The False Prophets of Christianity
"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold."--Matthew 24:11, 12. These false prophets did not take long to materialize. In fact the Christian religions you follow today are all based on the interpretations of scripture by these very same false prophets, and not that of the original authors. Go to any church in America and you will find a false prophet running the service, and immorality abounds and there is no love. Just look at what a mess the world is today with all of the drug use, teenage suicides, and now mass shootings often perpetrated by American youth and you can see the results of Christianity for yourself. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,"--Matthew 23:29. This is a clear reference to the division in the Jewish community between the words of the prophets as opposed to the actions of the temple worshippers and the clergy.

While many of the Gnostic gospels date from the late first century through the second century, it is not known precisely when the canonical gospels were originally written. The Early Church father Justin Martyr, who was a layman, wrote extensively about Jesus Christ during the middle of the second century, and he often quoted the Old Testament by book, chapter and verse. Although he often utilized quotes from the Synoptic Gospels he never gives these quotes attributions, only referring to them as 'Memoirs of the Apostles'. In other words as late as the middle of the second century it seems likely that even though the gospel writings existed, there does not seem to be a Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

"And when Socrates endeavoured, by true reason and examination, to bring these things to light, and deliver men from the demons, then the demons themselves,... compassed his death, as an atheist and a profane person, on the charge that "he was introducing new divinities;" and in our case they display a similar activity. For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason ..."--The 'First Apology of Justin.' In his First Apology, c 150 CE, Justin seems to be acknowledging that you cannot know God through reason, but then goes on to make an argument for Christianity based on reason. This could be where the fledgling Christian religion took one of its first giant missteps. While Justin used Matthew, Mark, and The Infancy Gospel of James, he seems to not know anything about Luke, or Acts. Although Justin quotes Luke 1:35, and 1:38 it is far more likely that he got these from the Gospel of James. It would be hard to believe that Justin had Luke, and only quoted these two verses. A commonly believed date for his final work Dialogue with Trypho is c 160 CE. So, as you can see even at this late a date there still was no Luke, or Acts.

Early Christians were considered to be atheists. "Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity."--Ibid.

A contemporary of Justin was Marcion of Sinope. Marcion was the first person to introduce a Christian canon which consisted of eleven books, ten Pauline Epistles and "The Gospel of the Lord" a gospel paralleling that of a simplified Luke less the birth narrative, and far less Jewish in tone. In Marcion's gospel when Jesus comes down to Capernaum he literally comes down from heaven. Upon reading the Old Testament and comparing him to Yahweh Marcion concluded that the two were incompatible. These early Orthodox Christians just did not understand that biblical writings are not to be taken literally. "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."--2Corinthians 3:6. I cannot emphasize this passage from 2Corinthians enough. The message to Christians, don't follow the scriptures literally, but they still don't listen. They still follow the scriptures as if they were literally true and not allegory. Just look at what has transpired in the Middle East, and the whole world, for God only knows how long.

"I wrote memoirs of Apollonius from about 34 A.D. to 80 A.D. The Greek followers of Prometheus mutilated those memoirs. They were greatly opposed to the introduction of the Indian Christos among the Greeks, and were exceedingly opposed to Apollonius and his teachings."--J. M. Roberts, 'Antiquity Unveiled', testimony of Damis. "Marcion and Lucian obtained mutilated copies of my memoirs concerning Apollonius and used them in shaping their gospel tragedies."--Ibid. "For my own benefit and personal aggrandizement, I brought to Rome the Pauline Epistles. I obtained them in Antioch. I changed or interpolated them to suit myself;"--J. M. Roberts, 'Antiquity Unveiled', testimony of Marcion. "St. Paul...known to me as Apollos in the Greek tongue; as Paulus in the Roman;...it was understood by all scholars at the time I wrote, as relating to the life, travels, of one Apollonius, the oracle of Vespasian."--J. M. Roberts, 'Antiquity Unveiled', testimony of Lucian. Lucian lived from c 125-180 CE, so it is highly unlikely that he wrote the Luke Gospel before Marcion wrote his Gospel of the Lord. "The Krishna of India which had been worshipped before the time of Eusebius was a black man, and it was Eusebius who turned him into a Jew instead of a Hindoo."--J. M. Roberts, 'Antiquity Unveiled', testimony of Procopius, the principal Byzantine historian of the sixth century. "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."--1Corinthians 1:12. "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"--1Corinthians 1:13. Here Paul plays a little word game. He could have said no it was Christ who was crucified for you, but he doesn't. Instead he begs the question was I, Paul, crucified for you. He then tells the reader: "For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?--1 Corinthians 3:4, "I have planted, Apollos watered;"--1 Corinthians 3:6, "Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one:"--1Corinthians 3:8.

"I knew of the writings of Marcion-not that he was the author of them-but he substituted a myth for a reality."--J. M. Roberts, 'Antiquity Unveiled', testimony of Clement Alexandrinus. Clement established a fraternity of monks, but did not reveal his source. "so I used the name of Apollonius, which after my time was erased and the name of Jesus Christ substituted by Eusebius of Caesarea. All his translations of my writings are, in the main forgeries."--Ibid. Eusebius took communistic doctrines and used them to found a church.

Based solely on its Alexandrian text type, the oldest extant fragment of the Luke gospel dates from c 175-225 CE. So, here we are in the middle of the second century and all we have are ten Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark and no Pastorals, no Gospel of Matthew, no Gospel of Luke and no Gospel of John. Now, there does exist an early fragment of John's gospel known as the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 fragment which Christians date at 125 CE, however, the true dating of this fragment is from 125 CE - 175 CE which means it could have been written as late as 175 CE. "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,"--Luke 1:1. While the Catholic Church likes to claim that they chose the canonical scriptures based on their originality or early authorship, this opening immediately throws cold water on that notion. Here the author tells us that he is far from the first to take pen in hand to write about these beliefs. One thing we do know is that most Christian writings date not from the first century, but the second century. So, it is highly unlikely that Luke wrote his gospel during the first century. "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,"--Luke 1:3. While there continues to be an ongoing debate over exactly who this Theophilus actually was, the argument is based on an early date of composition. Theophilus was the patriarch of Antioch c 169-183 CE. He was cited by Eusebius for writing a scathing rebuttal of the works of Marcion. Hence it would only make sense for a kindred spirit of Marcion, Lucian, to rebut his rebuttal that being in the form of the Gospel of Luke which in the greater sense parallels that of Marcion's Gospel of the Lord. The problem with Christian scholars is that they date the authorship of the gospels back to when the originals were translated by Apollonius, and not to the date when the gospel was composed which was much later.

"The four Gospels were translated from the Sanskrit by Apollonius, and they were sent out by him in four different languages-the Greek, the Roman, the Armenian, and the Syrian Hebraic...It was Lucian the Satirist who afterwards placed these things in their present shape."--J. M. Roberts, 'Antiquity Unveiled', testimony of Lucius of Cyrene.

This latter date of composition of Luke coincides nicely with the Irenaeus pronouncement of the completion of the first Church canon c 180 CE. He revealed his canon in Adversus Haereses (Book 3, Chapter 1). The late entry into his manuscript, of this important information, seems to indicate that there was some reason for the delay of its publication. Could it be that he was waiting for a newly completed and Church edited version of Luke?

Continued Table of Contents