See other Religion Articles
Title: Behind The Bible Fraud - What Was The Church Trying To Hide?
Source:
Rense.com
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general66/hide.htm
Published: Jun 21, 2005
Author: Robert Adams
Post Date: 2005-06-21 17:36:43 by Zoroaster
Keywords: Behind, Church, Trying
Views: 172
Comments: 7
Behind The Bible Fraud - What Was The Church Trying To Hide? By Robert Adams New Dawn http://Magazine.com 6-21-5 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 (161votes 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 http://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) Article first published in New Dawn Magazine No 71, March 2002
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Zoroaster, DoctorStrangeLove (#0)
Does this mean the "Rapture" is canceled this year? How about Football season? Even the most devout student of Biblical writings is subject to conjecture, fraud and deception. The "Roman" Church is and was a theological government, as is Judaism. What god they serve is another question.
It's gonna get worse before it gets "worser" !
Forgive me for stepping on the toes of any Roman Catholics among us. It was Rome who created the great Schism and broke away from the unified Church officially in 1054. Papal infalibility on all matters of faith and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son and the Father being among the differences of opinion. Rome does and says what it wants, when it wants. Rome created many doctrines which are foreign to the Church. Indulgences, purgatory, Immaculate Coneception of Mary. When one ventures into Church History only looking through Western eyes, they miss on a whole other world of history (preserved) through the Easten Church. Constatine and Nicaea Yes and No. Just how much "in bed" Constatine and Church were can be debated. The Eastern Church regards him as a Saint. My *personal opinion* of him is that he was a politician and thus can only be trusted as far as one can kick a politician. He did put a "formal end" to persecution. However, reading the Saints of that time shows they did not believe that to be all-encompassing or to be a forever and ever-amen end to persecution. Under Constatine, the emergence of the Eastern and Western Kindgoms takes hold. This matter of differing cultures and distance led to fracturing of the church as much as Eastern Church likes to credit Augustine for sowing the seeds of disagreement with his great volume of work in where it is difficult to distinguish "speculation" from proper teaching. Nicaea was indeed conviened to hammer out various disagreements and teachings. Marcion and Arius had been teaching dual natures of Christ and that of God, among other things. Those in their camps had produced "secret" gospels fortelling of a special knowledge of the divine. Some churches were reading St Polycarp, the Didache, Sheppard of Hermas but not any of the letters of St John or Revelation because they doubted its authenticity or just simply did not have them. Some churches were teaching that one must be a Christian and still practice Old Testament law, tradition and custom (Judaizer). Not much written survies the Council of Nicaea, except for the Creed and several statements, or regulations. The Cannon of Scripture was hammered out some, but was not fully agreed upon for another 160 years. Two figures merged into one god No. The early Church Fathers most certainly did not adhere to this and would find this doctrine foreign to them. Ignatius and Iraneaus (sic) recounted in well within the first century to second century (~50 - 150AD) of Polycarp being a disciple of John who could fully harmonize the Gospels to anyone who was willing to listen. Iraneaus is held by the Oral Tradition to be the child who sat on the lap of Christ as described in the Gospels. Polycarp in his own letter fully recognized one Christ. As did Justin the Martyr and Clement of Rome who wrote in the second century. There is a clear picture the Church is not divided on who Christ is. Perhaps in Gnostic circles, as those who would follow Marcion and later Arius, but not in the unified Church. ....More on this later as I have to go....
Thanks for the excellent post. BTW, Nietzsche called Christianity the dying gasp of the Roman Empire.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
I am not as well read on Arius and Marcion as I should, but I am NOT recalling they held the idea of two individuals who would later be merged into Christ as the article suggests. This is a broad brush I am about to paint with, so forgive me. I am quite sure Marcion was using and was pursuading others to use different scriptures (letters) than what the earliest Church Fathers would have held to (Ignatius, Iraneaus, Polycarp). Not more than 20-30 years after Pentacost, St Paul was having to beat back the Judaizers. So, obviously, it did not take long for varying "doctrines" to creep up. Generally speaking, the teachings of Arius and Marcion would be that the God of the Old and New Testaments are different. That Christ could not be all man and all God at the same time. Flesh is corrupt and the devine cannot co-exist with the corrupt, therefore Christ could not have been all man and all God. Christ could be in the form of a man, but not a man in flesh and blood. Some in these camps probably went as far to say that Christ was a god, wholly separate and equal to God. Or Chirst was less than devine, a demi-god like those of Greek and Roman mythology. Or that Christ was created and not eternally one with the Father. This led to Arius being backhanded by St Nicholas (yes, THE St Nicholas, Santa Claus) in "righteous indignation" at the Council of Nicaea according to Oral Tradition. Again, not every Church in the begining had what we know as the Bible today. Most had the Old Testament along with a Gospel and probably a couple letters, or which were probably letters from Clement of Rome, Polycarp, etc. The rest was the Oral Tradition and teachings passed down from the Apostles themselves. Another thing I would point out to the author here is that the Bible is a product of the Church and not the other way around. This point gets lost on those who "believe in the Bible" and practically places in me in danger of hellfire according the them. I prefer Original Recipe, please. Tomorrow it could be discovered that Polycarp actually wrote the Gospel of John. Or that Paul really did not write Romans. People would clamor for these books to be removed from Scripture because their authenticity is now doubted. The Church (Eastern) would respond that it is irrelevant. The Church confirms and validates St John and Romans as these writings are a product of the Church. The Church has also done this with several letters (Didache, Clement 1 and 2, etc) but decided not to include them in the Cannon of Scripture because what needed to be said, already was. Tradition (with a capital T) has been used to clarify questions and inconsistencies in Scripture. Yes, all you Bible believers, there are inconsistencies in Scripture. For instance, if I recall correctly, Proverbs calls wisdom the Mother of God. Does this imply a quadrinity instead of a Trinity? Father, Mother, Son, Holy Spirit??? No... The Eastern Church would say that it has correctly preserved the history and teachings of the Church. What the author writes in the article is nothing new. These things have been written about many times before and will be again. Anymore, I want to caution people in reading Church History soley through the eyes of Rome or strictly through Protestant (read Southern Baptist) eyes. In so doing, a whole other history and perspective is being missed.
I like your posts, but have to differ with you on several points. First, are you talking about two different historical( first century ) Jesus-like figures? Are you talking about two end time Jesus-like figures? ( as in yet to come ) I've written exensively about those later personalities. Most everyone that's read the early church doctors agrees on the historisity of the gospel accounts and the invaluble contribution of apostolic authority. The schism of 1054 had little or nothing to do with discussion of two Christ-like personages other than the thought that two groups of people can be sincere, sincerely wrong in their interpretation of the same documents. I doubt that discussions like ours are very welcome here. Rarely a day goes by when I'm not molested as a "rapture monkey" or some such derogatory term.
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. I haven't checked my pings in over a week. My post which you responded to was a response (continuation) to myself which was a response to the original post. I can see where your response to me comes from, then. Let's start with Mohammad who said that God neither begets nor is begotten. Arius, some 300 years earlier, would have said much the same thing. The contention is that God ALONE has always been, without origin. Christ was begotten, he was originated as the Gospel says Christ was the only begotten Son. Therefore, Christ cannot be God. He is an inferior creation, not co-eteranl, as having an origin. I have no idea where the author of the orginal article got the idea of two Christ figures from that were later merged into one Christ at Nicaea. That idea is completely foreign to the Church Fathers. St Justin, St Ingatius (sic), St Polycarp, etc. None of them, especially St Justin, wrote anything defending the Church against this. St Justin wrote a response to Marcion, which unfortunately is lost to us. But I am quite sure Marcion did not teach two persons who would be merged into Christ. Marcion did teach that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament were different though I fail to see how that generates two differing Christ figures who would later be merged. The only thing I think I said regarding (without reviewing my posts) the 1054 Schism was those in the East trace the roots of the great schism to St Augutsine while I would go back further to Constatine himself who created the divided kingdoms of East and West. I did say I would caution people against reading the history of the Church ONLY through the lens of the Roman Church. In my opinion, the Roman Church is the one who broke away and has emabarked on over a 1000 years of abuses and misteachings which are foreign to what the Church Fathers taught. Again, reading history only through the Roman Church deprives one of the "other side of the story" from the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Judas Khrestus or his twin brother Rabbi Jesus
Yez, Baaz!
#2. To: Zoroaster (#0)
"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us." Pope Leo X (1513-1521)
#3. To: Zoroaster (#0)
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.
#4. To: scooter (#3)
#5. To: All (#3)
#6. To: scooter (#5)
Dear scooter,
#7. To: DoctorStrangeLove (#6)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest