1415 the Church of Rome took an extraordinary step to destroy all knowledge of two second century Jewish books that it said contained the true name of Jesus Christ. The Antipope Benedict XIII firstly singled out for condemnation a secret Latin treatise called "Mar Yesu" and then issued instructions to destroy all copies of the book of Elxai. The Rabbinic fraternity once held the destroyed manuscripts with great reverence for they were comprehensive original records reporting the life of Rabbi Jesus. Later, Pope Alexander VI ordered all copies of the Talmud destroyed, with the Spanish Grand Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada (1420-98) responsible for the elimination of 6,000 volumes at Salamanca alone. Solomon Romano (1554) also burnt many thousands of Hebrew scrolls and, in 1559, every Hebrew book in the city of Prague was confiscated. The mass destruction of Jewish books included hundreds of copies of the Old Testament and caused the irretrievable loss of many original handwritten documents. The oldest text of the Old Testament that survived, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls" was said to be the Bodleian Codex (Oxford), which was dated to circa 1100 AD. In an attempt by the church to remove damaging Rabbinic information about Jesus Christ from the face of the earth, the Inquisition burnt 12,000 volumes of the Talmud. In 1607, forty-seven men (some records say fifty four) took two years and nine months to re-write the Bible and make it ready for press. It was, by the order of King James, issued with a set of personal 'rules' the translators were to follow. Upon its completion in 1609, it was handed over to the King James for his final approval. However, "It was self evident that James was not competent to check their work and edit it, so he passed the manuscripts onto the greatest genius of all time... Sir Francis Bacon" The first English language manuscripts of the Bible remained in Bacon's possession for nearly a year. During that time ... "he hammered the various styles of the translators into the unity, rhythm, and music of Shakespearean prose, wrote the prefaces and created the whole scheme of the Authorized Version. At the completion of the editing, King James ordered a 'dedication to the King' to be drawn up and included in the opening pages. He also wanted the phrase 'Appointed to be read in the churches' to appear on the title page. The King James Bible is considered by many today to be the 'original' Bible and therefore 'genuine' and all later revisions simply counterfeits forged by 'higher critics'. Others think the King James Bible is 'authentic' and 'authorized' and presents the original words of the authors as translated into English from the 'original' Greek texts. However, as Tony points out, the 'original' Greek text was not written until around the mid fourth century and was a revised edition of writings compiled decades earlier in Aramaic and Hebrew. Those earlier documents no longer exist and the Bibles we have today are five linguistic removes from the first bibles written. What was written in the 'original originals' is quite unknown. It is important to remember that the words 'authorized' and 'original', as applied to the Bible do not mean 'genuine', 'authentic' or 'true'. By the early third century, it became well noted that a problem was occurring . politics! In 251AD, the number of Presbyter's (roving orator or priest) writings had increased dramatically and bitter arguments raged between opposing factions about their conflicting stories. According to Presbyter Albius Theodoret (circa 255), there were "more than two hundred" variant gospels in use in his time. In 313, groups of Presbyters and Biscops (Bishops) violently clashed over the variations in their writings and "altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience and territory. When Emperor Constantine conquered the East in 324, he sent his Spanish religious advisor, Osius of Cordoba, to Alexandria with letters to several Biscops exhorting them to make peace among their own. But the mission failed and Constantine, probably at the suggestions of Osius, then issued a decree commanding all Presbyters and their subordinates "be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public and travel to the city of Nicaea" in the Roman province of Bithymia, the country of Asia. The Presbyters were instructed by the Emperor to bring with them the manuscripts from which they orated to the rabble (that's us!) "wrapped and bound in leather". Constantine saw in this developing system of belief the opportunity to make a combined state religion and protect it by law. The first general church council was thus convened and the year was 325. On 21 June, the day of the Summer Solstice, (and under those cult conditions) a total of 2048 "presbyters, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered at Nicaea to decide what Christianity really was, what it would be, what writings were to be used and who was to be it's God. Ancient church evidence established that a new 'god' was to be approved by the Roman Emperor and an earlier attempt (circa 210) to deify either Judas Khrestus or his twin brother Rabbi Jesus (or somebody else) had been 'declined'. Therefore, as late as 325, the Christian religion did not have an official god. After a long and bitter debate, a vote was finally taken and it was with a majority show of hands that Judas Khrestus and Rabbi Jesus both became God (161 votes for and 157 votes against). The Emperor effectively joined elements of the two individual life stories of the twin brothers into a singular creation. The doctrine of the Celtic / British church of the west was democratically attached to the Presbyters stories of the east. A deification ceremony was then performed 'Apotheosis'. Thus the deified ones were then called 'saviours' and looked upon as gods. Temples, altars, and images with attributes of divinity were then erected and public holidays proclaimed on their birthdays. Following the original example set by the deification of Caesar, their funerals were dramatized as the scene of their resurrection and immortality. All these godly attributes passed as a legal right to Emperor Constantine's new deity, Jesus Christ. The Emperor then instructed Bishop Eusebius to compile a uniform collection of new writings "bound together as one" using the stories from the large collection of Presbyters as his reference source. Eusebius was to arrange for the production of "fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in the art". This was the first mention of finished copies of a Christian 'New Testament' in the history of mankind. As one can imagine, to condense the real life of the Jesus Christ, the Church and His teachings with supporting evidence into a short article is very difficult. It is therefore wise for those who wish to have supportable evidence to read and study Tony Bushby's epic work, The Bible Fraud, along with it's detailed blood lines (family trees) and over 869 references. (see www.thebiblefraud.com) However, attempting to summarize what Tony has written..... in 325 AD, the first Christian council was called at Nicaea to bring the stories of twin brothers, Jesus 'the Rabbi' and Judas Khrestus into one deity that we now know as Jesus Christ. Tony says they were not born of virgin birth but to Nabatean Arab Mariamne Herod (now known as the Virgin Mary) and fathered by Tiberius ben Panthera, a Roman Centurion. The brothers were raised in the Essene community and became Khrists of their faith. Rabbi Jesus later was initiated in Egypt at the highest of levels similar to the 33rd degree of Freemasonry of which many Prime ministers and Presidents around the world today are members. He then later married three wives, one of whom we know as a Mary Magdalene, a Druidic Princess, stole the Torah from the temple and moved to Lud, now London. Tony believes the reason Jesus stole the Torah was that he said it contained "a very special secret", which he was going to reveal that secret to the world. He was stoned to death and the Torah taken from him before he could. The elder brother, Judas Khrestus, with his "Khrestian" followers conspired to take the throne of Rome, his royal birthright, and was captured, tried, and was sentenced to be crucified. The "Khrestians" and the Essenic army, the Nazarenes, would today be likened to terrorists. At the trial, Judas exercised his royal birthright to have a replacement in Simon of Cyrene (Luke 23:41) and then was sold as a slave to live out his days as a carpenter in India. Rabbi Jesus spent a considerable amount of time at the Palace of the British in Rome and sometime around 48 AD, he left for Egypt to pursue his greatest esoteric goal. The spiritual knowledge from his secret education in the Essene and Druid movements was soon to be elevated to the highest level possible - initiation into the innermost rite of the Egyptian temples. It was probable that Rabbi Jesus' earlier initiation into both the Essene and Druid schools played a major part in his acceptance into the Egyptian school. The Druids could claim a very early origin and the essence of their wisdom was also that of the Essenes. In the case of the Essenes, it is possible to show that their movement was specifically established to preserve secret information, for they knew and used the sacred writing of the Initiates. The full meaning of the point being made by Bushby is that in the case of all Secret Schools, the inner and ultimate Mystery was revealed only to a High Initiate. Those who were initiated into the Ancient mysteries took a solemn oath never to reveal what had passed within the sacred walls. Every year only a comparatively few Egyptian initiations were conducted, and the number of persons who knew their secrets was never at any time large. The initiations always took place with the onset of darkness and the candidate was entranced for periods of varying length, depending upon the level of the degree for which he had entered. The first initiatory step involved a forty-day procedure that basically involved purification, not only in physical form, but dissolving all tendencies to evil thoughts, purifying the mind as well. It appears that he would have fasted, alternatively on vegetables, juices and very special herbal concoctions. The New Testament recorded that this happened to Rabbi Jesus who "was led into the desert.... and he fasted forty days and forty nights" (Matt. 4:1-2). This trial period involved more than just fasting. During the forty days and nights' ordeal, Tony says the candidate was required to study astronomical charts to supplement his skills in astronomy and memorize charts of the heavens. They were also given a particular ritual from which to memorize certain passwords, secret signs and handclasps, skills that are still practiced to this day in Freemasonry. These initiations were not limited to Egypt. The ancient civilizations inherited these Mysteries from a remote antiquity and they constituted part of a primitive revelation from the gods to the human race. Almost every people of pre-Christian times possessed its institution and tradition of the mysteries. The Romans, the Druids of Britain, the Greeks, the Cretans, the Syrians, the Hindus, the Persians, the Maya and the American Indians, among others, had corresponding temples and rites with a system of graduated illuminations for the initiates. The modern world knows little of these ancient rites yet they were conducted in a huge variety of buildings the world over. The 'Towers' that are found throughout the East in Asia were directly connected with the Mystery-initiations. The candidates for initiation were placed in them for three days and three nights, whenever there was no temple with a subterranean crypt close at hand. In this aspect of the initiatory procedure, Tony points out a direct Gospel parallel with Rabbi Jesus saying, "After three days I shall rise again", for he knew the finishing process he was to undertake would take three days being a symbol of the period of time required to complete a condition of development. The ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic texts speak of an initiate as 'twice-born', and he was permitted to add to his name the words 'he who has renewed his life', so that on some ancient tomb-inscriptions archaeologists still discover these phases descriptive of the spiritual status of the deceased person. So little did the later Gospel writers understand the initiatory process that they never perceived they were developing a story that included a Rabbi's (and Arch Druid of Britain) experience in an Egyptian Mystery School. St Austin (c. 380) asserted that it was generally known in church circles that Rabbi Jesus had been initiated in Egypt, and that "he wrote books concerning magic". In the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Jews brought the same accusation before Pontius Pilate, "Did we not tell you he was a magician?" Celsus (c. 178) spoke of the same charge. In the Clementine Recognitions, the accusation was brought against Rabbi Jesus that he did not perform any miracles but practiced magic and carried about with him the figure of a seated skeleton. Jewish tradition invariably asserted that Rabbi Jesus learned 'magic' in Egypt. Bushby says the kernel of this persistent accusation may perhaps be reduced to the simple historical element that Rabbi Jesus went to Egypt and returned with far wider and more enlightened views than those of his former religious associates. Now, I'm sure that many of you are having trouble grasping some of the ideas presented in this article and I congratulate you on taking the effort to read this far. We all need to demand our local Church, the Church scholars, theologians and media make an open examination of the evidence compiled in Tony Bushby's "The Bible Fraud." It may rattle some core beliefs but what is more important to you . the truth or what sits comfortably because it's what you've known all you life? I leave you with a quote from one of the conspirators: "How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us." Pope Leo X (1513-1521) ...8<... Three reading suggestions: The Bible Fraud: An Untold Story of Jesus Christ by Tony Bushby Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard E. Friedman The Fabrication of the Christ Myth by Harold Leidner Greetings. Kam' Columbus, Ohio, USA
You may be interested to know that the "fraud" dates to much earlier times. The Hebrew texts were edited and re-written many times before the common era. A consensus has been achieved among liberal and mainline theologians. They now accept the Documentary Hypothesis. They have concluded that most of the Pentateuch was written by four authors or groups of authors: "J" (who used Jehovah as the name for God). "E" (who used Elohim); "D", the authors of the book of Deuteronomy and "P" who wrote the "priestly" sections which deal with ritual, liturgy and the dates and genealogical passages. The interleaving of the J and P accounts of the Noahic flood is one clear example of multiple authorships. To the writings of J, E, and P was added additional material obtained from other Mid-Eastern sources; The two creation stories in the Book of Genesis are examples. It is important to realize that religious texts were created as a method of social control, it's nothing new. I think there really was a Jesus, and that his ideas were dangerous to the social organization of a dominator society, and they still are.
There's a considerable load of old bollocks in that article, and undoubtedly in the book itself, which of course has inevitably been sold as "controversial!" Well, Christian anti-semitism at any time is never surprising. But the chances of these Jewish rabbinical books containing any reliable story about Jesus is practically zero. Why believe those more than the extant New Testament? Because they were destroyed centuries ago? But 14 centuries had gone by between the time of Jesus and their destruction anyway. Here's a strange bit of twisting the time around, since afterwards he's back at the council of Nicaea at 325. I entirely understand if this was due to editing, but he just made it sound like the 47 men had to "rewrite the bible" because it was all missing due to those Talmudic burnings. This is not the case. In any case, his dating is wrong: the translation began in 1604 or thereabouts, consequently took at least twice as long as he suggests. James would not have edited the work, the six committees of translators "edited" the work themselves by having a series of meetings at which what they had done was read out loud, and final amendments were suggested. This process alone probably took the two years he's talking about. Prior to that, however, the actual translation had been done by reference to the best Hebrew and Greek texts available at the time. As I said, being King and all, and quite busy, James wouldn't have undertaken the checking work himself. But what Bushby suggests is quite untrue: James was pretty qualified to do the job, being highly educated and very well read, as well as (I believe) having a basic grounding in biblical Hebrew. He was no mean writer himself, in addition. I've really no idea whatsoever where he got this bollocks from. First of all, the King James Bible was approximately 100 years too late to qualify as "the first English language manuscripts of the Bible". The first truly Royally Authorised version was the Great Bible of 1539, commissioned by Henry VIII and created under the auspices of that sly mandarin Thomas Cromwell. Secondly, I can't remember their names, but the authors of the preface are very well known, there were two of them and they were part of the translating team. Thirdly, if the King James Bible followed a "scheme", the scheme was that of the Bishop of London, raised to Archbishop of Canterbury during the translation period, Richard Bancroft. It was Bancroft who wrote the Rules under which the translators operated. Quite apart from anything else, other than King James himself, just about everybody involved in the translation was (quite naturally) a clergyman. It's absolutely inconceivable that Francis Bacon or any other layman would ever have been given the job of editing the entire Bible. Erm, the "dedication to the King" was of course written in by the translators themselves under their own impetus. No king has ever had to go begging for flattery! And it so happens that "Appointed to be read in churches" is something that has been misunderstood for almost the four hundred years since the Bible was published. It actually was only supposed to appear on the large Bibles, and "Appointed" literally means "Set in a point size". Ie, the printer's font is big enough for the book to be read aloud from on a lectern. I say it has continued to be misunderstood, because the same phrase appears on all printings of the KJV to this day, including small pocket versions! As a matter of fact there is no documentary evidence that the so-called Authorised Version was ever officially authorised, at least not after its completion and publication. It was, however, commissioned by King James and so more or less did have the equivalent authority as if it had been so "appointed" by the monarch. However, it did not catch on immediately, for at least 50 years the version preferred by most ordinary people remained the (unauthorised) Geneva Bible of 1560. This last is true, but it is hardly worth pointing out. Only the truly uneducated could ever have considered the King James Bible to have been "original" (one thinks of the famous case of the American Senator in a debate on whether English should be the official language of the United States, who said, "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for me!") There are those who hold the King James supreme over all later translations - for doctrinal reasons, as Bushby said - but they do at least attempt to justify this by claiming it to be the only version based exclusively on the Textus Receptus. And finally, Bushby seems to be implying that the original manuscripts having been lost, their contents are "entirely unknown". This is certainly not true since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and however many minor changes that might have appeared in the texts, they are recognisably the same work. Those differences may or may not make a lot of difference, but it doesn't mean the original writings are entirely unknown. The rest of the article appears to be based on the idea that the references to the Wicked Preacher in Qumran scrolls refer to Jesus, a thesis I've never found convincing. As to his references, instead of referencing the Bushby work, particularly on the creation of the KJV, which he appears to have made up out of his head, can I instead recommend In The Beginning by Alister McGrath, and (more detailed and a great deal more dramatic) Power and Glory by Adam Nicolson. (Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman is a bit of a misnomer, he basically outlines the Documentary Hypothesis as mentioned by spidergoat, but it only covers the first twelve books of the Old Testament excluding Ruth. It's worth a look, though.)
Thanks for your input, Silas. You're always a welcome point maker on these historical matters and their context. Cheers, or Slainthe, or both =)
Greetings, This quote is famous, it is found all over the 'net and in many sceptics' books. But, have you ever noticed there is no source given ? (i.e. no book or document is named) Just the name Leo X. It turns out that Leo X never said that - it's from a play by John Bale called "The Pageant of Popes" written long after Leo was dead. Sadly, few people bother to check the facts of such things. Iasion
Greetings, False. We have Greek MSS of the NT from as early as c.200CE (e.g. P75, P66) and some possibly earlier (e.g.P52) False. According to modern NT scholars the NT was written originally in Greek. May I point out that this did NOT occur at the Council of Nicea. The council had nothing to say about the canon of the Bible. The documents produced by it say nothing about the books of the bible, nor do the various accounts of the meeting. It is a common urban myth that Nicea chose the books of the bible - but it is false. (These famous 50 bibles were ordered about a decade after Nicea.) Um, are you serious ? Do you really believe that? Do you have any evidence for it? Tony's essay is mostly silly nonsense that seems to come straight from the fantasies of Acharya S. I won't waste any more time on it. Iasion
Well, don't slam qwerty mob for the article's nonsenses, it's quite clearly attributed to Robert Adams in New Dawn magazine. You don't appear to have been here long, Iasion, just wait, there are people with far more lunatic beliefs posting right here on the forum! Excellent catch on that Leo X thing, by the way.
Oh, Iasion's been around for a couple years and, like Consequent Atheist, he has some strong opinions. I appreciate his point of view and factual corrections. ... Does anyone else find it odd that history is unique in that, though it is mostly fact driven (who what when), that opinions and fictions often drown out the facts? I can see why the younger generations hate history; they grew up in the era of spin... and one cannot study history without a cojunct study of bias. As if, history is inseparable from revisionism. :/ greetings
Indeed, and I made that very point to CA almost 3 years ago; that the author(s) of the NT had to have been bi or trilingual, and probably borrowed heavily from earlier Aramaic texts. Right, that was Laodicea a few years later. Nicea was spent harmonizing the NT gospels; Mark was supposedly the original, iirc. I don't have any beliefs, personally. Evidence for claims of any historical Jesus (Iesos, Yeshua, whoever) are squarely and properly on the protagonists or faithful. There are arguments which prove there was no Jesus Christ; no divine god-man. At worst it's a fallacy of composition, but it's as self consistent as any other "negative proof." My version rests on the axes of (1) incoherency of spatio-temporal divinity and (2) better explanation for the failed positive case. greetz~
God doesen't want there to be "proof" that Christianity, and the Bible are correct. If there was proof, we would all be Christians. You have to have faith, its that simple.
