Hi
The First Millennia of Western Christianity was Fraught With Fakes and Forgeries!
Reading a National Geographic story that went out on March 13, 2020, concerning The Museum of The Bible, in Washington, DC. About its exhibition of 16 fragments of the Dead Sea Scroll, which were all found to be forgeries, manufactured in modern times.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/03/museum-of-the-bible-dead-sea-scrolls-forgeries/
A spokeswoman for the museum said: “these fragments were manipulated with the intent to deceive.” So what is new about that? From before Christianity became the sole religion of the Roman empire in 380 and more than a millennia after. Scribes of the western church were busy interpolating and forging the scriptures and all sorts of documents for its history and authenticity. Including false statements of its supremacy over the Churches of Africa and the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch.
‘caput et mater ecclesiarum’/head and the mother of the church
It was the western church’s grandiose arrogance belief in its supremacy over all churches that began the schism in 1053, by closing all Greek Churches in southern Italy that would not convert to Latin. Which caused the Great Schism/East-West schism of 1054. All because it wrongly and falsely saw itself as the Supreme Church of Christianity! The author is not being spiteful or malevolent towards Christianity, just stating the facts! Well, from 1054 it finally could boast that it was the Supreme Church—albeit only in the West.
When it comes to forgeries the Church in the West relied on the ignorance of those being duped—namely other Christians. From the early 8th-century, every scriptorium churned out forgeries in every diocese in western Europe, including England were they forged dead king’s Charters for possessions and landed gains.
We know that the western church was forging from at least 325 CE when they forged their copy of the canons of the Council of Nicaea. One needs to remember that the Roman bishop at the time, Silvester I (314-35) did not attend the Council of Nicaea (325), because of old age (?) or was not invited, however, he did send two priests and two presbyters in his stead.¹ (What is also interesting is that Silvester I, was also absent from the first Council of Arles (314), which was the first representative meeting of Christian bishops in the Western Roman Empire.) The scholar Puller wrote: I submit the case is clear as it is possible for a case to be. It is difficult to understand how, in the face of such crushing fact, Roman theologians and controversialists can persist in maintaining that the Pope, in the time of the Council of Nicaea, was the divinely appointed monarch of the Church.[F.W. Puller (1900), Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, p. 172, Longmans, Green, and Co. London]
Also, the scholar Kerr wrote: Reference has been made to the attempts of Pope Zosimus (417-18) and Leo I (440-61) to utilise counterfeit copies of the Nicaea canons. It is noteworthy that just at this period when the papal encroachments on the liberty of the Church began, the forging of authorities also began. The Process rapidly and portentously developed.
[William Shaw Kerr (1951), A Handbook on the Papacy, p.208, Marshall Morgan & Scott, Ltd, London—Edinburgh.] the ( ) are mine.
On the western Church claim of Rome’s supremacy over all the churches of Africa and the Apostolic churches of the east, a claim which used a forged section of the Nicaea canon. The Church Council, the highest body within Christianity wrote to the then bishop of Rome. The Council’s letter to Pope Celestine (422-32) goes on to expose the imposition of palming off (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/palm%20off) on them, the pretended canons of Nicaea. They quietly write that nothing of the kind is to be found in the authentic letters of that Council which they have received from the Bishops Cyril of Jerusalem and Atticus of Constantinople. [Ibid p. 151] The ( ) bkts are mine.
If you were to think that forging church cannons and charters were the only thing this western religious body got up to, you should think again. It was not even the tip of the iceberg! Wherever the church was in the west, they forged: scriptures, imperial documents, claiming spurious popes, kings charters, landed deeds, various documents, decretals, etc. They would forge anything that authenticated their religion and doctrines that embellished and brought converts and wealth into their church. To say they mislead emperors, kings, princes, and other rulers of nations would be an understatement.
Kerr went further: In the fifth and sixth centuries various documents were manufactured such as the stories of Roman martyrs, and an account of the conversions and baptism of Constantine, glorifying Pope Sylvester. With the object of preventing a Roman bishop being tried by the courts, the Acts of a Council of Sinuessa were devised with a legend of Pope Marcellinus (296?-304). Several other fabricated records glorifying the Papacy were circulated. A work that had a wider influence was the Liber Pontificalis, which composed (as regards its part) about 530, gave numerous spurious particulars about early Bishops of Rome. [Ibid 208] the bkt ( ) are mine. On the pseudo-Council of Sinuessa see the link. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A63048.0001.001/1:12.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext
The preeminent patristic scholar of his day Kelly wrote: …In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. The tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid 2nd cent. …[JND Kelly (1986), The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 6, Oxford University Press, Oxford – New York.] Kelly is cited by Vatican scholars and catholic historians.
The writings of Paul do not confirm that Peter was in Rome or ever had been in the imperial city. The only evidence of Peter being in Rome if we believe the name Babylon to represent Rome is in the spurious epistle, 1 Peter 5:13. See Acts 4:13. Which states (whichever copy of the NT you read) that both Peter and John were Idiots (ιδιωται), illiterate and ignorant men, unlearned, uneducated, unlettered and plebeian are some of the words used in an array of NT translations on their intelligent. One then needs to ask the question of how illiterate Aramaic men could write scholarly Greek as 1 and 2 Peter and the gospel of John. Let alone be alive at the time of their publication which is between the years 80/ 90 to 140 CE.
Clement of Rome (35-99 CE) was not a pope or even bishop of Rome. He was, however, one of many church Elders or presbyters in Rome at the time. In his epistle to the Corinthians he writes in the plural and at no time does he state that he is the Bishop or Leader of the Roman clergy. Some Christian scholars attest that there were a multiplicity of elders in Rome at this time, which agree with that of Kelly above. See link from 1:20sec onward— https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P04iYd0iIs
Be nice and comment and part or all the discussion?
Cofion
Jero Jones
Article URL : https://breakingnewsandreligion.online/discuss/