Forgeries in Christianity?

Associated Press dispatches published to the world today, relate that �the Vatican�s International Commission on the revision of the Bible [is] taking steps to correct one of the most famous Biblical passages, Exodus xx, 5, now believed to have been mistranslated�! (N.Y. Times, May 18, 1930.) The actual text, and �what the Vatican Commission thinks it should read,� are here quoted so that all may judge of the immense farce and fraud of this capital falsification;�the material tampering being indicated by italics [Not in this version - RW]:-

Exodus xx, 5�as is.
�For I the Lord thy God am a Jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of then that hate me�; ...

Ditto�as falsified.
�For I, the Lord thy God, am a God of loving-kindness and mercy, considering the errors of the fathers as mitigating circumstances in judging the children unto the third and fourth generation�!

Rest of link...
members.tripod.com...

Found this link and wondered what all concerned here felt about it. It is part of an internet book, a link to the contents is available at the site.

Any thoughts?

Since this text is holy to more than one religion, one would think it would take more than just the Vatican to perpetuate a mistranslation.

Joseph Wheless "Forgeries in Christianity" written in 1930 and still being quoted. When will the atheists come up with something new????? See

www.tektonics.org...

www.tertullian.org...

His scholarship was a tad higher than Kersey Graves.

I have to admit this was extreem you should read chapter 6.

Any other opinion?

Not strange that the Vatican feels it has to adjust the second Commandment (about idols). What they say in other words by interpreting this verse this new way, is that it is the sin of the priests, not the congregation, when they use icons and statues in their worship. The meaning of God punnishing children in third and fourth generation after the sin was first committed, is that these idols are often so old, three or four generations old, and when God finally destroys these idols, much time has passed, and it is infact the descendants of the people who made the idol who are punnished directly.

Very typical for that serpents' nest, the Vatican, to instead of abolishing unsound doctrine, adjust the Ten Commandments to fit their iniquities better. If they want to free their congregation, they would have to remove all figurative art they may have representing anything created unless God has specifically demanded it. They must deny anyone to bow down before such art, and they must not use it in any way in their worship. They must abolish all their festivals, reinstall Sabbath worship, allow their priests to marry, well, it's impossible when you look at those guys. For they love to walk around in their castles in expensive cloathing and art worth billions on the wall while the rest of us has to turn the penny to get bread. They love to noumb the world with art and romance. They love to kill the servants of God just to make them saints/gods 100 years later. What they do isn't of God but of the world. They love the dead and hate the living. But they're fun to look at when they fall. Again and again. As you make your bed thus you sleep.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Notes Joseph Wheless (aka Joseph Weigh Less) Chapter 5 - Forgery in Christianity

The defendant was brought before the judge:
Judge: You are guilty as charged. You have your choice - seven days in jail or read Joseph Wheless's "Forgery in Christianity".
Defendant: Definitely, seven days in jail.

While this might be a exaggeration (three days in jail or reading Wheless is a no brainer - go to jail), it does represent the quality of work Wheless represents. With such statements as "LYINGLY FOUNDED on forgery upon forgery, as has been made manifest by manifold admissions and proofs, the Church of Christ perpetuated itself and consolidated its vast usurped powers, and amassed amazing wealth, by a series of further and more secular forgeries and frauds unprecedented in human history -- faintly approximated only by its initial forgeries of the fundamental gospels and epistles of the "New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," and of the countless other forged religious documents which we have so far reviewed." which is the first sentence of Chapter 6 of "Forgery in Christianity" one must literally "pysch themselves up" before reading Wheless. Yes the writings of Wheless exemplify the run-on sentence, inflammatory rhetoric, argument by outrage. Wheless is the type of author who seems to feel that if he throws enough invective at you showing his moral outrage then you must come to the conclusion that he must be right. As far as run-on sentences, Wheless is not William Green, the master of run-on sentences. While Green's run-on sentences actually convey useful information, the sentences of Wheless consist mostly of "hot air". (For those who don't know, William Green is a noted aviation historian and author.)

Chapter 5 of "Forgery in Christianity" is reviewed here rather than Chapter 6, the previous posting reference to Chapter 6 seems to be a "typo" and was probably meaning to reference Chapter 5. In Chapter 5 Wheless attempts to prove that the Gospels of Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John are church forgeries written in the early to mid second century A.D. (circa 150 A.D.). Wheless destroys any credibility he has with statements such as:
"Bishop Irenaeus and Bishop Papias have both averred that the Christ lived to old age (even as late as 98-117 A.D.), flatly denying thus as "heresy" the Gospel stories as to his crucifixion at about thirty years of age."
Here he makes a statement which would be construed by most people that Bishop Irenaeus and Bishop Papias advocated that Jesus Christ died of old age. While the statement is not literally untrue, it is worded as to give the wrong impression to someone who has not studied the work of Bishop Irenaeus. The true facts are that Bishop Irenaeus wrote sequence of five books called "Irenaeus Against Heresies". In these books, he described the doctrines of various Gnostic sects which were current at that time. One of the sects, maintained that Jesus being baptized at 30 represented 30 "Aeons", He had a ministry of 12 months which represented 12 "Aeons", etc. When Bishop Irenaeus debunked their contention, he placed the age of Jesus at being 30 when He was baptized, Bishop Irenaeus then pointed out the Jesus went to Jerusalem for three Passovers, but the good Bishop maintained that Jesus was in his fifties when He was crucified. This was because Bishop Irenaeus maintained that Jesus had to pass through all the stages of life to be "all things to all men" and "He therefore passed through every age". When the Jews disputed with Jesus and said ""Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?", Bishop Irenaeus understood that to mean that Jesus was very near the age of 50 when this statement was made. In short instead of a three year ministry, the Bishop contended that Jesus Christ had a 20 year ministry. The good Bishop Irenaeus explicitly believed in the crucifixion of Jesus as illustrated by the following statement:
"It is therefore better, as I have said, that one should have no knowledge whatever of any one reason why a single thing in creation has been made, but should believe in God, and continue in His love, than that, puffed up through knowledge of this kind, he should fall away from that love which is the life of man; and that he should search after no other knowledge except Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was crucified for us, than that by subtle questions and hair-splitting expressions he should fall into impiety".
The statement made by Wheless referenced above can only be interpreted as an attempt to mislead someone into believing that some early church fathers did not believe in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This kind of behavior is typical of many of the skeptics, then and now. While portraying themselves as being purveyors of truth, they really practice the art of making deceptive statements and misrepresentation of facts in order to support their view point.

Wheless uses the "150,000 variants" contention: "But the so-called "canonical" books of the New Testament, as of the Old, are a mess of contradictions and confusions of text, to the present estimate of 150,000 and more "variant readings," as is well known and admitted." This statement again is misleading for Wheless attempts to convey the impression that the early texts of the New Testament are so hopelessly varied and contradictory that any current reading is a matter of whim. Wheless never tells how the "variant game" works. A variant is counted as any place where any manuscript differs from any other manuscript. This means that if the same exact spelling error is found in 100 manuscripts at the same exact place that counts as 100 variants. To illustrate, if you have only one copy of a manuscript, then the variant count will always be zero. Most of the variants are matters of spelling and word order. There are less than 40 places in the New Testament where scholars are really not certain which reading is original, but not one of these has any effect on a central doctrine of faith. Note the problem is not that the scholars don't know what the text is, but that they are not certain which text has the right reading.

Wheless spends much verbiage ranting and raving but spends very little in actually making a provable point. One of his points is that the terms, "Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John" were not used until the mid second century (150 A.D.) and this is proof that the Gospels are second century forgeries. However Irenaeus of Lyons in his books "Irenaeus Against Heresies" (175A.D. - 185 A.D.) mentions the Gospel of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John by name and speaks of the Epistles of Paul. In his books there are extensive quotes from the Gospels. In fact you could almost recreate a "Gospel" book from the quotes in Irenaeus. Justin Matyr in his "The First Apology of Justin" and in "The Second Apology of Justin" (150 A.D.-160 A.D.) makes quotes from the Gospel of Mark. However these were letters to Augustus Caesar and the Roman Senate and for Justin to write "quoting the Gospel of Mark" would mean absolutely nothing to these people. We do see a direct quote from the Gospel of John (For "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.") in the "Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians" (105 A.D.-115A.D.). The point is that "conspiracy of silence" contention (i. e., no mention of the Gospels in the very early Christian literature) would only convince the most rabid of the atheists. Much of the early Christian literature is letters dealing with specific issues and the author of the letters probably felt that long quotes from the Gospels were not germane to the issue at hand. Also Justin Martyr's letters (Justin's Apologies) to Augustus Caesar and the Roman Senate was hardly to place to mention the Gospels. The very first piece of Christian literature (that remains) in which extensive quoting of the Gospels is appropriate is "Irenaeus Against Heresies" and there you will find such quotes.

Then Wheless makes the contention that the Gospels were forgeries because they were written in Greek. To quote, "But all of the Gospels, the other New Testament Books, and the forged apocrypha, were written in Greek. Self-evidently, these "ignorant and unlearned" peasant Apostles, speaking a vulgar Aramaic-Jewish dialect, could neither speak nor write Greek, -- if they could write at all." Now let's see, Matthew was a "tax collector". He collected taxes for the Romans. Now would the Romans entrust the collection of their money to some illiterate country bumpkin? At one time Matthew might have been considered a "slimeball" for collecting taxes for the Romans but he was an educated "slimeball". Mark was a levite priest and would probably be able to speak and write in Greek. Luke was a physician and a Greek would be definitely schooled in Greek since that was his native language. Peter and John were professional fishermen and would likely to be able to at least speak Greek since there was a considerable Greek speaking community around Galilee. The Apostles were men of some substance and most were business men. Remember Peter owned a boat in which 13 men with supplies could comfortably fit and even have room to stretch out and sleep. In any age that was a fairly major piece of property (try fitting 13 men on your Ranger bass boat).

Wheless also states the Gospels must be forgeries because "no Jew writing for his fellow-Jews would explain or need to explain this Jewish custom". In short the Gospels could not be written by Jews because they explained Jewish customs and no Jew writing for Jews would need to do so. Again Wheless shows his ignorance. Luke was a Greek and would probably insert such clarifications into his documents. Also the authors of the other three Gospels, Mark, Matthew, and John were writing for both a Jewish and a Gentile audience. In fact the Gospels were written like Jews who had spent some time among the Gentiles and had spent several years adding "It is a Jewish custom" to their verbal narrations of the Ministry of Jesus Christ. Wheless poses the question as why out of the "some fifty, were forged and falsely `ascribed to some apostle' by devout Christians" gospels only four were selected "as of divine utterance and sanction". Here he makes another statement which must be construed as to mislead. Of the fifty or so apocryphal writings, only about twenty are purported to be Gospels of the life of Jesus. Wheless tend contends that each of the four Gospels were forged to satisfy the main churches of that time: "Matthew at Jerusalem, Mark at Rome, or Alexandria, Luke at Antioch, and John at Ephesus". Also Wheless makes some comment that in "Irenaeus Against Heresies" the fact is made that each of the main heretic churches makes use of one the four Gospels "Matthew by the Ebionites; Mark by `those who separate Jesus from Christ'; Luke by the Marcionites; and John by the Valentinians". This Wheless infers prove that the four Gospels are forgeries since heretical sects were using them. Well again he misses the mark for this fact testifies to the authenticity of the four Gospels. For what heretical sect would use a document known to be a forgery, these sects used one of the four Gospels because they knew the documents to be authentic and their use gave their sect a mark of respectability among the early Christians.

Wheless rambles on, but then comes the statement "Moreover, the present `Gospel according to Mark' relates the crucifixion of Jesus at about thirty years of age, after one year's ministry; which is wholly false, as Jesus died at home in bed of old age, in effect says Bishop Papias, on the `tradition' of these same presbyters." This statement is a blatant lie on the part of Wheless. Only a few extracts of the writings of Bishop Papias exists today and no where in those scraps does Papias ever mentions that Jesus died of old age. Then Wheless adds, "And Bishop Papias, more than a century after Christ, did not have in his important church, and had never seen, these alleged apostolic writings, and only knew of some such by the gossip of the elders at second or third hand." While Papias in what fragments remain tell the story on how one of these Gospels got written "Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered."

Wheless keeps making the contention, well since the first mention of the extensive mention of the four Gospels is in "Irenaeus Against Heresies" (about 185 A.D.), then they have to be forgeries, because "One may turn the thousands of pages of the Ante-Nicene Fathers before Irenaeus in vain to find a direct word of quotation from written Gospels, nor (except as above, recorded) even bare mention of the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, as writers of Gospels." What thousands of pages? The entire literature of the church before 200 A.D. can be put on a 827,000 byte *.zip file. This expands out to a 2,444,950 byte text file of which 1,294,058 bytes are the text of "Irenaeus Against Heresies", leaving a 1,146,092 text file remainder. Of the remainder, 680,000 bytes represent the apologies of Justin Martyr, written as letters to Augustus Caesar and the Roman Senate, "The Discourse to the Greeks", "Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks". Justin is not about to mention to either Caesar or the Roman Senate the names of men executed or exiled by the Romans. (Mark associate of Peter who was crucified upside down, Luke associate of Paul who was beheaded, or John who was exiled to the island of Patmos.) Justin is also not going to mention Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John or their writings in his "Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks". This was written for pagan Greeks and they had no idea who Mark or Peter were, but the Greeks did know who Plato and Homer were and indeed Justin did quote them to make his point. In short Justin knew that quoting the "Gospel of Mark" to prove a point would have no effect on the pagan Greek, but quoting Plato or Homer would have some effect. What is then left over is not "thousands of pages" but a few letters where specific problems were being addressed.

Wheless repeats his lie about Irenaeus believing that Christ died of old age, "says the Bishop, lived to very old age, even maybe till the times of Trajan, 98-117, as vouched for by the Apostle John and other apostles". No the good Bishop Irenaeus thought that Jesus Christ was crucified around the age of 50 rather than around the age of 30.
Wheless also gets a "lot of miles" out of Luke Chapter 1:1-2:
1. Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
2. just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
He states: "Now, these `many' Gospels were clearly not by any of the apostles, else Luke would certainly have so stated; they were not `inspired' writings, but they were by sundry anonymous `eye-witnesses and ministers of the word'; they are either totally lost to posterity, or are among the fifty admittedly forged and apocryphal Gospels which we have previously noticed." That is a lot of information to get out of one statement! Wow! Wheless was able to read the mind of Luke after almost 2000 years to know that Luke meant that none of the Apostles had ever written anything and that there were "fifty admittedly forged and apocryphal Gospels". Of course in the same Chapter, Wheless charges the author of Luke with Plagiarism of the Gospel of Mark. Now Wheless states that the author of Luke was totally unaware of the Gospel of Mark. This is indeed a very strange form of argument. Wheless keeps mentioning the fifty apocryphal Gospels but never gives a list of titles or any information. He just mentions fifty, at most I can only find about twenty.

Wheless rambles on and gets into the standard arguments, the different genealogies given in Matthew and Luke. Wheless states, "Both the genealogies are false and forged lists of mostly fictitious names". How does he know? It is because the names are not recorded in the Bible? Now let me see, is Wheless stating that the Old Testament is a reliable document but that the New Testament is not? For the skeptics to state that either genealogy to be false because names not recorded in the Old Testament appear in the genealogy of Jesus then they must admit that a least the Old Testament is a historically reliable document. It is strange that the skeptics would use a document they consider to be myth (the Old Testament) in an attempt the prove that another document is a myth (the New Testament). The skeptics seem not to be able to see the inconsistency with that. Wheless also makes much ado about Jesus being referred as "the son of Joseph" attempting to indicate that the writers of the Gospels considered the birth of Jesus to be normal. Have you ever heard of adoption? Here let me spell it out for you a-d-o-p-t-i-o-n. It is a legal process where a man (or couple) "take (a child of other parents) as one's own child". Wheless makes other arguments (such as "upon this rock I will build my church" being a forgery) but after his blatant lies about the statements of Bishop Papias why bother continuing.

Indeed Joseph Wheless work is basically nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric, misstatements, misconceptions, innuendo, and some blatant lies. Valid criticisms, if present, get lost in the verbiage. Once he makes the first statement which is meant to mislead the reader, "Bishop Irenaeus and Bishop Papias have both averred that the Christ lived to old age (even as late as 98-117 A.D.), flatly denying thus as "heresy" the Gospel stories as to his crucifixion at about thirty years of age.", he loses credibility. Today many skeptics have taken up the baton of Joseph Wheless and continued in his literary tradition by publishing articles based on inflammatory rhetoric, misstatements, misconceptions, innuendo, and some blatant lies. Perhaps these skeptics feel that if they publish enough invective that they will prove themselves to be right. Like Kersey Graves, Joseph Wheless represents work that should have sunk into oblivion. However like Kersey Graves, the atheists have raised Joseph Wheless into godhood quoting and using his work as if it were written by a god. Few of them seem capable or willing to do some research to verify the statements made, they just accept the pontifications of Joseph Wheless as fact. Today copies of the books written by Graves and Wheless are scarce; you don't find them in any but the very largest of libraries. Skeptics always cry censorship about this situation, but in reality, the censor was the free market - nobody bought their books in the first place. The serious scholar would pick up a copy of "Forgery in Christianity" and toss it aside as being the ramblings of a "crank" who was "out of his league". Wheless was a liar to boot. The general public would pick up his book and toss it aside because of its rambling verbiage before reaching a point. I am sure there exists skeptic literature written by serious and knowledgeable people, however, Joseph Wheless is not one of them.

Actually jagd was sugesting that chapter six also be read it was no typo.

Hell Toltec reading Chapter 5 was bad enough - now you want me to read Chapter 6? After some of the things I posted about statements Wheless made in Chapter 5, how much are you going to believe of what is in Chapter 6? Wheless was a liar.

Jagd your last response stated that the mention of chapter 6 in the post prepared be me was a typo; just making clear it was not.

It was not so much that Wheless a liar but he was very passionate about what he believed. Like any other institution the church has its dark side. Wheless sought to expose that dark side at any cost, which meant he was not objective in his conclusions.

This did of course mean the church does and did have a dark side.

Any thoughts?

Toltec:
I have read Chapter 6 and am preparing a review. I am not familiar enough with Catholic Church history to know if all the ten documents that Wheless mentions are true forgeries. I have to examine other authorities to determine if they are. The last half of Chapter 6 is not worth the read. Wheless just bashes the saints, holy relics, and suspicious miracles. This subject had been covered many times before Wheless and really didn't need any additional coverage. Wheless really "blows it" in Chapter 6. He begins with what could have been an interesting historical treatise and then decays it into a anti-Catholic Church saint and relic bash. One thing though Wheless points out ten document forgeries over a period of about one thousand years (300A.D. - 1300 A.D.). Compared to the Bush Administration the Catholic Church was a bunch of pikers when it comes to generating fradulent documents.

It doesnt suprise me, I mean how many translations and perceptions of that book have their been? Plus Im sure some political figures centuries ago had some things added in there for the church's gain or their own, we all know how peacefull and trustworthy the church was.

daeldren
The New Testament today is basically the same as was used by Bishop Irenaeus in 185 A.D. The point is that the New Testament was completed in the form as we know it by around 100A.D. We now have the following dates:
1 Thessalonians Spring 50
2 Thessalonians ca. 50-51
1 Corinthians Spring 55
1 Timothy Autumn 55
2 Corinthians Spring 56
Galatians Autumn 56
Romans Spring 57
Titus Autumn 57
Philippians Summer 58
Colossians Summer 58
Ephesians late Summer 58
2 Timothy Autumn 58

Mark between 45-60
Matthew between 40-60+
Luke apparently in the years 57-60+
John possibly 40-65+

The New Testament we read today is not much different than the New Testament read in the first century church.

Notes Joseph Wheless Chapter 6 - Forgery in Christianity

The following sentence appears near the beginning of Chapter 6 "Forgery in Christianity"
by Joseph Wheless:
"Into this chapter we shall compress in as summary manner as possible the revolting
record of Christian fraud by means of forged title deeds to vast territories, forged
documents of ecclesiastical power spiritual and temporal, forged and false Saints,
Martyrs,'Miracles and Relics -- surpassing the power of imagination or accomplishment by
any other than a divinely inspired Church which "has never deceived anyone," and which
"never has erred" -- in its profound, cynical knowledge and exploitation of the degraded
depths of ignorance and superstition to which it had sunk its victims, and of their mental
and moral incapacity to detect the holy frauds worked upon them."

When you continue reading Chapter 6, you will find that Mr. Wheless failed to live up to
his promise made in the previous sentence ("we shall compress in as summary manner as
possible"). You still have to wade through the mud of inflammatory rhetoric in search of
an actual point made. However we will do what Wheless failed to do, get to the point:

Wheless contends the following documents used by the Roman Catholic Church are
forgeries:
1. The Apostolic Constitutions,
2. The Apostolic Canons,
3. The Liber Pontificalis,
4. The Conversion of Constantine,
5. Letter of St. Peter,
6. The "Donation of Constantine",
7. The Pope Sylvester Forgeries,
8. The "Symmachian Forgeries",
9. The Decretals of Isidore,
10. The Decretum of Gratian.
Well ten documents over a space of around a thousand years; the Popes of the Roman
Catholic Church were pikers compared to the Bush Administration. The first half of
Chapter 6 deals with these nine documents, the last half deals with saints, relics, and
suspicious miracles. Wheless starts what might be an interesting and informative treatise
on history and then decays it to a Catholic Church bash and rant.

The whole second half of Chapter 6 is a total waste. Enough had been written about
fraudulent "holy relics" that Wheless did not need to have added to that body of literature.
Again he can't stop with the rhetoric:
"The "lying wonders" of saints, martyrs and miracles are so intimately related, and so
inextricably interwoven the one form of pious fraud with the others, that they must needs
be bunched together in this summary treatment of but few out of countless thousands,
millions perhaps, of them recorded for faith and edification in the innumerable "Acts" and
"Lives" and wonder-works of the Holy Church of God."
After about a half page, this style of literature just becomes plain tiresome. Most likely the
extreme anti-theist skeptic might think that Wheless is an example of a true intellectual and
think his writings are wonderful; however, the average scholar would most likely look at
Wheless as a rambling "crank" whose work isn't even qualified to adorn the walls of the
university toilets. Another thing that always grates me personally is that the people who
write in this way cannot refrain from using a phrase such as "countless thousands". If the
number is in the thousands, then it can be counted; all finite sets are countable. Only
certain infinite sets (the real number continuum) are countless. We will spend no more
time on the last half of Chapter 6 and concentrate of the first half.

Back to the ten documents. Wheless states that these documents are forgeries but never
gives much evidence to prove that they are indeed forgeries. We see no quotes from the
documents showing where the anachronisms occur, no extensive quotes from historians
who have studied the documents. Basically we have assertions with little proof other than
well "Joseph Wheless says they are forgeries". The subject of the ten documents would
have been a fit subject for a book three times the size of "Forgery in Christianity" and
Wheless attempts to cover the subject in a half chapter. Also after reading his blatant
misrepresentations in Chapter 5, everything in Chapter 6 is suspect. Hence we will look at
each document independently.

1. The Apostolic Constitutions - "A fourth-century pseudo-Apostolic collection, in eight
books, of independent, though closely related, treatises on discipline, worship, and
doctrine, intended to serve as a manual of guidance for the clergy, and to some extent for
the laity." It purports to be the work of the Apostles compiled by Clement; however, the
Roman Catholic Church seems to have regarded this work of doubtful Apostolic
authority. The Trullan Council in 692 rejected the work and only the portion called the
"Apostolic Cannons" were accepted but fifty of these canons which had been accepted by
the Western Church were not regarded as of certain Apostolic origin. The text was not
known in the Western Church throughout the Middle Ages.
For more information see:
www.newadvent.org...
www.newadvent.org...

2. The Apostolic Canons - "A collection of ancient ecclesiastical decrees (eighty-five in
the Eastern, fifty in the Western Church) concerning the government and discipline of the
Christian Church, incorporated with the Apostolic Constitutions. The cannons were a
summary of the statutory legislation of the primitive Church; the last three decrees contain
a very important list of the Holy Scriptures. The Apostolic Canons were apparently
compiled around the year 400 A.D. They are a summary of the statutory legislation of the
early Church. They were regarded with suspicion in the West. Hincmar of Reims (died
882) declared that they were not written by the Apostles and Cardinal Humbert (1054)
distinguished between the eighty-five Greek canons declared apocryphal and the fifty Latin
canons recognized as "orthodox rules" by antiquity.
For more information see:
www.newadvent.org...

Wheless makes this comment about the Apostolic Constitutions:
"For more than a thousand years, until their fraud was exposed by modern historical
criticism, these voluminous and most commodious forgeries formed the groundwork and
foundation of some of the most extravagant pretensions of the Church and its most potent
instrument of establishment and dominion of its monarchical government The Apostolic
Constitutions, which we have admitted for naivete of invention with respect to the
Apostolic Prince Peter and Simon Magus in their magic contests in Rome, is in fact "a
fourth- century pseudo-Apostolic collection."
One might ask: Where? How? In the Eastern Churches, the Apostolic Constitutions were
rejected in the year 692 because they contained heretical interpolations and in the Western
Churches the text was unknown until after the Middle Ages (1546). It is true that where
known, the Apostolic Constitutions were held generally in high esteem and served as the
basis for much ecclesiastical legislation, but that was because they advocated good
Christian morals. Most likely most clerics who were familiar with this document probably
knew that was not written by the Apostles but looked upon it as something the Apostles
could very well have written.

3. The Liber Pontificalis - "A history of the popes beginning with St. Peter and continued
down to the fifteenth century, in the form of biographies." The first complete collection of
the Liber Pontificalis reached to Stephen V (885-91) and were afterwards continued in a
different style as far as Eugene IV (d. 1447) and Pius II (d. 1464). In the Liber
Pontificalis is found spurious correspondence between Pope Damasus and Saint Jerome.
At one time Saint Jerome was considered to the author of this document up to Pope
Damasus. Evidence indicates that the first series of biographies from the Apostle Peter to
Felix III [IV (d. 530)], were compiled at the latest under Pope Boniface II (530-2). The
original author was a contemporary of Anastasius II (496-8) and of Symmachus
(498-514). The reason is that the biographies prior to Anastasius II contain historical
errors, but starting with Anastasius II the Liber Pontificalis are historical reliable.
For more information see:
www.newadvent.org...

4. The Conversion of Constantine
Wheless begins this section with:
"As several of the most monumental of these holy Church forgeries are associated with the
first "Christian" Emperor, Constantine, and His contemporary Holiness, Pope Sylvester I
(314-335), we may first notice the pious forged miracles which brought Constantine to
Christ -- rather to the Christians, and thus blightingly changed the history of the world."
Wheless could never accept that Constantine really did convert to Christianity (although a
somewhat paganized version). The "forgeries" he talks about are historical events as
recorded by Eusebius. There is no doubt that Constantine did receive some sort of vision
which gave him the confidence to march into Italy and on Rome with less than one third of
his army. His opponent Maxentius left Rome to face his adversary on the battlefield when
the original plan was wait within the walls of Aurelian and let Constantine lay siege to
Rome. The armies of Constantine and Maxentius met in battle (Battle of the Milvian
Bridge) beside the Tiber. Despite the staunch opposition of the Praetorians, the forces of
Maxentius fled in disorder. As the army of Maxentius crossed the Tiber on a bridge of
boats (the Milvian Bridge), the bridge broke, and Maxentius drowned in the Tiber and his
army was destroyed. Wheless rants on about how Constantine was a murderer and not a
very nice man. Well in those days, you did not become Emperor of the Roman Empire by
being a nice guy. Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 which did establish
religious tolerance in the Roman Empire and did mention Christianity specifically.
However, he did not establish Christianity as the official Roman religion. Constantine
conversion to Christianity was real and could not be ascribed to political motivations.
For more information see:
www.janus.umd.edu...
www.newadvent.org...
www.fordham.edu...
www.fordham.edu...

5. Letter of St. Peter
I could not find the particular letter to which Wheless referenced. However the letter was
not a "forgery" as such (perhaps presumption, but not forgery). Pope Stephen II was
using the Petrine Doctrine to indicate that since he was God's representative on earth, he
had the authority to anoint or dethrone kings. The whole history leading up to the next
item (the Donation of Constantine) is complex and can not be covered in a simple
paragraph. For a history of the period see:
www.newadvent.org...
www.newadvent.org...
www.newadvent.org...
www.newadvent.org...

6. The "Donation of Constantine"
Probably the most famous forgery of all time. Indeed this was a forgery and was
fabricated sometime between 750 to 850. However there is some question as to when it
was used and to what effect. Presumably the document was meant to reinforce the Pope's
claims to the Papal Estates. The document appears first in Frankish collections; the earliest
certain quotation of it is by Frankish authors in the second half of the ninth century. Also
the document was never used by a Pope until the middle of the eleventh century. The first
reference in a Roman source is Emperor Otto III (983-1002). The first certain use of it at
Rome was by Leo IX in 1054. The contention of Wheless that the "Donation of
Constantine" was to induce Charlemagne "to win the Lombard territories for the Church
and to reinstate it in the `Patrimony of Peter' cannot be supported. In fact it seems that
both Charlemagne and Pope Adrian I (Pope when Charlemagne defeated the Lombards)
were unaware that this document existed. In fact after reading the history, one wonders if
the "Donation of Constantine" had any impact on history except to provide historians
something about which to write.
For more information see:
www.newadvent.org...
www.catholicsource.net...

7. The Pope Sylvester Forgeries
The Pope Sylvester Forgery is really part of the "Donation of Constantine" and is covered
in the section above.
For more information see:
www.newadvent.org...

8. The "Symmachian Forgeries"
During the years 498 to 501, there was a on-going dispute between Pope Symmachus and
Laurentius as to who was the legal pope. The adherents of both sides generated
documents which supported their particular candidate. The "Symmachian Forgeries" were
four apocryphal writings (i.e. forgeries) generated by the adherents of Pope Symmachus
which supported the position that the Roman bishop could not be judged by any court
composed of other bishops. This would put the Pope (also Bishop of Rome) above
ecclesiastical courts. Although Wheless contends that Pope Symmachus knew about the
documents, he produces no historical evidence to prove that Symmachus was culpable in
the act.
For more information see:
www.newadvent.org...

9. The Decretals of Isidore
This is another set of famous forgeries. The Decretals of Isidore are a group of supposed
papal letters contained in a collection of canon laws composed between 847 and 852. The
author used the pseudonym Isidore Mercator in the opening preface of the collection.
Some of the letters are authentic, some are partially authentic (interpolations added),
others are pure forgeries. The Decretals contain:
1. A list of 60 apocryphal letters or decrees attributed to the popes from Saint Clement
(88-97) to Melchiades (311-314) inclusive, 58 of these 60 letters are now known to be
forgeries.
2. A essay on the Primitive Church and on the Council of Nicaea, with the (genuine)
canons of fifty-four councils.
3. The letters of 33 popes, from Pope Silvester (314-335) to Pope Gregory II (715-731),
30 of these letters are forgeries, the remainder being authentic.
The Decretals are composed of plagiarized material, phrases of earlier letters, which then
used to construct forgeries of letters which once did exist but were subsequently lost, but
were mentioned in the "Liber Pontificalis". Contrary to many critics opinions, the
Decretals of Isidore were not used to institute the supremacy of the Pope which was an
already established doctrine. Since the Decretals of Isidore used plagiarized material,
there really was �nothing new� contained in them.
For more information see:
www.angelfire.com...
www.newadvent.org...

10. The Decretum of Gratian
This was basically a compilation of canon law compiled by a Johannes Gratian and
released in the year 1140. Gratian was a compiler. If there were any forgeries in his
work, it was because they were preexisting documents.
For more information see:
www.newadvent.org...

CONCLUSION
Wheless does little to prove the existence of "the Church Forgery Mill operated by the
Pope to further papal pretensions". He never presented any documentation to prove that
any Pope was ever culpable in the generation of forgeries. In fact history has indicated
that often the parties who were most likely to gain by using a forgery (Pope Adrian I and
the "Donation of Constantine) seemed to be unaware of the existence of the appropriate
forgery. The picture of a vast on-going Papal conspiracy utilizing a "forgery mill" just
does not "play". In short the Popes did not have "the boys in the back room" generating
forgery after forgery as Wheless and many those who follow in his foot steps would have
us believe. Actually considering the length of history encompassed and the sheer size of
the Roman Catholic Church, the record is very good. While the history of the Catholic
Church is not totally pure, it is not as black as its critics would like us to think. Many
people today who speak of the Renaissance and fondly speak of the "birth of the age of
reason" forget the fact that those men of the Renaissance who rediscovered Greek science
and philosophy usually relied on manuscripts that were lovingly copied by some
anonymous monk in a monastery. When western Europe fell apart with the downfall of
the Roman Empire, it was the Roman Catholic Church who preserved much of what we
know of Greek literature, Greek science, Roman history.

The problem was that Wheless hated the Roman Catholic Church and Wheless hated
Christians and Christianity in general. Wheless seemed incapable of accepting the fact that
intelligent people believe in Jesus Christ. He could not let go of this bias and it reflected in his writings. Like some many people, Wheless would not let good scholarship stand in the way of his bias.

Originally posted by jagdflieger

1. The Apostolic Constitutions,
2. The Apostolic Canons,
3. The Liber Pontificalis,
4. The Conversion of Constantine,
5. Letter of St. Peter,
6. The "Donation of Constantine",
7. The Pope Sylvester Forgeries,
8. The "Symmachian Forgeries",
9. The Decretals of Isidore,
10. The Decretum of Gratian.

Well ten documents over a space of around a thousand years; the Popes of the Roman Catholic Church were pikers compared to the Bush Administration.

It's impossible to compare the forgeries made by the Catholic Church with those of any modern government. At least when you compare the consequences. The Conversion of Constantine and the Donation of Constantine documents alone have had greater impact on the western world than any other forged documents or decrets I know of. In practic reality the Papacy managed to take complete control over Europe, to decide who should be kiung and who shouldn't, to decide who should be emperor of Europe etc. etc. It can be compared with the Bush administration forging the American constitution, "finding" a document that says that George Washington was a Buddhist, and that he testamented his power(!) to some baptists of a certain breed in Texas. The RC church is not something holy. It is a disgrace and a shame for everyone and everything Christian.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

mikromarius;
You have only studied history written by totally biased people. If you have read my second posting, you will see that many of the documents mentioned were never used by the men who could use them the most. Also you mention the Conversion of Constantine. Well Constantine really did convert and Eusebius report was historically accurate. The truth is the Pope did not have complete control of Europe at any one time. Study of history proves otherwise. Neither did the Pope ever decide who would be king or emperor or Europe (also no such title or office ever existed). What you are putting out is typical anti-Catholic Church propaganda. Indeed I personally have problems with certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, but I would never put forth the total nonsense that the Pope ever had total control of Europe.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
mikromarius;
You have only studied history written by totally biased people. If you have read my second posting, you will see that many of the documents mentioned were never used by the men who could use them the most.

So Eusebius wasn't biased? That's a good one. Anyone with the skill to read and write back then were biased. Especially a bishop of the Catholic Church writing about the most important worldly event in the history of the Church. Get real! You don't trust a nazi general's version of the war written in 1941, you read what he has to say and compare it to whatever else you have of related information. In Norway we have a saying that goes something like "you don't put a goat to guard the sack of barley". I would be intrigued to see how you are able to determine the quality and hability of the authors I read when I haven't even told you which books I read and have read. And even use an inhabile person as a prime example of correctness.

Also you mention the Conversion of Constantine. Well Constantine really did convert and Eusebius report was historically accurate. The truth is the Pope did not have complete control of Europe at any one time. Study of history proves otherwise. Neither did the Pope ever decide who would be king or emperor or Europe (also no such title or office ever existed). What you are putting out is typical anti-Catholic Church propaganda. Indeed I personally have problems with certain doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, but I would never put forth the total nonsense that the Pope ever had total control of Europe.

So it wasn't the pope who gave the French royal house supremacy as emperors of the Holy Roman Empire as an eternal treat, but later changed their minds and was highly involved in the attempt to destruct this line, and gave the crown of Europe to the Germans instead? The Catholic Church were the only ones who could educate people. It's a well known fact that the easiest way to have control over a people is to decide who should read and write. A king in Europe at the time had to be coronated by the pope. For instance, the first king of Hungary had his crown sent to him by Pope in the mail. Normally it was a bishop who acted on behalf of the pope. To say the pope didn't have the highest authority in Europe during the Holy Roman Empire, acting as a king of kings, even king of the emperor, is nothing but folly. You must have jumped over a couple of chapters in your history book.

If Constantine converted as Eusebius claims, then why didn't he get baptised until just before he died, years and years after the alledged conversion occured? Baptism which has always been the first step into the Church? Constantine was well aware of Christianity and what it implied, his mother was a pietist Christian and was even given the honour of finding what was believed to be the cross of Christ (yeah right!) and many other deified and idolised relics. A piece of this cross is still found within the archives of the Vatican. If Constantine converted it was out of practical reasons not personal and spiritual. But the fact is that the papacy did all they could to lick the Emperor's arse by assimilating Christianity with Roman mythology and religion stemming back to Mesopotamia and Ba'alism.

You have obviously read alot about this, but have you ever stopped and used your own head for a minute?

The fact that Constantine's vision could just as well, even more likely, have been a vision of his own god, Sol Invictvs who the Catholic clergy meant was Jesus just in another coat at the time? The fact is that it wasn't Constantine who converted, it was the Church. They changed the traditional ways of worship inherited from the Apostles and Jesus, changed Lord from YHWH to Ba'al by changing the day of worship from the Sabbath to the first day of the week, the holyday of Sol Invictvs and more or less abolished the Law. They started the greatest persecution of Jews and other people aquainted with wisdom and spirit this world has seen and waged wars uppon wars against the Muslims and the Palestinian Jews still living there to gain control over Jerusalem, which they eventually did and their king of Jerusalem was also of the French royal family. They abolished sound doctrine and replaced it with wicked ways God used all the Tannakh to eradicate. They inherited a Babylonian hierarchy, started worshipping humans, dead and alive, the sons of God, angels and principalities, they started elevating people into godhood claiming even the power to decide who was in heaven and who was in hell, eventhough they are all in She'ol, except for some precious spirits Jesus has bought free to witness, judge and rule. They started claiming they were substitutes for the son of God whom they still worship like God and who cannot be the same guy as THE Son of God who is Jesus of Nazareth, for he would never allowed such herecy like the worshipping of himself, a servant of the Most High. It is equal with Ba'alism what the Egyptians were doing when Moses lead Jacob out of Egypt. Satan is the god among the sons of the Godhead who demands that people worship him. Not Jesus. For when we worship anything or anyone unless the Father, we sin.

Jesus was and is one of the greatest perfectionists this world has ever seen with a greater love and respect of the divine than any other person I have ever witnessed. The Holy Roman Empire was believed to be the Peace Millennium, and the Pope imposed the son of Christ (or son of the Trinity� if you like), the Millennium King. But peace never came, and no city came down from Heaven after 1000 years had passed. The guy they "let out of prison" didn't make much fuzz other than fascinating the Templars and others so much that the Pope felt he had to torture and kill them in the most gruesome ways known. It didn't even rain fire from the sky. Don't come patronising me about me not reading the right stuff from the right writers. Instead do what you're supposed to do in a forum like this: present your views and substanciate them as good as you can in order to challenge or support other people's views and knowledge. Don't just go off telling me I'm reading the wrong books. I read the books God leads me to read. And I read as God guides me in Spirit. I didn't simply read some book that told me Catholics are bad. I study the bible, and Catholicism isn't in harmony with the bible. If it harmonates with anything it would be the Gilgamesh and related satanic romances. Don't judge the dog by it's fur.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Mikromarius,
I get my information about history concerning the Catholic Church from publications other than Chick Publications. Again you view of history is skewed by the fact that all you have studied are anti-Catholic sources.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
Mikromarius,
I get my information about history concerning the Catholic Church from publications other than Chick Publications. Again you view of history is skewed by the fact that all you have studied are anti-Catholic sources.

I don't know why you refer to my reading habits all the time of which you know nothing about. I commented on two perticular documents one of which most cholars around the world agree is a fraud, even a badly drawn forgery. The other being a highly debated claim of the Vatican that the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity long before he got baptised. It is even highly debated whether he ever converted at all. He was brought up by a pietist Christian mother who didn't manage to Christen him, therefore and for many other reasons I have serious doubts about Constantine ever converting. There are just too many high interrests and powers involved here. He may have accepted Christians he even rewarded them, but there are even those who say that he worshipped his favorite god Sol Invictvs until he got baptised and died. Constantine offered (narcotic?) incence to Apollo and after that he had a vision containing the symbol of a cross and the words "in this sign you shall conquer" which he himself didn't know what to make of eventhough he had been brought up by a Christian mother, so he alledgely summones all his priests as if he was some kind of Akab and eventually turns to the Catholic priests who interpreted his vision the way we know the story. He then summoned his hethen worriors, painted crosses on their shields the initials P.X. which we know from later Church symbolics and he won over his enemy and secured his place on the throne. But he also did something else. He managed to "paint" these initials on the Church too, as if to say that it is the Emperor of Rome who qonquer using the sign of a cross and the letters P.X. The Vatican actually admits that they are nothing but an extension of the Roman Empire, known as the fourth beast of Daniel's vision of the future of the world empires. It is the ten horned beast. Like there were ten "empirical circles" in the late Holy Roman Empire (see chivalricorders.org... to see a map where these ten regions are marked). In the Book of revelation we learn about the four beasts of Daniel that they will all merge in the end forming an empire the world has never seen, and on top of that beast sits a woman Babylon with a mystery name on her forehead meaning mother of harlots, wearing fancy cloathes and jewelry serving wine to the people of the world. All of which basically is a riddle refering to Rome, the Catholic Church and Ba'alism.

Blessings,
mikromarius

mikromarius,
If you had bothered to read all the links given by my posting, you would have seen that most historians believe that Constantine's conversion to Christianity was real and was not politically motivated.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
mikromarius,
If you had bothered to read all the links given by my posting, you would have seen that most historians believe that Constantine's conversion to Christianity was real and was not politically motivated.

Who has ever heared about a Christian who isn't baptised? The catholic priests were solving the cabal, they tried to solve the crossword puzzle of the ages using whatever means possible. It demanded the conversion of Constantine, so they wrote history and said he did, allthough other sourses says he didn't get baptised until he was on his death bed. Open your eyes. I've read tons of stuff like the links you posted, but it just doesn't interrest me one tiny grain. They don't question the authority of the Church over written European history. I however do, for she stinks more than me, and it's not because Peter lived in the sewer. He was simply hiding from people like the priests in question.

Blessings,
Mikromarius