aa5874

I have shown that Jesus of the NT, the disciples and Paul are all fundamentally fictitious characters, they did not exist as described in the NT and to further show that to be the case, I will establish that the Church had no history up to the supposed time of Irenaeus, around 175 CE.

Irenaeus claimed that there were 12 bishops of the episcopate of Rome, commonly called Popes, after Peter the so-called 1st Pope.[See Against Heresies 3.3.3 ].

The 1st Pope after Peter is called Linus, that is all that is known of the this Pope--he is called Linus.

The next Pope, his name is Anacletus, that is all.

The next one Clement, he wrote an epistle to the Corinthians.

Next, Evaristus, that is it.

Alexander, nothing.

Sixtus, a clean slate.

Telephorus, zero.

Hyginus, nothing again.

Pius, unknown.

Anicetus---------?

Soter, blank

Eleutherius?????????

Except for Clement, there is no record that these Popes wrote any letters to any Church.

There are no records of these Popes making or writing about the doctrines of the Church or writing or making refutations of the heretics and heresies of their time in office or before entering the office of the Pope.

There are no records that any of these Popes, including Clement, wrote to any Emperor or the Roman Senate on behalf of any member of the Church with respect to persecution or any matter where Christians were unjustly treated.

There are no records of these Popes before they were ordained. These Popes cover a period of about 120 years, yet there are no records of their activities before becoming Popes.

If Linus was indeed the 1st Pope after Peter, then Linus should be one of the most important witnesses, he must have known Peter and Paul.

Linus may have known the apostle John, and other apostles of Jesus. Linus would have been a far more credible and important witness than perhaps Papias and Polycarp.

But, as I expected, there is nothing whatsoever on Linus. I cannot find anything at all.

No-one in the Church wrote a single word about him, not Ignatius, Clement, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Tatian, Papias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and even Eusebius.

Now Eusebius in Church History claimed Paul mentioned Linus in a controversial letter to Timothy and I will examine what the letter says of Linus, the so-called 1st Pope after Peter.

2 Timothy 4.21 There is nothing.

Jesus, the disciples, Paul and the 12 Popes are fiction.

mountainman

The chronology is slowly rising out of the second century. At that time in history the physician Galen (studied extensively by the medical profession), who describes himself as a therapeutae of Asclepius receives from the emperor at that time Marcus Aurelius exemption from military service on the basis of his role as a physician.


Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

As I have stated before, I consider Jesus, the disciples, and Paul to be fiction, and I have now included the so-called Popes from Linus to Eleutherius as names fabricated to distort history.

I will now concentrate on the the so-called 1st Pope called Peter.

As I read the NT, I began to see that this character was engaged in many fictitious or highly implausible events, in effect, the history of Peter is fiction.

• Peter saw Jesus walk on water

• Peter walked on water to meet Jesus.

• Peter saw Jesus transfigured

• Peter saw Jesus raise the dead

• Peter saw Jesus alive after he was supposed to be dead

• Peter ate bread and fish with Jesus after he ROSE from the dead

• Peter saw Jesus ascending through the clouds

• Peter had something like fire on his head on the day of Pentecost

• Peter caused people to die by talking to them

• Peter healed people with his shadow

• Peter was able to escape from jail with the help of an angel

After reading all those fiction, I have concluded that Peter, the so-called 1st Pope is fiction, until further new evidence can corroborate his existence.

But, Eusebius in Church History have bolstered my position, Eusebius appear to have been confused about the so-called 1st Pope, Peter.

Eusebius, it is claimed, is responsible for the extant canonisation of the NT which contains Epistles that are assumed to have been written by Peter and are called 1st and 2nd Peter, but Eusebius as early as the 4th century made this startling acknowledgement.

But what is even more remarkable is that today, it has been deduced that the one Epistle, that called the first, was written after Peter was supposed to be dead.

The so-called 1st Pope Peter, it would appear, did not write any Epistle, neither 1st or 2nd Epistle of Peter.

Eusebius learned that the 2nd Epistle did NOT belong to the canon, yet it was left up to today bearing the name Simon Peter, but it is not genuine and Eusebius knew that it was not genuine.

The Church have NO history of the Pope called Peter.

mountainman

Damasius c.365 CE promoted Peter and his glorious Roman history while he was renovating the catacombs and securing his position as the first christian pontifex maximus.

Best wishes,


Pete

Dutch_labrat

One thing that annoys me about many posts in this thread is that the origins of christianity are treated as simple with a single or very few causes.

Yes, christianty was most likely formed by Roman emperors. Yes, most of it was created much, much later then 30CE.

Still Christianity has clear roots in Judaism and has many elements of gnostic and mistery religions. It is very hard now to see what it looked like in its most original form and when it started. The church has done a lot to cover it tracks by the destructions of books. This meme-war makes it very difficult to see at this time what exactly happened, but it wasn't simple.

It is a bit like seeing a good stage magician at work. You know you are being fooled but you can't see how it is done or what really is happening.

Ted Hoffman

That is why you have to learn the tricks.

mountainman

You know, we should really open up a book on this. Care to make a nomination for the preferred Roman emperor and modus operandi?


I would have added just one more much.



Christianity is an imperial Roman phenomenom with more than a touch of anti-semetism in literature of its ancient historical personages and its ecclesiastical historians. The NT was written in Greek and espoused the Logos obviously for Greek speaking listeners and the occassional reader.


Start with C14.



At which time was it simple (or not)? The chronology is all-important.


A magician makes his money by fooling people, whereas the new and strange roman universal (inside the hubble limit) religion had (by way of its instantaneous presence in the courts of the (4th CE) Roman emperors -- ie: a total inside run) the support of the Roman imperial army for a specific epoch in the ancient history of this planet.

Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

Well, if you know you are being fooled why repeat the foolishness that the authors of the NT want you to believe.

The Jesus of the NT has NO roots in Judaism, unless you believe in MAGIC.

Magicians can also make people without roots appear from nowhere with roots and then make them disappear without a trace. And the magicians say he is coming back again for the DEAD.

Doug Shaver

According to what evidence?

mountainman

(or via: amazon.co.uk)

Best wishes,


Pete