A presentation by Matt Deming to the Unitarian-Universalists Congregation of Charleston, West Virginia on November 22, 2015
Origins of the New Testament
In this talk, when I say “The Church”, or “The Early Church” it means the Roman Catholic Church because up until the 16th Century, it was the only game in town in Europe.
The term Presbyter comes from the Greek word presbos meaning “old man”. In the first few centuries CE, these presbyters were itinerant elders, like bishops, but without a fixed see. Many were semi-literate at best, most were illiterate as was 90% of Europe in the 4th century. The term presbyter used herein includes both itinerant and bishops of fixed sees.
It has often been emphasized that Christianity is unique among religions, for it stands or falls by certain events alleged to have occurred during a short (~35 year period) of time about 20 centuries ago in the Middle East. Those stories are presented in the New Testament and, it can be argued based on evidence, and the lack thereof, that they do not represent historical realities.
Quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley edition:
“ 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.” And at another point that the Gospels”do not go back to the first century of the Christian era.”  and “The earliest extant manuscripts[of the New Testament] do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD.”
That is some 300 years after the time the church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here, as writer Tony Bushby puts it, ”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 what some have called “the greatest misrepresentation of all time.”
So, how did this happen? It was the British-born Custennyn, (272 to 337) known in Latin as Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus, or as we know him, Constantine, who authorized the compilation of the writings now called the New Testament. After the death of his father Flavius Valerius Constantius, the Deputy Emperor of the Western Roman Empire, in 306, Constantine became King of Britain, Gaul, and Spain, and then after a series of victories, Emperor of the entire Roman Empire.
Many Christian historians cite the so-called Edict of Milan granting tolerance to Christians within the empire as proof that they were recognized as a single religion prior to the council of Nicaea. The only two accounts of this edict were written years after the fact by Eusebius of Caesarea and Lucius Lactantius, who by the time of their writing about this, were already highly-placed church officials of the new religion. Even so, their writings sharply diverged on the details of what was said. Lactantius account is only a copy of a letter from Licinius to the governors of the provinces in the Eastern Empire which he had just conquered. No written transcription of the edict is known to exist, though tolerance for all religions came into the empire at about that time. That there ever was an actual edict is debatable. Later, one of Constantine’s main problems was the uncontrollable disorder amongst presbyters and their belief in numerous gods.
A majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress, or at least try to ignore 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 the “Church Fathers”. Constantine said they were maddened.. “The peculiar type of oratory expounded by them was a challenge to settled religious order.”
Ancient extra-biblical records reveal the low regard in which they were held by the educated people of that time. To quote one of the more literate so-called “Church Fathers”,, Origen of Alexandria (ca.250):
“they were…the most rustic fellows , teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant were 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.”
Clusters of Presbyters had developed “many gods and many lords” as lamented in I Cor 8:5, each with different doctrines (Gal 1:6). These groups clashed over attributes of their various gods and “altar was set against alter” in competing for an audience. 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 what he considered irreverent confusion. But in an age of ignorance, with nine-tenths of the peoples of Europe illiterate, stabilizing religious splinter groups was only one of Constantine’s problems.
The generalization, which so many writers of histories are content repeat, that Constantine “embraced the Christian religion” and subsequently granted “official toleration”, is “contrary to historical fact” and should be erased from the literature.
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.”
Constantine “never acquired a solid theological knowledge and “depended heavily on his advisers in religious questions”. According to Eusebius, Constantine noted that among the 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. His advisers, warned him that the presbyters’ religions were “destitute of foundation” and needed official stabilization.
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 Cordoba, to Alexandria with letters to several bishops exhorting them to make peace among themselves. Of course, 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 to 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 journey, and surrender them to Constantine himself upon arrival in Nicaea.
Their writings totaled, “ in all two thousand two hundred and thirty one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviors, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them”. 
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 clearer picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at that time. It was at this gathering that Christianity, the religion about Jesus and not the religion of Jesus 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 Mithra-ism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice 21 June 325. and it was” held in the hall of Osius’s palace.
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 and Eusebius Pamphilius they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing.” 
Dr. Richard Watson, church historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales referred to them as “a set of gibbering idiots”. 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 patronized the vilest abominations.. It was that infantile body of men that 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 We’ll see shortly what happened to them. However, according to the records that endured, Eusebius “occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor’s behalf”
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. Caecilian of Carthage traveled from Africa, Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia, which comprises parts of Hungary, Austria and the Balkan States. It was at that puerile assembly, with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 “bishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons,acolytes and exorcists gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god. By this time, a huge assort-ment of “wild texts”  circulated amongst the presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses. They included:
Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Yahweh, Caesar, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo, Atys, Durga, Fragapatti, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Krishna, Agni, Croesus Pelides, Huit, and at least a dozen others. 
Up until the first council of Nicaea the Roman aristocracy primarily worshiped two Greek Gods: Apollo (healing and redemption) and Zeus (Jupiter) “God the Father”. Two ancient inscriptions discovered in 1909 from close to Lystra identify Paul and Barnabas, perhaps mistakenly (or not) as “priests of Zeus.”
The bulk of the common people idolized either Julius Caesar or Mithras (the Romanized version of the Persian diety Mithra). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death in 44 BC and subsequently venerated as “the Devine Julius” and the word “Savior” was attached to his name. Caesar was hailed as “God made manifest and universal Savior of human life” and his successor Augustus was called “the ancestral God and Savior of the whole human race”. 
The Emperor Nerowas immortalized on coins during his reign as the “Savior of mankind”. The Devine Julius as Roman Savior and “Father of the Empire” was considered “God” among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was the deity in some Wester presbyters’ texts, but was not recognized 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 has been selected by the council and so they balloted in order to determine that matter…For a year and five monthe the balloting lasted…” 
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 short list of five prospects:
Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus, and Zeus 
Constantine ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve the British factions of his birthplace, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus or Esus, be joined with the Eastern Savior-god, Krishna. (Krishna in Sanskrit is Cristos in 4th century Greek) and thus the name of the official new Roman god would be Hesus Krishna or Esus Cristos in Greek. A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) and both divinities became one god. Following longstanding heathen custom, democratic consent, Constantine used this official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one. A new god was proclaimed and “officially” ratified by Constantine.  That purely political act of deification legally and effectively placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as a composite individual. That abstraction lent Earthly existance to amalgamated doctrines for the Emire’s new religion. Because there was no letter “J” in alphabets until the ninth century, the name evolved into Jesus Christ.
Creation of the Gospels:
Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings, developed from primary aspects of the 2200-plus religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were:
“search ye these books and whatever is good in them, that retain, but whatsoever [in your opinion] is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another, 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 religion’s sake.” “Make them to astonish”, said Constantine, and the books were compiled and written accordingly.
Eusebius amalgamated the “legendary tales” of all the religious doctrines of the Roman world together as one, using the standard god-myths from the presbyters manuscripts as his examplars. “Merging the supernatural god-stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs, he effectively joines the orations of the Eastern and Western presbyters together “to form a new universal belief” Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story.
Eusebius then arranged for the scribes to produce,
“Fifty stumptious copies… to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional scribesthoroughly accomplished in their art.” “These orders,” said Eusebius,”were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself…we sent him[Constantine] magnificiently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms.”
They were the “New Testamonies”, and this is the first mention (ca.331 C.E.) of the “New Testament in any historical record.
With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would hereafter be called the “Word of the Roman Savior God“ and official to allpresbyters sermonizing in the Roman Empire.That is, information about the Roman God, Not the “ words of the god”. He then ordered all 2,231 earlier presbyterial manuscripts and records of the council “be burnt” and declared that “ Any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders” As the record shows, except for some fragments, presbyterial writings previous to the council of Nicaea no longer exist.
Some council records also survived. Some of the documents say that the first Council of Nicaea ended in mid-Novenber 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. Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title “Great and Holy Synod” a title assigned to the assembly by the Church in the 18th century. Earlier churchmnen, however, expressed a different opinion.
The Second Council of Nicaea, in 786-787, denounced the First Council of Nicaea as, “A synod of fools and madmen” and sought to annul “decisions passed by men with troubled brains.” If one chooses to read the records of the Second Nicaean Council
and notes references to “affrightened bishops” and the soldiers needed to “quell proceedings”, then the “fools and madmen” declaration is surely and 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 champoin of Christianity” to which he gave “legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire.”  Historical records show this to be incorrect, it was self-interest in his desire to unite the Empire under one faith to end sectraian wars that led him to create Christianity. Yet it wasn’t even called Christianity until the 15th century!
Over the ensuing centuries, Constantines New Testimonies were expanded upon “interpolations” were added and other writings included.  For example, in 397, sixty years after the death of Constantine, John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage and made them part of the New Testimonies. His Latinized name is Paulus of Tarsus.
Apollonius’s personal attendant Damis, an Assyrian scribe, is Demis in the New Testament. (2 Tim,4:10) Many of the sages and presbyters of the first few centuries of the common era had scribes as travelling companions because they themselves were illiterate.
The Church hierarchy knew the truth about the origin of the Epistles , for Cardinal Bembo, secretary to Pope Leo X advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto (ca.1500) to disregard them, saying,
“put away these trifles, for such absurdities do not become a man of dignity; they were introduced upon the scene later by a sly voice from heaven.”
That sly voice being the now St. John Chrysostom.
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.” Not the transcribers, but the authors.
Likewise St. Jerome (d420) declared that the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book of the New Testament was also “falsely written”.
Discovery of an ancient Bible
The New Testament subsequently evolved into a fulsome piece of priesthood propaganda, and the Church claimed it recorded the interfention of a divine Jesus Christ into earthly affairs. However, a spectacular discovery in a remote Egyptian monastery revealed the extent of later falsifications of the Christian texts, thenselves only an “assemblage of legendary tales”.
On4 February 1859, 346 large leaves of an ancient codex were discovered in the furnace room at St Catherine’s monastery at Mt’ Sinai. Along with other old codices it was scheduled to be burned to provide winter warmth for the monks. Written in Greek on donkey skins, It carried both the Old and New Terstaments, and later, archeologists dated it’s creation to around the year 380. It was discovered by Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, a brilliant and pious 19th century German biblical scholar and he called it the codex Sinaiticus, or Sinai Bible. Tischendorf was a professor of theology whose life-study was the origins of themselves New Testament and his desire to read all the ancient Christian texts led him on the long camel-journey to St Catherine’s.
During his lifetime, Tischendorf had access to other Bibles unavailable to the public, such as the Alexandrian, the world’s second oldest Bible, and the Vatican Bible, at that time the world’s third oldest, dated to the mid sixth century. It was locked away in the Vatican’s inner library.He was denied the right to make hand-written notes, but when his guard took refreshment breaks, he wrote notes on his hands, arms, and fingernails. Today there are other Bibles written in various languages dating from the fifth and sixth centuries. In the last quarter of the 19th century, English translations of the Sinai Bible appeared. So different was the Sinai Bibles New Testament from versions then being published that the Church angrily tried to annul the new evidence that challenged its very existance, provided evidence of willful falsification, and disputes Christianity’s claim to historicity. In a series published in the London Quartly Review in 1883, John W Burgon, Dean of Chichester used every rhetorical device 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 everywhere 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 seem strange, the opposing aspects of Gospel stories then current having by then evolved into a new stage through centuries of tampering with the already unhistorical document.
Even this old codex from 380 shows signs of tampering over the centuries of its existance. Ultra-violet light tests done in the 1930s showed numerous errors caused by replacement of passages by at least nine different editors, but the original ink pigment had been retained deep in the pores of the skin.
When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared to the modern-day one, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified by a simple comparison, if you can find a copy of the Sinai Bible English translation of the 1880s. Of importance is that the Sinaiticus carries three Gospels approved by the First Nicaean Council but later rejected: the Shepherd of Hermas , the missive of Barnabas, and the Odes of Solomon. Time and space does not permit an analysis of these at this time.
Modern Bibles are five removes in translation from early editions and there are disputes over the translation of more than 5,000 ancient words. However, it is what is not written in the oldest Bibles that embarresses the Church. We will only have time for a few of these omissions.
One glaring example is revealed in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, where the Church divulges its knowledge about exclusions in the old Bible saying:
“The remark has long ago and often been made that, like Paul, even the earliest Gospel [writers] knew nothing of the miraculous birth of our Savior”. Possibly 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”[57a] 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 for the framework for the compilation of their works. Just as today a number of authors have extended some of the works of Isaac Asimov or Arthur Conan Doyle in ways that are beyond, but not blatantly contradictory to the concepts of the original authors. 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.[57b]
Thus the Gospel of Mark in the Sinai Bible carries the “first” story of Jesus Chirst 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 it doesn’t know a Mary, a virgin birth, or the mass murders baby boys by Herod. Words describing Jesus Christ as the “Son of Gon” do not appear in this opening narrative as they do in today’s editions (Mark 1:1) and the modern-day “family tree tracing a messianic bloodline back to David is non-existent in all of the most ancient Bibles, as are the now-called messianic prophecies of which there are 51 in total.
The Sinai Bible also has a conflicting version of the “raising of Lazarus” and has an omission of what later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ to his apostles and his ascention into Heaven! Not only are those narratives missing in the Sanai Bible, but they are absent in the the Alexandrian Bible, The Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible, and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark known as the “K” document. They are also lacking in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, in sixth century manuscripts of the Ethiopian version and ninth-century Anglo-Saxon Bibles. However some 12th-century Gospels have the 500-word resurrection verses written within asterisk marks used by scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document.
The Church claims that “the resurrection is the fundamental argument for Christian belief,” A resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non of Christianity,. confirmed by words attributed to Paul:
“If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain” (I Cor 5:17)
Yet, no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available. The Resurrection verses in today’s Gospels of Mark are are almost universally acknowledged by Bible historians as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying:
“The conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine… almost the entire section is a later compilation” However the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity, and holds it so today.
The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues .The final chapter (21) of the Gospel of John is a sixth-century forgery, 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 afterwardsadded and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel.”[63a,b]
Great Insertion and Great Omission:
Modern-day versions of the Gospel of Luke have a staggering 10,000 words more than the same Gospel in the Sinai Bible. Six of these words say of Jesus “and was carried up into Heaven”, but this does not appear in any of the oldest gospelss of Luke available today.. Today, the Gospel of Luke is the longest of the canonical Gospels because in includes”The Great Insertion”, a 15th century addition totaling around 8,500 words.(Luke 9:51-18:14). Of these passages, the Church said,”The character of these passages makes it dangerous to draw inferences.”
[Includes naming 70 more disciples, vow of poverty, parables of the wedding guest, consorting with sinners, shepherd & one lost sheep, sin healing on the Sabbath, etc.]
Just as remarkable, the oldest Gospels of Luke omit all verses from 6:45 to 8:26, 1,547 words known as the “Great Omission” [House upon sand, raising of more dead, Jesus’s baptism, sower of seed, calming the seas, etc.] In today’s versions, the hole has been plugged with passages plagerized from other Gospels, and Dr Tischendorf found that three paragraphs of the Gospel of Luke’s version of the Last Supper “appeared” in the 15th century, but the Church still passes off its Gospels as the unadulterated “word of God”.
As was the case with the New Testament, so also were damaging writings of early “Church Fathers”, modified, rewritten, or suppressed. Adopting the decrees of the Council of Trent 1545-63) the church extended the process of erasure and ordered preparation of a list of specific information to be expunged from early Christian writings. In 1562, the Vatican set up a special censoring office called Index Expurgatorius. Its purpose was to prohibit publication of “erroneous passages of the early Church Fathers” that carried statements contrary to then-modern-day doctrine.
When Vatican archivists came across “genuine copies of the Fathers, they corrected them according to the Expurgatory Index”. The Church record provides researchers with “grave doubts about the value of all epatristic writings released to the public.
The Encyclopaedia Biblica reveals that around 1200 years of Christian history are mostly unknown: “Unfortunately, only few of the [Church] records prior to the year 1198 have been released. It was not by chance that in that same year Pope Innocent III suppressed all records of earlier church history by establishing the Secret Archives. Some seven and a half centuries later, and after spending some years in those archives, Prof. Edmond S. Bordeaux wrote:
“The Church ante-dated all her late works, some newly made, some revised and some counterfeited, which contain the final expression of her history…her technique was to make it appear that much later works were composed a long time earlier, so that they might become evidence of the first, second, or third centuries. Supporting Prof. Bordeaux’s findings is the fact that in 1587, Pope Sixtus V ( c.1587) established an official Vatican publishing division and said, in his own words: “Church history will now be established… we will now seek to print our own account”  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” The evidence that the Church wrote its own history is found in Diderot’s Encyclopedie and is the reason why Pope Clement XII ordered all volumes to be destroyed immediately after publication in1759. 
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.”
The Church maintains that “the titles of The Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship”, adding “the headings were affixed to them.” Therefore they are not the Gospels written “according to Matthew, Mark, Like of John”, as publicly stated for almost two millenia,Thid reveals that therefore there are no genuine apostolic Gospelsand that these shadowy writings today embody the very pillars of Christian faith.
The consequences are fatal to the pretense of Divine origin of the New Testament and show Christian texts to have no special authority. For centuries fabricated Gospels bore Church certification of authenticity now confessed to be false.
The important question then to ask is “If the New Testament is not historical, then what is it?c Dr Tischendorf provided part of the answer when he said in his 15,000 pages of notes on the Sinai Bible that
“It seems that the personage of Jesus Christ was made narrator for many religions”. 
This explains how narritives from the ancient Indian epic 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 BCE) are in the New Testament. Extracts from the hymn to Zeus written by the Greek Philosopher Cleanthes (331-232 BCE are also found in the Gospels as are 207 words from the Thais of Menander (343-291 BCE). Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek Poet Epimenedes (ca. 600 BCE) are applied to the lips of Jesus Christ, and seven passages from the curious Ode to Jupiter (c.150 BCE; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament. 
Tischendorf’s conclusions also support Prof. Bordeaux’s Vatican findings that reveal the allegory of Jesus Christ derivrd from the fable of Mithra, the divine son of God (ahura Mazda) and messiah of the first kings of the Persian Empire around 400 BCE. His birth in a grotto was attended by magi who followed a star from the east. They brought “gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh” and the newborn baby was adored by shepherds. He came into the world wearing the Mithraic or phrygian 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. (Petros in Classic Greek means rock) After a last supper with Helios and 11 other companions, Mithras was crucified, bound in linen, placed in a rock tomb, and arose on the third day, around March 25th, the full moon after the spring equinox, a time named for the Babylonian goddess of fertility and spring rebirth, Ishtar. The Celtic /Germanic tribes also have a spring goddess Oester, which in Old high German means one from the East. Centuries later, one or both of these names evolved into Easter which follows the same Solar & Lunar combination, Easter is the First Sunday, after the first Full Moon, after the spring Equinox. The fiery destruction of the universe was a major doctrine of Mithraism – a time inb which Mithra promised to return in person to Earth and save the deserving souls. Devotees of Mithra partook in a sacred communion of bread and wine, a form of symbolic cannibalism to become filled with the spirit of the dead one who was yet alive, paralleling the Christian Eucharist but preceeding it by four centuries.
So, Christianity is an adaptation of:
. Mithraism welded with 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 (e.g. Many gods as aspects of the one god.)
Why are there No records of Jesus Christ?
It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the first and fourth centuries CE. Any reference to Jesus Christ or any of the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life and death. This despite the fact that Roman magistrates and Hebrew scribe were anal intheir recording every event from an Eclipse to an odd flight of birds, to a slightly delayed grain shipment from a neighboring province. No darkness at noon, no earthquake, no decree for the slaughter of Jewish babies by Herod, no record of the trial of Jesus by Pontius Pilate.This confirmation comes from Frederic of 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 Savior of mankind…there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus, or of talked to him, or even knew of him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about the events relayed in the four Gospels.”
This situation arises from a conflct between history and the New Testament narritives. 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 ecclesiatic writings assembled duringthe fourth century.”
There is an explaination for those centuries 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 called Christ a “fable”. 
While the concept of the Trinity in Christian theology is referenced to an early 3rd century theologian and “Church Father”, Tertulian,  none of those works exist before mid-fourth-century copies. Even the original Nicene creed, put forth in 325/6 does not mention god being a trinity, although it is implied more strongly in the revised version, adopted more than half a century later, at the Council of Constantinople (381) The concept of the trinity does not appear in in any of the Gospels, even today.
Nicene Creeds I & II
First Council of Nicaea (325) First Council of Constantinople (381)
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heavenand earth, andof all things visible and invisible.
And in one LordJesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begottenSon of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds(æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; by whom all things were made;
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnateand was made man; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; he was crucifiedfor us under Pontius Pilate, andsuffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, andascended into heaven, and sittethon the right hand of the Father;
From thence he shall cometo judgethe quick and the dead. from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead. ;
whose kingdomshall have no end.
And in the Holy Ghost. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
[But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’and ‘He was not before he was made;’and ‘He was made out of nothing,’or ‘He is of another substance’or ‘essence,’or ‘The Son of God is created,’or ‘changeable,’or ‘alterable’— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]
Anglican Book of Common Prayer 1662
I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, dead, and buried:
He descended into hell;
The third day he rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
The holy Catholick Church;
The Communion of Saints;
The Forgiveness of sins;
The Resurrection of the body,
And the Life everlasting.
Footnotes and References:
 Catholic Encyclopedia”, Farley ed., vol. iii p 712
 ibid. vol. vi p 137, pp655-6
 ibid. p656-7
 Tony Bushby Nexus Magazine, vol 14 No.4 2007
 Wm. H. C. Frend, “The Early Church” 1965, SCM Press 2003 reprint
 “Catholic Encyclopedia”, Farley ed., vol xiv pp370-1
 Life of Constantine attr. To Eusebius Pamphilius of Carsarea (c.335) vol iii p 171
 “The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” Roberts DD & Donaldson LLD eds.1891 vol. iv, p 467
The dictionary of Classical Mythology,Religion, Literature and Art, Oskar Seyffert, Gramercy, New York,1995, pp544-5
 Optatus of Milevis, 1:15,19, early fourth cent.trassl. on line @ http://www.tertulian.org.
 Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol.iii p 299, passim
 Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol.xiv, pp.370-1
 Catholic Encyclopedia, New Ed. Vol. Xii, p576, passim
 Life of Constantine, op.cit. Pp 26-8
 Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, 1917, “Council of Nicaea entry”
 Life of Constantine op.cit. Vol ii p 73; Roberts & Donaldson, op.cit. vol i p 518.
 Bushby, op.cit.
 Catholic Encyclopedia, New Ed. Vol. I, p 792
 Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686 vol.i p.589
 Secrets of the Church Fathers, Bishop J.W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint
 An Apology for Christianity Dr. Richard Watson 1776, 1796 reprint vol 2, London
 Bushby op.cit.
 Catholic Encyclopedia Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-20
 Ecclesiastical History op.cit.
 Watson op.cit.
Catholic Encyclopedia New Ed. “Gospel and Gospels” entry
 God’s Book of Eskra, Prof. S.L.MacGuire transl. ch. xlvii, paragraph 36
 Man and His Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co, Boston, 1952
 God’s Book of Eskra Prof. S.L.MacGuire transl. Salisbury Eng. 1922, ch. xlviii paragraphs 36,41.
 Historia Ecclesiastica ,Eusebius, c. 325
 Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618 transl.
 God’s Book of Eskra, op cit. ch.xlviii, par.31
 Life of Constantine vol.iv, pp. 36-39
 Life of Constantine vol.iv, p36
 Secrets of the Church Fathers op.cit.
 History of the Christian Church, H.H.Milman, DD, 1871
 Encyclopedia of the Roman Emipre, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, NY, 1994 p.86
 A Smaller Classical Dictionary J. M. Dent London, 1910, p 161
 How the Great Pan Died Prof. Edmond S. Bordeaux [Vatican Archivist] Mille Meditations, USA MCMLXVIII, PP.45-47.
 Catholic Encyclopedia, Farlet ed. Vol.vi, p.161,also Pecci ed. vol. ii pp 122-123.
 Secrets of the Church Fathers op.cit.
 Cardinal Bembo: His Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, A. L. Collins, London, 1842 reprint.
 Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed. Vol vii, p 645.
 “The Letters of Jerome” in Library of the Fathers, Oxford Movement 1833-45, vol.v, p.445
 Encyclopedie , Diderot, 1759.
 “The Various Versions of the Bible” lecture, Dr. Constantin von Tischendorf 1874 Transcript jn British Library.
”Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not” lecture, Dr. Constantin von Tischendorf 1869 Transcript jn British Library.
 John W Burgon, Series of Articles in London Quarterly Review, 1883. as quoted by A. Bushby
 “Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat British Museum, London, 1938.
 Encyclopedia Biblica, Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899vol.iii, p.3344
[57a] Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed. vol. vi, p.657
[57b] The Crucifixation of Truth” A Bushby. Joshua Books, 2004, pp 33-40
 Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed. vol. xii, p.792
 Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. ii p.1880, vol.iii, pp1767,1781
 Op.Cit  vol iii pp 274-9
[63a] Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vil vii pp441-2;
[63b] New Catholic Encyclopedia,,, p.1080 &vol. xii, p. 407
 Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Texts of the Gospels F. C. Conybeare in The Hibbert Journal, London, vol. i No.1 Oct 1902 pp96-113.
 The Catholic Encyclopedia Pecct ed, vol ii p. 407.
 Op.cit. 
 Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Rev. Charles Elliott, DD, Lane & Sanford, NY, 1842 ,p89.
The Vatican Censors, Prof. Peter Emsley, Oxford, p. 327, pub. date n/a
 Index Purgatorius Vaticanus, R. Gibbings ed. Dublin 1837
 Lirerary Policy of the Church of Rome, Jos. Mendham, J.Duncan, London, 1830, 2nd ed 1840
 The Propaganda Press of Rome, Sir James Claxton, Whitehaven Books, London 1942, p. 182.
 Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed. vol xv, p 287
 How the Great Pan Died, op.cit. p. 46
 Encyclopedie, Diderot 1759
 Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed. Vol. v, p442 & vol. xv, p376
 A. Bushby op.cit 
 Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp 655-6.
 Bushby op.cit 
 Alterations to the Sinai Bible, Dr. Constantine von Tischendorf, 1863, British Library, London
 Bushby op.cit 
 The life of Christ, Frederic W farrar, Cassell, London, 1874
Codex Sinaiticus,Dr, Constantine von Tischendorf, British Library, London c. 1875
 Cardinal Bembo: His Letters… op.cit.
 T. D. Barnes, Tertullian: a Historical and Literary Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), p. 58.
A Greek Orthodox Icon Showing Constantine holding a copy of the Nicene Creed as re-written in 381.
Unfortunately, Constantine died in 337.