Forgotten Gospel of Marcion: Forging Fantasy to Fact

Below is the auto-generated subtitle text of the video:

scholars have long known that there are over 40 different writers whose writings survived from the ancient world the first century a.d they lived at this time not one of these authors ever mentioned matthew mark luke and john the synoptic gospels in fact the very first mention of the gospels was 125 years after the events they depict but there was a collection of the sayings of jesus and another collection of old write letters called the apostolic of the apostolacan these are what made up the original and first gospel it's called the gospel of marchionne and the christian world doesn't want you to know this history in the year 144 anno domini before the annal dominique calendar was even designed by saucigenies which was the year 888 post-exilic chronology which was 888 years after the israelites were deported by the assyrians and the 10 tribes had lost their nation in this year of 144 a.d markion published the first version of the new testament on record markion was 48 years old he was born in 96 a.d which was purportedly the year that john wrote the revelation but we know from other historical sources also denied by christianity that the revelation record actually records events far older than itself and were writings preserved not by john but by sirenthus from the old sibling oracles now marchionne was a man of pontus this is along the black sea his father a bishop of that church according to epiphanies he was a well-educated man and some believed him to have been the son of britain there are some that hold that marchion actually marcellus was actually a druid of tongras who influenced development of the celtic church some held that he was a gnostic named mark who taught at the christian church in jerusalem whatever the case in this year marchionne brought forth the new testament books written in the greek language however we are told that his gospel was originally written in samaritan in this year of 144 a.d this man marchionne brought his books to the ancient city of rome new testament consisted of a gospel and the apostolacan marchionne claimed that this gospel account came from paul himself who was a student of the gnosis marchionne himself was a sea captain and it was probably on his voyages that he became acquainted with the teachings in the epistles of paul further his contact with so many different cultures of early christianity is why there are diverse accounts of who he was he collected 10 of the letters of paul and published them but interestingly marchionne is not aware of any other new testament writings the apostle the apostolacan i'm sorry i'm having trouble with this word the apostolican that marchionne brought to rome consisted of ten of paul's letters as follows galatians first and second corinthians romans but not the 15th and 16th chapters which were later added by rome first and second thessalonians ephesians colossians philemon and philippians their republic they were published in this order the epistles of paul to timothy to titus and the book of hebrews were absolutely unknown to marcion further marchion did not include the book of acts first and second peter james jude or the revelation additionally marchionne's gospel was totally devoid of the fantastic this gospel version did not mention anything about the birth of jesus or his childhood beginning with jesus's 30th year the start of his ministry this gospel does not mention any miracles performed by jesus no john the baptist no mary magdalene or judas iscariot there is no crucifixion resurrection or ascension to heaven scholars assert that there is abundant textual evidence to show that the gospel account of marchion was the source material for the gospel of luke matthew and mark but not john markion was different from other gnostics in that he adhered to the literal interpretation of the holy scriptures while the gnostics were fond of viewing them as allegory allegory excuse me even his pr even his principles of worship different from the from the other students of the gnosis marchionne saw a difference between the god of the old testament and a god of the new testament they were not the same deity to him and he held that jesus was not the promised messiah as a follower of paul markion accused the other apostles of perverting the gospel doctrines there are there are historians who believe that markian was a member of the therapeutic brotherhood by all accounts his gospel text originated at antioch in syria which was by all historical accounts the cradle of not israel marchionne was considered a christian even by his adversaries remarkably though he had no adversaries until afterward his enemies contended with him retrospectively not during his lifetime this literally indicates that the christianity that we know of today did not exist in marchionne's time in 144 a.d but was manufactured later by men who were later compelled to discredit markion about the year 150 a.d justin martyr father of the church wrote two apologies defending christianity he was a great scholar and historian long regarded as the most influential of the early church fathers he sought to prove the divinity of christ quoting 300 passages from the old testament and almost a hundred from apocryphal texts of the new testament but strikingly justin martyr never mentions the gospels of matthew mark luke or john in his dialogue with trifo he attempted to show that jesus was predicted in the old testament not mentioning any of the four gospels though he does cite the apocryphal gospel of basilites as well as the gospel of appellates and the memoirs of the apostles another virtually unknown text this was almost 120 years after the crucifixion event of 33 a.d assuming that it happened and still there is no historical hint of the existence of these four gospels in fact christians assembled at alexandria egypt in the year 161 a.d and finally determined by council vote that there was a historical jesus because many were there to vote otherwise that it was all allegory and metaphor some of these men cited proofs that what is called christianity at the time actually had very ancient roots and in the year 170 a.d nine years later roman emperor marcus antonius received a letter from the bishop of sardis in asia minor named melito requesting the emperor's attention concerning christians that were being persecuted and vexed informing the emperor that he was a descendant of emperors who had overturned the policies of nero concerning these same christians milito also informed him that what was known as christianity then was actually of a very high antiquity and was imported into the roman empire in the reign of his ancestor augustus caesar a decade later in the year 180 a.d it was the church father and historian irenaeus of gaul who was the first to mention one of the four gospels that of luke irenaeus studied the writings of polycarp and was his student polycarp having been a disciple of the apostle john one of jesus's actual twelve apostles irenaeus referred to the four gospels as the four pillars in fact irenaeus was one of the three fathers responsible for influencing the indoctrination of the four gospels into circulation with clement of alexandria egypt in the year 200 a.d and tertullian of carthage about 205 a.d irenaeus being the first to mention the four gospels it is curious that irenaeus was also the first to mention the supremacy of the church at rome though ignored by modern writers defending the integrity of the church it is widely understood in academia that the writings of irenaeus clement and tertullian laid the foundation for the roman catholic supremacy in reverend dr davidson's book introduction to the new testament over 150 years ago we read there is reason to believe that very soon after the four gospels appeared somewhere between the years 180 and 200 a.d they were published under the authority and by the direction of the church at rome in a volume with the old testament and with the other new testament books that were then in circulation that the four gospels cover events at least 150 years prior to any references that they even existed is very disturbing not one of the four gospels is mentioned in any other part of the new testament writings no manuscripts of the gospels are in existence dating further back than the 4th century a.d and nor is there any trace that older manuscripts ever existed the gospels of matthew mark luke and john are not mentioned by the earliest christian fathers clement of rome ignatius and polycarp nor did justin martyr know of any such gospels the first epistle written outside the new testament writings was the epistle of clement of rome written about 97 a.d in which there is not a hint about the existence of these gospels to illustrate how odd this is take this scenario into consideration how authoritative would a book be concerning the assassination of abraham lincoln in 1865 at ford's theater if the book was not released to the public until the year 2015 a.d that would be 150 years again what about a book about the assassination of john f kennedy in 1963 at dallas if the book would not be released until the year 2113 a.d again that's 150 years we have the histories of of these historic men like socrates plato aristotle alexander the great and julius caesar because their lives were recorded by their contemporaries and every one of these men lived long before jesus did and those books and manuscripts exist until this day the four gospels appeared well after the bar cockpit rebellion and fall of jerusalem in 135 a.d as this is the earliest date for the gospel of luke we find it further incredible that luke himself was not even an apostle nor was mark in the possible and john is believed not to be john the apostle but john the presbyter at this time also wrote athena goris an athenian philosopher who had become a christian contributing greatly to its literature he even wrote an apology to roman emperor marcus aurelius and communist defending christianity but he nowhere in any of his writings mentions anything about the four gospels by name which is remarkable when considering that he mentions by name moses jeremiah jonah thales plato homer hesiod herodotus pythagoras euripides aristotle and many other historical percentages it is believed by scholars that john's gospel was first mentioned about this year of 180 a.d by theophilus the bishop of antioch in syria scholars have made excuse me intense studies of the content of matthew mark luke and john and discovered what the german scholars have turned termed the q document from quail which is german for source when comparing the text of matthew and luke they discovered that they only agree when following the text of mark this indicates that mark was used as a source material for both matthew and luke mark does not have any genealogies no mention of mary or a virgin birth no old testament messianic prophecies no resurrection appearances of jesus no ascension into heaven the marked text is almost entirely duplicated in matthew with 606 of the 661 verses appearing word for word in the book of matthew it was copied and then added to whoever wrote matthew copied mark while adding much more material but from a totally different source but many passages of matthew and luke are not found in mark the passage appearing in both matthew and uh and luke there well actually there are several references and this indicates that there was yet another source material the mysterious q document the q document source of the gospel accounts was evidently written in greek in the area of palestine perhaps galilei it did not mention in messiah or christ's concept nor was the judean religion scorned and there was no death and resurrection that would transform the world alexander holub in the gospel truth wrote that the q document was devoid of mythological additions but had intro but had instructions on how to live in troubled times a writing having developed out of galilee the cue document came from an oral tradition put in writing about 20 to 30 a.d and here is a perfect example of a knowledge filter in action close attention to the manufacture of the christian books has been heeded to in the in in all my research and writings to illustrate how we have been manipulated and deceived in increments over the passage of centuries in the year 430 a.d fyodore wrote i found myself upwards of 200 such books held in honor among the churches and collecting them all together i had them put aside and instead i introduced the gospels of the four evangelists do i need to read this for you again this is a roman authority in the year 430 a.d who preserved in writings that we have today who specifically admitted that all christian texts prior to his time were gathered up and he put them aside to introduce four gospels the matthew mark luke and john the christian believer in jesus has been offered a collection of books heralded as authoritative accounts books that took preeminence over 250 years after they were written these books written 150 years after the events they were supposed to relate had not the roman church adopted the four gospels then christianity as we know it would would not have developed this way it would have developed along entirely different lines especially had the other 200 books that were put aside survived this censorship an itemization of all the historical facts that have been brought forth by scholarship cannot be ignored augustine in 354 or 374 a.d admitted quote i should not believe in the truth of the gospels unless the authority of the catholic church forced me to do so this is admittedly a father of the no christian author until 150 a.d ever quotes or mentions the gospels of matthew mark luke and john this is this cannot be ignored it must be it must be accounted for now justin martyr as we saw he wrote about 150 a.d 155 a.d the most imminent of early christian fathers set out to prove the divinity of christ by quoting more than 300 quotations of the old testament and also a hundred from a pro apocryphal new testament works but justin martyr not once quotes matthew mark luke or john the four gospels are unknown to the greatest supporter of christianity over 120 years after the events that the gospels depict not one reference to the gospels of matthew mark luke and john are found in the book of acts in any of the epistles or in the revelation there is no scriptural new testament evidence that any men named matthew mark luke or john ever wrote anything about jesus it is damning that paul not once references these works the censorship of theodore that i just mentioned was not the first time that it happened the roman church purged all older christian manuscripts as being obsolete after the council of nicaea in 325 a.d having secured an acceptable version of the new testament canon that they liked again over a hundred in 67 years 65 years later the roman church under emperor anastasios retouched the new testament manuscripts approved at the council of nicea in 325 and also had his own revisions done to the works of the church fathers yusuf augustine jerome and irenaeus and scholars are correct in their assessment that the church father eusebius cannot be trusted a portion of eusebius work is titled how it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as medicine and for the benefit for those who want to be deceived what this is an early christian father in an early christian document and eusebius was a historian of the roman church whose job it was why he was paid by the roman authority to establish the historical veracity of scholars have found multitudes of blatant lies misquotes anachronisms and manipulations in this famous church father's writings in his defense of the historicity of jesus even inventing works and writers who had never existed marchionne's gospel was gnostic non-historical and jesus was not jewish nor was he born in bethlehem or from nazareth no childhood of jesus but he came down from capernaum in the 15th year of the reign of tiberius caesar this is how the gospel of markion begins jesus's birth in matthew mark in luke is at bethlehem to link him to the city of david but in the gospel of john he is born in galilee with the jews rejecting him because he was not from bethlehem matthew is the only gospel mentioned mentioning herod killing all the babies two years and younger born in bethlehem not even the historian flavius josephus who was alive at the time knows this or he would have otherwise chronicled it because he has a long list in his writings of all of herod's abuses also nowhere in the well-documented histories of the jews was there ever a tradition of freeing a criminal at passover or any other time of the year freeing barabbas to prosecute jesus was entirely a jewish fiction the early church father and highly respected historian irenaeus of gaul he fervently insisted in his writings that jesus was at least 50 years old and he claimed it was heresy to say that he was crucified at 30 or 33 years old and there are just no historical references to jesus by any writers living at the day philo alexandris was a hellenized jew and philosopher who is totally silent on jesus in his work 700 pages of historical material he mentions nothing plutarch was alive roman biographer knew nothing of jesus the apostles or paul historians note that there are over 40 different historians that were living in the first century which made it the most well-known well-documented century century in the history of the world not a line not a mention of jesus in any of these ancient authors josephus supposed reference to jesus is in fact a well-known forgery the christian uh bishop warburton of gloucester about 1776 over 250 years ago labeled the josephus interpolation regarding jesus a forgery and a very stupid one at that scholars have long known that the older copies of josephus do not have the reference to jesus it was a roman copy of josephus that it suddenly appeared in in josephus antiquities and war of the jews over 900 pages of history he mentions many miracles and wonders in antiquity but he would never have omitted the miracles of jesus had they have happened origen did not know any of this history pliny the younger his reference to christians is not evidence of the historical jesus the gnostic christianities those sects were alive those sects were alive and well they were already flourishing in all the cities references to crestos and christians in early antiquity is not evidence of a historical jesus it is evidence of a christianity that far anti-dates the christian narrative of today the roman church father augustine wrote that which is known as the christian religion existed among the ancients and never did not exist from the beginning of the human race and then there is that famous quote from pope leo the 10th quote what prophet has not that fable of christ brought us the tales of peter in acts and by the roman church they were not known to justin martyr who lived in rome and cited every known christian writing up to 140 a.d justin martyr knew nothing of any peter or or his founding of the roman church until irenaeus no christian historians knew peter founded the church at rome it has long been known by researchers and academics that the writings of the church fathers of irenaeus jerome tertullian justin augustine ignatius and many others share one thing in common their books are heavily defensive atharva s notes that they were compelled to create forged texts and long rebuttals to dispute the various imputations against them said another way if something is true you don't need to expend that much energy trying to defend it even marchionne's enemies considered him to be a christian absolutely though he refused to believe that this new belief of christ this carnalized version that the man actually lived died and resurrected markian was not a worshiper of the violent angry yahweh and he rejected the old testament as a complete production of the god of this world the demiurge one year after the death of markian in the year 161 a.d one of the very first christian councils convened at alexandria egypt with marchionne out of the way there was a renewed effort to carnalize the gnostic christ at this date the incarnation became doctrine and docidism the disbelief in the historical christ began to wane and with this we we must close but we cannot ignore the imminent scholar whose hundreds of pages of historical context i have read and studied and analyzed and written notes and quoted so many times gerald massey from 1885 wrote the actual birthplace of the carnalized christ was neither bethlehem nor nazareth but in the heart of rome