Time Frames and Taboo Data Blog

Most of the writings that are known as the New Testament were established by canon in timeframes after 200 CE.  In this manufacturing process the “fathers” of Christianity were highly discriminating in the choices of various texts available in that era.  Their primary concern was not the saving of souls or the spiritual awakening of followers, but what could be used to give the appearance of heaven’s bestowal of priestly authority. 

This may be a hard pill to swallow for those who regard the Bible to be the incorruptible word of God.  And yet the fact that the “authority” of  Christian policies were self-proclaimed was clearly stated in the admission of none other than Cardinal Hosius (c. 257-358).  He said, “But for the church, the scriptures would have no more  authority than the fables of Aesop.”

In implementing their power structure the fathers often rejected some parts within a literary work or even rejected complete works of the same general tone.  In other words, the synods and councils that took place were to set up the politics to be structured into their faith system, and it required careful pruning and rejection of numerous literary works.  Many of the texts they considered were being used by outlying branches of the movement which had spread throughout the Roman Empire.  The “fathers,” in their zeal to impose a management system upon as many seekers as possible, indulged themselves in a pick-and-choose orgy of various literary works that often presented contradictory features. 

With politics of the struggling faith system always uppermost in their minds, the “fathers” therefore found the Gospel of John to be tolerable but cast aside similar works such as The Dialogue of Thomas.  As an example, they favored the Gospel of John because it happened to be written in such a manner that it could be utilized (read altered) to promote certain policies for an authoritarian structure that the fathers favored.  Gnostic-like works such as the Dialogue of Thomas encompassed a much broader or freer acceptance of religious practice than the power-seeking “fathers” preferred.  Being Rome-centered, the church fathers were inspired to imitate the authoritative structure of the Roman Empire, with those drawn into the faith made totally reliant upon the dictates of the church representatives.  If seekers believed that a person could approach the creative power that was personified as “God” only through his son-agent, and the church was the son’s representative, then the church had to be obeyed.

As a brief example of what the fathers thought that seekers should be led to believe, consider the Council of Hippo in 393.  Found worthy of holy belief was the OT book of Daniel (taken from a Babylonian poem) to which they added the story of Susanna as chapter 13, now regarded by most as apocryphal (see footnote).  The corporate atmosphere of what was to be marketed as revealed truth continued to be modified up  to (and after) the eighteenth ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church, which assembled at Trent, Italy in 1545.  That little shindig was noteworthy for the fact that it continued, with only a few intermissions, from 1545 until 1563!  Three pontiffs—Popes Paul III, Julius III, and Pius IV—would sit upon the papal throne before that council would be closed.   

It was in the fourth council session (1546) that sacred tradition was elevated by the priests as being on par with priest-chosen scriptures.  This long-winded Middle Ages council set the standard of the Roman Catholic faith and practices which still remain, and many aspects of those plotted doctrines seeped into the reformation sects that branched off.  How tentative the council choices were is shown by the council hesitantly dropping books Third and Fourth Maccabees due to Protestant (protesters) criticism.  Those protesters’ criticisms gave rise to the faith system known as Protestants.

Thus the literary works that were not rejected in those many pick-and-choose conferences managed to survive the selection process simply because the chosen works served the political needs of the authority-seeking priest class.  The shapers of the rudimentary Christian cult had cunningly followed the example of the 7th century BCE Yahweh priest-authors who had understood that the basic institutional structure of an organized faith system had to have the apparent support of “God-authorized” scriptures.

The political platform upon which episcopal authority (church government) campaigned and overran the more natural and honest Pagan religions of earlier timeframes was the insistence that each person had to have a means beyond their own personal power to approach the creative primacy that was/is personified as “God.”  To accomplish this the Pagan perception that “salvation” was gained only through personal integrity had to be displaced.  So Christian emphasis was shifted toward claims that “salvation” was totally a matter of churchly supplication and no longer a personal affair between a person and their Creator.

The irrationality of having a corporate-styled faith system thrust between a seeker and the Absolute had to carry the appearance of being divinely ordained if it was to become an influencing factor over the masses.  And this is what accounts for the careful selection of New Testament books that have been held out to Christians over the centuries as being God’s only approved pathway to heaven.  It was not simply coincidence that those painstakingly selected literary works also happened to allow for the souls of seekers to be held hostage as a means of financial resources and political muscle to be used by those self-appointed representatives of that invented faith system.

• See also: The Book of Daniel, Another Borrowed Myth, Nov. 2010
• Susanna Did What! also Nov. 2010

This entry was posted on April 1, 2011 at 2:07 am and is filed under agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, history, life, random, religion, Social, thoughts with tags Dialogue of Thomas, ecclesiastical laws, Gospel of John, manufacturing faith, personal integrity made victim of superstition. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.