Why is it that European fundamentalist tried but failed to erase Africans from World History?

Today political philosophy is generally conducted in the light of the perceived triumph of liberalism.

That is, it typically proceeds from the assumption that it is unreasonable, if not irrational or pathological, to resist liberalism whether as a mode of thought or as a social order.

Despite critics' repeated attempts to demonstrate the incoherence of liberal values, they appear to have stood the test of time - so much so, that the solutions to the world's pressing social problems are largely being conceived of within the parameters of a liberal world order.

However , E. P. Thompson asks rhetorically: 'How did ideas of equality, liberty and community lead to relationships of power , domination and fratricide?

The argument that Hobson poses is that while liberalism stands for progress, human rights, and emancipation based on the belief that these are universal norms and principles. It turns out, nevertheless, that for Eurocentric liberalism these apply only to particular societies where individuals allegedly attain full rationality, in a so-called "civilized Europe"

Arguably, these principles cannot and must not apply to African polities given that Eurocentric ideologies are comprised and mainly based of "irrational" individual(s) and institutions.

[flash=250,250]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1VtnOrcC80[/flash]

Eurocentric’s Failed Attempts to Erase Africans from World History.

[flash=250,250]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BGSh2W0U1w[/flash]

How European Fundamentalist control Historical Commentary and Discourse

GeneralDae:
I have given you the evidence already.
You don't find people having multiple stories and building a new religon in just 20 years after the death of a non existent character. That's good evidence right there.
Paul existed and wrote about a dispute with peter in A.D 48, in his letter to the Galatians. He is bitter and tries to exonerate himself over events that happened shortly between him and the Jewish church in Jerusalem. This is just about 20 years after jesus. It speaks of a peter the disciple of Jesus(whom he had conflict with), and James the brother of Jesus. If there was no Jesus, Peter, James, John, this would make no sense because to the Galatians then, the letter would be nothing but gibberish.
This is a strong reason why it is more likely that Jesus existed. Can you argue with this? Give me facts pls, not just hand waving dismissal.
When you accuse the author of Galatians of writing fiction, then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence why you think this letter is fiction.

It's seems to me that you aren't aware of the meaning of proof.

All that you stated above is rhetoric.

You cannot prove the validity of the Christian bible using the false narratives from within that book, it doesn't work in that way.

What I'm asking of you is to provide us with the evidence of your fictional characters.

Merely citing that book renders your evidence false and unreliable.

Amujale:


It's seems to me that you aren't aware of the meaning of proof.

All that you stated above is rhetoric.

You cannot prove the validity of the Christian bible using the false narratives from within that book, it doesn't work in that way.

What I'm asking of you is to provide us with the evidence of your fictional characters.

Merely citing that book renders your evidence false and unreliable.

lol, what other proof are you looking for, a statue or what? I gave you book of Galatians written just few years after as proof, and you call it the bible? the Bible is not a single book but 66 books, all different and some a bit contradictory to one another. You just can't deal with the arguement. Analyse my arguement and state why you don't consider Galatians as proof rather than the fallacious arguement you keep putting up here. It doesn't address my position and its' boring.

Amujale:


It's seems to me that you aren't aware of the meaning of proof.

All that you stated above is rhetoric.

You cannot prove the validity of the Christian bible using the false narratives from within that book, it doesn't work in that way.

What I'm asking of you is to provide us with the evidence of your fictional characters.

Merely citing that book renders your evidence false and unreliable.

lol, what other proof are you looking for, a statue or what? I gave you book of Galatians written just few years after as proof, and you call it the bible? the Bible is not a single book but 66 books, all different and some a bit contradictory to each other. You just can't deal with the arguement. Analyse my arguement and state why you don't consider Galatians as proof rather than the fallacious arguement you keep putting up here. It doesn't address my position and its' boring.

GeneralDae:

lol, what other proof are you looking for, a statue or what? I gave you book of Galatians written just few years after as proof, and you call it the bible? the Bible is not a single book but 66 books, all different and some a bit contradictory to each other. You just can't deal with the arguement. Analyse my arguement and state why you don't consider Galatians as proof rather than the fallacious arguement you keep putting up here. It doesn't address my position and its' boring.

The Christian bible isn't a history textbook.

What is it that you don't you understand?

That book is based on fakery and falsehood.

Merely citing it as a source renders your evidence false and unreliable.

Amujale:


The Christian bible isn't a history textbook.

What is it that you don't you understand?

That book is based on fakery and falsehood.

Merely citing it as a source renders your evidence false and unreliable.

The christian bible is not one book but a collection of letters and then books. You keep treating it as one book and this is what I am educating you on. The person who wrote Galatians wrote it as a letter to a particular church trying to clarify some things. Historians ( even Agnostic Historians like Bart Herrmann ) for instance says the book of Galatians is historical. The burden of proof lies on you to tell us why Galatians is not historical.
So give me proof and not empty claims.

GeneralDae:
..
The burden of proof lies on you to tell us why Galatians is not historical.
So give me proof and not empty claims....

You aren't making any sense.

One cannot give proof for the existence of a character that never existed in the first instance, the onus is on you to provide us with the proof of your fictional characters and false narratives.

It's you who's claiming that the narratives in the Christian bible is meant to be real, hence the onus is on you to provide us with the evidence.

GeneralDae:

The christian bible is not one book but a collection of letters and then books...

The Christian bible is a book that is solely based on fakery and falsehood.

That is to say, there's no character or story line that exist within the text that can lay claim to being original.

The authors of these foreign extremist ideologies invented characters and presented them as authors within that same book.

As in, neither Mark, John, Peter, Thomas or Paul wrote a single text (how could they when they are
all fictionall characters), it's authors that made those assertions.

Furthermore, Bart Hartman is a Christian historian, his commentary carries no academic validity.

Amujale:


It's seems to me that you aren't aware of the meaning of proof.

All that you stated above is rhetoric.

You cannot prove the validity of the Christian bible using the false narratives from within that book, it doesn't work in that way.

What I'm asking of you is to provide us with the evidence of your fictional characters.

Merely citing that book renders your evidence false and unreliable.

GeneralDae:

The christian bible is not one book but a collection of letters and then books....

Says who?

All those false assertions don't work here.

You cannot prove the existence of any of the characters in the Christian bible and you cannot proof any of the narratives.

Why?

Due to the fact that it's all based on fakery and falsehood.


Furthermore, these same foreign extremist ideologies was used to perpetrate colonisation and slavery, and here you are some hundreds of years later peddling their false narratives.

Amujale:


Says who?

All those false assertions don't work here.

You cannot prove the existence of any of the characters in the Christian bible and you cannot proof any of the narratives.

Why?

Due to the fact that it's all based on fakery and falsehood.

You are not discussing, you are just blabbing. In what way do you want me to prove the existence of these characters?

Amujale:


The Christian bible is a book that is solely based on fakery and falsehood.

That is to say, there's no character or story line that exist within the text that can lay claim to being original.

The authors of these foreign extremist ideologies invented characters and presented them as authors within that same book.

As in, neither Mark, John, Peter, Thomas or Paul wrote a single text (how could they when they are
all fictionall characters), it's authors that made those assertions.

Furthermore, Bart Hartman is a Christian historian, his commentary carries no academic validity.

Can you provide proof for all of these assertions? Furthermore Bart Ehrmann is not a Christian historian.

Amujale:


You aren't making any sense.

One cannot proof the existence of a character that never existed in the first instance, the onus is on you to provide us with the proof of your fictional characters and false narratives.

It's you who's claiming that the narratives in the Christian bible is meant to be real, hence the onus is on you to provide us with the evidence.

If I give you a book like "Things fall apart" to read, and I tell you that Okonkwo was real and you say no, Okonkwo never existed. It is your duty to tell me why you think so especially if the book doesn't state that it should be fiction and all of my village members see Okonkwo as a hero.

In that case, it would be better for you to present your arguement why you think Okonkwo was fiction. It would be foolish to ask my village clan to prove the existence of okonkwo.

In thesame way, I believe Buddha was real, I don't need to prove this, but if I doubt the existence of Buddha, I should be able to explain how I came about my skepticism to Buddhists and not ask the Buddhists to prove that a 3000 years old character whom all their ancestors worshipped was not real.
You have your logic in the reverse order.

GeneralDae:

If I give you a book like "Things fall apart" to read, and I tell you that Okonkwo was real and you say no, Okonkwo never existed. It is your duty to tell me why you think so....

Firstly, I stated my reasoning at the start and again here.

Here it is again, given that there's no records, genuine written text that can pass as being academic or any genuine commentary that passed as being authentic, no third party recollection regarding these characters anywhere in history, it stands to reason that they simply never existed to start with and that those characters was simply fabricated, invented, made up.

Furthermore, since we already know what time period that the authors placed their fictional characters, it's quite simple to examine the facts and contrast with the narratives being peddled.

Using your own analogy, since the book has been found to being one of fiction and someone insist in claiming that Okonkwo was a real character, then the onus is on such a person to provide the evidence to substantiate such a claim.

Amujale:


Firstly, I started my reasoning at the start and again here.

Here it is again, given that there's no records, genuine written text that can pass as being academic or any genuine commentary that passed as being authentic, no third party recollection regarding these characters anywhere in history, it stands to reason that they simply never existed to start with and that those characters was simply fabricated, invented, made up.

Furthermore, since we already know what time period that the authors placed their fictional characters, it's quite simple to examine the facts and contrast with the narratives being peddled.

Using your own analogy, since the book has been found to being one of fiction and someone insist in claiming that Okonkwo was a real character, then the onus is on such a person to provide the evidence to substantiate such a claim.

How do you know the Galatian text is not genuine? what is your proof for this? How can you just look at a letter and say it is not genuine? what would be the intent of the author who wrote Galatians to write complete fiction?
Let us take it step by step, answer to these points first then we know we are heading somewhere.

GeneralDae:

.... Furthermore Bart Ehrmann is not a Christian historian.

Point taken

I suppose the correct description would be a bible scholar.

However, the mere fact that he refers to himself as a Christian bible scholar and not simply a scholar as the rest of the serious minded ones, puts a huge asterisks on his point of view.

Amujale:


Firstly, I started my reasoning at the start and again here.

Here it is again, given that there's no records, genuine written text that can pass as being academic or any genuine commentary that passed as being authentic, no third party recollection regarding these characters anywhere in history, it stands to reason that they simply never existed to start with and that those characters was simply fabricated, invented, made up.

Furthermore, since we already know what time period that the authors placed their fictional characters, it's quite simple to examine the facts and contrast with the narratives being peddled.

Using your own analogy, since the book has been found to being one of fiction and someone insist in claiming that Okonkwo was a real character, then the onus is on such a person to provide the evidence to substantiate such a claim.

Historians and those who study the matter have a lot of criteria they use in dissecting a fictional text, for instance:

a) The intent of the author
b) The law of embarrassment
c) The likelihood of an event
d) The confirmation from outside sources mentioning thesame thing.
e) Contradictions both internally and externally
f) Archeology

You are only fixated on (d).

If we use only (d) as a criteria then we would have to throw away many history books and we would not teach much of history because not all or even many historical sources have external backing.

Amujale:


Point taken

I suppose the correct description would be a bible scholar.

However, the mere fact that he refers to himself as a Christian bible scholar and not simply a scholar as the rest of the serious minded ones, puts a huge asterisks on his point if view.

Having the name Christian Bible Scholar doesn't mean you are a Christian. It means you study the new testament literature, you study the manuscripts and you apply historical criteria to them. You are a scholar of these texts, and you can read Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, which means you read all the old manuscripts in their original form and compare them, etc. There are people who studied these stuffs in Universities and not all are Christians.

GeneralDae:

How do you know the Galatian text is not genuine? what is your proof for this? How can you just look at a letter and say it is not genuine?
.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3157167

Here's an extract of the journal authored by Alfred Williams Anthony titled "Criticism of the Epistle to the Galatians" published by The University of Chicago Feb., 1891 pp. 90-96:

As denying the genuineness of Paul's epistles to the Galatians only few persons can be mentioned. One of them is Bruno Bauer, a German, who in a work upon the Pauline epistles sets the date of them all between the last year's of Hadrian's reign and the middle of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, that is, between 138 and 170 CE and seems the Epistle to the Galatians nothing more than a compilation from the epistles to the Romans and to the Corinthians..

GeneralDae:

Historians and those who study the matter have a lot of criteria they use in dissecting a fictional text, for instance:

a) The intent of the author
b) The law of embarrassment
c) The likelihood of an event
d) The confirmation from outside sources mentioning thesame thing.
e) Contradictions both internally and externally
f) Archeology

You are only fixated on (d).

If we use only (d) as a criteria then we would have to throw away many history books and we would not teach much of history because not all or even many historical sources have external backing.

According to history, the Christian bible was manufactured by first century Romans and their intention was solely to use it as a tool to further their conquest.

That is to say, these foreign extremist ideologically based narratives are tools of conquerors manufactured specifically for those reasons.

Amujale:


According to history, the Christian bible was manufactured by first century Romans and their intention was solely to use it as a tool to further their conquest.

That is to say, these foreign extremist ideologically based narratives are tools of conquerors manufactured specifically for those reasons.

Now it is your turn to give me proof of this assertion. What history? Who were those first century Romans? In what way were the books used to further their conquests?
Also was there a Christian Bible in the first century? Give me proof that there was any such thing called christian bible in the first century.

GeneralDae:

d) The confirmation from outside sources mentioning thesame thing...

Cite them here.

Cite those scholars outside of Christian historians or Christian bible related narrators that claim the narratives in the Christian bible as being based on history.

GeneralDae:
..
f) Archeology...

Kindly provide those archeological evidence.

GeneralDae:

What history?

Roman history.

Assuming you actually take the time to read proper history books, then these kind of information wouldn't be strange to you.

Go and research the 21 ecumenical councils, the first being the council of Nicea in 325 CE.

GeneralDae:

...Who were those first century Romans? .

My advice is for you to actually take the time to study Roman history, especially those of the first century. i.e the Flavians (Vespasian, Titus, Domitian of the Flavian dynasty), Constantine(I) e.t.c

Amujale:


My advice is for you to actually take the time to study Roman history, especially those of the first century. i.e the Flavians (Vespasian, Titus, Domitian of the Flavian dynasty), Constantine(I) e.t.c

Constantine in first century?
Titus was an enemy of the early christian Church.
Vespasian and Titus were emperors.
What made you think I have not studied Roman history?
You are the one bringing up conspiracy theories and assertions here. If Romans want to create a religion to dominate the world, it wouldn't be such a contradictory religon like christianity. Also if the Romans created christianity, why did the Romans persecute them so much up until Constantine in the 4th century.

Amujale:


https://www.jstor.org/stable/3157167

Here's an extract of the journal authored by Alfred Williams Anthony titled "Criticism of the Epistle to the Galatians" published by The University of Chicago Feb., 1891 pp. 90-96:

So only one person went against Galatians as an historical document of the first century, and even according to this source you quoted, he had no historical grounds for his opinion.
Even the source you are quoting contradicts your stance.

GeneralDae:

Constantine in first century?
Titus was an enemy of the early christian Church.
Vespasian and Titus were emperors.
What made you think I have not studied Roman history?
You are the one bringing up conspiracy theories and assertions here. If Romans want to create a religion to dominate the world, it wouldn't be such a contradictory religon like christianity. Also if the Romans created christianity, why did the Romans persecute them so much up until Constantine in the 4th century.

Good day my brother.

When I was researching the history of christianity, I got to a point where I was asking the same questions you have above. Those questions consoled me for sometime that the bible and Jesus must be real until I discovered the MOTIVE of Rome and the FACT of the matter.

Yes, Vespasian and his brother Titus ,and indeed, other Roman rulers were enemies to the early Jewish sect (it wasn't called Christianity yet) and they killed them in thousands. At the same time they had been scheming to influence their faith by writing a book that would pacify them in order to keep their heads cool.

This turmoil between the Jewish sect was raising the political consciousness of other ethnicities/nationalities under the Roman empire (same way Nnamdi Kanu has raised the political consciousness of other regions of Nigeria) to secede. So, the initial motive was to quell the Jewish sect which was causing major disturbance in the empire and not to destroy Christianity because there was no such religion yet. It wasn't because Rome had special hate for the Jews, rather they just wanted to calm them down. But no matter how much Rome tried they refused to bow to Rome until their ultimate destruction in 70 AD.

Constantine....

Before the time Constantine became Emperor, the empire was no longer one but had divided into four parts because different nationalities under the Roman empire had already adopted the message of the Jewish sect and they kept agitating for freedom even after the defeat of the Jewish sect itself.

The message of the Jewish sect (that would later be called Christianity) didn't stop to spread after chasing the Jews away. In fact, it made it worse for Rome. Keep this in mind because you said "If Romans want to create a religion to dominate the world, it wouldn't be such a contradictory religon like christianity"

Remember what I said earlier. The Roman empire had divided into four before Constantine became emperor and four potential emperors were vying for who shall rule the empire. Constantine came up with a very good idea on how to defeat his opponents so that he may become emperor and bring back Rome under one rule. He reasoned that since they were millions of this radical Jewish sect in the empire and their illegal beliefs is causing secession, that it would be nice to make a deal with them. He said to them that if they could be on his side and help him fight off his rivals and he become emperor that he would make their faith legal in the whole empire. But this was a BIG trick, in fact, a scam.

The christians in their eagerness to practice their faith openly, agreed. Indeed, Constantine won the battle against his three other rivals and became emperor. But instead of making the good old faith of the Jewish sect the religion of the empire, he refurbished the religion of the Roman empire. This's verifiable because the God Constantine himself worshipped till death was Apollo and Mithra.

Mithra was born by a virgin.
Mithra performed many miracles, like healing the sick, raising the dead, feeding the poor, etc.
Mithra was crucified on the cross.
Mithra resurrected from the dead on the third day.
Mithra ascended into heaven. Etc, etc.

However, the Romans had no written works about Apollo or Mithra but just oral history and mythology which as you can see above looks same as christian mythology. Fortunately for Constantine, his predecessors Vespesian and Titus already dropped an idea to future emperors of what to do to pacify and influence the belief of the Jewish sect. The idea was to take over the beliefs of the Jewish sect and make them obedient to Rome. That's clean politics!. Very fantastic!!. Properly understood, you'll realize there's nothing contradictory about Rome so called making christianity the religion of their empire. But let me not get ahead of myself.

So, Constantine used the books of the Jewish sect, edited it and added whatever he wanted (such as pray for your enemy and pay your tax) and he banned the reading of other books read by same Jewish sect. This caused yet another form of unrest but it was gotten under control after many years of killing the Jewish sect yet again.

Constantine did not make the original faith of the Jewish sect the religion of the empire!. This's the view being promoted but if you do your research two levels deep, you'll discover for yourself the truth about Constantine. He killed his son, his wife and in-laws few months after so called becoming a christian. He strangled his son to death and boiled his wife in a drum of hot water few months after supposedly converting to christianity!!. You'll never hear this in your bible school or church. Constantine himself was never a christian. Example; he refused to be baptized. It's said that his friends out of shame baptized him on his death bed when he had no more power to resist them. Constantine did not convert the Roman empire to Christianity, he merely reinvented Mithraism, and that's what is now called Christianity. The good old Christianity (believed by the early Jewish sect) has long been destroyed and replaced with Roman Christianity.

The below two documentaries will throw more light on the above, if you're looking for history. Watch it in the order it's posted.

Origin of Christianity- the Peso Flavian dynasty. This documentary is from the book; Caesar's Messiah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nYUJTRos5o

How Constantine invented Christianity by deceit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LLZId2B1M

musicwriter:


Good day my brother.

When I was researching the history of christianity, I got to a point where I was asking the same questions you have above. Those questions consoled me for sometime that the bible and Jesus must be real until I discovered the MOTIVE of Rome and the FACT of the matter.

Yes, Vespasian and his brother Titus ,and indeed, other Roman rulers were enemies to the early Jewish sect (it wasn't called Christianity yet) and they killed them in thousands. At the same time they had been scheming to influence their faith by writing a book that would pacify them in order to keep their heads cool.

This turmoil between the Jewish sect was raising the political consciousness of other ethnicities/nationalities under the Roman empire (same way Nnamdi Kanu has raised the political consciousness of other regions of Nigeria) to secede. So, the initial motive was to quell the Jewish sect which was causing major disturbance in the empire and not to destroy Christianity because there was no such religion yet. It wasn't because Rome had special hate for the Jews, rather they just wanted to calm them down. But no matter how much Rome tried they refused to bow to Rome until their ultimate destruction in 70 AD.

Constantine....

Before the time Constantine became Emperor, the empire was no longer one but had divided into four parts because different nationalities under the Roman empire had already adopted the message of the Jewish sect and they kept agitating for freedom even after the defeat of the Jewish sect itself.

The message of the Jewish sect (that would later be called Christianity) didn't stop to spread after chasing the Jews away. In fact, it made it worse for Rome. Keep this in mind because you said "If Romans want to create a religion to dominate the world, it wouldn't be such a contradictory religon like christianity"

Remember what I said earlier. The Roman empire had divided into four before Constantine became emperor and four potential emperors were vying for who shall rule the empire. Constantine came up with a very good idea on how to defeat his opponents so that he may become emperor and bring back Rome under one rule. He reasoned that since they were millions of this radical Jewish sect in the empire and their illegal beliefs is causing secession, that it would be nice to make a deal with them. He said to them that if they could be on his side and help him fight off his rivals and he become emperor that he would make their faith legal in the whole empire. But this was a BIG trick, in fact, a scam.

The christians in their eagerness to practice their faith openly, agreed. Indeed, Constantine won the battle against his three other rivals and became emperor. But instead of making the good old faith of the Jewish sect the religion of the empire, he refurbished the religion of the Roman empire. This's verifiable because the God Constantine himself worshipped till death was Apollo and Mithra.

Mithra was born by a virgin.
Mithra performed many miracles, like healing the sick, raising the dead, feeding the poor, etc.
Mithra was crucified on the cross.
Mithra resurrected from the dead on the third day.
Mithra ascended into heaven. Etc, etc.

However, the Romans had no written works about Apollo or Mithra but just oral history and mythology which as you can see above looks same as christian mythology. Fortunately for Constantine, his predecessors Vespesian and Titus already dropped an idea to future emperors of what to do to pacify and influence the belief of the Jewish sect. The idea was to take over the beliefs of the Jewish sect and make them obedient to Rome. That's clean politics!. Very fantastic!!. Properly understood, you'll realize there's nothing contradictory about Rome so called making christianity the religion of their empire. But let me not get ahead of myself.

So, Constantine used the books of the Jewish sect, edited it and added whatever he wanted (such as pray for your enemy and pay your tax) and he banned the reading of other books read by same Jewish sect. This caused yet another form of unrest but it was gotten under control after many years of killing the Jewish sect yet again.

Constantine did not make the original faith of the Jewish sect the religion of the empire!. This's the view being promoted but if you do your research two levels deep, you'll discover for yourself the truth about Constantine. He killed his son, his wife and in-laws few months after so called becoming a christian. He strangled his son to death and boiled his wife in a drum of hot water few months after supposedly converting to christianity!!. You'll never hear this in your bible school or church. Constantine himself was never a christian. Example; he refused to be baptized. It's said that his friends out of shame baptized him on his death bed when he had no more power to resist them. Constantine did not convert the Roman empire to Christianity, he merely reinvented Mithraism, and that's what is now called Christianity. The good old Christianity (believed by the early Jewish sect) has long been destroyed and replaced with Roman Christianity.

The below two documentaries will throw more light on the above, if you're looking for history. Watch it in the order it's posted.

Origin of Christianity- the Peso Flavian dynasty. This documentary is from the book; Caesar's Messiah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nYUJTRos5o

How Constantine invented Christianity by deceit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LLZId2B1M

So what you are saying is constantine is the author of the Christian texts or that he edited it.
If this is true, then how come we have manuscripts of the Christian texts and church fathers dating to the 2nd century and well before Constantine? Have you read the Didache from AD 70, was that also edited by Constantine and Rome? oh come on.

When giving me answers, give me answers about scholarship on first and second century christianity( or the Jewish sect), not Constantine all the way in the 4th century. I know so much about Constantine and what you wrote here is nothing new. I've never met any christian who considers Constantine a hero of christianity.

GeneralDae:

So what you are saying is constantine is the author of the Christian texts or that he edited it.
If this is true, then how come we have manuscripts of the Christian texts and church fathers dating to the 2nd century and well before Constantine? Have you read the Didache from AD 70, was that also edited by Constantine and Rome? oh come on.

There's no original text of the bible anywhere in the world. The only thing that could be said to be original text are the Nag hamadi and the dead sea scrolls found about 1957 or there about. Indeed, they date to the first century. But before you get too excited, the biggest size, is about the size of a credit card, according to a researcher, Kenneth Humphreys. So it's not enough to use them to prove the bible was not written by Rome since it's patches here and there. Everything other manuscript in any museum, no matter how highly held by christendom is a copy of copy of copy of copy.

The rule of thumb is that any writing that's not in Hebrew or Aramaic which is the language Jesus and his disciples would have spoken is fake, fraud, scam. In fact, anything in Greek is not authentic because the supposed Jesus and his disciples were not Greeks.

musicwriter:


Good day my brother.

When I was researching the history of christianity, I got to a point where I was asking the same questions you have above. Those questions consoled me for sometime that the bible and Jesus must be real until I discovered the MOTIVE of Rome and the FACT of the matter.

Yes, Vespasian and his brother Titus ,and indeed, other Roman rulers were enemies to the early Jewish sect (it wasn't called Christianity yet) and they killed them in thousands. At the same time they had been scheming to influence their faith by writing a book that would pacify them in order to keep their heads cool.

This turmoil between the Jewish sect was raising the political consciousness of other ethnicities/nationalities under the Roman empire (same way Nnamdi Kanu has raised the political consciousness of other regions of Nigeria) to secede. So, the initial motive was to quell the Jewish sect which was causing major disturbance in the empire and not to destroy Christianity because there was no such religion yet. It wasn't because Rome had special hate for the Jews, rather they just wanted to calm them down. But no matter how much Rome tried they refused to bow to Rome until their ultimate destruction in 70 AD.

Constantine....

Before the time Constantine became Emperor, the empire was no longer one but had divided into four parts because different nationalities under the Roman empire had already adopted the message of the Jewish sect and they kept agitating for freedom even after the defeat of the Jewish sect itself.

The message of the Jewish sect (that would later be called Christianity) didn't stop to spread after chasing the Jews away. In fact, it made it worse for Rome. Keep this in mind because you said "If Romans want to create a religion to dominate the world, it wouldn't be such a contradictory religon like christianity"

Remember what I said earlier. The Roman empire had divided into four before Constantine became emperor and four potential emperors were vying for who shall rule the empire. Constantine came up with a very good idea on how to defeat his opponents so that he may become emperor and bring back Rome under one rule. He reasoned that since they were millions of this radical Jewish sect in the empire and their illegal beliefs is causing secession, that it would be nice to make a deal with them. He said to them that if they could be on his side and help him fight off his rivals and he become emperor that he would make their faith legal in the whole empire. But this was a BIG trick, in fact, a scam.

The christians in their eagerness to practice their faith openly, agreed. Indeed, Constantine won the battle against his three other rivals and became emperor. But instead of making the good old faith of the Jewish sect the religion of the empire, he refurbished the religion of the Roman empire. This's verifiable because the God Constantine himself worshipped till death was Apollo and Mithra.

Mithra was born by a virgin.
Mithra performed many miracles, like healing the sick, raising the dead, feeding the poor, etc.
Mithra was crucified on the cross.
Mithra resurrected from the dead on the third day.
Mithra ascended into heaven. Etc, etc.

However, the Romans had no written works about Apollo or Mithra but just oral history and mythology which as you can see above looks same as christian mythology. Fortunately for Constantine, his predecessors Vespesian and Titus already dropped an idea to future emperors of what to do to pacify and influence the belief of the Jewish sect. The idea was to take over the beliefs of the Jewish sect and make them obedient to Rome. That's clean politics!. Very fantastic!!. Properly understood, you'll realize there's nothing contradictory about Rome so called making christianity the religion of their empire. But let me not get ahead of myself.

So, Constantine used the books of the Jewish sect, edited it and added whatever he wanted (such as pray for your enemy and pay your tax) and he banned the reading of other books read by same Jewish sect. This caused yet another form of unrest but it was gotten under control after many years of killing the Jewish sect yet again.

Constantine did not make the original faith of the Jewish sect the religion of the empire!. This's the view being promoted but if you do your research two levels deep, you'll discover for yourself the truth about Constantine. He killed his son, his wife and in-laws few months after so called becoming a christian. He strangled his son to death and boiled his wife in a drum of hot water few months after supposedly converting to christianity!!. You'll never hear this in your bible school or church. Constantine himself was never a christian. Example; he refused to be baptized. It's said that his friends out of shame baptized him on his death bed when he had no more power to resist them. Constantine did not convert the Roman empire to Christianity, he merely reinvented Mithraism, and that's what is now called Christianity. The good old Christianity (believed by the early Jewish sect) has long been destroyed and replaced with Roman Christianity.

The below two documentaries will throw more light on the above, if you're looking for history. Watch it in the order it's posted.

Origin of Christianity- the Peso Flavian dynasty. This documentary is from the book; Caesar's Messiah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nYUJTRos5o

How Constantine invented Christianity by deceit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LLZId2B1M

Also comparisons of Jesus to Mithra or Horus are usually blown out of proportion. They do not come out of scholarly circles and have been debunked many times.
There are some comparisons like baptism for instance, and of course maybe you could say virgin birth ( but even virgin birth is not in all gospel descriptions ). However I am yet to find scholarly documents or evidence( not blogs) of Mithra rising from the dead after 3 days.
Most of the mythicism comparison stories have been debunked by many scholars in the field ( both christian and non Christian) as blown out of proportion to a large extent but I wonder why skeptics keep bringing them up in their blogs without sound research of scholarship on the matter.