quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:
It's a parable. It is understood as nonfiction, not a biography.

The parable is a non-fiction story within the biographical story of Jesus' existence.

I almost assumed you were going to demonstrate Jesus as being the prodigal son. Because of the context of the discussion, this part stood out...

quote:

24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.'

But then I read your statement and understood it as an example of God's love.

However, this doesn't address for me, the pure sacrificial love.

We call it a parable. Jesus doesn't. Further, the texts that it is found in is called "gospels" not biographies. Moreover, the earliest mention of Jesus in the canon are from Paul, who never meet the man, and says nothing about his family, where he was born, where he grew up, etc. The gospels are written many more than a few decades after Jesus crucifixion, and differ in important ways, one from another.

Finally, you still have not explained what you mean by sacrificial love and why it is important. Please define how you are using this nomenclature. What exactly is your theory of atonement.

quote:

Originally posted by Kocolicious:

quote:

Originally posted by Kresge:
Finally, you still have not explained what you mean by sacrificial love and why it is important. Please define how you are using this nomenclature. What exactly is your theory of atonement.

Most of the theories of atonement are in error. If I was forced to choose one, I would choose penal substitution (with a few slight modifications). The first thing I would change is the belief that the sacrifice was a punishment. For one, I don't think God sadomasochistically punishes Himself, in order to repay Himself, for something He did not will.

For the most part, we are in agreement as far as Jesus being a vessel/bridge between humans and God... right?

So I'll shift gears and try to explain my premise this way. What is missing in this discussion of man or myth, is the prophetic nature of the bible. It's prophecies reach before Jesus and beyond. Important to this discussion is before Jesus. Why would David, Isaiah, and company waste all that ink, and all that paper, detailing the coming of a person who has never, and will never exist? In many cases the prophecies of these men were sponsored by God. God does not lie or repent.

-------------------------------------

Sacrificial love is important because without it, there is no bridge.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:

quote:

quote:
posted by Kresge:



Truth is undoubtedly the sort of error that cannot be refuted because it was hardened into an unalterable form in the long baking process of history... Michel Foucault

.... just a fly on the wall Brotha K.

For the literalists... although I don't take this info as 'gospel'... pun intended...

The Forged Origins of The New Testament

In the fourth century, the Roman Emperor Constantine united all religious factions under one composite deity, and ordered the compilation of new and old writings into a uniform collection that became the New Testament.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 14, Number 4 (June - July 2007)
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editor@nexusmagazine.com
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com

by Tony Bushby © March 2007
Correspondence:
c/- NEXUS Magazine
PO Box 30, Mapleton, Qld 4560, Australia
Fax: +61 (0)7 5493 1900


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What the Church doesn't want you to know
It has often been emphasised that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical realities. The Church agrees, saying:
"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)

The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6). This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ. In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD" (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7). That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history. There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time.

It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or Custennin) (272-337) who authorised the compilation of the writings now called the New Testament. After the death of his father in 306, Constantine became King of Britain, Gaul and Spain, and then, after a series of victorious battles, Emperor of the Roman Empire. Christian historians give little or no hint of the turmoil of the times and suspend Constantine in the air, free of all human events happening around him. In truth, one of Constantine's main problems was the uncontrollable disorder amongst presbyters and their belief in numerous gods.
The majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress the truth about the development of their religion and conceal Constantine's efforts to curb the disreputable character of the presbyters who are now called "Church Fathers" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1). They were "maddened", he said (Life of Constantine, attributed to Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171; The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, cited as N&PNF, attributed to St Ambrose, Rev. Prof. Roberts, DD, and Principal James Donaldson, LLD, editors, 1891, vol. iv, p. 467). The "peculiar type of oratory" expounded by them was a challenge to a settled religious order (The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, Oskar Seyffert, Gramercy, New York, 1995, pp. 544-5). Ancient records reveal the true nature of the presbyters, and the low regard in which they were held has been subtly suppressed by modern Church historians. In reality, they were:
"...the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses ... they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets ... they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables ... and still the less do they understand ... and they write nonsense on vellum ... and still be doing, never done."
(Contra Celsum ["Against Celsus"], Origen of Alexandria, c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim)

Clusters of presbyters had developed "many gods and many lords" (1 Cor. 8:5) and numerous religious sects existed, each with differing doctrines (Gal. 1:6). Presbyterial groups clashed over attributes of their various gods and "altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience (Optatus of Milevis, 1:15, 19, early fourth century). From Constantine's point of view, there were several factions that needed satisfying, and he set out to develop an all-embracing religion during a period of irreverent confusion. In an age of crass ignorance, with nine-tenths of the peoples of Europe illiterate, stabilising religious splinter groups was only one of Constantine's problems. The smooth generalisation, which so many historians are content to repeat, that Constantine "embraced the Christian religion" and subsequently granted "official toleration", is "contrary to historical fact" and should be erased from our literature forever (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. iii, p. 299, passim). Simply put, there was no Christian religion at Constantine's time, and the Church acknowledges that the tale of his "conversion" and "baptism" are "entirely legendary" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).
Constantine "never acquired a solid theological knowledge" and "depended heavily on his advisers in religious questions" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. xii, p. 576, passim). According to Eusebeius (260-339), Constantine noted that among the presbyterian factions "strife had grown so serious, vigorous action was necessary to establish a more religious state", but he could not bring about a settlement between rival god factions (Life of Constantine, op. cit., pp. 26-8). His advisers warned him that the presbyters' religions were "destitute of foundation" and needed official stabilisation (ibid.).
Constantine saw in this confused system of fragmented dogmas the opportunity to create a new and combined State religion, neutral in concept, and to protect it by law. When he conquered the East in 324 he sent his Spanish religious adviser, Osius of Córdoba, to Alexandria with letters to several bishops exhorting them to make peace among themselves. The mission failed and Constantine, probably at the suggestion 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 Bithynia in Asia Minor. They were instructed to bring with them the testimonies they orated to the rabble, "bound in leather" for protection during the long journey, and surrender them to Constantine upon arrival in Nicaea (The Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1917, "Council of Nicaea" entry). Their writings totalled "in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviours, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them" (Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518).

The First Council of Nicaea and the "missing records"
Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate. About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598). In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said, "Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing" (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).
This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as "a set of gibbering idiots" (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, "On Councils" entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that "the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronised the vilest abominations" (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the theological creation of Jesus Christ.
The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are "strangely absent from the canons" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly what happened to them. However, according to records that endured, Eusebius "occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor's behalf" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620). There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. "Seventy Eastern bishops" represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical History, ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage travelled from Africa, Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia.

It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 "bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). By this time, a huge assortment of "wild texts" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, "Gospel and Gospels") circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses: Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo, Fragapatti, Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus, Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis, Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph, Saturn, Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes (God's Book of Eskra, anon., ch. xlviii, paragraph 36).
Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods-Apollo and Zeus-but the great bulk of common people idolised either Julius Caesar or Mithras (the Romanised version of the Persian deity Mithra). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death (15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as "the Divine Julius". The word "Saviour" was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being "one who sows the seed", i.e., he was a phallic god. Julius Caesar was hailed as "God made manifest and universal Saviour of human life", and his successor Augustus was called the "ancestral God and Saviour of the whole human race" (Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952). Emperor Nero (54-68), whose original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (37-68), was immortalised on his coins as the "Saviour of mankind" (ibid.). The Divine Julius as Roman Saviour and "Father of the Empire" was considered "God" among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was the deity in some Western presbyters' texts, but was not recognised in Eastern or Oriental writings.

Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion. "As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter... For one year and five months the balloting lasted..." (God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).
At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects: Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325). Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Saviour-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god. A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite. That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion; and because there was no letter "J" in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into "Jesus Christ".

How the Gospels were created
Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organise the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were:
"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39). Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars. Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story. Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce "fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art" (ibid.). "These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms" (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36). They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.
With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the "word of the Roman Saviour God" (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonising in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council "burnt" and declared that "any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders" (beheaded) (ibid.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.
Some council records also survived, and they provide alarming ramifications for the Church.Some old documents say that the First Council of Nicaea ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle to establish a god was so fierce that it extended "for four years and seven months" from its beginning in June 325 (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title "Great and Holy Synod", assigned to the assembly by the Church in the 18th century. Earlier Churchmen, however, expressed a different opinion.

The Second Council of Nicaea in 786-87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as "a synod of fools and madmen" and sought to annul "decisions passed by men with troubled brains" (History of the Christian Church, H. H. Milman, DD, 1871). If one chooses to read the records of the Second Nicaean Council and notes references to "affrighted bishops" and the "soldiery" needed to "quell proceedings", the "fools and madmen" declaration is surely an example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called pagan beliefs into a new religious system brought many converts. Later Church writers made him "the great champion of Christianity" which he gave "legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire" (Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, New York, 1994, p. 86). Historical records reveal this to be incorrect, for it was "self-interest" that led him to create Christianity (A Smaller Classical Dictionary, J. M. Dent, London, 1910, p. 161). Yet it wasn't called "Christianity" until the 15th century (How The Great Pan Died, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux [Vatican archivist], Mille Meditations, USA, MCMLXVIII, pp. 45-7).
Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine's New Testimonies were expanded upon, "interpolations" were added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122). For example, in 397 John "golden-mouthed" Chrysostom restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and made them part of the New Testimonies (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). The Latinised name for Apollonius is Paulus (A Latin-English Dictionary, J. T. White and J. E. Riddle, Ginn & Heath, Boston, 1880), and the Church today calls those writings the Epistles of Paul. Apollonius's personal attendant, Damis, an Assyrian scribe, is Demis in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:10).

The Church hierarchy knows the truth about the origin of its Epistles, for Cardinal Bembo (d. 1547), secretary to Pope Leo X (d. 1521), advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto, to disregard them, saying "put away these trifles, for such absurdities do not become a man of dignity; they were introduced on the scene later by a sly voice from heaven" (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, A. L. Collins, London, 1842 reprint).
The Church admits that the Epistles of Paul are forgeries, saying, "Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645). Likewise, St Jerome (d. 420) declared that the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book of the New Testament, was also "falsely written" ("The Letters of Jerome", Library of the Fathers, Oxford Movement, 1833-45, vol. v, p. 445).

The shock discovery of an ancient Bible
The New Testament subsequently evolved into a fulsome piece of priesthood propaganda, and the Church claimed it recorded the intervention of a divine Jesus Christ into Earthly affairs. However, a spectacular discovery in a remote Egyptian monastery revealed to the world the extent of later falsifications of the Christian texts, themselves only an "assemblage of legendary tales" (Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759). On 4 February 1859, 346 leaves of an ancient codex were discovered in the furnace room at St Catherine's monastery at Mt Sinai, and its contents sent shockwaves through the Christian world. Along with other old codices, it was scheduled to be burned in the kilns to provide winter warmth for the inhabitants of the monastery. Written in Greek on donkey skins, it carried both the Old and New Testaments, and later in time archaeologists dated its composition to around the year 380. It was discovered by Dr Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874), a brilliant and pious German biblical scholar, and he called it the Sinaiticus, the Sinai Bible. Tischendorf was a professor of theology who devoted his entire life to the study of New Testament origins, and his desire to read all the ancient Christian texts led him on the long, camel-mounted journey to St Catherine's Monastery.
During his lifetime, Tischendorf had access to other ancient Bibles unavailable to the public, such as the Alexandrian (or Alexandrinus) Bible, believed to be the second oldest Bible in the world. It was so named because in 1627 it was taken from Alexandria to Britain and gifted to King Charles I (1600-49). Today it is displayed alongside the world's oldest known Bible, the Sinaiticus, in the British Library in London. During his research, Tischendorf had access to the Vaticanus, the Vatican Bible, believed to be the third oldest in the world and dated to the mid-sixth century (The Various Versions of the Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1874, available in the British Library). It was locked away in the Vatican's inner library. Tischendorf asked if he could extract handwritten notes, but his request was declined. However, when his guard took refreshment breaks, Tischendorf wrote comparative narratives on the palm of his hand and sometimes on his fingernails ("Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?", Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, lecture, 1869, available in the British Library).

Today, there are several other Bibles written in various languages during the fifth and sixth centuries, examples being the Syriacus, the Cantabrigiensis (Bezae), the Sarravianus and the Marchalianus.
A shudder of apprehension echoed through Christendom in the last quarter of the 19th century when English-language versions of the Sinai Bible were published. Recorded within these pages is information that disputes Christianity's claim of historicity. Christians were provided with irrefutable evidence of wilful falsifications in all modern New Testaments. So different was the Sinai Bible's New Testament from versions then being published that the Church angrily tried to annul the dramatic new evidence that challenged its very existence. In a series of articles published in the London Quarterly Review in 1883, John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, used every rhetorical device at his disposal to attack the Sinaiticus' earlier and opposing story of Jesus Christ, saying that "...without a particle of hesitation, the Sinaiticus is scandalously corrupt ... exhibiting the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with; they have become, by whatever process, the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders and intentional perversions of the truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of God". Dean Burgon's concerns mirror opposing aspects of Gospel stories then current, having by now evolved to a new stage through centuries of tampering with the fabric of an already unhistorical document.

The revelations of ultraviolet light testing
In 1933, the British Museum in London purchased the Sinai Bible from the Soviet government for £100,000, of which £65,000 was gifted by public subscription. Prior to the acquisition, this Bible was displayed in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg, Russia, and "few scholars had set eyes on it" (The Daily Telegraph and Morning Post, 11 January 1938, p. 3). When it went on display in 1933 as "the oldest Bible in the world" (ibid.), it became the centre of a pilgrimage unequalled in the history of the British Museum.
Before I summarise its conflictions, it should be noted that this old codex is by no means a reliable guide to New Testament study as it contains superabundant errors and serious re-editing. These anomalies were exposed as a result of the months of ultraviolet-light tests carried out at the British Museum in the mid-1930s. The findings revealed replacements of numerous passages by at least nine different editors. Photographs taken during testing revealed that ink pigments had been retained deep in the pores of the skin. The original words were readable under ultraviolet light. Anybody wishing to read the results of the tests should refer to the book written by the researchers who did the analysis: the Keepers of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938).

Forgery in the Gospels
When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified. These amendments can be recognised by a simple comparative exercise that anybody can and should do. Serious study of Christian origins must emanate from the Sinai Bible's version of the New Testament, not modern editions.
Of importance is the fact that the Sinaiticus carries three Gospels since rejected: the Shepherd of Hermas (written by two resurrected ghosts, Charinus and Lenthius), the Missive of Barnabas and the Odes of Solomon. Space excludes elaboration on these bizarre writings and also discussion on dilemmas associated with translation variations.
Modern Bibles are five removes in translation from early editions, and disputes rage between translators over variant interpretations of more than 5,000 ancient words. However, it is what is not written in that old Bible that embarrasses the Church, and this article discusses only a few of those omissions. One glaring example is subtly revealed in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899, vol. iii, p. 3344), where the Church divulges its knowledge about exclusions in old Bibles, saying: "The remark has long ago and often been made that, like Paul, even the earliest Gospels knew nothing of the miraculous birth of our Saviour". That is because there never was a virgin birth.
It is apparent that when Eusebius assembled scribes to write the New Testimonies, he first produced a single document that provided an exemplar or master version. Today it is called the Gospel of Mark, and the Church admits that it was "the first Gospel written" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 657), even though it appears second in the New Testament today. The scribes of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were dependent upon the Mark writing as the source and framework for the compilation of their works. The Gospel of John is independent of those writings, and the late-15th-century theory that it was written later to support the earlier writings is the truth (The Crucifixion of Truth, Tony Bushby, Joshua Books, 2004, pp. 33-40).

Thus, the Gospel of Mark in the Sinai Bible carries the "first" story of Jesus Christ in history, one completely different to what is in modern Bibles. It starts with Jesus "at about the age of thirty" (Mark 1:9), and doesn't know of Mary, a virgin birth or mass murders of baby boys by Herod. Words describing Jesus Christ as "the son of God" do not appear in the opening narrative as they do in today's editions (Mark 1:1), and the modern-day family tree tracing a "messianic bloodline" back to King David is non-existent in all ancient Bibles, as are the now-called "messianic prophecies" (51 in total). The Sinai Bible carries a conflicting version of events surrounding the "raising of Lazarus", and reveals an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ and his ascension into Heaven. No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).
Despite a multitude of long-drawn-out self-justifications by Church apologists, there is no unanimity of Christian opinion regarding the non-existence of "resurrection" appearances in ancient Gospel accounts of the story. Not only are those narratives missing in the Sinai Bible, but they are absent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark, code-named "K" by analysts. They are also lacking in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, in sixth-century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version and ninth-century Anglo-Saxon Bibles. However, some 12th-century Gospels have the now-known resurrection verses written within asterisksÑmarks used by scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document.

The Church claims that "the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available. A resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non ("without which, nothing") of Christianity (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), confirmed by words attributed to Paul: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain" (1 Cor. 5:17). The resurrection verses in today's Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying "the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation" (Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading "The Evidence of its Spuriousness"; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading "Canons"). Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity.
The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues. The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus' resurrection to his disciples. The Church admits: "The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).

"The Great Insertion" and "The Great Omission"
Modern-day versions of the Gospel of Luke have a staggering 10,000 more words than the same Gospel in the Sinai Bible. Six of those words say of Jesus "and was carried up into heaven", but this narrative does not appear in any of the oldest Gospels of Luke available today ("Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels", F. C. Conybeare, The Hibbert Journal, London, vol. 1, no. 1, Oct 1902, pp. 96-113). Ancient versions do not verify modern-day accounts of an ascension of Jesus Christ, and this falsification clearly indicates an intention to deceive.
Today, the Gospel of Luke is the longest of the canonical Gospels because it now includes "The Great Insertion", an extraordinary 15th-century addition totalling around 8,500 words (Luke 9:51-18:14). The insertion of these forgeries into that Gospel bewilders modern Christian analysts, and of them the Church said: "The character of these passages makes it dangerous to draw inferences" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. ii, p. 407).
Just as remarkable, the oldest Gospels of Luke omit all verses from 6:45 to 8:26, known in priesthood circles as "The Great Omission", a total of 1,547 words. In today's versions, that hole has been "plugged up" with passages plagiarised from other Gospels. Dr Tischendorf found that three paragraphs in newer versions of the Gospel of Luke's version of the Last Supper appeared in the 15th century, but the Church still passes its Gospels off as the unadulterated "word of God" ("Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?", op. cit.)

The "Expurgatory Index"
As was the case with the New Testament, so also were damaging writings of early "Church Fathers" modified in centuries of copying, and many of their records were intentionally rewritten or suppressed.
Adopting the decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-63), the Church subsequently extended the process of erasure and ordered the preparation of a special list of specific information to be expunged from early Christian writings (Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Rev. Charles Elliott, DD, G. Lane & P. P. Sandford, New York, 1842, p. 89; also, The Vatican Censors, Professor Peter Elmsley, Oxford, p. 327, pub. date n/a).
In 1562, the Vatican established a special censoring office called Index Expurgatorius. Its purpose was to prohibit publication of "erroneous passages of the early Church Fathers" that carried statements opposing modern-day doctrine.
When Vatican archivists came across "genuine copies of the Fathers, they corrected them according to the Expurgatory Index" (Index Expurgatorius Vaticanus, R. Gibbings, ed., Dublin, 1837; The Literary Policy of the Church of Rome, Joseph Mendham, J. Duncan, London, 1830, 2nd ed., 1840; The Vatican Censors, op. cit., p. 328). This Church record provides researchers with "grave doubts about the value of all patristic writings released to the public" (The Propaganda Press of Rome, Sir James W. L. Claxton, Whitehaven Books, London, 1942, p. 182).
Important for our story is the fact that the Encyclopaedia Biblica reveals that around 1,200 years of Christian history are unknown: "Unfortunately, only few of the records [of the Church] prior to the year 1198 have been released". It was not by chance that, in that same year (1198), Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) suppressed all records of earlier Church history by establishing the Secret Archives (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xv, p. 287). Some seven-and-a-half centuries later, and after spending some years in those Archives, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux wrote How The Great Pan Died. In a chapter titled "The Whole of Church History is Nothing but a Retroactive Fabrication", he said this (in part):
"The Church ante-dated all her late works, some newly made, some revised and some counterfeited, which contained the final expression of her history ... her technique was to make it appear that much later works written by Church writers were composed a long time earlier, so that they might become evidence of the first, second or third centuries."
(How The Great Pan Died, op. cit., p. 46)

Supporting Professor Bordeaux's findings is the fact that, in 1587, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) established an official Vatican publishing division and said in his own words, "Church history will be now be established ... we shall seek to print our own account"Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759). Vatican records also reveal that Sixtus V spent 18 months of his life as pope personally writing a new Bible and then introduced into Catholicism a "New Learning" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, p. 442, vol. xv, p. 376). The evidence that the Church wrote its own history is found in Diderot's Encyclopédie, and it reveals the reason why Pope Clement XIII (1758-69) ordered all volumes to be destroyed immediately after publication in 1759.

Gospel authors exposed as imposters
There is something else involved in this scenario and it is recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia. An appreciation of the clerical mindset arises when the Church itself admits that it does not know who wrote its Gospels and Epistles, confessing that all 27 New Testament writings began life anonymously:
"It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves ... they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

The Church maintains that "the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship", adding that "the headings ... were affixed to them" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. i, p. 117, vol. vi, pp. 655, 656). Therefore they are not Gospels written "according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John", as publicly stated. The full force of this confession reveals that there are no genuine apostolic Gospels, and that the Church's shadowy writings today embody the very ground and pillar of Christian foundations and faith. The consequences are fatal to the pretence of Divine origin of the entire New Testament and expose Christian texts as having no special authority. For centuries, fabricated Gospels bore Church certification of authenticity now confessed to be false, and this provides evidence that Christian writings are wholly fallacious.
After years of dedicated New Testament research, Dr Tischendorf expressed dismay at the differences between the oldest and newest Gospels, and had trouble understanding...
"...how scribes could allow themselves to bring in here and there changes which were not simply verbal ones, but such as materially affected the very meaning and, what is worse still, did not shrink from cutting out a passage or inserting one."
(Alterations to the Sinai Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1863, available in the British Library, London)

After years of validating the fabricated nature of the New Testament, a disillusioned Dr Tischendorf confessed that modern-day editions have "been altered in many places" and are "not to be accepted as true" (When Were Our Gospels Written?, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1865, British Library, London).

Just what is Christianity?
The important question then to ask is this: if the New Testament is not historical, what is it?
Dr Tischendorf provided part of the answer when he said in his 15,000 pages of critical notes on the Sinai Bible that "it seems that the personage of Jesus Christ was made narrator for many religions". This explains how narratives from the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, appear verbatim in the Gospels today (e.g., Matt. 1:25, 2:11, 8:1-4, 9:1-8, 9:18-26), and why passages from the Phenomena of the Greek statesman Aratus of Sicyon (271-213 BC) are in the New Testament.
Extracts from the Hymn to Zeus, written by Greek philosopher Cleanthes (c. 331-232 BC), are also found in the Gospels, as are 207 words from the Thais of Menander (c. 343-291), one of the "seven wise men" of Greece. Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek poet Epimenides (7th or 6th century BC) are applied to the lips of Jesus Christ, and seven passages from the curious Ode of Jupiter (c. 150 BC; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament.
Tischendorf's conclusion also supports Professor Bordeaux's Vatican findings that reveal the allegory of Jesus Christ derived from the fable of Mithra, the divine son of God (Ahura Mazda) and messiah of the first kings of the Persian Empire around 400 BC. His birth in a grotto was attended by magi who followed a star from the East. They brought "gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh" (as in Matt. 2:11) and the newborn baby was adored by shepherds. He came into the world wearing the Mithraic cap, which popes imitated in various designs until well into the 15th century.
Mithra, one of a trinity, stood on a rock, the emblem of the foundation of his religion, and was anointed with honey. After a last supper with Helios and 11 other companions, Mithra was crucified on a cross, bound in linen, placed in a rock tomb and rose on the third day or around 25 March (the full moon at the spring equinox, a time now called Easter after the Babylonian goddess Ishtar). The fiery destruction of the universe was a major doctrine of Mithraism-a time in which Mithra promised to return in person to Earth and save deserving souls. Devotees of Mithra partook in a sacred communion banquet of bread and wine, a ceremony that paralleled the Christian Eucharist and preceded it by more than four centuries.
Christianity is an adaptation of Mithraism welded with the Druidic principles of the Culdees, some Egyptian elements (the pre-Christian Book of Revelation was originally called The Mysteries of Osiris and Isis), Greek philosophy and various aspects of Hinduism.

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ
It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life. This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence: the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable" (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters..., op. cit.).

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/NewTestament.html

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:

quote:

Originally posted by Kresge:
Finally, you still have not explained what you mean by sacrificial love and why it is important. Please define how you are using this nomenclature. What exactly is your theory of atonement.

Most of the theories of atonement are in error. If I was forced to choose one, I would choose penal substitution (with a few slight modifications). The first thing I would change is the belief that the sacrifice was a punishment. For one, I don't think God sadomasochistically punishes Himself, in order to repay Himself, for something He did not will.

For the most part, we are in agreement as far as Jesus being a vessel/bridge between humans and God... right?

Right!

quote:

So I'll shift gears and try to explain my premise this way. What is missing in this discussion of man or myth, is the prophetic nature of the bible. It's prophecies reach before Jesus and beyond. Important to this discussion is before Jesus. Why would David, Isaiah, and company waste all that ink, and all that paper, detailing the coming of a person who has never, and will never exist? In many cases the prophecies of these men were sponsored by God. God does not lie or repent.

God may not lie, but the Bible is first and foremost an artifact of human production and is thus subject to all our strengths, frailties, contradictions, hopes, dreams, and wishes. It is not a monograph, but a collection of disparate text which span millennia. Moreover, it is an ancient text. It is this latter point where I think modern people neglect, and assume that people have always thought and acted in the same way. This is not true. We bring our modern assumptions, expectations, definitions, logic to something written by people in a very different time, with a very different history, culture, language, social relationships, etc. We really need to treat these texts in many respects as alien documents, because the come from a different world.

David, Isaiah, and the prophets where writing about a vision of a messiah, or messiahs. This imagery is found throughout the literature of the Ancient Near East, and the history shows many people associated with the title. According to members of a particular religious sect that would eventually be called Christianity, Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophesies they deemed relevant. But many, many people rejected this notion. Remember in the gospels themselves, people are expecting a warrior-king like David. Those who believe, however, that Jesus is the messiah, therefore, have to make a case that the rest of the folks are mistaken, that they do not understand the tradition.


-------------------------------------

quote:

Sacrificial love is important because without it, there is no bridge.

I will ask one last time for you to define/explain what you mean by sacrificial love and why it is essential for their to be a bridge. You keep offering an assertion without a coherent, thorough argument emphasizing the necessity of your conclusion.

quote:

I will ask one last time for you to define/explain what you mean by sacrificial love and why it is essential for their to be a bridge. You keep offering an assertion without a coherent, thorough argument emphasizing the necessity of your conclusion.

hmm...
This is one of those thoughts that's hard to unravel. Honestly haven't thoroughly broken down that equation. It's just something I know, or in your case something I think I know.

quote:

Originally posted by Yemaya:
Of course Jesus lived! I was thinking about something during this and another discussion about Christianity came up on the board. Had you noticed that AFTER Jesus came back from Egypt/Kemet that he was able to perform all of these miracles? I just now thought about this. Why is that? Can anyone answer?

Sorry to report JC is mythical and mystical
http://www.gerald-massey.org.uk/massey/dpr_01_historical_jesus.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Raptor:

quote:

Originally posted by Yemaya:
Of course Jesus lived!

...You say that like it's a no brainer.

Pretty much it is. Dr. John Henrik Clarke never tired of stressing the fact that that was no excuse for all the ignorance going around. Nothing is hidden from us...!

quote:

Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

quote:

Originally posted by Yemaya:
Of course Jesus lived! I was thinking about something during this and another discussion about Christianity came up on the board. Had you noticed that AFTER Jesus came back from Egypt/Kemet that he was able to perform all of these miracles? I just now thought about this. Why is that? Can anyone answer?

That's the no brainer right there. Remember the Israelites didn't even have a religion/the ten commandments until they Exodussed from Egypt... hhhmmm...

quote:

Originally posted by Kocolicious:
The question: Man or Myth? My Answer: Myth. Unless of course you consider Orisis [sp]. He's the closest any religion will get to supposedly that fellow they call Jesus.

Hi Koco!

The real name according to Gerald Massey is Jehoshua Ben-Pandira.

Dr. Darkwah (Africans Who Wrote The Bible) says the correct linquistic spelling is Iyesu. He also says in the book that all of Africa knows that Iyesu had a mother and a father...!

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:
If Jesus is myth, then the bridge between Man and God is a myth as well. Jesus exemplifies a mutual dependance between man and God, and He is the metaphysical faculty that completes the order that we are to be living in. Man can contribute nothing to this world metaphysically without first being connected to his/her orgin.

I beg to differ with that analogy HeruStar. GOD lives within all living things most especially hue[man]s!

quote:

Originally posted by kresge:

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:
It's a parable. It is understood as nonfiction, not a biography.

The parable is a non-fiction story within the biographical story of Jesus' existence.

I almost assumed you were going to demonstrate Jesus as being the prodigal son. Because of the context of the discussion, this part stood out...

quote:

24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.'

But then I read your statement and understood it as an example of God's love.

However, this doesn't address for me, the pure sacrificial love.

We call it a parable. Jesus doesn't. Further, the texts that it is found in is called "gospels" not biographies. Moreover, the earliest mention of Jesus in the canon are from Paul, who never meet the man, and says nothing about his family, where he was born, where he grew up, etc. The gospels are written many more than a few decades after Jesus crucifixion, and differ in important ways, one from another.

Finally, you still have not explained what you mean by sacrificial love and why it is important. Please define how you are using this nomenclature. What exactly is your theory of atonement.

Inhale -- Exhale!

I am surprised that you of all people don't know the facts, especially with you being a man of the cloth and all.

quote:

Originally posted by HonestBrother:
And there does not even have to be the deliberate intention to deceive. Human beings hate mystery. We fill in gaps and create reality in the absence of facts. Think about all the speculation (and legends) surrounding the assassination of JFK or the events of 9-11. Myth making happens every day. If this is true even today how much more would it have been true in the first century AD where the Gospels were written (at least) 30 years after fact by people who were not even eyewitnesses?

I agree Honest Brother I hate deceit, lies, collusion, and misrepresentations--especially about a topic so important to the masses.

But then I guess that was the intent.

"....what a wonderous web it is to weave, but to deceive..."

Kevin Bacon who played a fag said that in JFK, I think!

quote:

Originally posted by kresge:

quote:

Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:
If Jesus is myth, then the bridge between Man and God is a myth as well. Jesus exemplifies a mutual dependance between man and God, and He is the metaphysical faculty that completes the order that we are to be living in. Man can contribute nothing to this world metaphysically without first being connected to his/her orgin.

You are misinterpreting what is being said. Jesus REPRESENTS(via the myth) MANY things... But literalization of a 'myth' destroys what it originaly symbolizes.

AMEN Sister! Hallelujah! Sophia help her!!! Preach, preach!!!!

Jehoshua Ben-Pandira lived that is indisputable. But Jesus Christ is a myth.



uth

quote:

Originally posted by Fine:
Jehoshua Ben-Pandira lived that is indisputable.

I've ask about J. ben-Pandira. You got some stuff [book] about this cat?

"...The interested student may study..." -- page 185, "Christianity Before Christ" by John G. Jackson:

1. "Did Jesus Live 100 B.C." -- by G.R.S Mead
2. "The Life of Jehoshua: The Prophet of Nazareth" --
by Dr. Franz Hartman

----------------------------

Essay/Lectures's:

1. "Trick Of Integration" by Gerald Smith
2. "The Historical Jesus and The Mythical Christ"
by Gerald Massey

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful



As Salaam Alaikum to all!

Family, the following are reasons to forever do away with the white man's concept of Jesus. In other words, it is best that we use good human sense and do away with relying on emotions and feelings to define God and our reality.

BIG WHITE DEVIL LIE A "Father" God's Girl Friend Mary.

According to the white man's Christian lie, the Supreme God of the universe found the virgin Mary alone one night, and decided that it was a "holy moment" to "get jiggy" with her and produce "His only begotten son Jesus." Now, think about how profound that BIG LIE is. For centuries, the white Christians have perpetuated this lie that the Supreme Being essentially "raped" and thus violated His own Divine Laws with this bastardized birth of Jesus. Then, we are supposed to somehow believe that the "virgin" Mary just woke-up one morning pregnant without being touched by a man. What's even more mind-boggling is the fact that people have believed this silly lie for untold centuries.

BIG WHITE DEVIL LIE B) The Three equals One mathematical trick.

For 2000 years, we have been told by the white theologians that there are three "Gods" and these three are also "One." In the real world however, we can easily prove the mathematical formula "a + b = c" to be true thanks to the faculty of vision. When we were babies, mother taught us that one apple plus one apple equals TWO APPLES; or, One eagle plus two eagles equal THREE EAGLES. You see, basic math can easily prove the "Three Gods Equals One" Christian assertion to be a BIG LIE, but people have allowed this easily proven white devil lie to live for centuries. Let's use some good human sense folks.

Regardless of how "holy" a person may claim to be, there is no way he or she can be equal to the Supreme Creator of the universe for it was He Whose Divine Will led to the creation of all that we see in the heavens and the earth including His servant Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). Only One of equal ability as the original Creator (such as the Supreme God (Allah) Who lives today) can claim to be a "Supreme Being." But this has to be proven factually without emotions and wild speculations. Thanks to our Saviour Allah, His Divine Messenger Elijah Muhammad (peace be upon him) has proven this to be an ACTUAL FACT!

BIG WHITE DEVIL LIE C) The Created are equal to their Creator (i.e. polytheism)

The white man's Christian theology such as Catholicism and their outgrowths have proven to be nothing but glorified polytheism. Not only have the white theologians made the dead Prophet Jesus (PBUH) into a "God" but have also elevated a plethora of dead people into so-called "saints" or virtual gods who receive prayers and praises. The Catholic Church makes just about everyone into a worshipful "saint." This is why you see them talking to inanimate statues which represent these dead so-called "saints." Pretty soon, they'll be making their pet poodles into "Saint Fido" and "Saint Fifi," and causing their gullible-as-hell followers to chant "hail Fido full of grace" on their prayer beads.

While you folks laugh at that possibility, please keep in mind that this is very likely to happen as proven by the fact that the Hindus of Southeast Asia have been doing dumb things like this for ages; and, this is why they have millions of "gods" whom they praise and do mantras to. You find the dumb Hindu worshipping dead people (so-called ancestors), rocks, trees, mountains, rivers, monkeys, elephants, cows, rats, snakes, etc. The only difference between the ignorant polytheism of the Catholics and that of the Hindu is the fact that so far as we know, the Catholics have not started worshipping and praising animals.

My beautiful Black family, let me say this. If you find yourself today practicing ANY polytheistic religion that causes you to do the emotional ignorance mentioned above, it is time for you to question such religion. Stop wasting precious mental and physical energies in such ridiculous philosophical fantasies of emotion and instead, use that energy to build a nation, refine civilization and make beautiful, highly-intelligent progeny. Polytheistic fantasies of emotion and rituals of ignorance can't build civilization and help us to rise above evil white supremacy.

BIG WHITE DEVIL LIE D) Jesus Died to Save the World

Okay folks, here's a quick question for you parents out there. Raise your "cyber-hands," if you're dumb enough to have your sons (or daughters) die for people whom are proven to be enemies of your family? Come on now, raise those cyber-hands high and don't be bashful. I promise I won't laugh at you (snicker...) oops.

The white man's devilish Christian philosophy is actually telling us that God, the Supreme Being and Creator of the universe was dumb enough to not only have sex with a "virgin Mary" but forced His "only begotten Son" from this "virgin" (Jesus) to die for His enemies. Imagine a supposedly all-wise and Supreme God doing something so stupid. Such an act would not make Him so wise now would it? Who would follow such a traitorous so-called "God?" For Him to have His "Son" die for His enemies would make this so-called "Father God" a sissy who submits to the will of His enemies. That's backwards because we are supposed to submit to and do the will of the Supreme Being and not the reverse. This fact alone proves that the white man's Christianity is a HUGE LIE.

BIG WHITE DEVIL LIE E) Jesus was raised from the grave and has been floating in outer space for the last 2,000 years.

I can't understand how people continue believing this dumb white devil lie. First of all, regardless of the claims of the white theologians, never have they proven that a dead Jesus, with rotting flesh, rose from the grave and has been floating in the cosmos for the last 2,000 years. Folks, try and imagine yourselves floating in that cold outer space and being exposed to the power of solar radiation and radiation from other more powerful stars. What would a man like Jesus being doing in the cold cosmos, with an earth-dependent body for 2000 years? If you go without water for a week or two, you'll soon die. So, imagine floating around the cosmos with an earth-dependent body for 2000 years with no earthly food, water, oxygen or other necessities. So, as you can see, the white man's Christianity is based upon fantasy and wishful thinking and makes absolutely no sense.

The white man has the most sophisticated telescopes and satellites in the world. His satellites are so refined that it can literally read the license plates on vehicles moving on a city street. They have sonar and instruments that can detect even the most subtle objects, waves and energies. Yet, in spite of their sophisticated technology, Mr. White Christian has NEVER "detected" this supposedly resurrected mystery Jesus who is believed to have been floating in the cosmos for two millennia and waiting to make his enemies into his footstool.

BIG WHITE DEVIL LIE F) Jesus, his mother and the "holy crew" are all white and blue-eyed.

You Americans whom are Black, have you ever wondered why all of the important Christian and Hebraic divinities are white and blue-eyed? Now, think about all of the hell that the devilish white American establishment has given to us and our fore-parents during our 450 years in this country. It was devilish whites who used their guns and ships to steal our fore-parents from Africa and put them under the worse kind of slavery and terror imaginable. It was these same "holy" whites who terrorized and lynched our parents; and, had our pregnant mother's womb cut open, crushed her unborn baby then set her on fire.

These "holy" whites can be found today murdering our men and women in the streets of America via police terrorism.

The "holier-than-thou" devilish whites of President George Bush's administration attempted to murder as many Blacks as possible during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in the American city of New Orleans, Louisiana, by neglecting to aid our desperate families whom are taxpayers and whose ancestors built the country on free labor as chattel slaves. Our fragile grand-parents and babies were seen on television suffering and wasting away thanks to the hate and political evil of the "holy" American white government.

With the above facts in mind, who in their right mind would want to go to that spooky heavenly "pie in the sky," to live eternally among these same white folks? Let's use a little logic folks. If Mr. and Mrs. White man have given us hell for centuries right here on earth, what makes you think that the white angels, the white "Father in Heaven" and His white, blue-eyed son Jesus, would treat you any better than their white devil earthly counterparts who rule America and other white nations?

With all the hell that we've caught under white people, it would be natural and in fact intelligent for the victims of evil white global supremacy to run in the opposite direction from such a so-called heaven filled with white rulers. No thank you! I'll do just fine with a true "heaven on earth" ruled by the Black Gods and Goddesses.

BIG WHITE DEVIL LIE G) The Crucified Jesus, a symbol of defeat.

People are asked to worship a supposed "god" named Jesus who, according to white theologians, was humiliated and defeated by his enemies 2000 years ago. According to the white man's version of the story, Jesus' humiliating defeat was so great that it caused him to become "chicken" and run to the skies and hide in the cosmos for 2000 years because he's too much of a "scaredy-cat" to challenge his enemies. You see the Christians wearing a symbol of their defeated so-called "god" as jewelry. You have to realize what this does to the psyche of the people. Think about worshipping a god, your most revered figure, who is supposed to be supreme but who's power and wisdom is so weak that he allowed for his creation to trick, humiliate and defeat him to the point where he's chased away from his planet and home.

The worship of a defeated so-called "god" has devastating effects even among the whites who perpetuate such ridiculous doctrine. That's why you see their world in confusion and in a state of self-destruction. Now, if such lies are destroying the white man's world, just imagine what it does to the psyche of the socio-economically enslaved Black people. We were already defeated by the white man via the slave experience. For us to take on a religious mind of defeat such as that of Christianity, guarantees our perpetual inferiority and defeat at the hands of more civilized people who have a better knowledge of self and a more intelligent philosophy. Mr. and Mrs. Black America, THINK! Considering our miserable past in America as chattel slaves, do you really want to continue the ritual of defeat by promoting the image and ideals of a defeated and inferior so-called "god" named Jesus?

BIG WHITE DEVIL LIE H) King James the Homosexual.

How many of you realize that your so-called "Holy" Bible was actually written by a participant in the slave trade and a homosexual? Yes my friends, your Bible was written by a slave-trading sexual monster named King James of Britain. That is why the Christian Bible is known as the "King James Version." Of course today, there are a number of other versions but, they are all rooted in the version of that homosexual white devil King James. In case you don't know, God (Allah) does not reveal His Divine and pure scriptures to homosexual freak monsters. This sex monster has loaded the Bible with many lies, contradictions and an ounce of truth. That is why Messenger Elijah Muhammad (peace be upon him) referred to the Bible as a "poison book," and suggested that we throw it into the nearest trash can. Always remember folks that the white man's Christian Bible is not truly "Holy" but was translated by a white devilish rebel against God.

The Scripture as Prophecy

Family, let us understand that the prophets and wise seers of old were actually prophesying of the day that we are living in now. It is important for us to view their writings in the future prophetic sense rather than as strictly historical. The "Christ" in question is not referring to the God-sent prophet named Jesus of Nazareth (peace be upon him). All scripture refer futuristically to a Messiah and Saviour Who would come at the end of the rule of the wicked to crush them and restore heaven, freedom and peace on earth.

Even the ancient Egyptian scientists saw our day and time and wrote of this symbolically. This is why the myths concerning the ancient Egyptian gods Isis, Osiris, Horus and Set (or, Ausar, Auset and Heru respectively) are so perfectly reminiscent of the situation concerning the American Black people, a Messiah from amongst them and the returning to life of the dead body of the divided Black nation (Osiris) via the successful work of his "son" Horus (Messenger Elijah Muhammad (PBUH) and the Messiah Who taught him Supreme Wisdom), who defeated the evil god "Set" (white devils).

The real "Christ" of scripture came to the United States in 1930 and started the process of mental, social and economic resurrection of the Black nation here in North America through His Divine servant and Messenger Elijah Muhammad (PBUH). This Divine "Saviour" and "Messiah" is simultaneously and gradually removing the white man's world from power via the forces of nature; through His control over the atoms that make up our universe; and, through His control over the minds of the people. When you read and hear about the fall of the political, economic and corporate stars of the white world, you are witnessing the Divine work of the Divine God (Allah) our "Christ" or "Horus" Who is literally "crushing" the wicked white civilizations (Set) today - right now!

So folks, the only way you can make any sense out of the prophecies and sayings of the ancients is to put it in the proper context of us today, otherwise, you'll be wasting time with endless speculations and never learn the truth of the fact that we, the American Black people are the Divine people of God (Allah) spoken of in scripture and by the ancients. Sorry you multi-culturalists but no other group fits the description of the people of God better than we, the despised and rejected Black people of North America. It is time that you brothers and sisters accept your new role as assigned by God (Allah) the Supreme Being of the universe, as the new world rulers who will by the grace of God (Allah) restore freedom, justice and equality to the world.

My friends, since all other religious, philosophical, political, academic, etc., systems have failed us, let's choose Messenger Muhammad's (PBUH) Divine system and return to our true reality as the Black Gods and Goddesses of the universe so that our success is ensured and so that we may forever lead the world with Supreme Wisdom, civilization, freedom, justice and equality. The ancient and eternal Divine system of Allah (God) belongs to the Black Gods and Goddesses; our system of the NEW Islam is here!

All praises are due to our Saviour Allah for the Supreme Wisdom and nation-building teachings of His Divine Messenger Elijah Muhammad (peace be upon him)!!!

As Salaam Alaikum to those of us who accept the reality of the Black man and woman as Allah (God).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Khem Allah,

Khem Allah
Student of the Supreme Wisdom teachings of Messenger Elijah Muhammad (peace be upon him)