It is a fact of Christian history that the earliest Gospels did not record a resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that claim is supported in the oldest known complete Bible available to mankind today. Called the Codex Sinaiticus, or Sinai Bible, it was named after Mt. Sinai, the location of St. Catherine’s Monastery where it was discovered in 1859 by Dr. Constantine Von Tischendorf (1815-1874). The discovery of the Sinai Bible provided biblical scholars with irrefutable evidence of wilful falsifications in all modern-day Gospels, and a comparison identified a staggering 14,800 later editorial alterations in modern Bibles.
Vast dating discrepancies
With the Sinai Bible, Christian history is traced back as far as it can conceivably go, but it was still written, at best, more than 350 years after the time the Vatican says Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine. The ‘Catholic Encyclopedia’ agrees to this extraordinary late composition of the world’s oldest Bible:
’The earliest of the extant manuscripts [relating to Christianity], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD’.
(‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, 1909, ‘Gospels’)
Hand-written on animal skins in a dead Greek language, the Sinai Bible was purchased by the British Museum from the Soviet Government in 1933 and is now displayed in the British Library in London. Sometime after its purchase, English-language translations were published (Manuscript No. 43725 in the British Library) and extraordinary new information about the earliest story of Jesus Christ became available to the world. The great comparative value of the Sinai Bible as the world’s oldest available Bible is today universally accepted, and its discovery provided great embarrassment for the Church’s modern-day presentation of Jesus Christ, for it revealed that newer Gospels are the depositories of large amounts of fabricated narratives and intentional perversions of the truth.
Beyond belief
The Vatican concedes that Mark was the first Gospel written (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed., Vol. vi, p. 657), and that it later became the prototype of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. In the Sinai Bible’s version of the Gospel of Mark, we see dramatic variations from its modern-day counterpart with an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith … the resurrection appearances of the Gospel Jesus Christ and his subsequent ascension into heaven.
False Gospel passages written by priests
The Sinai Bible’s version of the Gospel of Mark starts its story of Jesus Christ when he was ‘at about the age of thirty’. No reference is made to Mary, a virgin birth, Joseph of Arimathea, a Star of Bethlehem, or the 51 now-called Old Testament ‘messianic prophecies’. Words describing Christ as ‘the son of God’ do not appear in the opening narrative of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 1:1) as they do in today’s Bibles, and the modern-day family tree tracing a ‘messianic bloodline’ back to King David is non-existent in the Sinai Bible.
No ‘resurrection’, no Christianity
The Sinai Bible’s version of the Gospel of Mark ends its story with Mary Magdalene arriving at the tomb and finding it empty. Yet, in modern-day versions of the Gospel of Mark, resurrection narratives now appear (16: 9-20), and the Vatican universally acknowledges that they are forgeries;
‘The conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine … almost the entire section is a later compilation’.
(‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Vol., iii, p. 274, published under the Imprimatur of Archbishop Farley; also, ‘Encyclopedia Biblica’, ii, 1880; 1767, n. 3; 1781, and n. 1, on ‘The Evidence of its Spuriousness’)
The Vatican claims that ‘the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief’ (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed., Vol., xii, p. 792), adding that a resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the ‘sine qua non’ of Christianity, ‘without which, nothing’ (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed., Vol., xii, p. 792). St. Paul agreed, saying; ‘If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain’ (1 Cor. 15:17). Yet no appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in the oldest Gospel in the oldest Bible in the world. Nor are there resurrection narratives in any other old Bibles, for a comparison shows they are non-existent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark code-named ‘K’ by analysts. Some manuscripts of the 15th and 16th centuries have the fictitious verses written in asterisks, a mark used by ancient scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document. Resurrection narratives are also absent in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, and a number of Sixth Century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version. That is because the resurrection narratives in today’s Gospels of Mark are later priesthood forgeries.
Another Vatican forgery exposed
Adding to the Church’s on-going fraud of its presentation of the story of Jesus Christ, we learn how the Vatican accepted the fictitious resurrection narratives in the Gospel of Mark into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity. Let the ‘Catholic Encyclopedia‘ bear the clerical witness:
‘When we turn to the internal evidence, the number, and still more the character, of the peculiarities is certainly striking [citing many instances from the Greek text]. But, even when this is said, the cumulative force of the evidence against the Mark origin of the passage is considerable. The combination of so many peculiar features, not only of vocabulary, but of matter and construction, leaves room for doubt as to Mark’s authorship of the verses. Whatever the fact be, it is not at all certain that Mark wrote the disputed verses. It may be that they are from the pen of some other inspired writer [!], and were appended to the Gospel in later times. Catholics are not bound to hold that the verses were written by St. Mark. But they are canonical scripture, for the Council of Trent [Session IV], in defining that all later parts of the New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical, had especially in view the disputed parts of the Gospels, of which this conclusion of Mark is one. Hence, whoever wrote the verses, we say that they are inspired, and must be received as such by every Catholic’.
(‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed. Vol. ix, pp. 677, 678, 679)
Thus another Vatican forgery is exposed and confessed, and it was forced onto Catholics as genuine. Here we see incontrovertible documentary evidence that the earliest Christian Gospels fail to narrate a resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, and it must be said that the pertinacity with which the work of suppression, misrepresentation and concealment of real Christian history was conducted makes the guilt of the successors of the founding presbyters as great as that of those who established the system.
A glaring omission in World’s oldest Bible
Not Im not asking if Christianity is worthless, I count many Christians and Catholics as close dear friends but this is some expert level trolling if true.
Vast dating discrepancies
With the Sinai Bible, Christian history is traced back as far as it can conceivably go, but it was still written, at best, more than 350 years after the time the Vatican says Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine. The ‘Catholic Encyclopedia’ agrees to this extraordinary late composition of the world’s oldest Bible:
’The earliest of the extant manuscripts [relating to Christianity], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD’.
(‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, 1909, ‘Gospels’)
Hand-written on animal skins in a dead Greek language, the Sinai Bible was purchased by the British Museum from the Soviet Government in 1933 and is now displayed in the British Library in London. Sometime after its purchase, English-language translations were published (Manuscript No. 43725 in the British Library) and extraordinary new information about the earliest story of Jesus Christ became available to the world. The great comparative value of the Sinai Bible as the world’s oldest available Bible is today universally accepted, and its discovery provided great embarrassment for the Church’s modern-day presentation of Jesus Christ, for it revealed that newer Gospels are the depositories of large amounts of fabricated narratives and intentional perversions of the truth.
Beyond belief
The Vatican concedes that Mark was the first Gospel written (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed., Vol. vi, p. 657), and that it later became the prototype of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. In the Sinai Bible’s version of the Gospel of Mark, we see dramatic variations from its modern-day counterpart with an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith … the resurrection appearances of the Gospel Jesus Christ and his subsequent ascension into heaven.
False Gospel passages written by priests
The Sinai Bible’s version of the Gospel of Mark starts its story of Jesus Christ when he was ‘at about the age of thirty’. No reference is made to Mary, a virgin birth, Joseph of Arimathea, a Star of Bethlehem, or the 51 now-called Old Testament ‘messianic prophecies’. Words describing Christ as ‘the son of God’ do not appear in the opening narrative of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 1:1) as they do in today’s Bibles, and the modern-day family tree tracing a ‘messianic bloodline’ back to King David is non-existent in the Sinai Bible.
No ‘resurrection’, no Christianity
The Sinai Bible’s version of the Gospel of Mark ends its story with Mary Magdalene arriving at the tomb and finding it empty. Yet, in modern-day versions of the Gospel of Mark, resurrection narratives now appear (16: 9-20), and the Vatican universally acknowledges that they are forgeries;
‘The conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine … almost the entire section is a later compilation’.
(‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Vol., iii, p. 274, published under the Imprimatur of Archbishop Farley; also, ‘Encyclopedia Biblica’, ii, 1880; 1767, n. 3; 1781, and n. 1, on ‘The Evidence of its Spuriousness’)
The Vatican claims that ‘the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief’ (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed., Vol., xii, p. 792), adding that a resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the ‘sine qua non’ of Christianity, ‘without which, nothing’ (‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed., Vol., xii, p. 792). St. Paul agreed, saying; ‘If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain’ (1 Cor. 15:17). Yet no appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in the oldest Gospel in the oldest Bible in the world. Nor are there resurrection narratives in any other old Bibles, for a comparison shows they are non-existent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark code-named ‘K’ by analysts. Some manuscripts of the 15th and 16th centuries have the fictitious verses written in asterisks, a mark used by ancient scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document. Resurrection narratives are also absent in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, and a number of Sixth Century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version. That is because the resurrection narratives in today’s Gospels of Mark are later priesthood forgeries.
Another Vatican forgery exposed
Adding to the Church’s on-going fraud of its presentation of the story of Jesus Christ, we learn how the Vatican accepted the fictitious resurrection narratives in the Gospel of Mark into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity. Let the ‘Catholic Encyclopedia‘ bear the clerical witness:
‘When we turn to the internal evidence, the number, and still more the character, of the peculiarities is certainly striking [citing many instances from the Greek text]. But, even when this is said, the cumulative force of the evidence against the Mark origin of the passage is considerable. The combination of so many peculiar features, not only of vocabulary, but of matter and construction, leaves room for doubt as to Mark’s authorship of the verses. Whatever the fact be, it is not at all certain that Mark wrote the disputed verses. It may be that they are from the pen of some other inspired writer [!], and were appended to the Gospel in later times. Catholics are not bound to hold that the verses were written by St. Mark. But they are canonical scripture, for the Council of Trent [Session IV], in defining that all later parts of the New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical, had especially in view the disputed parts of the Gospels, of which this conclusion of Mark is one. Hence, whoever wrote the verses, we say that they are inspired, and must be received as such by every Catholic’.
(‘Catholic Encyclopedia’, Farley Ed. Vol. ix, pp. 677, 678, 679)
Thus another Vatican forgery is exposed and confessed, and it was forced onto Catholics as genuine. Here we see incontrovertible documentary evidence that the earliest Christian Gospels fail to narrate a resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, and it must be said that the pertinacity with which the work of suppression, misrepresentation and concealment of real Christian history was conducted makes the guilt of the successors of the founding presbyters as great as that of those who established the system.
A glaring omission in World’s oldest Bible
Not Im not asking if Christianity is worthless, I count many Christians and Catholics as close dear friends but this is some expert level trolling if true.
