I posted articles on how the Bible was complied by Constantine through a Conclave of Cardinals to hold on to his empire.
I had also written, albeit, in the passing that Jesus Christ did not exist.
That we still do not know his real name even to-day.
Here let us see how the story of Jesus was built.
Compare this with Lord Rama and Krishna, the Hindu Gods, whose dates and existence has been proved beyond doubt.
This article is dedicated to the Secular Historians, who call Indian history as revealed in the Puranas and Ithihasas to be fantasies and not supported by facts.
Jesus Christ.
“Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are “mythologized history.” In other words, they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provided the seed that grew into Christianity.
At the same time, these scholars acknowledge that many Bible stories like the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and women at the tomb borrow and rework mythic themes that were common in the Ancient Near East, much the way that screenwriters base new movies on old familiar tropes or plot elements. In this view, a “historical Jesus” became mythologized.
For over 200 years, a wide-ranging array of theologians and historians—most of them Christian—analyzed ancient texts, both those that made it into the Bible and those that didn’t, in attempts to excavate the man behind the myth. Several current or recent bestsellers take this approach, distilling the scholarship for a popular audience. Familiar titles include Zealot by Reza Aslan and How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman…
No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.
The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts. Paul seems unaware of any virgin birth, for example. No wise men, no star in the east, no miracles. Historians have long puzzled over the “Silence of Paul” on the most basic biographical facts and teachings of Jesus. Paul fails to cite Jesus’ authority precisely when it would make his case. What’s more, he never calls the twelve apostles Jesus’ disciples; in fact, he never says Jesus HAD disciples –or a ministry, or did miracles, or gave teachings.
3.Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts. We now know that the four gospels were assigned the names of the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not written by them.
4.The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.
5.Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons. They include a cynic philosopher, charismatic Hasid, liberal Pharisee, conservative rabbi, Zealot revolutionary, non-violent pacifist to borrow from a much longer list assembled by Price. In his words (pp. 15-16), “The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time.” John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar grumbles that “the stunning diversity is an academic embarrassment….”
How the sorty of Jesus Christ was fabricated follows.
One is lead to belive that Christ taught the value of Perfection, Poverty and Preaching.
For precisely following the same, entire population was wiped out, towns destroyed and people were suffocated to death by closing the mouth of Caves where they hid from the marauding Crusaders ordered by Pope Innocent III.
As is usual, the Crusade was more about political power, as it was when Constantine had the Old Testament compiled,
“The medieval Christian sect of the Cathars, against whom the crusade was directed, originated from a reform movement within the Bogomil churches of Dalmatia and Bulgaria calling for a return to the Christian message of perfection, poverty and preaching. Their theology was basically dualist.[1] They became known as the Albigensians, because there were many adherents in the city of Albi and the surrounding area in the 12th and 13th centuries…
Perceived irreligious.
When one reads the Bible, one will be struck by two facts.
1.Though the Bible talks about the Father, of whose son is Jesus,, there only limited references to HIs attributes, the rest being devoted to Christ.
2.The concept Satan, who is reported to be constantly engaged in fight with the forces of evil and at times threatens to dethrone God andit takes a supreme effort from God to wrest the initiative from Satan.
Satan is portrayed as Evil,has the power of ranting every one your wishes, provided you align your soul to him.
And those who follow Satan are doomed to Hell.
Castle Masssacre in Southern France by Crusadres.
One of my acquaintances asked me that if what is being granted by Satan is demanded by Man and all one has to do is to give himself to Satan, then Christ also recommends the same, by offering the Kingdom of Heaven in return for one’s adherence to Christianity as propounded by Jesus.
Then why not follow Satan?
Seems logical, strictly from the point of Logic and common sense.
This is the dichotomy one faces when one ascribes dual realities, one limiting and interfering with another.
The Cathars had a different approach though it had the same Christian element.
“The general view of the theology of the Cathars is that they were dualistic, believing in two equal and comparable transcendental principles; God, the force of good, and Satan, or the demiurge, that of evil. They held that the physical world was evil and created by this demiurge Rex Mundi (Latin, “King of the World”), who encompassed all that was corporeal, chaotic and powerful. Their understanding of God was entirely disincarnate: a being or principle of pure spirit and completely unsullied by the taint of matter. He was the god of love, order and peace. Jesus was an angel with only a phantom body, and the accounts of him in the New Testament were to be understood allegorically. As the physical world and the human body was the creation of the evil principle, sexual abstinence (even in marriage) was encouraged. Civil authority had no claim on a Cathar, since this was the rule of the physical world. The goal of a Cathar was to become perfect. Cathar missionaries would point out examples of clerical immorality and would contrast that behaviour with the uprightness of their own actions. They took special attention to point out the grievances the people of the south received from the French kings, and exalted a local sense of nationalism and independence. Thus, the religious movement moved into the political arena. Both church and state were deeply concerned at the spread of Cathar teachings and its developments.”
A religion which talks of Tolerance Human values and a Religion of Peace?
Suspended by genitals.
During the siege of Toulouse in 1217-18, captured crusaders could expect to have their eyes put out, their tongues removed, to be dragged behind horses, stoned, dropped from the ramparts, or drowned with mill-stones around their necks. According to Malcolm Barbour ‘In 1212, Roger Bernard, the count’s son, captured some crusaders near Narbonne, took them back to Foix, where he and his men spent their time devising “new and original tortures” for them including suspension by their gen
The first military leader appointed by Pope Innocent III to head his Holy Army was a Cistercias abbot called Arnaud Amaury. The first significant engagement of the war was at Béziers when it was besieged on 22 July 1209. Catholic inhabitants remained in the city and when the Abbot was asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics, he replied, “Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own.” The doors of the churches and cathedral were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. All over the town people were massacred in their thousands. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice. The city was burned. At that time the population of Béziers was around 5,000, but local refugees seeking shelter within the city walls increased the number to 20,000. All were killed regardless of rank, age, sex or religious belief.
During the Albigensian crusade period, often described as the first act of genocide in Europe, many castles and other fortified positio
As I have pointed out in a few articles that the Bible was compiled ,some three hundred years after the death of Jesus Christ, by Emperor Constantine to keep his Kingdom intact.
The Old and New Testaments do not give a date for Christ’s Birth.
Christmas, a Pagan Custom
”
The New Testament gives no date or year for Jesus’ birth. The earliest gospel – St. Mark’s, written about 65 CE – begins with the baptism of an adult Jesus. This suggests that the earliest Christians lacked interest in or knowledge of Jesus’ birthdate.
The year of Jesus birth was determined by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk, “abbot of a Roman monastery. His calculation went as follows:
In the Roman, pre-Christian era, years were counted from ab urbe condita (“the founding of the City” [Rome]). Thus 1 AUC signifies the year Rome was founded, 5 AUC signifies the 5th year of Rome’s reign, etc.
Dionysius received a tradition that the Roman emperor Augustus reigned 43 years, and was followed by the emperor Tiberius.
Luke 3:1,23 indicates that when Jesus turned 30 years old, it was the 15th year of Tiberius reign.
If Jesus was 30 years old in Tiberius’ reign, then he lived 15 years under Augustus (placing Jesus birth in Augustus’ 28th year of reign).
Augustus took power in 727 AUC. Therefore, Dionysius put Jesus birth in 754 AUC.
However, Luke 1:5 places Jesus’ birth in the days of Herod, and Herod died in 750 AUC – four years before the year in which Dionysius places Jesus birth.
Joseph A. Fitzmyer – Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the Catholic University of America, member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and former president of the Catholic Biblical Association – writing in the Catholic Church’s official commentary on the New Testament, writes about the date of Jesus’ birth, “Though the year [of Jesus birth is not reckoned with certainty, the birth did not occur in AD 1. The Christian era, supposed to have its starting point in the year of Jesus birth, is based on a miscalculation introduced ca. 533 by Dionysius Exiguus.”
The DePascha Computus, an anonymous document believed to have been written in North Africa around 243 CE, placed Jesus birth on March 28. Clement, a bishop of Alexandria (d. ca. 215 CE), thought Jesus was born on November 18. Based on historical records, Fitzmyer guesses that Jesus birth occurred on September 11, 3 BCE.
1.Dates were arrived at based on legends quite some time later.
2.The suggested dates by convoluted, unverified and unsupported legends give the dates as,
March 28,
September 11,.
How come Christmas is fixed on December 25?
”
Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration. The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.” Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week. At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman.
The ancient Greek writer poet and historian Lucian (in his dialogue entitled Saturnalia) describes the festival’s observance in his time. In addition to human sacrifice, he mentions these customs: widespread intoxication; going from house to house while singing naked; rape and other sexual license; and consuming human-shaped biscuits (still produced in some English and most German bakeries during the Christmas season).
In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it. Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians.
The problem was that there was nothing intrinsically Christian about Saturnalia. To remedy this, these Christian leaders named Saturnalia’s concluding day, December 25th, to be Jesus’ birthday.
Christians had little success, however, refining the practices of Saturnalia. As Stephen Nissenbaum, professor history at the University of Massachussetts, Amherst, writes, “In return for ensuring massive observance of the anniversary of the Savior’s birth by assigning it to this resonant date, the Church for its part tacitly agreed to allow the holiday to be celebrated more or less the way it had always been.” The earliest Christmas holidays were celebrated by drinking, sexual indulgence, singing naked in the streets (a precursor of modern caroling), etc.
The Reverend Increase Mather of Boston observed in 1687 that “the early Christians who first observed the Nativity on December 25 did not do so thinking that Christ was born in that Month, but because the Heathens’ Saturnalia was at that time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those Pagan Holidays metamorphosed into Christian ones.”
Some groups viewed by non-adherents as denominational actively resist being called a denomination and do not have any formal denominational structure, authority, or record-keeping beyond the local congregation; several groups within Restoration Movement fall into this category.
Some groups are large (e.g. Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans or Baptists), while others are just a few small churches, and in most cases the relative size is not evident in this list.
Between denominations, theologians, and comparative religionists there are considerable disagreements about which groups can be properly called Christian, disagreements arising primarily from doctrinal differences between groups.
For the purpose of simplicity, this list is intended to reflect the self-understanding of each denomination.
Explanations of different opinions concerning their status as Christian denominations can be found at their respective articles.
There is no official recognition in most parts of the world for religious bodies, and there is no official clearinghouse which could determine the status or respectability of religious bodies. Often there is considerable disagreement between various churches about whether other churches should be labeled with pejorative terms such as “cult”, or about whether this or that group enjoys some measure of respectability.
Such considerations often vary from place to place, where one religious group may enjoy majority status in one region, but be widely regarded as a “dangerous cult” in another part of the world. Inclusion on this list does not indicate any judgment about the size, importance, or character of a group or its members.
A of BC in Luzon Visayas Mindanao
A Unterstütz in Mennonitengemeinden
Abbott Loop Fell of Community Churches
Aboriginal pentecostal congregations
Absolute Maori Established Church
Acção Bíblica
Acción Misionera Iglesia de Dios
Achang Church
Achewa Baptist Church
Action Apostolique
Action Biblique
Acts Mission Church of South Africa
Acts of Apostles Christ Church Nigeria
Advent Christian Church
Advent Christian Conference
Advent Christian Conference of Japan
Adventist Church
Adventists of the True Remnant
Africa Christian network
Africa Evangelical Church
Africa Evangelical Church of Malawi
Africa Gospel Church
Africa Gospel Unity Church
Africa Inland Church
African Apostolic Church of Johane Maranke
African Apostolic Church of Johane Masowe
African Apostolic Church of Nigeria & Benin
African Apostolic Church St Simon & St Johane
African Apostolic Faith Mission
African Assemblies of God
African Baptist Assembly Malawi
African Born Full Gospel Apostolic Ch
African Brotherhood Church
African Catholic Church
African Christian Church & Schools
African Christians Fellowship
African Church
African Church Mission
African Church of Jesus Christ in Kenya
African Church of the Holy Spirit
African Church The
African Congregational Church
African Covenant Church
African Disciples of Christ
African Divine Church
African Evangelical Presbyterian Ch
African Faith Tabernacle Church
African Free Presb Church of Zimbabwe
African Full Gospel Church
African Gospel Church
African Holy Zionist Church
African Independent Church of Kenya
African Independent Pentecostal Church of Africa
African Interior Church
African Israel Church Nineveh
African Methodist Church in Zimbabwe
African Methodist Episcopal Church
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Ch
African Mission of Holy Ghost Church
African National Church
African National/International Church
African New Life Ministries
African Reformed Coptic Church of God
African Salvation Army Church
African Union First Colored MP Ch
Afrikaans Baptist Church
Afrikaans Protestant Church
Agape Fellowship
Agape Ministries International
Akha Church
Aladura Internat Church UK & Overseas….
If some one has a doubt that Christianity whether Christianity respects other Religions, here is quote and explanation from Edward D. Waller, Ph. D. in
Catholic News.
Catholicism.
The statement and the article is directed at Protestants and those who are Non Catholics among the Christians.
If this is the attitude towards their sister groups,whom the consider as their mortal enemies, what is there to sa about other Religions?
”
If respecting other religions means to refrain from interfering with other people’s beliefs, then how do we reconcile Christ’s words to His apostles before ascending into Heaven? “
And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to Me in Heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matt.28:18-20)
Christ’s instructions were very clearly given to His apostles. They were commanded to teach ALL (not some) nations ALL things (not some things) whatsoever Christ had commanded them to teach. That is, Christ gave them the revealed truth and all His doctrines. The apostles were not told to respect those nations or beliefs that held different beliefs from Christ’s teachings. Even Christ professed Truth to the elite Rabbis who rejected not only His teachings, but Christ as Son of God. Christ was crucified on the cross because He did not compromise His teachings
Is it possible to consider worthy of high regard or esteem other religious beliefs that are contradictions to the Truth found within the Roman Catholic Church? Should we respect religions that allow polygamy, deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ, deny original sin and the Immaculate Conception? Should we respect beliefs of others that allow divorce, abortion and permit homosexuality as a lifestyle?
How can TRUE Catholics hold these beliefs in high regard or esteem and call themselves followers of Christ? As a Catholic I should respect my fellow brothers and sisters. I can hold human beings in high regard and esteem because each one of us has been created in the image and likeness of God. Jesus gave us the commandment to love God with all our heart, mind and soul and to love our neighbor as ourselves. He did not tell us to love sin or beliefs that contradict His teachings. Thus, I will not elevate with high regard or esteem any religion or belief that contradicts the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Pope Pius XII states in the same encyclical, “…God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.” He further states that Christ appointed the Church as “guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth”.
God did not send His only begotten Son into the world to establish a multiple of religions equally meriting salvation. If this were the case, there would have been no need for Christ to die on the cross, for all religions would have been equally pleasing to God. Christ came to establish His Church which contains the WHOLE deposit of divinely revealed truth which is the ONLY means to salvation. The present post-conciliar Church has silenced the doctrine of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” as a means of promoting false ecumenism which attempts to establish respect for all religions.
I can not understand how Catholics could fall for such nonsense. Are they unaware that a doctrine can never be revoked. A doctrine is a revealed truth through God that can NEVER change. God is pure Truth and can never deceive us. Only man and the serpent are capable of deceptive ploys.
Pope Pius XII reiterates this doctrine very clearly and precisely. “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith. These and like ERRORS, it is clear, have crept in among certain of our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science.”..
Since the Second Vatican Council, there has been great emphasis on ecumenism or unity among all religions. We are now hearing from all levels within the Roman Catholic Church that we must RESPECT all religions. We are told that we must refrain from forcing our beliefs onto others. We are told that all religions hold some truth that may lead to salvation of souls. What we have not been told is that this notion is UTTER NONSENSE and contrary to our traditional faith.
In the encyclical, Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII warns the faithful about false “irenics” (ecumenism). He states: “Another danger is perceived which is all the more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an ‘irenism’ according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attack of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma.
“…But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent ‘irenism’ seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.
“In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas: and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers … They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.
“Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy … Some more audaciously affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted.”
“A person sins against faith, first, by not trying to know what God has taught; second, by refusing to believe all that God has taught; third, by neglecting to profess his belief in what God has taught.”
(Baltimore Catechism No. 4, p. 265) False worship is a sin against the First Commandment. “And now that we have the real sacrifice it would be sinful to use only figures, (as in other religions) and it would be a false worship displeasing to God …So, too, all those who leave the true Church to practice a religion of their own have a false worship, for they worship God not as He wants, but as they wish” (Baltimore Catechism No. 4, p. 261).
You must be logged in to post a comment.