top of page
Search
  • Writer's pictureChapman Chen

How and Why the Council of Nicaea Reinvented Christianity. By Dr. R.W. Bernard. Ed. Dr. Chapman Chen



In the year 325 A.D. was perpetrated one of the most collosal frauds and deceptions in the annals of history. This was the date of the Council of Nicea, whose task it was to create a new religion that would be acceptable to Emperor Constantine, who, at the time, was engaged in the bloody persecution of those communists and pacifists of ancient times who were known as early Christians. To accomplish this, certain "correctors" were appointed, whose task it was to rewrite the Gospels, omitting all that pertained to veganism and abstinence from alcohol. The Church Fathers had an additional reason to do this - for they themselves had no desire to make such a radical change in their own living habits.


How and Why Did This Happen ?


When the Christian Faith was ripped out of the hands of Christ’s early followers – it was rudely taken over by the Powers of Rome. The Roman Empire could not succeed in destroying the Early Christians, and began to fear their widening popularity. As a political ploy, Rome turned Christianity into a “State” Religion, and decided to confer upon it, all the beliefs of her entire empire. Unfortunately for Christianity, this meant a gelatinous mixture with all sorts of sordid doctrines and beliefs. Both gods and goddesses of the pagan Empire of Rome were thus forcibly absorbed into this “NEW” Christendom in order to satisfy all the subjects of Rome’s new “Universal” Religion. Hence, the name “CATHOLIC” was adopted, since it’s name means, UNIVERSAL.


“Aware that the old religion of Rome was in a state of advanced decay and was daily losing its hold on the people… Constantine saw that by adopting Christianity they could take advantage of the popular prestige created by the martyrdom of the early Christians. Thereby, Constantine could cover up his own past crimes, gain increased public favor and extend and consolidate his empire.” -Apollonius the Nazarene Part 1: The Historical Apollonius Versus the Mythical Jesus By: Dr. R. W. Bernard, Ph.D.



Meanwhile, aware that the old religion of Rome was in a state of advanced decay and was daily losing its hold on the people, while the persecuted cult of the Essenes, or early Christians, in spite of all the efforts to suppress it through the most bloody and inhuman means, continued to thrive and win the increasing respect of the masses, the Church Fathers, themselves previously pagans whose hands were stained with the blood of those from whom they stole their religion, saw that by adopting Christianity (in a revised form) they could take advantage of the popular prestige created by the martyrdom of the early Christian saints, and at the same time win the support of Constantine, who, in being converted to the Christian faith, could cover up his own past crimes, gain increased public favor and extend and consolidate his empire.


In order to make the previously despised cult of the Essenes, or early Christians, acceptable to Constantine, emperor of Rome - the Church Fathers had to remove from its teachings certain doctrines which they knew were objectionable to him. Chief among these was the prohibition against the use of meats and wines, which was a cardinal doctrine of early Essene Christianity. It was for this reason that the churchmen at Nicea found it necessary to remove from the Gospels these objectionable doctrines, for they knew that Constantine loved the red meats and flowing wines of his midnight revels too much to be willing to accept a religion which required from its adherents complete abstinence from these indulgences, as early Essene Christianity did. To achieve this, certain "correctors" were assigned the role to recreate the Gospels, leaving out everything related to vegetarianism and denial of alcohol. The Church Fathers had an extra motive to do this - for they themselves wanted to keep their own depraved habits of meat-eating and drinking.


That the original Gospels were rewritten and altered at the Council of Nicea is indicated by the following statement by Archdeacon R. Wilberforce, who writes:


"Some are not aware that, after the Council of Nicea, A.D. 325, the manuscripts of the New Testament were considerably tampered with. Prof. Nestle, in his `Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek Testament,' tells us that certain scholars, called `correctores,' were appointed by the ecclesiastical authorities, and actually commissioned to correct the text of the Scripture in the interest of what was considered orthodoxy."


Commenting on this statement, Rev. G. J. Ouseley, in his "Gospel of the Holy Twelve," writes:


"What these `correctores' did was to cut out of the Gospels with minute care, certain teachings of our Lord which they did not propose to follow -- namely, those against the eating of flesh and taking of strong drink -- and everything which might serve as an argument against Flesh eating, such as the accounts of our Lord's interference on several occasions, to same animals from ill-treatment."


There is evidence to indicate that not only were the original doctrines of early Essene Christianity radically changed at the Council of Nicea and replaced by others entirely different, but that the MAN whose life was an embodiment of the original doctrines was likewise replaced by another man who exemplified the new doctrines.

The first act of the Church Fathers, after they created their new religion and its messiah, neither of which existed previously, was to burn all books they could lay their hands on, especially those written during the first few centuries, realizing as they did that such books, if they were not destroyed, constituted a dangerous menace to the survival of their deception. It was for this reason that the churchmen took such great pains to burn the ancient libraries, including the famous Alexandrian Library with its 400,000 volumes, which was burnt to the ground by edict of Theodosius, when a Christian mob destroyed the Serapeum where the scrolls and manuscripts were kept.



References


Anonymous (2013). "Contradictions or Correctores: Which is the Culprit?" https://researchsupportsthetruth.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/contradictions-or-correctores-which-is-the-culprit/


Bernard, R.W. (1964). "The Historical Apollonius Versus the Mythical Jesus," Part I, Apollonius the Nazarene. http://mountainman.com.au/Apollonius_the_Nazarene_1.htm


Wilberforce R. (1852). The Doctrine of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 4th ed. London.

120 views0 comments
Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page