 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
What a silly question. You would think that the answer would be a resounding "Yes" to the above question; that is until you look and gather some knowledge concerning the truth about our esteemed "Church Fathers". There are some things that you, the Christian believer, need to know that might make you want to know what was "believed" about "the Christ" before we got Rome's "Second Edition" of what we call today the New Testament.
Answer for yourself: Have you ever stopped and considered the competency of the early Church Fathers to have been responsible for the selection of the books of the New Testament; especially in light of the fact we trust them totally today to have selected and preserved for us what we believer to be the Word of God in the New Testament; a book upon which we stake our eternal life? Have you ever studied out what they wrote or said in their writings that has bearing upon the books that they selected that ended up in the New Testament which are to be our supposed path, if believed, to lead us to Heaven? Were they competent for the task of deciding what books were to be contained in the canon of the New Testament and what books were to be excluded? But eve more, can we see the evidence of the Holy Spirit in action when we examine what these Church Fathers both said and did regarding these matters of selection let alone later "editing" of these said books? How confident should we be today in reading the New Testament; especially in light of the discoveries of modern Bible scholarship that teaches us that there existed hundreds of gospels before the famous 4 were later chosen by Irenaeus. Out of hundreds of early gospels concerning "the Christ" we only end up with 4 and I, like you, believed that this was God's design. Little did I know that such selection of only 4 gospels out of hundreds was based upon the capriciousness of but one man who based such selection upon the world having only 4 directions from which the wind blows let alone the cherubim having 4 faces. What?
You need to know right from the start that Irenaeus was also one of the very first Christians to argue that Jesus Christ was son of God, and a real historical figure. Irenaeus was especially insistent that there are exactly 4 Gospels, and used numerological arguments surrounding the number 4, such as the 4 winds, the 4 cherubim and 4 covenants, for support. Somebody forgot to tell him that there are "7", not "4" in the Bible. We are told by Irenaeus that only 4 gospels out of previous hundreds of gospels were to be chosen because the of throne of God has four powerful figures called cherubim which guard the throne. Sometimes it appears that each of the four has a different face, and sometimes it seems that all have four faces, but the faces are always those of a Lion, an Ox, a Man and an Eagle (Ezek. 1:10 & Rev 4:7). Oh, I see, now becomes clear that we only need 4 gospels; 4 late selections that discount completely all the other "earlier" gospels which never taught a "literal" or "historical" Christ.
Answer for yourself: What other criteria did Irenaeus use to select only 4 gospels for our New Testament?
Answer for yourself: What else do we not know about these gospels and our New Testament which might have a dramatic impact upon our lives and our current religious belief system?
Maybe you should read this for yourself:
Irenaeus writes in Adversus Haereses: The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. As David said, when asking for his coming, 'O sitter upon the cherubim, show yourself '. For the cherubim have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. For the first living creature, it says, was like a lion, signifying his active and princely and royal character; the second was like an ox, showing his sacrificial and priestly order; the third had the face of a man, indicating very clearly his coming in human guise; and the fourth was like a flying eagle, making plain the giving of the Spirit who broods over the Church. Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these. (3.11.8)
According to the lists Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses, quotes 626 times from all 4 Gospels. First of all know that Adversus Haereses is Irenaeus work of 5 books written after 180 A.D. (some believe after 200 A.D. or even later) directed almost totally against the early Christian Gnostics. This idea of 626 quotes from the gospels might sound impressive had we not known that before this time, there were not in existence not one quote from a gospel "by name" existing in Christianity or referenced by any Christian writer. Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses is almost totally devoted to the conflict with the earlier Christian Gnostics. What we must be aware of is that prior references to the "sayings" of "the Christ" sporadically addressed in earlier Christian writings come totally from what is called the "Logia", the collected sayings of "the Christ" from antiquity that have been preserved in culture after culture and religion after religion down through the recorded history of mankind. The reference to these same "sayings" or "Logia" by Irenaeus now specific to 4 gospels by name only finds expression after 180 A.D.. This fact makes it rather difficult or next to impossible to believe that these 4 gospels by "name" (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) had been written earlier as we are taught due to the great need for such quotes which go unmentioned by all the earliest of Christian writers in their debates not only with the earliest Christian Gnostics but the Jewish rabbis as well. Surely had these 4 gospels of which Irenaeus quotes 626 times after 180 A.D. had been in existence "early" there would have been some reference to them or some quote found somewhere early in some writing by the earliest supposed followers of the supposed "historical" and "literal" Christ. We find none. Only after 180 A.D. to such "quotes" surface in abundance. This should make the "thinking believer" at least consider that Irenaeus is responsible for the forgery of these later 4 gospels which bring a totally difference perspective and understanding of "the Christ" than was ever held by the totality of mankind since the beginning of time.
So we find that Irenaeus was especially insistent that there are exactly 4 Gospels. But get ready this same man who gives the world 4 gospels gives us a Jesus that never dies on a cross and who lived well into his fifties and into old age. "Impossible" you say. Well, no not really. The same man that gave us 4 gospels that contain the famous conflicting genealogies of a supposed historical and literal Jesus Christ also give us an "old age" and a senior citizen Jesus who evidently did not die and ascend to Heaven as these 4 gospels so purport.
Irenaeus who gave us not only these 4 gospels but all the extra "Pauline epistles" that comprise 2/3 of our the New Testament of which we are familiar after 180 A.D. goes on to say that Jesus lived well into his fifties. Amazing and astounding as it might appear you need to read this for yourself. Most remarkable in light of other supposed "heresies" attacked and refuted by Bishop Irenaeus, is one which had just gained currency in written form in the newly published "Gospels of Jesus Christ," in the form of the "tradition" that Jesus had been crucified to death early in the thirties of his life, after a preaching career of only about one year, according to three of the new Gospels, of about three years, according to the fourth. This is considered rankly false and fictitious, on the "tradition" of the real gospel and of all the Apostles, avows Bishop Irenaeus, like Bishop Papias earlier in the century; and Irenaeus boldly combated it as "heresy." It is not true, Irenaeus asserts, that Jesus Christ died so early in life and after so brief a career. "How is it possible," be demands, "that the Lord preached for one year only?"; and on the quoted authority of John the Apostle himself, of "the true Gospel," and of "all the elders," the saintly Bishop urges the falsity and "heresy" of the Four Gospels on this crucial point. Textually, and with quite fanciful reasonments, he says that Jesus did not die so soon:
"For he came to save all through means of Himself -- all, I say, who through Him are born again to God -- infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age; a youth for youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be 'the first-born from the dead.' "They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, 'to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,' maintain that he preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His work and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honorable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also, as a teacher, He excelled all others. ... "Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onward to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, (affirming) that John conveyed to them that information. AND HE (JESUS) REMAINED AMONG THEM UP TO THE TIMES OF TRAJAN" (Trajan was a Roman Emperor who reigned between A.D. 98 and 117 A.D.).
What we find is that Irenaeus argued forcefully - from the apostolic tradition of John - that Jesus taught for many years more after his baptism than the twelve months attributed in the Gospels. He attacks any alternative view as a "heresy". He says (with my emphasis): "...but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old..."
Irenaeus goes on to say: "Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other Apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to [the validity of ] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe?" (Iren. Adv. Haer. Bk. II, ch. xxii, secs. 3, 4, 5; ANF. I, 891-2.) Wow.
So evidently that man who gave us these 4 gospels simply overlooked the fact that the "historical" and "literal" crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus was simply not true. Here we get closer to the truth that so few have today due to the intense indoctrination of Rome over the last 1,800 years; the truth about the ancient Mystical and Metaphysical "crucifixion" and "incubation/incarnation" of "the Christ Divine Mind" into the totality of mankind; so often told in parable and myth intended to separate mankind apart through gnosis as well as those who have Spiritually evolved having "ears to hear". This is the "inner mystery" that lies behind the "outer mysteries" of "the Krst/Christ" found as far back as ancient Egypt which has the same "Jesus Story" that we do; only the name Horus is used instead of Jesus. That is why we often find "Jesus H. Christ"; "H" being the hidden reference to the "Horus Story" which is purely Metaphysical and never "literal" or "historical". The Catholics take communion with wafer disks inscribed with the initials IHS. It is supposed to stand for the first three letters in Jesus’ name. The IHS is a symbolic monogram of Christ used by the Roman Catholic Church. This monogram consists of the Greek letters iota, eta, and sigma, the first three letters of the name Iesous (Greek for Jesus), the letters of which are also used to spell out the phrase "Iesous Hominum Salvator," "Jesus, savior of man." It relates to the story of Constantine, whose vision of the Chi-Rho was recorded by Church Father Eusebius. In the vision, Constantine was reported to have heard a voice proclaim, "In this symbol, thou shalt conquer." Therefore, the IHS has also stood for "In Hoc Signo," in this sign. However the ancient Babylonians used the same round wafer disks with the same initials that then stood for Isis, Horus, and Semerimus. "FYI", the Egyptian priests practiced "transubstantiation", claiming to be able to transfer the sun god Osiris into a circular wafer. In rituals prefiguring Catholic Mass, the faithful then ate the "body" of their god to nourish their Souls. The letters IHS on the sun-shaped wafers stood for Isis, Horus, Seb (later, Roman Catholics claimed they were the first three letters of Jesus' name in Greek).
Now let us get back on track regarding the competency of these early Church Fathers which gave us these 4 "literal" and "historical" gospels that we have today.
Answer for yourself: What are we to do with these 4 Gospels let alone the 3 that teach that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind and thus procured atonement for those who believe in his death? What are we to think now that we read that Irenaeus did not believe that Jesus died on the cross yet lived to a ripe old age but yet at the same time supported the Gospels that taught that he did? What are we now to do with the teaching of the vicarious atonement attached to the death of Jesus in his mid-30's on the cross of Calvary as taught in these same Gospels when their strongest proponent believed that this same Jesus lived well into his fifties? Well, get ready for you, as they say, "ain't heard nothing yet" until you read the early Church Fathers, Fathers of the Church by the way that hated the early Christian Gnostics and their teaching of the internal Christ within the hearts of every child of God.
Well, as you can see there is a lot involved here that does not make sense to the rational mind; especially again when we find that the current New Testament that we have today is the gift of Irenaeus which I term the "Second Edition" of an earlier Gnostic New Testament minus many of the books and religious tenants held sacred by these "first" Chrestians/Christians. This bears our examination if you ask me.
Answer for yourself: Have you ever invested your time to personally inquire into these issues, or have you like most Christians received the New Testament of Irenaeus as handed down for millennia and accepted it and its "literal" and "historical" interpretation without question because of "church tradition" or because our parents were taught to do the same?
Most likely you haven't. Most Christians have implicitly been taught and indoctrinated to accept that the Holy Spirit led these men in the selection of the books in the Christian New Testament. Maybe you are beginning to doubt this somewhat based upon your study at Bet Emet coupled with your own prior studies; especially since reading these articles you have seen that most likely the followers of the Jewish Christ had little if anything to do with the writing of the 4 Gospels which carry their names.
It never ceases to amaze me how the Protestant, who refused to become a Catholic and disbelieves much of the Catholic dogma and doctrine, readily accepts the Catholic Bible owning to the fact that it was these same men who were given these "Catholic doctrines" supposedly by the Holy Spirit who put were responsible for putting together, adding to, and deleting from the earliest gospels and the first New Testament and in so doing presenting the world with what we have today in our Bibles. It just seem ridiculous does it not, that we will not accept much of Catholic dogma but yet their book?
Well we lust learned about Irenaeus. Since the early Christian Fathers originated the theory that the books of the New Testament are inspired, the question arises, "Where they competent to do so?" The popular idea is that they were learned, profound, venerable men, worthy of the highest respect; and so vigorously has this been enforced, that one of the charges on which Servetus was burned to death by John Calvin was that he had spoken disrespectfully of the Fathers (R.Willis, M.D., Servetus and Calvin, London, 1877, p. 308). The true facts are quite the reverse of what you might think let alone have been taught. The early Christian Fathers were extremely ignorant and superstitious; and they were singularly incompetent to deal with the supernatural. The men who laid the foundation of the canon were Irenaeus (200 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (210 A.D.), and Tertullian (220 A.D.)., and of them Prof. Davidson says:
"The infancy of the canon was cradled in an uncritical age, and rocked with traditional ease. Conscientious care was not directed from the first to the well-authenticated testimony of eye-witnesses. Of the three Fathers who contributed most to its early growth, Irenaeus was credulous and blundering. Tertullian passionate and one-sided, and Clement of Alexandria, imbued with the treasure of Greek wisdom, was mainly occupied with ecclesiastical ethics….(Their) assertions show both ignorance and exaggeration" (Davidson, The Canon of the Bible, 155).
Some citations will illustrate for you the mental characteristics and competency of those who selected and chose for you a "new" Bible that replaced the true Hebrew Scriptures as well as the Gnostic New Testament.
St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50-117 C.E.) was an early Christian, who is said to have written a number of important letters defending the purity of the early Church. The Catholic Enclyclopedia stresses his importance to Church history: "It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of the testimony which the Ignatian letters offer to the dogmatic character of Apostolic Christianity. The martyred Bishop of Antioch constitutes a most important link between the Apostles and the Fathers of the early Church. Receiving from the Apostles themselves, whose auditor he was, not only the substance of revelation, but also their own inspired interpretation of it; dwelling, as it were, at the very fountain-head of Gospel truth, his testimony must necessarily carry with it the greatest weight and demand the most serious consideration. Cardinal Newman did not exaggerate the matter when he said... that 'the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered, at least in outline, not to say in parts filled up, in the course of his seven epistles.'" (St. Ignatius of Antioch, The Catholic Encyclopedia).
Further, Ignatius's writings are the first to speak of a physical Jesus Christ, or Mary, and of Pontius Pilate (Quentin David Jones, Ignatius, 2002). This sounds all well and good until you read what comes next.
However, the authenticity of the letters attributed to Ignatius has long been disputed. They have come down to us in various forms, some shorter and some - with much more detail about the "life" of Christ - longer. Further versions, written in Syraic, were also discovered in 1843. However, it has long been accepted by that only the shorter versions can possibly be reliable. English translations of Ignatius's works appear in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, and are introduced as follows:
"...although the shorter form of the Ignatian letters had been generally accepted in preference to the longer, there was still a pretty prevalent opinion among scholars, that even it could not be regarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted authenticity. Thus said Lardner, in his Credibility of the Gospel History (1743): "have carefully compared the two editions, and am very well satisfied, upon that comparison, that the larger are an interpolation of the smaller, and not the smaller an epitome or abridgment of the larger.... But whether the smaller themselves are the genuine writings of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, is a question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult question." (Introductory Note to the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians in The Ante-Nicence Fathers).
Ignatius is particularly interesting to studies of early Christianity because he lived so soon after the time of Christ. In fact, if it is genuine, his Epistle to the Trallians would contain one of the earliest references to a historical Christ:
"Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life." (Chapter IX) (Epistle of Ignatius to the to the Trallians) [from earlychristianwritings.com].
What should concern us is the reliability of his letters. Walter Richard Cassels' nineteenth century Supernatural Religion rejected the authenticity of this reference, claiming that the Letters were forgeries from the end of the second century:
"Included in Cassels's lengthy analysis is a discussion of the letters of Bishop of Antioch Ignatius (c. 50-107), letters that some scholars have claimed infer the existence of the canonical gospels. However, these letters contain merely a "biography" consisting mainly of a rough outline of the gospel tale, with little detail. Basically, the Ignatian texts insist simply that Jesus was "born and died," was "truly crucified by Pontius Pilate," and was born of the Virgin Mary. Moreover, Cassels shows that these epistles were forged towards the end of the 2nd century, so they still would not serve as evidence of the existence of the gospels before that date." (W.R. Cassels, Supernatural Religion. An Inquiry into the Reality of Divine Revelation, volume 3, (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., revised edition 1879). Quoted from The "Historical" Jesus? by Acharya S.
This view is echoed in the 1902 Encyclopaedia Biblica, which describes the Letters as being by an "unknown writer" from the middle of the second century C.E. (Referenced in Christianism 18: [6/28/97: See: Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1902, 3488-3489 (van Manen), "Epistles of Ignatius". Comments include: "unknown writer"; "date near the middle of the second century"; etc.].
Now pay attention. As a final point, it is worth considering that a known successor of Ignatius, Theophilus of Antioch (c. 115-181 A.D.) never once mentions "Jesus Christ" in any of his writings which have come down to us - for all his discussions of the nature of God, the veracity of the Old Testament.
So we see without a doubt that at least some of the writings attributed to Ignatius are undoubtedly forgeries (Introductory Note to the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians in The Ante-Nicence Fathers). Cassel's work from over a century ago argues forcefully that all are suspect [ca]. Given the lack of other contemporary evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, there is reason to doubt all of the works attributed to Ignatius (David Quentin Jones, The Foundations of Christianity, 2002). Until further information comes to light, it seems that we cannot be certain that this "early" reference to the existence of Jesus Christ is genuine.
You should be familiar with the fable of the phoenix, which was said to renew its life every five hundred years. The phoenix is supposedly a bird in Egyptian mythology that lived in the desert for 500 years and then consumed itself by fire, later to rise renewed from its ashes. Wherever it is found, the phoenix is associated with resurrection, immortality, triumph over adversity, and that which rises out of the ashes. Thus it became a favorite symbol on early Christian tombstones. In numerous ways, the phoenix was found to be a symbol of Christ. In most countries, it was believed that only one phoenix lived at a time. It was born from itself without following the natural laws of reproduction. During the Middle Ages, it was believed to rise from the dead after three days.
Clement of Rome (100 A.D.) thought it had an actual existence, and he asserted that it was typical of the resurrection (Ep. Ad Corinth, xxv. P. 123). Tertullian believed the same thing (De Resurrect., 13, vol. 2., p 236). Celsus, the noted anti-Christian writer, used this fact to illustrate the credulity and gullibility of the early Christians, and Origen defended the fable rather than accept the just criticism (Contra Celsum, iv. 98). By the time of Celsus, 175 A.D. to 180 A.D., the "miraculous" aspects of Christianity appear to have been firmly established. He poured scorn on the myths of Christianity, pointing out their obvious similarities with ancient pagan stories (Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries) and (R. J. Hoffman, Celsus On The True Doctrine, Oxford University Press, 1987).
"Is your belief based on 'fact' that this Jesus told in advance that he would rise again after his death? That your story includes his predictions of triumphing over the grave? Well let it be so. Let's assume for the present that he foretold his resurrection. Are you ignorant of the multitudes who have invented similar tales to lead the simple minded hearers astray? It is said that Zamolix, Pythagoras' servant convinced the Scythians that he had risen from the dead, having hidden himself away in a cave for several years, and what about Pythagoras himself in Italy - or Phamsinitus in Egypt? Now then, who else: What about Orpheus among the Odrysians, Protesilaus in Thessaly, and above all Heracles and Theseus? But quite apart from all these risings from the dead, we must look carefully at the question of the resurrection of the body as a possibility given to mortals. Doubtless you will freely admit that these stories are legends, even as they appear to me; but you will go on to say that your resurrection story, this climax to your tragedy, is believable and noble." "Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians - and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God."
The standard Apologetic response to Celsus is to point out that none of the pagan god-men listed by Celsus were crucified, or that second century paganism in fact borrowed much of its teachings from Christianity. (James Patrick Holding, Apologies Or, The Dissolving of the Second Century). But this response by the early Christians is simply not true for man of the sungods and goddesses were "crucified". Also, Celsus would no doubt have been amused - since these arguments depend on the assumption that Christianity is "correct" and that every other belief system is a mythology! The fact is that studies in comparative mythology have shown overwhelming parallels between Christianity and paganism in the second century CE, with both "religions" probably borrowing from common sources (Parallels between the Christian Gospels and Pagan Mythology, Religious Tolerance.org.). There is a great deal of evidence that the concept of "Jesus Christ" as a historical figure does not seem to have been taken up by Christianity until around the time of Celsus (Quentin David Jones, The History of the Gospels). Notice if you will the date for Celsus and the date given earlier for the production of Irenaeus New Testament teaching a "literal" and "historical" Jesus along with the conflicting genealogies. It is the same time period that connect the emergence of this "literal" and "historical" interpretation of "the Krst/Christ" which before then was always understood Mystically and Metaphysically. The fragments of his writings which survive throw a remarkable light on the development of early Christianity, and the obvious parallels it had with older pagan mythologies.
Minucius Felix was an early "Christian Apologist" from the second or third century C.E.. His Latin writings survive to this day, and were translated into English in the nineteenth Century (Minucius Felix, The Catholic Encyclopedia). His most interesting work for our purposes is the "The Octavius of Minucius Felix", since it provides a lengthy depiction of Christian doctrine without any reference to Jesus Christ as a historical figure or to the Resurrection (Minucius Felix, The Octavius of Minucius Felix, c 210 CE). Let us not underestimate the huge significance and importance since it would add to the number of mid-first-century Christian writers who fail to mention Jesus Christ before Justin Martyr 150 A.D. In Chapter XXIII, he adds: "Therefore neither are gods made from dead people, since a god cannot die; nor of people that are born, since everything which is born dies. But that is divine which has neither rising nor setting. For why, if they were born, are they not born in the present day also?" (Minucius Felix, The Octavius of Minucius Felix, c 210 CE).
This lack of any reference to the supposed central tenants of Christianity is astounding. The Catholic Encyclopedia's explanation raises more questions than it answers: "The name of Christ does not appear; among the apologists of the second century Aristides, St. Justin, and Tertullian are the only ones who pronounced it" (Minucius Felix, The Catholic Encyclopedia). Arguably, Minucius Felix is a startling example of how unformed Christian teaching about Jesus Christ still was in the second century A.D.
The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas believed an ancient superstition that the hyena changed its sex every year, being alternately male and female (Ep. Barnabas, ch. x), that a hare had as many young as it was years old, that a weasel conceived with its mouth, that the reason why men should eat only animals with a cloven hoof was because the righteous people lived in this world, but had expectations in the next through reincarnation (Ep. Barnabas, ch. x). Justin Martyr (150 A.D.) believed in demons. He said that they were the offspring of angels who loved the daughters of men (Apol. ii, 5), that insane people (demoniacs) were possessed and tortured by the souls of the wicked who had died in their sins (Ibid., i. 18), and that this was a proof of the immortality of the soul.
Answer for yourself: Did you catch that? For Justin Martyr, one of the most important of the Greek philosopher-Apologists in the early church, whose writings represent the first positive encounter of Christian revelation with Greek philosophy and laid the basis for a theology which we have been taught today, believed that mental illness was proof of the immortality of the soul?
And we accept the religious doctrines and replacement religion set forth by this man without question Sunday after Sunday. It look like his judgment is off quite considerably to me. This should bring questions to your mind about following such a man as your Spiritual authority for what you believe today.
He even said angels eat manna (Dial., 57). Has he ever had lunch with them?
But we need to look closer at Justin Martyr. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 CE) was a second century Christian of pagan origins. A number of splendid works (including several clear forgeries) are attributed to him, notably a defence of Christianity supposedly addressed to the emperor of Rome (St. Justin Martyr, The Catholic Encyclopedia). Of the major apologists up until c. 180 CE, Justin is the only one to have supposedly mentioned Jesus Christ as a historical figure (Earl Doherty, The Second Century Apologists, from The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?). The works attributed to Justin do not mention the works of Paul directly, and never "name" any of the four Gospels. This is rather strange given the current belief that these 4 gospels has been written by 70 A.D., some 80 years earlier (Is the Bible Devine? Roberts-Bradlaugh Debate, 1876). The reliability of Justin Martyr himself and all that he wrote is called into question by his assertion in Chapter 25 of his First Apology that the Romans had a record of the crucifixion of Jesus (Justin Martyr, The First Apology Of Justin).
Justin's apologies pointedly refer to the existence of Jesus Christ, the crucifixion and physical resurrection. In fact, he made a point of stressing how similar Christian teaching was to the ancient Greeks of five hundred years before (Justin Martyr, The First Apology Of Justin). Quite marvelously, they claimed that the Greek received their wisdom (somehow) from Moses: "And that you may learn that it was from our teachers - we mean the account given through the prophets - that Plato borrowed his statement that God..."
Even more spectacular is the claim that the similarities between Christianity and pagan mythology were due to the devil anticipating the birth of Christ, and planting these stories to confuse and confound mankind when Jesus finally did arrive (Justin Martyr, The First Apology Of Justin):
"...For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvellous tales... And these things (the things about the Christ) were said both among the Greeks and among all nations where they [the demons] heard the prophets foretelling that Christ would specially be believed in..."
Answer for yourself: What can we learn from this?
In short, by recognizing the similarities between Christian myths and pagan ones, the Apology of Justin provides clear reason to doubt the existence of Jesus Christ as anything other than a legendary hero, in the vein of any number of other mythical god-men. What we find when we do other studies is that the "Jesus Story" in our 4 Gospels is a radical reinterpretation by Irenaeus and others who have lost or denied the gnosis of the indwelling Christ in humanity and in its place substituted what is make to look like a supposed "literal" and "historical" Christ; although clumsily done as perceived by all who take the time to do such studies. What might pass for truth in the darkness of the 2nd century to the common rarely if ever today escapes scrutiny in this age of modern scholarship and information. Doing such studies prove beyond any doubt the incompetence of these early Church Fathers to decide anything regarding Faith or Belief for humanity let alone those who desire to follow "the Christ".
Theophilus of Antioch (c. 117-181 CE) was one of the first of the second century Christian writers (Theophilus, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1902). However, at not time, including in his discussion of rituals or Christian belief does he ever mention Jesus Christ - who supposedly had died and been resurrected only a century before. Similarly, he makes no mention of the cross or crucifixion, the virgin birth or Paul. Although supposedly writing after Justin Martyr, Theophilus seems to describe a very different Christianity from what we received today. (Rick Rogers, Theophilus of Antioch, Lexington Books).
Athengoras of Athens (c. 177 CE) was one of the first of the second century Christian writers (Athengoras, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1902). None of his writings mention Jesus Christ. Athenagoras speaks of the Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit (X) - but his description of "the Son of God" is as Logos and not as a historical (or even contemporary) person. Jesus is not mentioned. Although Athengoras implies something approaching the eucharist (III), his description of the Logos of the "Son of God" is most striking:
"...He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind, had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos; but in as much as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth... The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. "The Lord," it says, "made me, the beginning of His ways to His works." The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points; but we recognise also a multitude of angels and ministers, whom God the Maker and Framer of the world distributed and appointed to their several posts by His Logos, to occupy themselves about the elements, and the heavens, and the world, and the things in it, and the goodly ordering of them all."
More in keeping with the truth about "the Christ", gives us a description of a mystical and intangible being - not of a person. Athengoras makes no mention of Scripture - or of Jesus Christ, his lineage, life, crucifixion, death or resurrection. Again, rather surprising given the common belief that our 4 Gospels had been in existence in his day some 100 years or more.
Athengoras's second surviving work is On the Resurrection of the Dead. He writes at length about the issues of bodily dismemberment and decay (IV and V); the power of God (II and III), resurrection in a new body (VII); the primacy of man and God's creation (IX -XII, XIX-XXIV). However, once again he makes no mention of Jesus or of his crucifixion, resurrection or promise of eternal life. While the work could be considered a mere theological discussion on the power of God, it seems remarkable that only a century or so after Jesus probably dies, no mention is made of Jesus Christ.
So, if you noticed, we see that like his contemporary Theophilus, Athengoras describes a Christianity without a "personal, historical, or literal" Christ.
At the same time, he declared that the strong belief of Christians that angels have been distributed by the Logos throughout the universe, and that they were kept busy regulating the whole (Legatio pro Christ., x). Some of the angels loved the daughters of men, and fell, and thus were begotten giants, or demons (Ibid., xxiv). These last roamed about the world, performing the evil deeds peculiar to their natures (Ibid., xxv.).
Tertullian believed that the hyena changed its sex (De Pallio, 3), and that the stag renewed its youth by eating poisonous snakes (Ad Scap., 3), and that eclipses and comets were signs of God's anger and forerunners of national disasters (Ad Scap., 3), and that volcanoes were openings into hell (De Penitentia, 12), and that the volcanic condition was a punishment inflicted on the mountains to serve as a warning to the wicked (De Penitentia, 12), that demons sent diseases upon the bodies of men (Apol., 22), blighted apples and grain (Apol., 22), and produced accidents and untimely death (De Anima, 57). He said that a corpse in a cemetery once kindly moved to make room for another corpse to be placed beside it (Ibid., 51).
Answer for yourself: Did you catch the above? We have been talking about the "big shots" in the history of early Christianity which crafted much of the Christian theology we yet hear in our Churches today and it seems they were highly steeped in superstition more than truth. I don't know about you but how can you trust such a one with such judgment and beliefs for anything of a Spiritual nature? This sounds more like X-files than the Holy Spirit.
Clement of Alexandria (220 A.D.) said that hail storms, tempests, and plagues were caused by demons (Strom., vi. 3), that credulity was necessary to render faith easy (Strom., ii. 6), and that events in the life of Abraham were typical and prophetical of arithmetic and astronomy (Ibid., vi 11). He kindly allowed that Jews and Gentile would have the gospel preached to them in hell thus accepting another sun-myth (Strom., vi. 6). Clement's imagination was naturally lascivious. His chapter on the immodesty of Pagan women in the bath (Paedag., iii. 5) betrays his hatred for the upper classes and shows that if a bishop in the Church could use such language, the early Christians of Alexandria must have been from the very lowest grades of society. While this indignant at the supposed wickedness of the heathen, he wrote a book so unseemly (Strom., iii) that the English editors did not venture to translate it, and in it he quotes probably more from the Bible than in any of his other books.
Origen (254 A.D.) said that the sun, moon, and stars were living creatures, endowed with reason and free will, and occasionally inclined to sin (De Princip., i. 7). One should only wonder when the moon "sinned" and what great sin it was let alone, God forbid, Mars or Jupiter. He was not certain if the celestial orbs and their "souls" were created at the same time as their initial creation. The light emitted by them was not the reflection of the sun, but light from knowledge and wisdom as reflected from the Eternal light. He maintained the stars and planets had "free will" and that they were rational creatures because they moved in the sky (De Princip., i. 7). The sun, moon, and stars, according to him, were "subject to vanity" (De Princip., i. 7), and they prayed to God through his only begotten Son (Contra Celsum, v. 11).
Answer for yourself: Did you catch that? Again, I don't know about you but how can you trust such a one with such judgment and beliefs for anything of a spiritual nature? This sounds more like X-files than the Holy Spirit.
Origin maintains that famine, the blighting of vines and fruit trees, and the destruction of beasts and men, were all the work of demons (Contra Celsum, viii. 31).
Lactantius (325 A.D.) believed that demons entered men and injured them through the viscera, producing diseases and mental distempters (Epitome of the Divine Institutes, 28), but that the sign of the cross (from sun worship) would drive them away (Divine Institutes, vi. 27). Well, that makes me feel better.
Cyril of Jerusalem (386 A.D.). quoted from Clement the story of the phoenix, and declared that God had created the bird expressly to enable men to believe in the resurrection (Catech., xviii. 8). He said it was a wonderful bird; and yet it was irrational-it did not sing psalms to God, and it knew nothing of His only begotten Son (Ibid., 244).
Answer for yourself: Did you catch that? Again, I don't know about you but how can you trust such a one with such judgment and beliefs for anything of a Spiritual nature? Of course the bird would not know of the Son of God had it existed in the first place; it was a bird in the first place!
St. Chrysostom (407 A.D.) believed the air was filled with angels (In Ascens., J.C.). Jerome (430 A.D.) believed just the opposite; that the air was filled with demons (Epis. To Ephes., iii.6).
Now we come to the real big theologian of all theologians, St. Augustine's (430 A.D.) New Testament was the same as ours today. Now we begin to see conformity of New Testament texts after the influence of St. Augustine. The influence of St. Augustine in establishing the Bible was greater probably than any other Father or than any council. People now attribute to God what was really the work of one man. But when we really study the man his judgment is not to be trusted in anything let alone the selection of the canon or the creation of Christian doctrine of which he is credited. Just read this and think.
The incredible and very ridiculous stories related by Christian Fathers and ecclesiastical historians, on whom we are obliged to rely for information on the most important of subjects, show us how untrustworthy these men were. We have, for instance, the story related by St. Augustine, who is styled "the greatest of the Latin Fathers," of his preaching the Gospel to people without heads. In his 33d Sermon he says: 'I was already Bishop of Hippo, when I went into Ethiopia with some servants of Christ there to preach the Gospel. In this country we saw many men and women without heads, who had two great eyes in their breasts; and in countless still more southly, we saw people who had but one eye in their foreheads'" (Taylor, Syntagma, p. 52).
Answer for yourself: Knowing that the dogma of original sin was given to us by Augustine who is preaching to people without heads and eyes in their breast and eyes in their foreheads along with the dogma of original sin that damns the whole of mankind then is it any wonder that such a terrible dogma was never taught in Judaism or many other major world religions in antiquity? How comfortable should we be accepting Augustine's theology of original sin that damns all babies and people to hell for just being born? Not very much if you ask me. Especially, since the Bible teaches us that man is created in the image of God and not devils. Now, more than likely, knowing this tid-bit of information about Augustine brings into great doubt his credibility and alerts us that he should not be trusted nor his contemporaries and their ideas about Jesus Christ as a supposed "literal" and "historical" person who saves us from original sin. Then how does his piece of knowledge impact what we have been taught the death of this New Testament Jesus and that is supposedly pays our sin debt racked up by original sin? It sure makes you want to study Christianity to get to the bottom of what lies behind the "Jesus Story"; a story that can be found today carved on the walls of Egyptian temples over 5,000 years B.C.E.! Surely we have missed something accepting the Roman Christian message.
Answer for yourself: How can you trust such a man to determine for you what books are to be in your New Testament let alone the Bible? Did the Holy Spirit have an off day when St. Augustine preached to people with one-eye in each breast or when he preached to people without heads or who had only one eye in their foreheads, but yet led St. Augustine into all truth concerning the canon for us today? Is this man trustworthy and what about the vast other stuff he said, or does this information impugn every thing he ever said and wrote?
St. Augustine (430 A.D.) likewise believed in demons. They tried to deceive men by persuading them that they were gods (De Civit. Del., viii. 22). They were called demons from the Greek "daimones" on account of their knowledge. To the early Fathers exact learning was devilish. Reading this web-page would make you a candidate for being declared "possessed."
Answer for yourself: Can you imagine that after reading what you just read?
St. Augustine also believed that there was also a class of satyrs and fauns called "Incubi," to whose lascivious attacks and sexual rape women were constantly subject. Hollywood would have loved this and in fact has made several movies about this phenomena. As if that was not enough he also believed that demons termed by the Gauls "Dusii" perpetrated daily the same uncleanness. He maintained that there was so much trustworthy evidence that to deny it was an impertinence (Ibid., xv. 23). So real and so universal was the belief in these lewd spirits that, in 1894, Innocent VIII issued a Papal bull against these spirits. Incredible!
The erroneous and grotesque beliefs of the Christian Fathers could be quoted until they filled a large volume, but these few will illustrate the intellectual condition of the ages which originated and transmitted the New Testament to us. It will be said that the Fathers were as good as their times. That can not be maintained. They were not even as good. In short, the sum of the charge against the Fathers is that they were not competent to tell what was evidence of a fact and what was not. They cited as evidence of a theory things which are not in the slightest degree such, and they would look directly into the face of evidence which established theories they did not endorse, and would still be unable to see that it was evidence. Now, if the Fathers were great scholars, like you have been led to believe, they would not have been so persistently in the wrong. They should have see the truth at least as easily as the others did; like the Jewish scholars and Rabbis for instance. What has become of the names and the memories of the men in those day who had the truth and stood up for the truth against such absurdity? Are they even yet called great? The Christian Church has been honoring the wrong persons.
Admitting, for the sake of argument, that these Christian Fathers were as great as their time, I deny that they or their age were competent to form a Bible for their age.
But one apology has ever been made for these remarkable errors of the Fathers, and that is "spiritual insight." Christian defenders say that, while the Fathers were ignorant, stupid, limited in intelligence, and even superstitious, they were yet "gifted with great spiritual insight." This term signifies the possibility of perceiving something which does not exist and where it does not exist. It is synonymous with "unlimited credulity."
Not alone in nature, but also in literature, the Fathers were ignorant and unscholarly. Jerome and Origen were the only ones who could read Hebrew (Davidson, On The Canon, of the Bible, p. 170). Justin Martyr quotes from Jeremiah and calls it Isaiah (Apol. i. 54). Clement of Alexandria quotes as Scripture passages which are not in the Bible at all (Strom., ii 6). He quotes as Paul's, words which are not in Paul (Strom., vi. 5). In quoting from an opponent he would insert words not in the original (Strom., ii. 4), and he even does the same in quoting from the Bible (On Chastity, vii). Tertullian quotes as in Leviticus a passage not in that book (On Monogamy, vi.). He misquotes history (Strom., iv. 26). Tertullian cites as Isaiah a passage not in that book, but in Revelation (On Modesty, vi). Besides that he is frequently inaccurate in a great number of his quotations.
The Gospel writers, supposedly under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, committed the same blunders. The man who wrote the Gospel of Matthew attributes to Jeremiah (Matt. 27:9) a passage which is in Zechariah (Zech. 11:12-13). The writer of the Gospel of Mark attributes to Isaiah (Mark. 1:2) a passage which is in Malachi (Mal. 3:1). The early manuscripts insert the name of Isaiah as the authority but the later ones omitted it because it was such a clear error.
One curious illustration of this, and of how sacred books are formed, is seen in the excess of the Catholic over the Protestant Bible. The former has quite a number of books which are not in the latter; such as the two of Maccabees and the Song of the Three Children-which Protestants call the apocryphal Old Testament, but which Catholics consider as much the word of God as any other books. The ancient Jews did not consider these authoritative, and the Palestinian Jews did not include them in the sacred collection. The Greek Jews, however, thought more of them, and the Alexandrian Jews placed them in an appendix to the Greek canons as the end of their Bibles, the same as they used to be printed in our old Bibles. The early Christians of Africa could not read Hebrew; they had to use the Greek manuscripts, and as they saw the apocryphal books in the collection, they supposed they were a part of it. The result was that the early Bible-makers in the African church included the apocryphal books because they were not intelligent enough to leave them out (Davidson, On The Canon of the Bible, p. 83). St. Augustine included them because he found them there, and the Catholic Church retained them because St. Augustine did.
So, there you have a rather quick over-view on the competency of those who chose the books for the New Testament, added and subtracted books, added to them as well as took from them, edited them, and were responsible for the New Testament as we have it today. Honestly, these accounts do not foster confidence in the teachings expressed in our New Testament. The years of study invested by me has shown me the utter unreliability of the New Testament for one's faith and practice of such faith; let alone a plan of salvation for the world to come. It is my hope after your examination of our other web-sites where we detail the multiple errors, the purposeful misquotations, mistranslations, and verses lifted out of context from the Old Testament and show you how they where used completely in a different way in the New Testament along with supposed prophetic authority, that you are coming to see how the faith of Jesus was perverted by the early Gentile Church. This article is just another puzzle part for surely after reading this you should have many doubts about the competency of those who chose for you what was and was not God's Word, and those affiliated with the movements these men represented. Hopefully you are becoming more serious in your study into why we were given a New Testament in the first place; let alone be given a Bible that replaced the one Jesus read.
As you close you might be wondering what we missed in accepting without study and without question our current New Testament with is imposed "historical" and "literal" interpretation. Simply said, we missed the truth of our own True Being before God. Gnosticism's Christian form grew to prominence in the 2nd century A.D. Ultimately denounced as heretical by the early church, Gnosticism proposed a revealed knowledge of God ("gnosis" meaning "knowledge" in Greek), held as a secret tradition of the true followers of "the Krst/Christ". This is "the Christ" that Paul taught in his 7 authentic epistles; not the one which Rome will later forge and teach in his name. In The Gnostic Gospels, author Elaine Pagels suggests that Christianity could have developed quite differently if Gnostic texts had become part of the Christian canon. Oh, what a true statement. Without a doubt Gnosticism celebrates God as both Mother and Father, and depicts suggests the Resurrection is better understood symbolically as an awakeining of a person to his "True Being" as a divine creature sent far from his Father's house in need of experiences that further evolves his Soul and Being and in so doing speaks to self-knowledge as the route to union with God. Pagels argues masterfully argues in her book that Roman Christian orthodoxy and our current New Testament grew out of the political considerations of the day, serving to legitimize and consolidate early church leadership centered in the Bishop.
We truly live in a wonderful time since many ancient scriptures once hidden in vessels and buried in Egypt were unearthed in 1945 revealing information regarding a Christian sect called the Christian Gnostics that predated the rise of Roman orthodoxy by two or more centuries. Their writings indicate that they held views in striking contrast to the later developing "literal" and "historical" orthodox Christianity. In fact this discovery coupled with the reconstruction of Marcion's first New Testament totally destroyed by Rome teach us the value of self knowledge as the avenue to God. Let us not forget that the Kingdom of God lies "within" and not "without". These earliest Christian Gnostics did not adhere to the concept of a virgin birth, rejected the notion of the Trinity and of Jesus as anything other than the personification of humanity, considered the resurrection symbolic, the kingdom of heaven a state of mind, and viewed women as spiritual equals as indicated by the prominence given Mary Magedelene in the Gnostic Scriptures. Not surprisingly, the orthodox Christian church destroyed most of the Gnostic writings and in their place gave the world their own "interpretation" and "edition" of the Second New Testament which is one we currently possess in our Bibles. Alas, we have lost so much and our Spiritual evolution of our True Self has been set back at least two millennia to date. But you need not waste another moment in returning to your Father's House. Study, enlightenment, and self-knowledge and self-awareness of one's True Being and Spiritual Self is the "ticket" home. Today, like never before, we have the capacity to get back on the right track for the Spiritual evolution of our Soul. It is my prayer and hope that you take advantage of such opportunity for we are are called to evolve into the "fullness and stature" of Christ; something impossible unless we have the truth.
