Contending for the Faith: 22 Methodical Arguments for Biblical Truth

By Christopher H. K. Persaud

Doubt and disbelief in God's existence and his plan of redemption for lost humankind is becoming increasingly evident in today's hedonistic, self-directed world. Many Christian believers even, choose to listen to, and to acknowledge a feel-good-now Gospel, notwithstanding its deviation from Biblical truth and its possible damning implications. Conversely, many people are wont to deny the existence of a devil and the reality of a place of unceasing torment and/or destruction called hell. A good God cannot be so cruel, they opine.

Jesus commissioned his followers to take his Gospel to the far reaches of the Earth, and the Holy Scriptures encourage Christians in Jude 1: 3, ...to earnestly contend for the faith. More than at any other time in history, believers must defend the Christian Gospel and advocate its timeless truths everywhere so that all of humankind may hear about Christ's offer of eternal life in a place named Paradise. The miscellany of contemplative inquiries and arguments presented in CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH purposes to do just that endorse and advance the Gospel of Christ and help establish Biblical truth!

Much too much is at stake for not spreadingor not listening to Christs entreaty!

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: May 21, 2013
• ISBN: 9781479773374

Christopher H. K. Persaud

WINDOWS OF MY MIND: SIXTY POETIC EXPRESSIONS is Christopher Hugh Kawal Persaud’s first full length book of poetry. The selections contained in WINDOWS OF MY MIND: SIXTY POETIC EXPRESSIONS represent the poet’s work over many years, with some of them dating back to the nineteen seventies when he lived in Guyana (formerly British Guiana) on the coastline of the South American continent. Persaud’s poems encompass a myriad of topics and covers writings about joy, loneliness, tragedy, success, failure, death, life, philosophy, religion, family and eternity, among other themes. Persaud, in addition to being a poet, is a Christian Apologetics writer and has published seven (7) full length books to date. Four of Christopher’s books have won a total of nine international awards. Among the award-winning books are (a) Evolution: Beyond the Realm of Real Science (Xulon Press, USA, 2008, revised 2013); (b) The Da Vinci Code Revisited: A Conclusive Refutation of the Widespread, Sinister Lie (Xlibris Corporation, USA, 2010, revised 2013); Contending for the Faith: Twenty-Two Methodical Arguments for Biblical Truth (Xlibris Corporation, USA, 2014) and Blessings, Miracles & Supernatural Experiences: A Biblical Perspective, A Christian’s Story (Xlibris Corporation, USA, 2015). Vocationally, Christopher is an accounting and financial services professional. He has been engaged in the forgoing fields for over forty years. Christopher lives New Jersey, USA. He is married and with his wife Pamela, has three sons.

Book preview

SECTION ONE

THE FORMATION OF THE BIBLICAL CANON

Let me tell you what I found in relation to the New Testament. When I wrote the book ‘Evidence That Demands a Verdict’ in 1974, I was able to document 14,000 manuscripts of just the New Testament (that’s not counting the Old Testament). In the revised edition, I’ve been able to document 24,633 manuscripts of just the New Testament. The Number Two book in manuscript authority in all history is ‘The Iliad’ by Homer, which has 643 manuscripts. (Josh McDowell, A Skeptic’s Quest, Here’s Life Publishers, California, 1981)

Chapter 1. The Gnostic Gospels (The Nag Hammadi Library) & Other Disputable Writings

Chapter 2. The Council of Nicea, Constantine, and the Biblical Canon

CHAPTER ONE

THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS

(THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY) & OTHER DISPUTABLE WRITINGS

I n as much as revisionist historians who question the veracity of the Holy Bible continue to engage the rapt attention of many people around the world, many of the notions about which they write, their farfetchedness aside, are nothing new. The theory that Jesus Christ was merely human and he married Mary Magdalene and fathered a child through whom his bloodline continued, and continues to this day is an old tale. The premise that the Roman emperor Constantine suppressed the truth about Christ’s humanity or non-divinity and orchestrated a means whereby posterity would view him as being divine, and cunningly determined what ancient books should comprise the Biblical canon and destroyed writings that contradicted his vision, and a host of other anti-biblical meanderings are in actuality, long-standing, groundless promulgations.

The postulations of the writers Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln who wrote the 1982 book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and of Dan Brown who wrote the markedly controversial 2003 blockbuster The Da Vinci Code, are not their own. Works produced before Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln wrote Holy Blood, Holy Grail, such as Gerard de Sede’s 1967 work L’Or de Rennes (later republished as Le Tresor Maudit) and Elaine Pagels’ 1979 undertaking The Gnostic Gospels, were not the first instances whereby scholars discussed the aforementioned topics either. Such contemplation is many centuries old, beginning as early as the second century A.D.

Experts think it was around this time the earliest of the actual Gnostic Gospels came into existence.

The discovery of the Gnostic gospels writings, also known as The Nag Hammadi writings in the mid-nineteenth century engendered renewed interest in Gnostic beliefs. Hitherto unavailable information became accessible to religious scholars and historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, and a maelstrom of historical and philosophical controversy bared its head.

How did Gnostic ideas, in many cases anti-Biblical stories about Jesus Christ, his life and works, Mary Magdalene, Constantine and the early Christian church transpire? From what philosophical underpinnings and/or sources of information did these ideas derive? What were the reasons behind the introduction and development of such stories? The Gnostic gospels are the primary tangible source of information generally referenced by proponents of the aforementioned theories contradicting mainstream Christian thought.

In fact, many of the claims by revisionist historians against traditional or mainstream Christianity stem from the Gnostic gospels, adherents of the teachings who scholars generally refer to as Christian Gnostics or simply Gnostics.

Modern society’s obsession with lifestyles bereft of accountability for one’s actions and omissions, or put another way, with morals rooted in unrestrained permissiveness, no doubt causes many people to embrace religions or belief systems that are not about confession and solid dogma, but about so-called self-realization and self-fulfillment. Religions that teach God is impersonal and exists within oneself and from which doctrines, institutionalization and sermonizing are absent, seem to hold a special allure for wandering, adventurous minds. A belief system, for instance, which is unduly tolerant, non-judgmental, and exclusivist from a perspective of obedience, would be very appealing to many of today’s ostensibly open-minded members of society.

The reader should be aware there are other sources of information besides the Gnostic gospels and other heretical writings produced by so-called early Christian sages that revisionist historians use in their endeavors to distort and discredit Biblical Christianity. Among such sources are the claims associated with pagan mystery religions, many of which lack evidence as to their existence before early Christianity. Chapter 7—Christianity and Paganism contains a somewhat detailed discussion about pagan mystery religions and their relation, if any, to Christianity.

Christian Gnosticism

Just what is Christian Gnosticism? More particularly, what are the Gnostic gospels?

The word Gnostic is a derivative of the Greek word Gnosko, which means knowledge or to know. The term Christian Gnostics refers to a segment of the early Christian community that was at odds with the religious philosophy of members of the orthodox or main division of the religion. The term Christian Gnostics is essentially an oxymoronic one since Christians supposedly follow the Christian or traditional Gospel espoused in the books of the New Testament. The New Testament message is an inextricable continuation of Old Testament philosophy, of course, and teaches about the life and works of Jesus Christ as recorded in the four canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Essentially, Christian Gnosticism teaches an individual must have gnosis or a kind of mystical inner wisdom, which he or she attains only after he or she traverses certain boundaries of exclusive knowledge and truths. Only a select few may achieve gnosis, thereby limiting the existence of the number of Gnostic Christians at any time to an elite minority. Considered heresy by the early Christian Church (40 to 100 A.D.) as well as by orthodox Christians of today and roundly condemned by the Apostle Paul in his epistles to the churches during his ministry, Christian Gnosticism has resurfaced in recent times and appositely may be a mindset antecedent to the New Age religions that permeate modern society. The existence of such heretic dispositions notwithstanding, Gnostic texts date back to eras much later than the time during which the Canonical Gospels and other writings of the New Testament emerged. New Age worldviews are unrestrainedly permissive and assume various forms, including numerous mystic Eastern creeds that have become common in recent decades. A seminal feature of New Age religions is the depiction of Jesus Christ as an Illuminator or some kind of cosmic force that helps engender the mystical or paraphysical awakening of an individual. Jesus is supposedly an extraordinary, revolutionary philosopher who is vehicular in aiding an individual in his or her quest to achieve his or her highest potential and be master of his or her own destiny. The core presumption is the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent designer and creator of the universe and of life is irrelevant and impractical.

Theologians and religious experts conclude Christian Gnosticism began with Carpocrates (130-150 A.D.), the Alexandrian philosopher who, with his son Epiphanes, introduced a revolutionary, licentious belief system. Epiphanes, who wrote a treatise called On Justice, died at age 17. Among numerous questionable teachings, Epiphanes, and consequently Carpocratians, advocated the communal ownership of property, including women. These people taught Jesus was but one of several wise men who had achieved deliverance from corruption (a general, imprecise term) and had become one with the Absolute, the latter a sort of impersonal, indefinable deity.

Gnosticism, in whatever form it assumed, was the most formidable kind of heresy confronting the early Christian Church. Not only did Gnostics misinterpret and strive to corrupt the material contained in the New Testament, they concocted their own writings and presented them as inspired scriptures.

Gnostic Beliefs about God & Salvation

There is great diversity and multiplicity in Gnostic theories. This is because Gnosticism does not embrace, or possess a concrete or stable set of fundamental doctrines lending to the formulating of distinctive religious and/or philosophical tenets and principles. Such a fact leads to imprecise and shadowy teachings derived from more or less uninhibited borrowing of phraseology and ideas from a plethora of other religions and belief systems, such notions incorporated into a hodgepodge of manufactured and in some instances, redefined religious and philosophical postulations.

According to Gnosticism, God is an unidentifiable, nebulous conception. God, to Gnostics, has numerous names and is an impersonal entity or may not be an entity at all. Some of the names ascribed to the Gnostic god are the Fullness of Being, the First Source, the Unknown God, the First Father, the Monad and the Not-Being God. Gnostics postulate God, whoever or whatever such an entity might be, was at the outset entirely spiritual. Matter was non-existent. The purely spiritual, all encompassing power (God) gave rise to a number of other, lesser wholesome spirit forces. While in the myriad Gnostic systems the secondary spirit forces carry different names, this emanation theory is more or less common to all of them.

The forgoing dogma diametrically contradicts traditional Biblical teaching, which makes it emphatically clear God reveals himself to humankind. He made himself known to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Jeremiah, among other prophets. In Jeremiah 32:27, it states, See I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too hard for me? In Genesis, 17:1-2, God tells Abraham, " . . . ‘I am God Almighty, walk before me, and be blameless. And I will make my covenant between me and you, and will make you exceedingly numerous." Also, in Exodus 3:6, a dumbfounded Moses, as he cowered on Mount Horeb, heard a voice saying, I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Most significantly, God manifests himself through his begotten Son, Jesus Christ, with whom every one of his children can have a personal relationship.

The committed Christian learns to develop a healthy fear of God and purposes to keep his commandments as enunciated in the Bible. In Colossians 2:6-9 one reads:

As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, continue to live your lives in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one takes you captive through vain philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily . . .

Further, the Christian believer is obeisant to God and follows his instructions as to how to conduct himself or herself. Ecclesiastes 12:13 says, The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep His commandments for this is the whole duty of everyone.

Salvation, according to Gnosticism, is obtainable only through the attainment of Gnosis, a condition whereby exclusive, secret knowledge is available to selected individuals. Gnosis relates to the sacred truths of the cosmos. It is a vague, incomprehensible notion about a divine spark within an individual’s persona he or she can utilize to enable himself or herself to achieve a state of Gnosis, unaided or unassisted by any extraordinary spiritual power. In other words, the concept of God, as stated earlier, is unfeasible and unnecessary. The essential Christian tenets of Christ’s atonement for the sins of humankind and God’s offer of eternal life through such a sacrifice are absent from Gnostic ideology. The Gnostic savior is devoid of a human nature, as the Bible teaches Christ possessed, and supposedly is entirely spiritual. He, or it, is an Aeon and if there were any semblance of humanity in such a being, it is indistinct or inconspicuous.

Gnosticism, as noted earlier, promotes the idea only relatively few people are capable of achieving Gnosis, as opposed to Biblical teaching, which says all who approach God’s Throne of Grace with the intention of living for him may attain salvation and live eternally in Heaven.

Next, the author examines the actual writings contained in the ancient writings and scrolls historians and scholars of religion identify as "the Gnostic gospels." These writings, directly and indirectly, help provide fodder for a large number of revisionist theologians and scholars.

The Gnostic Gospels

The Gnostic gospels are primarily writings by early Christian Gnostics who, as mentioned earlier, held markedly dissimilar views to those of early orthodox Christians. The Gnostic gospels are essentially a collection of anonymous writings, even though scholars assign the names of some of Christ’s apostles and Mary Magdalene to them. The texts blend pseudo-Christian tenets with cryptic spirituality. The writings comprise poems, legends and works indicative of mysticism. Included also are what some scholars refer to as secret gospels. Early Gnostics not only distorted various prevalent Christian ideas, but also infused in their overall belief system, a conglomeration of dogmas appurtenant to other spiritual traditions and religious philosophies. Many experts presume Gnostic writings may amount to less than four or five dozen in total, of which only about five are superficially gospels, even though scholars hostile to Christianity maintain there were close to eighty such gospels available for possible inclusion in the New Testament canon.

Essentially, the Gnostic gospels refer to ancient scrolls and writings discovered at different times. The Nag Hammadi Library is a collection of writings discovered in Nag Hammadi, a town in northern Egypt in 1945. The Nag Hammadi writings are in book form, not on scrolls as intimated by some misinformed scholars. The latter distinction, as shown later, harbors ramifications as to the identification of eras during which scribes produced ancient scrolls, as opposed to ancient books.

Misguided historians, bent on discrediting the Bible, make the following assertions, among others, about Gnostic and other olden texts.

• The Gnostic gospels (the Nag Hammadi Library) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in the early 1950’s) are the earliest Christian Writings.

• The Gnostic gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls were among the Gospels considered for inclusion in the Christian canon, but the emperor Constantine omitted them from the canon and tried to destroy them.

• The Coptic Scrolls (the Dead Sea Scrolls) highlight glaring discrepancies and fabrications in the modern Bible.

What exactly are the Gnostic gospels? Are the Gnostic gospels really the earliest Christian records? Do these writings tell the truth about Jesus Christ and his teachings? What are the Dead Sea Scrolls?

The Gnostic Gospels—Beset by Challenges & Misgivings

In comparing the timeframes within which the Gnostic gospels and the New Testament Gospels originated, and the proximity of the times of their creation to the era when Jesus Christ lived and died, the observant reader might feel prompted to ask the following question. Why would one accord more, or any credence to writings produced, at the earliest, well over a hundred years after the events in question than he or she would grant writings produced just a few decades after such incidents? Were the matter viewed from a contemporary, time related perspective, the production of the Gnostic gospels would parallelize historians’ writing accounts of the American Civil War (1861-1865) today, i.e. close to one hundred and fifty years after the conflict ended. The New Testament books, on the other hand, in particular the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, would be texts produced just after the turn of the 20th century or about fifty years after the events actually took place.

The mere fact an inordinately long time elapsed after the death of Jesus Christ and before the production of even the first of the Gnostic gospels, gives rise to serious skepticism about the legitimacy of the contents of such texts. The absence of an autograph, or initial manuscript (or manuscripts) or scroll (or scrolls) associated with the claims contained in the Gnostic gospels and that expectedly should have been produced within a reasonable time after Christ lived and died engenders two decidedly rational assumptions.

Firstly, the absence of an original writing or writings that date to a time shortly after the occurrence of certain events indicates firsthand or persuasive secondhand accounts of such events are lacking. Scholars conservatively date the earliest Gnostic writings to late in the second century A.D. i.e. well over a hundred and fifty years after Jesus died. It is implausible to presume works prepared then, even if the objective were to promote the truth, would accurately reflect what transpired during Christ’s life, and reasonably describe his actual deeds and teachings. The absence of original texts on which to base reports of actual events presents a serious hindrance to the dissemination of historical truth.

Secondly, if there were no autograph dating close to the time of actual events, storytellers would hand down information orally to subsequent generations. Were Gnostic gospel information relayed vocally from one generation to another up until the time such gospels assumed a written structure i.e. late in the 2nd century and in the 3rd and 4th centuries, it is eminently logical to deduce information by then was unrepresentative of its original form and content. The tendency of data to lose its initial meaning and purpose and to become corrupted with the passage of time is a well-documented phenomenon appurtenant to the process of information gathering and transference. The transmission of facts and statistics vocally, instead of in written form greatly increases the possibility of the corruption of such information.

A good many scholars contend the writers and/or originators of the Gnostic gospels were heretical individuals or dissenters from established religious dogma bent on misrepresenting the truth about Jesus Christ, his teachings and early Christianity. These prophets of falsehood, preoccupied with accomplishing personal, selfish ends, had no qualms about causing mischief in the process. The prospect of tarnishing the truth and instead presenting baleful and/or hybrid ideology in no way inhibited their unmitigated zeal to inveigle and mislead others. Even before the end of the apostolic era, generally thought to be between 6 B.C. and 100 A.D.—from the birth of Christ to the time of the creation of the New Testament texts, heretics had begun to surface with their twisted understanding of, and sometimes deliberately malicious take on the Holy Scriptures.

The apostle Paul warned his understudy Timothy about "Hymenaeus and Philetus—who concerning the truth have erred . . ." Hymenaeus and Philetus taught the resurrection of believers had already taken place and was an event of the past. The teachings of the two men and the slanted ideas of other heretics during the time of the early Church at times had a demoralizing effect on the fragile faith of new Christians. Paul also cautioned the Christians in Ephesus, as he advised other believers on other occasions, against giving in to false teachings and told them, I know that after I have gone, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Some even from your own group will come distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them. (Acts 20:29-30)

Docetism is a form of heresy or Gnosticism dating back to the time of the apostles of Christ. Derived from the Greek word dokesis, which means appearance or semblance, the doctrine teaches Christ only appeared to be human. He was in effect a phantom and did not possess a physical body. Some Diocetists reject the notion about Christ’s humanity altogether, while others deny only the reality of his human body, his birth and death. An alternative version of Docetism teaches Christ’s nature was two-tiered in that he was both spiritual and physical. Jesus was a physical manifestation while Christ was its spiritual counterpart. Christ the spirit departed at the crucifixion and left Jesus the human being to suffer and die on the cross. Docetism also advocates there was no actual bodily resurrection, only a spiritual one.

During the second century, early Church leaders had to contend with the skewed religious reasoning of Marcion of Sinope (110-160 A.D.). Marcion claimed Jehovah, or the God of the Old Testament could not be the Father of Jesus Christ because Christ presented his Father as a God of Love and Jehovah, or the Jewish God was a God of anger and retribution. There was a greater God than Jehovah, Marcion suggested, and this God created the soul or spirit element of the human being. Marcion also taught Jesus Christ was a spiritual manifestation sent to free the human soul from its fleshly counterpart and he, Jesus, was never a physical creature.

Arius (250/256-336 A.D.) was an early fourth century priest in Alexandria. Around 318 A.D., Arius fell in disfavor with the Christian Church after he proposed the idea that the Son of God was not coeternal with God the Father and there was once a time, before God begat the Son, when he did not exist. The Church excommunicated Arius from the Church.

Origen (185-254 A.D.) was an early Christian scholar and theologian, and one of the most prominent of the early fathers of the Christian Church. Origen advocated a Platonic view of eternal souls attaining perfection while fleeing the temporary, flawed material world. He promoted the notion that even demons could find favor and reconciliation with God. Origen also taught the Triune Godhead or Trinity comprised a hierarchical structure and people’s souls preexisted before they were born. He preached that one day there would a grand restoration of body and soul. Religious leaders subsequently expelled Origen from the Church.

Other heretics such as Valentinus, Montanus and Tertullian participated brazenly in the spread of Gnosticism during the second century and onwards. Many such individuals were eminent religious scholars and their musings, as false and unrepresentative as they were of Christ’s life and real teachings, nevertheless served to lead many people astray. Such deviations from religious verity continue to take place today through the endeavors of so-called enlightened scholars of Gnosticism who, because of motives ranging from personal vendettas to reckless misrepresentation, rally against the time-honored truths of the Holy Bible. Truth, including religious truth, however, in as much as its associated mandates and consequences may be abhorrent to some, remains unalterable. No one can manufacture truth and no measure of manipulation or obfuscation of the facts can produce any ideology capable of withstanding constructive inquiry and the test of time.

Of course, mainstream Christianity clearly contradicts the teachings of the Gnostic gospels and the doctrines of other heretics like those mentioned above. The following passages taken from the Holy Bible bring such a fact to the fore.

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. (Colossians 2:8, 9)

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who brought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. (2 Peter 2:1)

But because of false believers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us. (Galatians 2:4)

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

Sadly, it is the enemy from within i.e. those who call themselves Christians and who nevertheless denigrate Jesus Christ and his teachings and seek to clutter the Christian Gospel with paganish taints, who are the faith’s most dangerous adversaries. These false prophets fall prey to the devil and become his ministers in spreading untruth, as others did before them.

How Old are the Gnostic Gospels?

Do the Gnostic gospels predate the Biblical canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as anti-Christian advocates theorize?

One of the more emphatic assertions by secular historians is orthodox Christianity and Christian Gnosticism were parallel developments in the decades and years after the life of Jesus Christ. The inference is although the two versions of the Christian belief system grew at the same time, the Gnostic gospels, at least a number of them, predate the Gospels contained in the New Testament. Scholars who support such an outlandish idea claim mainstream Christianity suppressed and essentially eradicated Christian Gnosticism through oppression and subterfuge and misrepresented the real message of Jesus Christ for many centuries. They posit Christian Gnosticism told the truth about God, Jesus Christ and his teachings, and Christ’s apostles and Mary Magdalene.

Such claims lack historical substantiation, and as one shall see, have their roots in inanity and fierce speculation. The contention that the Gnostic gospels are the earliest Christian records is a distortion of the truth and such scholarship proceeds from deficient research and predisposed bias.

The Nag Hammadi writings number just over fifty and are the largest and most significant collection of Gnostic texts. Religious scholars think the documents, although written in Coptic, an olden Egyptian language, were Greek in origin. Scribes apparently composed the writings during the second half of the fourth century. The fact that pieces of paper helping to form the spines of the leather-bound Nag Hammadi books are really portions of business receipts dated A.D. 341, 346 and 348 helps bolster such an assumption.

Established scholarship dates most of the Nag Hammadi documents to the third and fourth centuries A.D. Some pushy scholars, encouraged by the hypothesis that the writings existed in their original form in the Greek language, contend some of the writings originated as early as the second century A.D. i.e. around A.D. 150. Even if the earlier date correctly identifies the time when scribes produced some of the original documents, it still is much later than the era during which religious sages wrote the New Testament texts. The clear majority of scholars of religious history, Christian and non-Christian alike, acknowledges the New Testament writings, including the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, originated during the first century A.D. Scholars firmly suggest the Apostle Paul wrote some of his letters to the various churches as early as 50 to 100 years before the first, or earliest, Nag Hammadi writings.

Responsible and reliable scholarship, even when it accommodates a reasonable measure of lenience, could never justifiably date any of the Nag Hammadi texts to a period remotely close to the time when the New Testament writings supposedly emerged. The Nag Hammadi texts, even the so-called earliest ones, came into existence generations after the creation of the New Testament gospels and Paul’s epistles to the churches. The fact that secular scholars suggest the Gnostic gospels, which they foolishly, or ignorantly intimate include the Dead Sea Scrolls, are the earliest Christian records, is an insult to even elementary theological erudition, not to mention the affront insinuated by such a pronouncement to the sensibilities of practical and dedicated scholars of religious history.

The Perplexing Q Scroll

A handful of liberal New Testament scholars today claim the Gospel of Thomas, easily the most familiar writing of the Nag Hammadi texts, must be a work that predates the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Ironically, earlier, well-learned scholars who studied the documents not too long after their discovery in the 1950’s hardly thought so. Theologian and Bishop Emeritus of Gothenburg (Church of Sweden) Bertil Gartner for instance, said the Gospel of Thomas’ character is so far removed from the four canonical Gospels that it cannot be put on par with them. (Bertil Gartner, The Theology of the Gospel According to Thomas, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1961, p.11).

Why do some scholars consider the Gospel of Thomas a writing that predates the New Testament Gospels when established scholarship identifies it as one of the Nag Hammadi texts, or writings most experts date to around A.D. 150? Why is there such an ambitious departure from acknowledged scholarship as it relates to the history of the Christian religion?

It is regrettable not all theologians and scholars of religious history are practical, constructive thinking professionals. Some instead adopt agendas that incorporate predisposed bias and animosity toward established religion, particularly the Christian faith. Some such scholars point to a mysterious document or scroll named Q in their deliberations about the ages of ancient religious texts. The text in focus i.e. the Gospel of Thomas, assumed by revisionist scholars to predate just about every other ancient Christian writing, obtained its revised, much older age than those ascribed to the other Nag Hammadi documents through allusion to the Q scroll.

The Q scroll is a concept so nebulous and abstruse, to try to explain the idea might only engender further confusion, especially in the minds of readers who are not conversant with the ramifications relative to conscientious theological rumination. However, out of necessity the author volunteers an explanation.

The aforementioned scholars utilized the following method in their determination that the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas predated the New Testament Gospels. These experts examined the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke and realized large sections of each Gospel were identical. They ignored the contents of the remainder of the two Gospels in their deliberations. Upon realizing the portions of the two Gospels sharing common information hardly made mention of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and utilizing a measure of logic akin to infantile reasoning, these scholars concluded the like sections of the Gospels arose from another, single document or scroll. Such a scroll or document, they surmised, was already in existence at the time New Testament scribes wrote the Christian Gospels.

Presto! Recalcitrant experts willed the Q scroll into being!

The Q scroll or document is nonexistent. It is a figment of the imagination. However, this does not prevent self-designated experts from contending the document is older than the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark and every other Christian writing. The notion of the existence of a scroll predating the New Testament Gospels and supposedly containing information about Jesus, minus accounts of his death and resurrection, gives rise to the concept of the Q text in which its originators paint a markedly different picture of the Nazarene. The opportunistic revisionists argue the earliest disciples of Jesus considered the Q writings the true Gospel. The subsequent, later writings that comprise the New Testament Gospels are therefore unrepresentative of the life and times of Jesus Christ. Consequently, since the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas is similar in nature to the Q scroll, as it does not mention Christ’s death and resurrection, it must be one of the earliest Christian writings itself—earlier than the New Testament texts. Further, some revisionist scholars infer the Q document contain actual sayings of Christ, such sayings recorded some twenty years or so after his death.

In essence, the Q scroll experts assail the dignity of serious minded scholars of religious history everywhere and impose upon their sensibilities by preposterously suggesting the more than two-thousand year old orthodox Christianity establishment is a farce, and base such deliberation on the contents of a hypothetical document—a manuscript no one has ever seen!

Claims about the Existence of a Q Scroll and Numerous Documents that Emphasize Jesus’ Purely Human Traits

Some irresponsible revisionists take the far-fetched concept of the existence of a Q scroll or document to higher plateaus of exaggeration. They brazenly presume although Constantine outlawed and destroyed thousands of gospels and writings that chronicled Jesus’ life as a mortal man when the emperor formed the canon of the New Testament, people somehow preserved thousands of other documents, which are part of a secret, treasure trove of documents referred to as the Purist Documents, among other names. Jesus, they say, kept a chronicle of his ministry. As a matter of fact, these enlightened historians claim most people during the time of Christ documented details of their lives. Uninformed, preposterous suggestions like the forgoing can only be an affront to principled and purposeful scholarship.

The claim that the emperor Constantine destroyed thousands of documents disclosing information about Christ’s life and ministry from a patently human perspective is untruthful to the core. The author discusses the role of Constantine in the early Christian Church in some detail in the next chapter. For now, the focus falls on the other pronouncements mentioned immediately above.

The Q document or scroll is more or less a conjectural work some scholars think originated before the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament and from which the Gospels and some Gnostic gospels as well, emerged. The supposition the Q document is part of numerous writings that contain accounts of a human; as opposed to a divine Christ is speculative nonsense, to put it mildly. Liberal theologians, as they are wont to do, perennially seek to vitiate the time-honored truths of the Old Testament and the New Testament and have no qualms about inventing outrageous and pernicious theories they feel might serve to erode bastions of religious thought and to lead people astray.

Most Biblical scholars and conservative religionists unhesitatingly condemn the idea of the existence of a Q scroll. Eta Linnemann, (retired) Professor of Theology/Religious Education, Pedagogic Academy, Braunschweig, Germany, and Honorary Professor (New Testament), Phillips University, Marburg, Germany says:

(The Q scroll) is nothing but fantasy . . . Such totally subjective arrangements, depending on dubious suggestions about the historical background, amount to novelistic trifling with early Christian origins. (Eta Linnemann, the Lost Gospel of Q—Fact or Fantasy)

Bart Ehrman, the James A. Gray Professor and Chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, USA, and an author of a number of books on early Christianity and the life of Jesus, says:

The Q document is not a source written by Jesus; it is a hypothetical document that scholars believe once contained sayings of Jesus . . . and used as a source for their Gospels by Matthew and Luke. (Bart D. Ehrman, Truth & Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, 2004, p.100. Emphasis author’s)

How accurate are the postulations observers and other scribes recorded thousands of stories about a purely human Jesus—centuries before the time of Constantine? Did Jesus maintain a log or journal of his life and activities? Were people in the habit of keeping records of their lives during Jesus’ time?

Any remotely knowledgeable or sincere historian would perfunctorily categorize an attempt to lend credence to the forgoing inquiries as an exercise in futility. Such an endeavor would only endorse outright fiction instead of historical fact.

Firstly, no evidence whatsoever exists that supports the ludicrous notion thousands of Christ’s followers kept records of his teachings and works. In fact, there is not a single scrap of evidence that suggests anyone at all produced writings about Jesus during his lifetime. Trustworthy historical research assertively points to the assumption that the overwhelming majority of Christ’s followers were illiterate men and women, or people unschooled in the practices of reading and writing.

Secondly, it is boldly and unpardonably exploratory to suggest Jesus documented his own teachings, actions and omissions. Reliable historical rumination strongly indicates Christ did not write anything; much less prepare voluminous accounts of his life and deeds. He certainly did not write the fabled Q document, as some errant theologians and historians feel led to imply (see above).

Thirdly, the insinuation that most of the people who lived in Jesus’ time chronicled their own lives is a statement rooted in illogical meandering. As mentioned above, most of these people were illiterate. The supposition that thousands of pre-Constantine writings about Jesus survived the emperor’s so-called purge of such texts is a figment of people’s whimsical and puckish imagination.

During the time of Jesus Christ, most people could not read and write and such circumstances indeed were lamentable, even if the need for such capabilities and the provision of facilities for teaching them were lacking. In today’s world, especially in modernized societies, the skills of reading and writing are everyday necessities. However, the fact that very many people who are able to read and write do not devote a pertinent measure of analysis and research to what may be controversial issues, but accept en masse the ideas others present to them, defeats the very purpose of knowledge-seeking and the disseminating of facts.

Might it not be today’s credulous, unquestioning readers and writers who fall prey to falsehood espoused by reckless, unprincipled scholars, are much akin to the ignorant and unlearned folk of Jesus’ time? Could it be people have not progressed at all in the realm of properly educating themselves or worse still, have cultivated deleterious habits instead of meaningful and beneficial practices?

Anti-Biblical scholars even claim the Gnostic gospels are secret writings that Christian Church leaders withheld from people for many hundreds of years. Even a dilettantish historian or religious scholar would consider such a statement patently foolish and uninformed. Secular theologians give their audiences the impression they are letting them in on a huge secret, one well guarded for many years by the Catholic Church—namely, the Church uncovered alternative accounts of early Christianity and kept people from accessing such information. On the contrary, it is common knowledge media sources announced the discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts to the world at large decades ago. The texts have been the subject of numerous news reports and articles over the years since their discovery. Appropriate authorities opened the actual Nag Hammadi writings to public inspection not long after their discovery in 1945. Linguistic experts translated the Gospel of Thomas, one of the most popular Nag Hammadi texts, into English and published it in 1959. In the late 1970’s, religious and secular authorities made available to the public, the first comprehensive English translation of the Nag Hammadi texts, or The Nag Hammadi Library. The documents attracted widespread attention at the time, and continued to do so over the years. Anyone can retrieve the information contained in the texts from the Gnostic Society Library website www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Do the Gnostic Gospels Tell the Truth about Jesus Christ & His Teachings?

Writers antagonistic to the Holy Bible unconditionally accept the accounts about Jesus’ life as contained in the Gnostic gospels as fact. They must, if they are to peddle embarrassingly unsubstantiated alternatives to Biblical truth as a remotely plausible proposition. Sadly, very many gullible and misinformed people choose to assent to such twisted interpretation of the history of the early Christian Church.

No one knows who wrote the Gnostic gospels. The appending of the names of Christ’s apostles and Mary (Magdalene) to some of these writings in no way makes a persuasive argument for authorship of these documents by any of the individuals named. In fact, given the considerable lapse of time between the era when Jesus Christ supposedly lived and died, and the period or periods when writers penned the Gnostic gospels, many theologians and students of religious history venture to presume assigning names such as Thomas, Peter, Philip and John to the Gnostic gospels very likely points to a ruse employed by their writers, whoever they were, to mislead and confound those who would later read the writings. Many orthodox Christian scholars express very little doubt mischief and deception were afoot from the outset of the production of the Gnostic gospels.

Irenaeus (A.D. 130-200), bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul (Lyon), France and "Father of the Church," made mention of an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves (heretics) had forged, to bewilder the minds of the foolish. (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i.20.1). Origen of Alexandria (A.D. 185-253), one of Christendom’s greatest theologians, remarked, " . . . the Church possesses four Gospels, heresy a great many." (First Homily on Luke; cited by Yamauchi, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia—Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980—s.v. Nag Hammadi, vol. 3, p.182)

A central consideration that affects scholarship in connection with the canonical Gospels revolves around the fact the writings make no mention about the fall of Jerusalem. The destruction of Jerusalem took place in A.D.70 when the armies of the Roman emperor Titus overran the city. The laying to waste of Jerusalem and its Temple was an atrocity of such magnitude that in parallelizing the tragedy with a modern day perpetration, one unhesitatingly would point to the Holocaust carried out by Adolf Hitler and the Germans during World War II. The fact that the four canonical Gospels do not contain an event of such unspeakable evil as the devastation of Jerusalem in A.D.70 leads to the inescapable conclusion religious scribes wrote the Books of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John prior to such a date, or during a time shortly after the life of Jesus Christ.

The Gnostic gospels lack the wherewithal for historical and geographical verification. Of a truth, there are no genuine eyewitness accounts of events described in these writings. The New Testament Gospels, on the other hand, have undergone extensive scrutiny. Scholars deem them accurate in every respect. Put in other words, scholars cannot constructively discredit any aspect of the New Testament Gospels’ claims to truthfulness. On the contrary, experts propose the Gnostic gospels appeared too long after the life of Jesus Christ to be reliable records, especially as accounts of the Galilean miracle worker’s life and teachings contained in the four canonical Gospels, which scribes wrote only decades after his death, and yes, after his resurrection, are remarkably dissimilar to the contents of the Gnostic gospels. The latter writings consequently are doctrinally untrustworthy. The following contradictions between the two sets of texts only serve to enhance the contention the Gnostic gospels do not tell the truth about Jesus Christ and his teachings.

(a) The Gnostic gospels tell of a Jesus who directs his followers to keep his teachings secret and who even calls a curse upon those who would share his wisdom with others. Jesus allegedly says, Cursed be everyone who will exchange these things for a gift, or for food, or for drink, or for clothing, or for any other such things. (John Dart, Jesus of Heresy and History: The Discovery and Meaning of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Library—San Francisco, Harper & Row, 1988, p.15).

In the New Testament Gospels, Jesus commissions his disciples, above all other things, to take his message of salvation to the world. He says, in Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . Shortly before he ascended to Heaven, Jesus encouraged those who would help spread the good news of eternal life" with the following statement of assurance: But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.(Acts 1:8)

The forgoing disclosures beg the question—Which of the aforementioned two courses of action would a compassionate and extraordinary leader who wants the best for those who would follow him delegate or commission? The answer is obvious!

(b) The Gnostic gospels say humankind attains a Gnostic state whereby acquisition of special knowledge or a form of exclusive illumination allows the escape of his or her spirit from a bodily human prison. In The Teachings of Silvanus, a Gnostic document, the writer depicts Jesus as a teacher who advocates salvation through enlightenment: "Bring in your guide and your teacher. The mind is the guide, but reason is the teacher. They will bring you out of destruction and dangers . . . Enlighten your mind . . . Light the lamp within you." (Teachings of Silvanus, 85.24-106.14, in Nag Hammadi Library, pp. 347-356; cited by E. Pagels, Gnostic Gospels—New York: Random House, 1979 p.127). Men and women, it is implied, are the authors of their own destiny and seemingly can scale a plateau of perfection entirely through their own power.

The Christian or canonical Gospels, however, make it unequivocally clear salvation is a gift predicated on God’s unconditional love for the members of his creation. One of the most beloved Scriptural passages of all time reads, For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. (John 3:16). Further, in John 6:40b, it says, " . . . all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day." While the performance of good works may be evidence of righteousness or testimony to a sacred disposition, an individual gains salvation only through God’s grace. He or she is incapable of securing the promise of everlasting peace, comfort and joy in a paradisial realm or Heaven through his or her own strength or effort. The Christian faith is unique in this regard and it is the sole monotheistic belief system among the world’s major religions that emphasizes the omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence of a supreme Designer and Creator of life and the cosmos—an entity who reserves the inalienable right, and competence, to accord his obedient children the gift of eternal life. The predisposition toward such benevolence flows from the auspices of God’s matchless love and concern for his creation.

Christianity, more than any other major religious or philosophical worldview, stresses that humankind, whose intellect and capacity to do good are accommodated only within mortal confines, cannot on its own absolve itself from the implications of inherited and committed sin. Only a Holy and Just God is able to forgive sin and cleanse a spiritually blemished inner being.

(c) The Gnostic gospels allude to Christ as a kind of precautious Gnostic enlightener of secrets. Jesus’ nature as intimated in these writings is very different from the New Testament portrayal as Savior and Redeemer of the world. The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas for instance, contains the following account of a supposed conversation between Jesus and his disciples.

Compare me to someone and tell me whom I am like. Simon Peter said to Him, ‘You are like a righteous angel.’ Matthew said to Him, ‘You are like a wise philosopher.’ Thomas said to him, ‘Master, my mouth is wholly incapable of saying whom you are like.’ Jesus said, ‘I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out.’ And He took him (Thomas) and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, ‘What did Jesus say to you?’ Thomas said to them, ‘If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up. (The Gospel of Thomas, Saying 13, Cited in the Nag Hammadi Library, p.119)

In the Gospel of Matthew of the New Testament, when Jesus asked his disciples, But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered, You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God. (Matthew 16:15,16)

The measure of disparity between the nature of the strategies utilized by Jesus Christ according to the Canonical Gospels and Gnostic gospels is so enormous as to intimate one set of Gospels must be fictitious. Commonsensical thinking, combined with the fact the Gnostic gospels lack historical verification and are much more recent texts, dubious ones too, than the canonical Gospels leave one with the distinct impression the Biblical or Canonical Gospels communicate accurate information about the extraordinary Nazarene. The latter’s mission on Earth was to divulge the truth to all who would listen in order they might seek, and be granted the gift of eternal life. Such an offer was, and remains open to everyone, everywhere and not just to a minority of individuals, and certainly not to an elite few who are required to achieve a Gnostic state.

Note: Different scholars construe the three things mentioned by Jesus to carry different meanings. Some think Jesus was referring to the Triune God or the Trinity. Others think Jesus in effect said, " . . . I am the way, the truth and the life."(John 14:6) while others are of the opinion the three words were Kaulakau, Salausau, and Zeesar, which according an early Christian Gnostic sect (the Naassenes), referred to the foundations of the world. Of course, the most troubling inquiry is whether The Gospel of Thomas is in any way representative of scriptural truth.

(d) The categorization of the Gnostic writings as Gospels is impractical and improper. The canonical Gospels i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, true to the genre of appropriate, comprehensive religious expression, contain logically arranged reports of the birth, life, accomplishments, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The New Testament Gospels’ messages share an inextricable link with Old Testament teachings and underscore the importance of eschatological considerations or prophecy as it relates to end-time events.

The Gnostic gospels incorporate none of the aforementioned fundamentals and in fact, some of them, like The Gospel of Thomas, is essentially a collection of sayings, is anti-Judaistic, anti-Old Testament, anti-ritualistic and almost anti-moralistic. (The Biblical World, p, 407). The very word Gospel derives from the Old English god-spell or good tidings and is a calque (a word borrowed from another language by literal, word-for-word or root-for-root translation) of the Greek eu-angelion. The Gnostic gospels do not proclaim good tidings in the essential sense of the term whereby a supreme and merciful Creator lends himself to humankind’s disposal in order for its members to escape eternal damnation.

Additionally, the core implication of the Canonical Gospels’ message is altogether absent in the Gnostic gospels i.e. the Passion Narrative of Christ’s trial, suffering and death. This fact in itself renders these questionable writings’ claim to authenticity impotent. The Passion Narrative conveys the true significance of the sacrifice by the sinless redeemer Christ for the benefit of sinful humankind and provides the nucleus of an ideology becoming of pure religious expression. It is an unmistakable manifestation of the ultimate Christian message.

The Gnostic gospels, in as much as revisionists hostile to Biblical Christianity might like to insinuate, do not describe Jesus Christ or his teachings accurately. Such heretical teachings lack historical validation and logical rationale. Details in these writings are nebulous. Mention of political activities is nonexistent, as are discourses about social and religious life. The Gnostic gospels are documents that originated much later than the Canonical Gospels and are for the most part, disjointed accounts of events that in all likelihood never took place, or are prostituted reports of what really took place.

Why is Gnosticism Secondary to Orthodox Christianity?

Proponents of, and believers in the Gnostic gospels are hard-pressed to explain why Gnosticism lost out to orthodox Christianity historically. Were Gnosticism—if it is practical to refer to the messages contained in the Gnostic gospels as doctrinal—better, more appealing or more credible than the traditional Biblical message, as Gnostic scholars posit, then it is indeed a challenge for them to try to explain what went amiss along its path to widespread denouncement.

A good many radical scholars such as Elaine Pagels, Margaret Starbird and Susan Haskins, the named three who are unapologetically hard-line feminists, propose Orthodox or mainstream Christianity prevailed over Gnosticism because of a male-centered hierarchy that developed during the early years of the Christian Church. Such authorities allegedly dispensed a political agenda through offices occupied by male priests, bishops and other such executives. The aforementioned revisionist scholars claim Church leaders, including the emperor Constantine who actually started it all, subjugated and repressed women for centuries. (See Chapter 8—The Christian Church’s Alleged Hatred and Persecution of Women for more on the presumed suppression of women by the Christian Church). Jesus’ incarnate nature, his death and resurrection, and the existence of a supernatural devil, according to people like Pagels, Starbird and others, were inventions by the early Church to suppress Gnostic thought, the sacred feminine and goddess worship.

The accusation of the use of political influence, if indeed there were any, by the early Church and a male-dominated organizational structure to squelch any form of feminine representation in the Church’s hierarchy is without credibility. Christendom’s status as the world’s premier religious belief system throughout the centuries since its inception and in today’s global society grew through its universal religious appeal and its more or less clear-cut message of God’s plan of redemption for sinful humankind through his Redeemer Son Jesus Christ. Gnosticism failed because it lacked religious allure, was fragmentary, and was so nebulous in its teachings as to cause would-be believers to question the worldview’s logic and solidity. The fact that most scholars of comparative religion consider the Gnostic texts to be much more recent chronologically than the Canonical Gospels and other New Testament books no doubt encourages students and researchers to accord limited trustworthiness to Gnostic rumination.

Christ, in alluding to the authenticity of the Christian Gospel, including the teachings of the Canonical Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, said:

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:18, NIV)

CHAPTER TWO

THE COUNCIL OF NICEA, CONSTANTINE,

& THE BIBLICAL CANON

D etractors from Christian scholarship venture a number of preposterous allegations against the early Christian Church and the Roman emperor Constantine—claims about the emperor and Church leaders engineering doctrinal changes that were not in keeping with what really transpired during the life and times of Jesus Christ, and accusations about distorting facts about Christ himself.

Among the attacks by scholars hostile to Christianity is the postulation Constantine played a role—a significant one—in the creation of the Biblical canon. Such a proposition is a baseless and unsupported claim. The formation of the Christian canon began centuries before Constantine’s time and ended centuries after his death. The emperor had nothing to do with the selection of the books included in the New Testament.

Revisionist historians suggest religious leaders presented more than eighty gospels for possible inclusion in the New Testament, and yet the Church chose only a relative few, among them Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These scholars say Constantine actually collated the Holy Scriptures Christians use today.

In addition, Bible critics claim Constantine commissioned fifty copies of a new Bible for use in circulating teachings that were at odds with the true doctrine of the early Church and the emperor proscribed all gospels or writings that contradicted the religious principles he wished to advocate. The Roman ruler made it a practice of suppressing other writings, such as the professed earlier (Gnostic) gospel describing of Jesus’ human traits, in deference to accommodating writings embellishing his character, and presenting him as divine.

Another outlandish assertion is Christians, up to the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., considered Jesus, notwithstanding his remarkable teachings and miraculous deeds, a human being and not a divine character. Revisionist scholars say Constantine upgraded the human Jesus to a status of divinity and established him as The Son of God at the Council of Nicea. In addition, they claim the council members decided to elevate Jesus to the position of God’s Son only after a relatively close vote, intimating many of the Church leaders present at the Council were of the opinion Christ was human and not divine.

The Council of Nicea

The Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea after there arose controversy and disagreement among the Christians in his Empire pertaining to certain theological issues, including debate as to whether Jesus Christ was divine or human, or both.

Constantine was a social and political figure, not a theologian or Church leader who wished to impose his religious convictions upon his subjects. It is not readily apparent the emperor nurtured any of the profound religious predispositions attributed to him by revisionist historians. Antagonists of the Christian faith insist Constantine obsessively sought to promote Christ as a divine character instead of a purely human individual. This is an irrational and groundless claim. Constantine’s primary and quite possibly, lone objective for calling the Council of Nicea to order was to resolve the disputes among the Christians in his domain and encourage peaceful coexistence, not only among the adherents of the fledgling Christian faith, but among the non-Christian populace as well. The paganish religions that Roman rulers used for decades as tools of coercion and subjugation had become pointless and impotent as a means of promoting and maintaining order and loyalty among Roman subjects and other residents of the kingdom.

In this chapter, the author attempts to analyze the forgoing allegations against the early Christian Church and the Holy Bible and to examine the Emperor Constantine’s supposed affiliation with the then nascent Christian faith. The discussion also encompasses an analysis of the nature of Biblical canonicity and the requirements for a set of writings to satisfy canonical mandates, including those appertaining to scriptural veracity and authority. The New Testament books especially, fall into focus. The author endeavors to assess the role Constantine the Great really played in the formation of the Biblical canon, if any at all, as he examines historical records about the Roman emperor.

Did Religious Authorities Consider More than Eighty Gospels for Inclusion in the New Testament?

The assertion religious leaders presented more than eighty gospels for possible inclusion in the New Testament lacks historicity and substantiation in even a remotely swaying manner. The suggestion is intrinsically derisive and mischievous. In making the ridiculous claim about the existence of more than eighty gospels around the time the early Church selected the New Testament canon, critics of the Bible thrive upon the ignorance and gullibility of unwary readers.

Revisionists promulgate the idea the New Testament canon emerged, in a relatively brief interval of time in the early fourth century, during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine the Great. They also claim Constantine himself was essentially the architect of the formation of the canon. The truth is the formation of the New Testament canon was a lengthy, drawn out process that began hundreds of years before the time of Constantine and ended long after he died. There is no historical inference, much less historical confirmation Constantine the Great participated in the process of selecting the New Testament books.

There is no proof of there being an abundance of gospels; more than eighty according to some, at any time during the first to the fourth century, the period generally associated with the formation of the New Testament canon in its entirety. The Gnostic gospels (see Chapter 1: The Gnostic Gospels (The Nag Hammadi Library) & Other Disputable Writings); writings on which secular scholars predicate their outlandish theory about the existence of a superfluity of texts scribes supposedly considered for inclusion in the New Testament, were actually comparatively few in number. The Nag Hammadi Library for instance, discovered in 1945 near the town of Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt and generally considered the full complement of Gnostic gospels, consists of only forty-five different titles, of which experts refer to a scant five as gospels.

The burgeoning Christian Church recognized the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as authoritative writings inspired by the Holy Spirit as early as prior to the end of the first century. Early Christian leaders did not select them at the expense of the abandonment of a multitude of other gospels available during the reign of Constantine the Great. By the mid to latter first century, hundreds of years before the era of Constantine the Great, the four Gospels were already an entrenched segment of the New Testament canon.

In fact, established Biblical scholarship strongly suggests religious sages wrote the first Christian Gospel shortly after the Romans killed Jesus Christ around 30 A.D. The earliest Christian writings that exist are those the Apostle Paul produced, sometime around 50-60 A.D. Contrary to what recreant religious historians might venture to advocate, the four Gospels of the New Testament are the earliest surviving reports about the life of Christ, written between 70 and 95 A.D. Such writings predate so-called Gnostic writings by hundreds of years. The majority of the other texts of the New Testament originated around the same time i.e. between 70 and 95 A.D., which was before the turn of the second century. Scholars of religion date 2 Peter, probably the latest New Testament work, to around 120 A.D.

The preponderant assumption