Wednesday, October 05, 2022
This period is marked by a number of revolutions and other transformative changes in society:
Some of the effects of these changes on the idea of the subject include the following: As each individual subject is seen as valued, a new emphasis is placed on internal feelings and inspiration, leading William Wordsworth in his Prelude to move epic form away from external battles and inwards towards the formation of an individual subject. The rise of urbanization leads to a counter-reaction: artists begin to extol the value of nature, including sublime landscapes like mountains and oceans that would have been considered forbidding by early-eighteenth-century aestheticians. We are also presented with the formation of the Romantic hero (Promethean, sometimes Satanic, solitary, self-exiled, in search of extremes in nature and the self, tormented by inner guilt). We are now firmly entrenched in guilt culture, which is reflected in the revolutionary changes in politics, ideology, and state institutions. We therefore see the rise of autobiography as a genre (with Wordsworth’s Prelude as itself a good example). We also begin to see the rise of the novel in this period as an emergent mass market begins to target the newly literate middle classes. Some other elements of Romanticism include:
The increasing rise in literacy rates and the final establishment of the middle class as the dominant ruling class, not to mention the formation of a mass market, help to establish the novel as the middle class’ primary artistic form in this period. The Victorian novel in many ways turns away from the exotic experimentation of Romantic poetry and instead offers a critique of Romantic ideals, thus helping to effect a transition into the bourgeois, domestic values of the period (approximately 1832-1898). By implicitly critiquing certain aspects of the Romantic ideology (the search for transcendence, the Romantic hero, the self-exile of the creator, the Promethean myth), a number of domestic novels instead underscore such middle-class values as domesticity, duty, responsibility, work, conservative social reform, empiricism, utilitarianism, and realism. Victorian architecture (particularly the centrality of the hearth and the separation of rooms by hallways) helps to establish spaces where private identity and domesticity can be established. A primary figure of the period is the “Angel in the House,” the perfect self-sacrificing and self-disciplining domestic housewife, who is implicitly or explicitly contrasted to the demonic whore-woman. The woman in Hunt’s painting, The Awakening Conscience (on the left), is poised between these two possibilities for female subjectivity.
Modernity and Modernism:
“Modernity” is as slippery a term as “postmodernity”; indeed, some scholars date the “modern subject” as emerging as early as the Renaissance (thanks to the sorts of changes in thinking that I discuss above under “Renaissance”). Usually, though, when someone refers to the “modern period,” they mean the period from about 1898 to the second world war. This is a time of wild experimentation in literature, music, art, and even politics. There is still a belief among many thinkers in concepts such as truth and progress; however, the means taken to achieve utopic goals are often extreme. This is the period that saw such revolutionary political movements as fascism, nazism, communism, anarchism, and so on. Indeed, “isms” abound as various groups establish bold manifestos outlining their visions for an improved future. Manifestos about artistic form are just as widespread and, like the political manifestos, often radically different one from the next (eg. surrealism, dadaism, cubism, futurism, expressionism, existentialism, primitivism, minimalism, etc.). In general, this radicalism is driven by a sense that Enlightenment values may be suspect. Modernists therefore participate in a general questioning of all the values held dear by the Victorian period (narrative, referentiality, religion, progress, bourgeois domesticity, capitalism, utilitarianism, decorum, empire, industry, etc.). Many modernists also tend to take the Romantic exploration of the irrational, the primitive, and the unconscious to darker extremes, as in, for example, Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (1899), James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake, or Antonin Artaud’s surrealism. In general, there is a fear that things have gone off track (a feeling exacerbated by World War I) and that we need to follow radically new paths if we are to extricate ourselves. Some of the features of modernist aesthetic work include:
Roy Lichtenstein ‘s Masterpiece (1962)
Postmodernity and Postmodernism:
One of the problems in dealing with postmodernism is in distinguishing it from modernism. In many ways, postmodern artists and theorists continue the sorts of experimentation that we can also find in modernist works, including the use of self-consciousness, parody, irony, fragmentation, generic mixing, ambiguity, simultaneity, and the breakdown between high and low forms of expression. In this way, postmodern artistic forms can be seen as an extension of modernist experimentation; however, others prefer to represent the move into postmodernism as a more radical break, one that is a result of new ways of representing the world including television, film (especially after the introduction of color and sound), and the computer. Many date postmodernity from the sixties when we witnessed the rise of postmodern architecture; however, some critics prefer to see WWII as the radical break from modernity, since the horrors of nazism (and of other modernist revolutions like communism and Maoism) were made evident at this time. The very term “postmodern” was, in fact, coined in the forties by the historian, Arnold Toynbee.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Before I turn to a quick overview of the theorists discussed in the Postmodernism Modules, I will begin by offering up a necessarily truncated historical overview in order to situate postmodernity within the major historical movements that have shaped subjectivity in the Western hemisphere over the last four thousand years. In other words, one cannot properly understand our current age without understanding exactly what came before. How can we understand the full force of that “post” without understanding not only the modern but also the premodern?
One way to understand the transformative but largely unnoticed changes effected by new technologies is to think about the way that the printed word changed our way of thinking about the world. That can then help students to start thinking about the ways postmodern technologies (like the computer, the television, film, and mechanical image production) might be subtly but fundamentally changing our way of thinking about the world around us. An exercise I find useful when I introduce orality to students is to ask the question: “What is a tree?” as I did on Aug. 29, 2000 in a class that started with Homer’s Odyssey. As my students most ably responded on that day, a tree is a plant with bark, branches, and leaves. A taxonomy of different examples was given (ash, oak, etc.), categorized by conifer and deciduous kinds. Photosynthesis and oxygenation were mentioned as important aspects of a tree’s life cycle, and then different uses for trees were mentioned (paper, construction, shade, etc.). The class unanimously agreed with this definition. I then explained that studies of those oral cultures that still exist in the former Yugoslavia have asked the same question of non-literate people. Surprisingly, there too the response to the question was, for the most part, unanimous and yet completely different from our own: a tree is like a man whose arms reach up to heaven but whose roots are caught in hell. Why this incredible difference in response? Can we not even agree on an issue as fundamental as the answer to the question: “What is a tree?”
Well, the REASON we, in a literate culture, can all unanimously agree with this definition is that we automatically turn to our communal literate source—the dictionary, which structures our experience of the world through the conventions of science and taxonomy (hence the class’ use of such scientific language as “photosynthesis,” “conifer,” “deciduous,” and “oxygenation,” terms that clearly suggest that individuals were drawn to language of a different register than quotidian speech). In an oral culture, there is no written source to which people can turn; there are instead only oral stories. As a result, oral society was different from our own in a number of fundamental ways:
1) no written laws: without a book of rules to establish precedent, justice had to be determined by way of competing accounts and in a case-by-case manner. Examples in the Odyssey include the fact that Telemachus and the suitors in Book II must engage in a contest of storytelling before the elders of Ithaca in order to determine who is in the right; another example is how Helen and Meneláus engage in a storytelling contest of sorts in Book IV, with the prize being the very reputation of Helen. In such a society, a leader like Odysseus must have not only martial strength and skill but also a knowledge of common stories (that can be called on as we call on precedent) and also a certain amount of rhetorical guile (which is why Odysseus keeps getting placed in situations where he has no men, weapons, armor, or even clothes).
2) knowledge is based on what is relevant in the present: the stories that are told by rhapsodes change as social situations change. A story about a king who had three sons can, within a few decades, turn into a story about a king who had two sons if the third son’s line never continued. By the same token, we can often detect clues of earlier times through story elements that persist even after Greek society was transformed by new technologies. In the Odyssey, for example, we can detect layers of archaeology (elements from the bronze age and iron age coexist, for example, as do eating habits from earlier stages in the development of Greek society).
3) no authors: in an oral society, there is no “author” in the modern sense, since stories are passed on for hundeds of years by many generations of rhapsodes. As a result, there is some question about who exactly “Homer” might be, whether the authorship of both the Iliad and Odyssey can be attributed to this one figure, and whether the very idea of associating a single figure with these two tales is not a mere fiction. The very idea of authorship and of the ownership of original work are integrally connected to the establishment of literate culture (which allows you to keep records of original authorship). Copyright is only possible after copywright, you might say.
4) no private self: subjectivity appears to be directed outward to others and performative situations. Even classical architecture favors an atrium structure oriented to public spaces with no doors and little privacy. Public baths are popular. Some critics have characterized this culture of public-oriented selves “shame culture.” In a shame culture, everything occurs, as it were, on the surface of things. Emotions are extreme and public because, as scholars have argued, people in this culture do not have our modern sense of subjectivity or of a private self. What therefore becomes important are questions of honor and shame, which is why, for example, Odysseus must immediately respond to the challenge of Euryalus during the Phaeacian games in Book VIII of the Odyssey. Questions of propriety and reputation become paramount, since in an oral society collective memory is only preserved through the stories that others tell about you.
5) no inalienable human rights: Punishment is severe and, ideally, public, in order to illustrate the power and superiority of the punishing authority, eg. Odysseus’ extremely violent and brutal punishment of his unfaithful slaves and of the suitors seeking Penelope’s hand. (For the importance of this shift in the idea of punishment, see the New Historicism Module on Foucault and the carceral.) And yet, there is no sense that Odysseus has any “right” to be a leader. He remains a leader only so long as his power of might and his power of words enables him to stay in power. Were he to be defeated and enslaved, the best he could then do is to become a worthy slave (which is why, I think, so much time is spent with Eumáios, himself of aristocratic blood, in Books XIV to XVI). There is also no sense ever that there is any moral wrong in enslaving, raping, or decimating one’s defeated enemies.
6) no money: as one of my students, Stacey Morgan, brilliantly put it in that Aug. 29 class, “you could not buy more than you already have.” Money, production, consumption and labor could not be understood as abstract quantitites that could be bought and sold on the open market (as they are through stocks, bonds, loans, and interest accretion in a transnational economy of limitless investment and speculation). Instead you paid the individual craftsman directly through barter and, thus, through a direct valuation of that laborer’s particular product. You are by force closer to, as my student Meg Young-Spillers put it, the “materiality” of the individual’s labor. Meg thus used the very terminology employed by Marx in the nineteenth century to critique capitalist culture.
7) gift society: a barter economy often relies on a gift economy for stability. That is, one cements bonds between people through the circulation of gifts. Examples include: a) hospitality: indeed, one is not even supposed to ask the identity of a stranger in the Odyssey until after one has showered him with gifts; this act allows for bonds to form even among enemies. It is no mere coincidence that the most powerful God, Zeus, is precisely the God of hospitality; b) women as gifts; that is, they are circulated through marriage and dowry to cement social bonds. This could be done within ruling families (Alcínuous and Arétë, for example, are uncle and niece, which allows them to keep power “within the family”) or between principalities to escape the threat of war (Alcínuous, for example, offers his daughter, Nausícaa, to Odysseus); c) sacrifice, which could be seen as the religious equivalent or analog of the gift.
Friday, June 01, 2012
Common Mycoplasma’s –
Pathogenic & Deadly
By Donald W. Scott, MA, MSc © 2001
President – The Common Cause
Medical Research Foundation
190 Mountain Street, Suite 405
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada P3B 4G2
Tel/fax: +1 (705) 670 0180
Mycoplasma – The Linking Pathogen in Neurosystemic Diseases
Several strains of mycoplasma have been “engineered” to become more dangerous. They are now being blamed for AIDS, cancer, CFS, MS, CJD and other neurosystemic diseases.
Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 8, Number 5 (August-September 2001) From our web page at: http://www.nexusmagazine.com
A Common Disease Agent Weaponised
There are 200 species of Mycoplasma. Most are innocuous and do no harm; only four or five are pathogenic. Mycoplasma fermentans (incognitus strain) probably comes from the nucleus of the Brucella bacterium. This disease agent is not a bacterium and not a virus; it is a mutated form of the Brucella bacterium, combined with a visna virus, from which the mycoplasma is extracted.
The pathogenic Mycoplasma used to be very innocuous, but biological warfare research conducted between 1942 and the present time has resulted in the creation of more deadly and infectious forms of Mycoplasma. Researchers extracted this mycoplasma from the Brucella bacterium and actually reduced the disease to a crystalline form. They “weaponised” it and tested it on an unsuspecting public in North America.
Dr Maurice Hilleman, chief virologist for the pharmaceutical company Merck Sharp & Dohme, stated that this disease agent is now carried by everybody in North America and possibly most people throughout the world.
Despite reporting flaws, there has clearly been an increased incidence of all the neuro/systemic degenerative diseases since World War II and especially since the 1970s with the arrival of previously unheard-of diseases like chronic fatigue syndrome and AIDS.
According to Dr Shyh-Ching Lo, senior researcher at The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and one of America’s top mycoplasma researchers, this disease agent causes many illnesses including AIDS, cancer, chronic fatigue syndrome, Crohn’s colitis, Type I diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, Wegener’s disease and collagen-vascular diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and Alzheimer’s.
Dr Charles Engel, who is with the US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, stated the following at an NIH meeting on February 7, 2000: “I am now of the view that the probable cause of chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia is the mycoplasma…”
I have all the official documents to prove that mycoplasma is the disease agent in chronic fatigue syndrome/fibromyalgia as well as in AIDS, multiple sclerosis and many other illnesses. Of these, 80% are US or Canadian official government documents, and 20% are articles from peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, New England Journal of Medicine and the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The journal articles and government documents complement each other.
How the Mycoplasma Works
The mycoplasma acts by entering into the individual cells of the body, depending upon your genetic predisposition.
You may develop neurological diseases if the pathogen destroys certain cells in your brain, or you may develop Crohn’s colitis if the pathogen invades and destroys cells in the lower bowel.
Once the mycoplasma gets into the cell, it can lie there doing nothing sometimes for 10, 20 or 30 years, but if a trauma occurs like an accident or a vaccination that doesn’t take, the mycoplasma can become triggered.
Because it is only the DNA particle of the bacterium, it doesn’t have any organelles to process its own nutrients, so it grows by uptaking pre-formed sterols from its host cell and it literally kills the cell; the cell ruptures and what is left gets dumped into the bloodstream.
II &endash; CREATION OF THE MYCOPLASMA
A Laboratory-Made Disease Agent
Many doctors don’t know about this mycoplasma disease agent because it was developed by the US military in biological warfare experimentation and it was not made public. This pathogen was patented by the United States military and Dr Shyh-Ching Lo. I have a copy of the documented patent from the US Patent Office.1
All the countries at war were experimenting with biological weapons. In 1942, the governments of the United States, Canada and Britain entered into a secret agreement to create two types of biological weapons (one that would kill, and one that was disabling) for use in the war against Germany and Japan, who were also developing biological weapons. While they researched a number of disease pathogens, they primarily focused on the Brucella bacterium and began to weaponise it.
From its inception, the biowarfare program was characterised by continuing in-depth review and participation by the most eminent scientists, medical consultants, industrial experts and government officials, and it was classified Top Secret.
The US Public Health Service also closely followed the progress of biological warfare research and development from the very start of the program, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States were working with the military in weaponising these diseases. These are diseases that have existed for thousands of years, but they have been weaponised–which means they’ve been made more contagious and more effective. And they are spreading.
The Special Virus Cancer Program, created by the CIA and NIH to develop a deadly pathogen for which humanity had no natural immunity (AIDS), was disguised as a war on cancer but was actually part of MKNAOMI.2 Many members of the Senate and House of Representatives do not know what has been going on. For example, the US Senate Committee on Government Reform had searched the archives in Washington and other places for the document titled “The Special Virus Cancer Program: Progress Report No. 8”, and couldn’t find it. Somehow they heard I had it, called me and asked me to mail it to them. Imagine: a retired schoolteacher being called by the United States Senate and asked for one of their secret documents! The US Senate, through the Government Reform Committee, is trying to stop this type of government research.
The title page of a genuine US Senate Study, declassified on February 24, 1977, shows that George Merck, of the pharmaceutical company, Merck Sharp & Dohme (which now makes cures for diseases that at one time it created), reported in 1946 to the US Secretary of War that his researchers had managed “for the first time” to “isolate the disease agent in crystalline form”.3
They had produced a crystalline bacterial toxin extracted from the Brucella bacterium. The bacterial toxin could be removed in crystalline form and stored, transported and deployed without deteriorating. It could be delivered by other vectors such as insects, aerosol or the food chain (in nature it is delivered within the bacterium). But the factor that is working in the Brucella is the mycoplasma.
Brucella is a disease agent that doesn’t kill people; it disables them. But, according to Dr Donald MacArthur of the Pentagon, appearing before a congressional committee in 1969,4 researchers found that if they had mycoplasma at a certain strength–actually, 10 to the 10th power (1010)–it would develop into AIDS, and the person would die from it within a reasonable period of time because it could bypass the natural human defences. If the strength was 108, the person would manifest with chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia. If it was 107, they would present as wasting; they wouldn’t die and they wouldn’t be disabled, but they would not be very interested in life; they would waste away.
Most of us have never heard of the disease brucellosis because it largely disappeared when they began pasteurising milk, which was the carrier. One salt shaker of the pure disease agent in a crystalline form could sicken the entire population of Canada. It is absolutely deadly, not so much in terms of killing the body but disabling it.
Because the crystalline disease agent goes into solution in the blood, ordinary blood and tissue tests will not reveal its presence. The mycoplasma will only crystallise at 8.1 pH, and the blood has a pH of 7.4 pH. So the doctor thinks your complaint is “all in your head”.
Crystalline Brucella and Multiple Sclerosis
In 1998 in Rochester, New York, I met a former military man, PFC Donald Bentley, who gave me a document and told me: “I was in the US Army, and I was trained in bacteriological warfare. We were handling a bomb filled with brucellosis, only it wasn’t brucellosis; it was a Brucella toxin in crystalline form. We were spraying it on the Chinese and North Koreans.”
He showed me his certificate listing his training in chemical, biological and radiological warfare. Then he showed me 16 pages of documents given to him by the US military when he was discharged from the service. They linked brucellosis with multiple sclerosis, and stated in one section: “Veterans with multiple sclerosis, a kind of creeping paralysis developing to a degree of 10% or more disability within two years after separation from active service, may be presumed to be service-connected for disability compensation. Compensation is payable to eligible veterans whose disabilities are due to service.” In other words: “If you become ill with multiple sclerosis, it is because you were handling this Brucella, and we will give you a pension. Don’t go raising any fuss about it.” In these documents, the government of the United States revealed evidence of the cause of multiple sclerosis, but they didn’t make it known to the public–or to your doctor.
In a 1949 report, Drs Kyger and Haden suggested “the possibility that multiple sclerosis might be a central nervous system manifestation of chronic brucellosis”. Testing approximately 113 MS patients, they found that almost 95% also tested positive for Brucella.5 We have a document from a medical journal, which concludes that one out of 500 people who had brucellosis would develop what they call neurobrucellosis; in other words, brucellosis in the brain, where the Brucella settles in the lateral ventricles–where the disease multiple sclerosis is basically located.6
Contamination of Camp Detrick Lab Workers
A 1948 New England Journal of Medicine report titled “Acute Brucellosis Among Laboratory Workers” shows us how actively dangerous this agent is.7 The laboratory workers were from Camp Detrick, Frederick, Maryland, where they were developing biological weapons. Even though these workers had been vaccinated, wore rubberised suits and masks and worked through holes in the compartment, many of them came down with this awful disease because it is so absolutely and terrifyingly infectious.
The article was written by Lt Calderone Howell, Marine Corps, Captain Edward Miller, Marine Corps, Lt Emily Kelly, United States Naval Reserve, and Captain Henry Bookman. They were all military personnel engaged in making the disease agent Brucella into a more effective biological weapon.
III &endash; COVERT TESTING OF MYCOPLASMA
Testing the Dispersal Methods
Documented evidence proves that the biological weapons they were developing were tested on the public in various communities without their knowledge or consent.
The government knew that crystalline Brucella would cause disease in humans. Now they needed to determine how it would spread and the best way to disperse it. They tested dispersal methods for Brucella suis and Brucella melitensis at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, in June and September 1952. Probably, 100% of us now are infected with Brucella suis and Brucella melitensis.8
Another government document recommended the genesis of open-air vulnerability tests and covert research and development programs to be conducted by the Army and supported by the Central Intelligence Agency.
At that time, the Government of Canada was asked by the US Government to cooperate in testing weaponised Brucella, and Canada cooperated fully with the United States. The US Government wanted to determine whether mosquitoes would carry the disease and also if the air would carry it. A government report stated that “open-air testing of infectious biological agents is considered essential to an ultimate understanding of biological warfare potentialities because of the many unknown factors affecting the degradation of micro-organisms in the atmosphere”.9
Testing via Mosquito Vector in Punta Gorda, Florida
A report from The New England Journal of Medicine reveals that one of the first outbreaks of chronic fatigue syndrome was in Punta Gorda, Florida, back in 1957.10 It was a strange coincidence that a week before these people came down with chronic fatigue syndrome, there was a huge influx of mosquitoes.
The National Institutes of Health claimed that the mosquitoes came from a forest fire 30 miles away. The truth is that those mosquitoes were infected in Canada by Dr Guilford B. Reed at Queen’s University. They were bred in Belleville, Ontario, and taken down to Punta Gorda and released there.
Within a week, the first five cases ever of chronic fatigue syndrome were reported to the local clinic in Punta Gorda. The cases kept coming until finally 450 people were ill with the disease.
Testing via Mosquito Vector in Ontario
The Government of Canada had established the Dominion Parasite Laboratory in Belleville, Ontario, where it raised 100 million mosquitoes a month. These were shipped to Queen’s University and certain other facilities to be infected with this crystalline disease agent. The mosquitoes were then let loose in certain communities in the middle of the night, so that the researchers could determine how many people would become ill with chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia, which was the first disease to show.
One of the communities they tested it on was the St Lawrence Seaway valley, all the way from Kingston to Cornwall, in 1984. They let out hundreds of millions of infected mosquitoes. Over 700 people in the next four or five weeks developed myalgic encephalomyelitis, or chronic fatigue syndrome.
IV &endash; COVERT TESTING OF OTHER DISEASE AGENTS
Mad Cow Disease/Kuru/CJD in the Fore Tribe
Before and during World War II, at the infamous Camp 731 in Manchuria, the Japanese military contaminated prisoners of war with certain disease agents.
They also established a research camp in New Guinea in 1942. There they experimented upon the Fore Indian tribe and inoculated them with a minced-up version of the brains of diseased sheep containing the visna virus which causes “mad cow disease” or Creutzfeldt&endash;Jakob disease.
About five or six years later, after the Japanese had been driven out, the poor people of the Fore tribe developed what they called kuru, which was their word for “wasting”, and they began to shake, lose their appetites and die. The autopsies revealed that their brains had literally turned to mush. They had contracted “mad cow disease” from the Japanese experiments.
When World War II ended, Dr Ishii Shiro–the medical doctor who was commissioned as a General in the Japanese Army so he could take command of Japan’s biological warfare development, testing and deployment–was captured. He was given the choice of a job with the United States Army or execution as a war criminal. Not surprisingly, Dr Ishii Shiro chose to work with the US military to demonstrate how the Japanese had created mad cow disease in the Fore Indian tribe.
In 1957, when the disease was beginning to blossom in full among the Fore people, Dr Carleton Gajdusek of the US National Institutes of Health headed to New Guinea to determine how the minced-up brains of the visna-infected sheep affected them. He spent a couple of years there, studying the Fore people, and wrote an extensive report. He won the Nobel Prize for “discovering” kuru disease in the Fore tribe.
Testing Carcinogens over Winnipeg, Manitoba
In 1953, the US Government asked the Canadian Government if it could test a chemical over the city of Winnipeg. It was a big city with 500,000 people, miles from anywhere. The American military sprayed this carcinogenic chemical in a 1,000%-attenuated form, which they said would be so watered down that nobody would get very sick; however, if people came to clinics with a sniffle, a sore throat or ringing in their ears, the researchers would be able to determine what percentage would have developed cancer if the chemical had been used at full strength.
We located evidence that the Americans had indeed tested this carcinogenic chemical–zinc cadmium sulphide–over Winnipeg in 1953. We wrote to the Government of Canada, explaining that we had solid evidence of the spraying and asking that we be informed as to how high up in the government the request for permission to spray had gone. We did not receive a reply.
Shortly after, the Pentagon held a press conference on May 14, 1997, where they admitted what they had done. Robert Russo, writing for the Toronto Star11 from Washington, DC, reported the Pentagon’s admission that in 1953 it had obtained permission from the Canadian Government to fly over the city of Winnipeg and spray out this chemical–which sifted down on kids going to school, housewives hanging out their laundry and people going to work. US Army planes and trucks released the chemical 36 times between July and August 1953. The Pentagon got its statistics, which indicated that if the chemical released had been full strength, approximately a third of the population of Winnipeg would have developed cancers over the next five years.
One professor, Dr Hugh Fudenberg, MD, twice nominated for the Nobel Prize, wrote a magazine article stating that the Pentagon came clean on this because two researchers in Sudbury, Ontario–Don Scott and his son, Bill Scott–had been revealing this to the public. However, the legwork was done by other researchers!
The US Army actually conducted a series of simulated germ warfare tests over Winnipeg. The Pentagon lied about the tests to the mayor, saying that they were testing a chemical fog over the city, which would protect Winnipeg in the event of a nuclear attack.
A report commissioned by US Congress, chaired by Dr Rogene Henderson, lists 32 American towns and cities used as test sites as well.
V &endash; BRUCELLA MYCOPLASMA AND DISEASE
The AIDS pathogen was created out of a Brucella bacterium mutated with a visna virus; then the toxin was removed as a DNA particle called a mycoplasma. They used the same mycoplasma to develop disabling diseases like MS, Crohn’s colitis, Lyme disease, etc.
In the previously mentioned US congressional document of a meeting held on June 9, 1969,12 the Pentagon delivered a report to Congress about biological weapons. The Pentagon stated: “We are continuing to develop disabling weapons.” Dr MacArthur, who was in charge of the research, said: “We are developing a new lethal weapon, a synthetic biological agent that does not naturally exist, and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.”
Think about it. If you have a deficiency of acquired immunity, you have an acquired immunity deficiency. Plain as that. AIDS.
In laboratories throughout the United States and in a certain number in Canada including at the University of Alberta, the US Government provided the leadership for the development of AIDS for the purpose of population control. After the scientists had perfected it, the government sent medical teams from the Centers for Disease Control–under the direction of Dr Donald A. Henderson, their investigator into the 1957 chronic fatigue epidemic in Punta Gorda–during 1969 to 1971 to Africa and some countries such as India, Nepal and Pakistan where they thought the population was becoming too large.13 They gave them all a free vaccination against smallpox; but five years after receiving this vaccination, 60% of those inoculated were suffering from AIDS. They tried to blame it on a monkey, which is nonsense.
A professor at the University of Arkansas made the claim that while studying the tissues of a dead chimpanzee she found traces of HIV. The chimpanzee that she had tested was born in the United States 23 years earlier. It had lived its entire life in a US military laboratory where it was used as an experimental animal in the development of these diseases. When it died, its body was shipped to a storage place where it was deep-frozen and stored in case they wanted to analyse it later. Then they decided that they didn’t have enough space for it, so they said, “Anybody want this dead chimpanzee?” and this researcher from Arkansas said: “Yes. Send it down to the University of Arkansas. We are happy to get anything that we can get.” They shipped it down and she found HIV in it. That virus was acquired by that chimpanzee in the laboratories where it was tested.14
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
Chronic fatigue syndrome is more accurately called myalgic encephalomyelitis. The chronic fatigue syndrome nomenclature was given by the US National Institutes of Health because it wanted to downgrade and belittle the disease.
An MRI scan of the brain of a teenage girl with chronic fatigue syndrome displayed a great many scars or punctate lesions in the left frontal lobe area where portions of the brain had literally dissolved and been replaced by scar tissue. This caused cognitive impairment, memory impairment, etc. And what was the cause of the scarring? The mycoplasma. So there is very concrete physical evidence of these tragic diseases, even though doctors continue to say they don’t know where it comes from or what they can do about it.
Many people with chronic fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalo-myelitis and fibromyalgia who apply to the Canada Pensions Plan Review Tribunal will be turned down because they cannot prove that they are ill. During 1999 I conducted several appeals to Canada Pensions and the Workers Compensation Board (WCB, now the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board) on behalf of people who have been turned down. I provided documented evidence of these illnesses, and these people were all granted their pensions on the basis of the evidence that I provided.
In March 1999, for example, I appealed to the WCB on behalf of a lady with fibromyalgia who had been denied her pension back in 1993. The vice-chairman of the board came to Sudbury to hear the appeal, and I showed him a number of documents which proved that this lady was physically ill with fibromyalgia. It was a disease that caused physical damage, and the disease agent was a mycoplasma. The guy listened for three hours, and then he said to me: “Mr Scott, how is it I have never heard of any of this before? I said: “We brought a top authority in this area into Sudbury to speak on this subject and not a single solitary doctor came to that presentation.”
VI &endash; TESTING FOR MYCOPLASMA IN YOUR BODY
Polymerase Chain Reaction Test
Information is not generally available about this agent because, first of all, the mycoplasma is such a minutely small disease agent. A hundred years ago, certain medical theoreticians conceived that there must be a form of disease agent smaller than bacteria and viruses. This pathogenic organism, the mycoplasma, is so minute that normal blood and tissue tests will not reveal its presence as the source of the disease.
Your doctor may diagnose you with Alzheimer’s disease, and he will say: “Golly, we don’t know where Alzheimer’s comes from. All we know is that your brain begins to deteriorate, cells rupture, the myelin sheath around the nerves dissolves, and so on.” Or if you have chronic fatigue syndrome, the doctor will not be able to find any cause for your illness with ordinary blood and tissue tests.
This mycoplasma couldn’t be detected until about 30 years ago when the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test was developed, in which a sample of your blood is examined and damaged particles are removed and subjected to a polymerase chain reaction. This causes the DNA in the particles to break down. The particles are then placed in a nutrient, which causes the DNA to grow back into its original form. If enough of the substance is produced, the form can be recognised, so it can be determined whether Brucella or another kind of agent is behind that particular mycoplasma.
If you or anybody in your family has myalgic encephalomyelitis, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis or Alzheimer’s, you can send a blood sample to Dr Les Simpson in New Zealand for testing.
If you are ill with these diseases, your red blood cells will not be normal doughnut-shaped blood cells capable of being compressed and squeezed through the capillaries, but will swell up like cherry-filled doughnuts which cannot be compressed. The blood cells become enlarged and distended because the only way the mycoplasma can exist is by uptaking pre-formed sterols from the host cell. One of the best sources of pre-formed sterols is cholesterol, and cholesterol is what gives your blood cells flexibility. If the cholesterol is taken out by the mycoplasma, the red blood cell swells up and doesn’t go through, and the person begins to feel all the aches and pains and all the damage it causes to the brain, the heart, the stomach, the feet and the whole body because blood and oxygen are cut off.
And that is why people with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome have such a terrible time. When the blood is cut off from the brain, punctate lesions appear because those parts of the brain die. The mycoplasma will get into portions of the heart muscle, especially the left ventricle, and those cells will die. Certain people have cells in the lateral ventricles of the brain that have a genetic predisposition to admit the mycoplasma, and this causes the lateral ventricles to deteriorate and die. This leads to multiple sclerosis, which will progress until these people are totally disabled; frequently, they die prematurely. The mycoplasma will get into the lower bowel, parts of which will die, thus causing colitis. All of these diseases are caused by the degenerating properties of the mycoplasma.
In early 2000, a gentleman in Sudbury phoned me and told me he had fibromyalgia. He applied for a pension and was turned down because his doctor said it was all in his head and there was no external evidence. I gave him the proper form and a vial, and he sent his blood to Dr Simpson to be tested. He did this with his family doctor’s approval, and the results from Dr Simpson showed that only 4% of his red blood cells were functioning normally and carrying the appropriate amount of oxygen to his poor body, whereas 83% were distended, enlarged and hardened, and wouldn’t go through the capillaries without an awful lot of pressure and trouble. This is the physical evidence of the damage that is done.
You can also ask your doctor to give you a 24-hour Holter ECG. You know, of course, that an electrocardiogram is a measure of your heartbeat and shows what is going on in the right ventricle, the left ventricle and so on. Tests show that 100% of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia have an irregular heartbeat. At various periods during the 24 hours, the heart, instead of working happily away going “bump-BUMP, bump-BUMP”, every now and again goes “buhbuhbuhbuhbuhbuhbuhbuhbuh”. The T-wave (the waves are called P, Q, R, S and T) is normally a peak, and then the wave levels off and starts with the P-wave again. In chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia patients, the T-wave flattens off, or actually inverts. That means the blood in the left ventricle is not being squeezed up through the aorta and around through the body.
My client from Sudbury had this test done and, lo and behold, the results stated: “The shape of T and S-T suggests left ventricle strain pattern, although voltage and so on is normal.” The doctor had no clue as to why the T-wave was not working properly. I analysed the report of this patient who had been turned down by Canada Pensions and sent it back to them. They wrote back, saying: “It looks like we may have made a mistake. We are going to give you a hearing and you can explain this to us in more detail.”
So it is not all in your imagination. There is actual physical damage to the heart. The left ventricle muscles do show scarring. That is why many people are diagnosed with a heart condition when they first develop fibromyalgia, but it’s only one of several problems because the mycoplasma can do all kinds of damage.
Blood Volume Test
You can also ask your doctor for a blood volume test. Every human being requires a certain amount of blood per pound of body weight, and it has been observed that people with fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis and other illnesses do not have the normal blood volume their body needs to function properly. Doctors aren’t normally aware of this.
This test measures the amount of blood in the human body by taking out 5 cc, putting a tracer in it and then putting it back into the body. One hour later, take out 5 cc again and look for the tracer. The thicker the blood and the lower the blood volume, the more tracer you will find.
The analysis of one of my clients stated: “This patient was referred for red cell mass study. The red cell volume is 16.9 ml per kg of body weight. The normal range is 25 to 35 ml per kg. This guy has 36% less blood in his body than the body needs to function.” And the doctor hadn’t even known the test existed.
If you lost 36% of your blood in an accident, do you think your doctor would tell you that you are alright and should just take up line dancing and get over it? They would rush you to the nearest hospital and start transfusing you with blood. These tragic people with these awful diseases are functioning with anywhere from 7% to 50% less blood than their body needs to function.
VII &endash; UNDOING THE DAMAGE
The body undoes the damage itself. The scarring in the brain of people with chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia will be repaired. There is cellular repair going on all the time. But the mycoplasma has moved on to the next cell.
In the early stages of a disease, doxycycline may reverse that disease process. It is one of the tetracycline antibiotics, but it is not bactericidal; it is bacteriostatic–it stops the growth of the mycoplasma. And if the mycoplasma growth can be stopped for long enough, then the immune system takes over.
Doxycycline treatment is discussed in a paper by mycoplasma expert Professor Garth Nicholson, PhD, of the Institute for Molecular Medicine.15 Dr Nicholson is involved in a US$8-million mycoplasma research program funded by the US military and headed by Dr Charles Engel of the NIH. The program is studying Gulf War veterans, 450 of them, because there is evidence to suggest that Gulf War syndrome is another illness (or set of illnesses) caused by mycoplasma.
1. “Pathogenic Mycoplasma”, US Patent No. 5,242,820, issued September 7,
1993. Dr Lo is listed as the
“Inventor” and the American Registry of Pathology, Washington, DC, is
listed as the “Assignee”.
2. “Special Virus Cancer Program: Progress Report No. 8”, prepared by
the National Cancer Institute,
Viral Oncology, Etiology Area, July 1971, submitted to NIH Annual Report
in May 1971 and updated
3. US Senate, Ninety-fifth Congress, Hearings before the Subcommittee on
Health and Scientific
Research of the Committee on Human Resources, Biological Testing
Involving Human Subjects by the
Department of Defense, 1977; released as US Army Activities in the US
Biological Warfare Programs,
Volumes One and Two, 24 February 1977.
4. Dr Donald MacArthur, Pentagon, Department of Defense Appropriations
for 1970, Hearings before
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, Ninety-First Congress,
First Session, Monday June 9, 1969, pp 105&endash;144, esp. pp. 114,
5. Kyger, E. R. and Russell L. Haden, “Brucellosis and Multiple
Sclerosis”, The American Journal of
Medical Sciences 1949:689-693.
6. Colmonero et al., “Complications Associated with Brucella melitensis
Infection: A Study of 530 Cases”,
7. Howell, Miller, Kelly and Bookman, “Acute Brucellosis Among
Laboratory Workers”, New England
Journal of Medicine 1948;236:741.
8. “Special Virus Cancer Program: Progress Report No. 8”, ibid., table
4, p. 135.
9. US Senate, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific
Research of the Committee on
Human Resources, March 8 and May 23, 1977, ibid.
10. New England Journal of Medicine, August 22, 1957, p. 362.
11. Toronto Star, May 15, 1997.
12. Dr Donald MacArthur, Pentagon, Department of Defense Appropriations
for 1970, Hearings, Monday
June 9, 1969, ibid., p. 129.
13. Henderson, Donald A., “Smallpox: Epitaph for a Killer”, National
Geographic, December 1978, p.
14. Blum, Deborah, The Monkey Wars, Oxford University Press, New York,
15. Nicholson, G. L., “Doxycycline treatment and Desert Storm”, JAMA
¥ Horowitz, Leonard, Emerging Viruses: Aids and Ebola, Tetrahedron
Publishing, USA, 1996.
¥ Johnson, Hillary, Osler’s Web, Crown Publishers, New York, 1996.
¥ Scott, Donald W. and William L. C. Scott, The Brucellosis Triangle,
The Chelmsford Publishers (Box
133, Stat. B., Sudbury, Ontario P3E 4N5), Canada, 1998 (US$21.95 + $3
s&h in US).
¥ Scott, Donald W. and William L. C. Scott, The Extremely Unfortunate
Skull Valley Incident, The
Chelmsford Publishers, Canada, 1996 (revised, extended edition available
from mid-September 2001;
US$16.00 pre-pub. price + US$3 s&h in US).
¥ The Journal of Degenerative Diseases (Donald W. Scott, Editor), The
Common Cause Medical
Research Foundation (Box 133, Stat B., Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 4N5),
Canada (quarterly journal; annual
subscription: US$25.00 in USA, $30 foreign).
¥ Ms Jennie Burke, Australian Biologics, Level 6, 383 Pitt Street,
Sydney NSW 2000, Australia tel +61
(0)2 9283 0807, fax +61 (0)2 9283 0910. Australian Biologics does tests
¥ Professor Garth Nicholson, PhD, Institute for Molecular Medicine,
15162 Triton Lane, Huntington
Beach, CA, 92649-1401, USA, tel +1 (714) 903 2900.
¥ Dr Les Simpson, Red Blood Cell Research Ltd, 31 Bath Street, Dunedin,
9001, New Zealand, tel +64
(0)3 471 8540, email email@example.com. (Note: Dr Simpson
directs his study to red cell
shape analysis, not the mycoplasma hypothesis.)
About the Author:
Donald Scott, MA, MSc, is a retired high school teacher and university
professor. He is also a veteran of
WWII and was awarded the North Atlantic Star, the Burma Star with Clasp,
Volunteer Service Medal and the Victory Medal. He is currently President
of The Common Cause
Medical Research Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation devoted to
research into neurosystemic
degenerative diseases. He is also Adjunct Professor with the Institute
for Molecular Medicine and he
produces and edits the Journal of Degenerative Diseases. He has
extensively researched neurosystemic
degenerative diseases over the past five years and has authored many
documents on the relationship
between degenerative diseases and a pathogenic mycoplasma called
Mycoplasma fermentans. His
research is based upon solid government evidence.
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280
Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
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.).
About the Author:
Tony Bushby, an Australian, became a businessman and entrepreneur early in his adult life. He established a magazine-publishing business and spent 20 years researching, writing and publishing his own magazines, primarily for the Australian and New Zealand markets.
With strong spiritual beliefs and an interest in metaphysical subjects, Tony has developed long relationships with many associations and societies throughout the world that have assisted his research by making their archives available. He is the author of The Bible Fraud (2001; reviewed in NEXUS 8/06 with extracts in NEXUS 9/01—03), The Secret in the Bible (2003; reviewed in 11/02, with extract, “Ancient Cities under the Sands of Giza”, in 11/03) and The Crucifixion of Truth (2005; reviewed in 12/02) and The Twin Deception (2007; reviewed 14/03). Copies of these books are available from the NEXUS website and the Joshua Books website http://www.joshuabooks.com.
As Tony Bushby vigorously protects his privacy, any correspondence should be sent to him care of NEXUS Magazine, PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560, Australia, fax +61 (0) 7 5442 9381.Labels: What the Church doesn’t want you to know