sonmvayina:
Well as for me, I believe the entire new testament where written post Nicea. They where all written after the council of Nicea. I am 99% sure that it was written by Eusebius, the master forger and Mathew and Luke by his side kicks...
Come to think of it, if they existed earlier why the arguements for almost 10 years prior to Nicea. Each church had their own scriptures no uniformity. And Constantine who desire to have 1 single religion in his empire summoned them to Nicea to iron out their difference. They have being holding such council through the ages, the last being the 2nd Vatican council. It was those council that introduced and defined the doctrines and dogma in Christianity. Not the Bible, it was the council of Trent in 1553 that gave power to the bible as a reaction to the reformation started by Martin Luther.

NB
Until the council of Ephesus the Christ was Serapis Christus

Maynman:


You may be right, eusebius the master forger used alot of josephus work and often quoted his books in the church, and not to forget, Josephus was a Chrestian.
The books inside New Testament was meant for Chrestians.
Eusebius didn’t outrightly write everything in the New Testament, he mostly complied different books that makes up New Testament, while also forging, editing and correcting them to be suitable for his new audience called “Christians”, of course with the help of emperor Constantine.

sonmvayina:


Yes, I meant the gospel bearing Mark..I believe it was written by Eusebius. It is from ancient tales about Marduk...Marduk was the son of Enki and he was also the creator of the universe according to the Enuma Elish..

The letters attributed to Paul where all written by a first century sage Apolinius of Tyna, who actually existed. They where edited for the bible by John Chrysostom.

It's all forgery and bull shit. And to think that they have murdered millions just to keep the lie going..

Maynman:

The earliest manuscript of mark called Papyrus 137, is dated to the later 2nd or early 3rd century. Eusebius didn’t flourish until 4th century. Origen was before Eusebius and he also used this books.

sonmvayina:


I won't call them gospels..

budaatum:
The Gospels were written way before Eusebius was born! The oldest surviving piece of text is even older than him by about 40 years

https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=2647

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

sonmvayina:

All these years things came after Nicea.

budaatum:


Are you suggesting there was no Gospel before Nicea?

You're welcome to that belief if so. Evidence does not support it though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_ante-Nicene_period

sonmvayina:


I mean the gospels as we have them in the Bible now.

budaatum:


This means absolutely nothing! The Gospels existed before Nicea is a fact, so could not have been written after.

They may have been edited at or after Nicea, but the core of the text existed as evidence clearly shows. But if you wish to believe otherwise without providing evidence, be very welcome please.

sonmvayina:


Then what where they arguing about prior to Nicea??

Maynman:

With the possible exception of the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mark was the earliest Gospel to be written.
This indicates that the Unknown Authors of Matthew and Luke each used Mark as a source, but neither the Authors of Matthew nor Luke were aware of each other’s work.
Thus, The Gospel of Mark was the first narrative Gospel to be written, and was the source of the other Gospel book.

As was quite common when revising an earlier book, the later Gospel Authors elaborated some of the passages from Mark and also added new material, but removed or omitted* very little. As a result, the later gospels were all longer than Mark’s Gospel.

The problem with the Gospel of Mark for the final editors of the New Testament was that it was grossly deficient.
It has no account of the virgin birth of Jesus–or for that matter, any birth of Jesus at all. In fact, Joseph, husband of Mary, is never named in Mark’s Gospel at all, also, One well known change was the addition of the words “the Son of God” to verse 1:1 instead of the original that read “Son of Mary”.
But even more significant is Mark’s strange ending. It has no appearances of Jesus following the visit of the women on Easter morning to the empty tomb
“Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing (Mark 16:6- 8 ).
And there the Gospel simply ends!
Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus as Matthew, Luke, and John later report.
This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things.

Maynman:



The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics.
This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became “sacred scripture”–but it is patently bogus.

Mark 16:9-19 ending is not found in the earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark, neither is it in the earliest and original New Testament codices(sinaiticus and vaticanus).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Janosky:


. This guy trying so hard to pass off conjectures and assumptions as fact, Odogwu of falsehood.

" the later Gospel authors" later became "unknown authors" for him atheist mindset.
Atheist Rooster and bull nonsense!

That's the only genuine point you made in your copy and paste GIBBERISH.

Maynman:


You are yet to say make sense, polytheist.
Why don’t you disprove the “conjectures and assumptions”, baldheads worshipper
Coptic sahidic illiterate.

Janosky:

Did you Maynmann confirm on this forum that Coptic Sahidic Bible is a historical fact?
Maymann did.
Today Maynmann is typing GIBBERISH.

Maynmann ,I challenge you ,Go & screenshot your first comments on Nairaland PROVEN your rooster and bull nonsense you typed today.

Maynman:

You are still not making sense, polytheist.
Why don’t you disprove the “conjectures and assumptions”, baldheads worshipper. We are waiting, coptic sahidic illiterate

Maynmann says he's not making sense when he confirmed authentication of the Coptic Sahidic Bible.

Monumental Odeh

Janosky:


Maynmann says he's not making sense when he confirmed authentication of the Coptic Sahidic Bible.

Monumental Odeh