TedM

If these are true, then they argue AGAINST a coordinated conspiracy to create history! You need to be able to explain them in light of your theory. Otherwise your theory is devoid of any common sense.

aa5874

You should read ALL my posts first.

The reason for the deception is clearly stated in Hippolytus "Treatise Against the Galileans".

The same deception is found in Justin's First Apology XV1

The same pack of lies is found in the writings of Aristides Apology.

The Jesus story was a big lie, absolute fiction, there was NO Son of God, called Jesus born of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin--without sexual union.

The Pauline writers and the author of Acts attempted to dupe and deceive the people of the Roman Empire with their claims in the NT Canon.

Duvduv

Mountainman addresses some of this issue specifically in his posting #378, #384 and #392 in this thread. I ask additional questions in postings #409 and #410.

TedM

The Jews fabricated a slain historical Jesus to explain why the Jews were dispersed? You really believe that? That is a pro-Jew stance. The Romans would have no need for a Jewish Savior. Nor would they have a need to explain the Jewish dispersion in terms of a Jewish Savior. No, the only need for explaining the Jewish dispersion in this way would come from a JEWISH perspective, and would most likely be hostile toward Romans. Yet I hear all the time how the NT writings are all written as pro-Roman/pro-Gentile. Paul was pro salvation for ALL.

The Romans have no need for a Jewish Savior, so why did they CREATE one through this conspiracy aa? It makes NO SENSE.

aa5874

What a load of BS. Massive holes in stories about the same event are the very fundamental signs of fiction.

Examine the very gospel of gMark.

Mark 14The author of Acts and the Pauline writers are FALSE witnesses of the 1st century and before c 70 CE. Neither do their stories agree.

Sheshbazzar

The one thing that is certain out of all of this is that men did receive a 'strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.'

Now what is left is for the honest minded, and for persons of integrity to discriminate between what is in fact, the facts, and what is in fact, fiction, and between what is true, and what are lies and fabrications.

Interesting thread aa has here, as various viewpoints have been introduced as to what of the Scriptures can be accepted as being factual and what is rejectable as being fiction.
And what Biblical statements can be with clear conscience be categorized as being true,
and what a clear conscience would require categorizing of as being false, or of least very doubtful veracity.

Aa has a certain set of 'truths' and 'givens' that he has long worked with in formulating his 'Myth Theory' as he has been presenting it to us in this thread.
Others here have their own sets of 'truth's and 'givens' that are often at odds with many of aa5874's assertions and pronouncements.

I very highly doubt that aa has been intending to mislead or deceive us about anything.
Or that most of the others who have contributed to this thread and discussion have knowingly attempted to deceive or to mislead anyone.

It is the textual material, its content, and the various claims regarding the integrity of that content, that we are working with that are often contradictory and confusing, and so being lead one to dogmatically take and defend this 'position, and another that 'position', and thus all too often setting us at personal odds, to the detriment of any impartial investigation.

It is pretty much conceded by all here, that much of the material evidence that we are working with was tampered with and/or outright fabricated, by the Church and/or the Imperial government at a very early date.

We have no original manuscripts direct from the hands of any of their original authors. All of the early Christian writings that we do have are copies that date to hundreds of years latter than the lifetimes of their alleged writers.
Claims of 'authenticity' are invariably founded upon comparisons with agreeing statements to be found within other equally questionable writings.

Also noteworthy is the fact that all of these religious writings were virtually exclusively held in the hands of an organization with the motive, opportunity, and authority to revise or alter them in any way that they could get away with. An organization that has since repeatedly shown itself to be most adept and prolific in the productions of pious religious forgeries

Personally I believe that aa is right on track in his recognition that the writings of Justin Martyr stand out by giving a far more accurate and credible picture of the state of mid-2nd century Christianity, and its then known beliefs, doctrines, and recognized founders, than that elaborate picture painted by latter Christian sources, particularly the highly questionable works of such as Irenaeus and Eusebius.

I do appreciate aa5874's efforts here to get us to critically think about the internal evidences present in these texts, that indicate the most likely order of their composition and introduction, -but always realizing that part of that early tampering and revising could also have easily included the creation and inserting of fabricated origins, as well as placing latter developed characters into earlier settings.

Thus if 'Paul', as aa has managed to make quite clear in this thread, is really a character developed by the Christian church some time in the late 2nd century, and his famous name and famous forms of doctrine are not present in Justin's writings, and were no known part of the Christian movement in Justin's day.
It then may be seen that -any- NT text that places this fictional 2nd century 'Paul' in any immediate contact with the original 'apostles' Peter, James or other 1st century* Gospel figures is religious fiction. A late church fictional figure retrojected into earlier settings as a means to introduce and support latter developed theology, church doctrine, and claims to authority.

(*pardon me aa, '1st century' Gospel figures that by early Christian writings -The Gospels-, were placed in the 1st century, 'in the days of Pontius Pilate', not that they had to be there, but that is where the NT myths place them.)

TedM

It isn't the sign of a well-coordinated conspiracy. If you are going to write dozens of documents about events that didn't happen, and try to convince people that they did, you would be very careful to be consistent with your story. And, you would erase, destroy, and try to discredit any documents that disagreed. If you are successful then the end result would not be what we have with the canon. The fact that the canon includes many differences in perspective and accounts argues against a well coordinated conspiracy.

So, if it isn't well coordinated, then what exactly is it aa? Why would these people have a Jewish Savior? Do you think the same people who wrote 'Pauline material' also wrote the Gospels? And the Church Father writings? Have you attempted to flesh out your theory beyond just 'fabrication' to something with substance? It doesn't appear that you have.


OTOH we know that well-meaning people interpret the same event differently, and mis-remember things too. That's a simple and reasonable explanation for historical differences.

aa5874

Again, your position is extremely illogical.

You put forward the absurd notion that discrepancies and contradictions in stories of the same event do not affect credibility or historical accuracy.

It is wholly illogical that co-ordinated or non co-ordinated fiction reflects veracity.

aa5874

The same applies to Hebrew Scripture. Your revelations from Hebrew Scripture may not be from Originals. Your Revelations may be based on writings that are NOT direct from their alleged authors and have been tampered with.

Hebrew Scripture may be just as fictional as Acts of the Apostles or gMatthew written more than a hundred years after the supposed events.

TedM

I think you must mean a different thread. Couldn't find them here...