aa5874

But, you have admitted that you have not checked out Josephus yet. Please take Josephus from your list.

Well, please quote a passage where Suetonius called Tiberius by the name of Claudius alone. You have failed to do so.

What were the full names of Tiberius and Claudius? Tacitus was not confused he seem to know all the names of the both Emperors.

"Irenaeus" was probably confused for A LONG TIME.

But how smart is that? Before you check Josephus you know the outcome?

You have got to be joking!!!!!


You are not serious!!!!

I can't even believe my own eyes.

You mean "Irenaeus was a FAKE BISHOP and WRITER?

In "Against Heresies"3 Irenaeus claimed that the age of Jesus can be found in gLuke when he was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius.

The counter arguments from "Irenaeus" were extremely ridiculous since he appears to be AWARE of a governor Pilate, an Emperor Tiberius, the crucifixion of Jesus by Pilate, the writings of Justin Martyr, gLuke, gMatthew, gMark, gJohn and Josephus.

The fraud has been exposed.

"Irenaeus" was a FAKE BISHOP and WRITER.

aa5874

Next, it will be shown that "Tertullian's" "Against Marcion" was not likely to be seen or heard by Marcion or the Marcionites.

The author of "Against Marcion" claimed Marcion seemed to have mutilated the Gospel of Luke and the Pauline Epistles but even Church writers fundamentally contradicted "Tertullian".

How is it that Tertullian could have presented arguments against Marcion when the Church writers of the very Church of Tertullian REJECTED him.

Hippolytus claimed Marcion did not use gMark or the Pauline writings but Empedocles and Origen claimed it was the followers of Marcion who mutilated the Gospels.

But, the "Tertullian" writer will contradict himself. The writer will expose himself as a fraud.

In "Against Marcion", Tertullian claimed that Marcion seemed to have mutilated gLuke but upon studying gLuke there is nothing in gLuke that supports Dualism or Docetism.

The Jesus of gLuke was even born of a woman called Mary based on Isaiah 7.14.

But, the most significant problem for Tertullian is that Marcion's Jesus had NO FLESH so the crucifixion and resurrection of gLuke's Jesus was of NO USE for Marcion.

MARCION'S SON of God could not be crucified or be raised from the dead and had NO NEED to do so. MARCION'S Son of God was NOT from HEBREW Scripture or from the God of the Jews.

None of the so-called out of context prophecies found in gLuke was applicable to MARCION'S son of God.

This is Justin on Marcion's son of God in "First Apology"

Marcion did not need gLuke. All the so-called prophecies taken from Hebrew Scripture in gLuke would be worthless for Marcion.

But, there is another book supposedly written by "Tertullian" called "On the Flesh of Christ" and it is there that the writer CLEARLY show that Marcion would not be in need of gLuke.

"On the Flesh of Christ" 1 Once Marcion denied that Jesus had FLESH then Marcion did not need gLuke.

The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus in gLuke, the basis for SALVATION of Mankind, needed FLESH and BLOOD which Marcion's son of God did NOT possess.

"Against Marcion" by Tertullian would have easily destroyed by Marcion and the Marcionites.

"Against Marcion" by Tertullian does not appear to have been seen or heard by Marcion and the Marcionites up to the 3rd century.

charles

I don't know if it so clear cut with regard to Marcion's use of the gospel of Luke. Some of the Church Fathers's aren't as sure about it as you might think

aa5874

It would seem to me that the Church used the character Marcion to historicise the authors of gLuke and Pauline writings just like Pilate was used to historicise the fiction character called Jesus of Nazareth.

Once Jesus was non-historical, then Acts and the Pauline Epistles must also be fictional which in turn means that "Tertullian" claims about the Pauline Epistles were most likely false.

Doug Shaver

Is there any Christian document that you think was written by anyone who actually existed?

aa5874

All documents of antiquity, christian and non-christian, were written by people who ACTUALLY existed.

The REAL questions are:

1. When did the author ACTUALLY write.

2. What did the author ACTUALLY write.

3. Who was the ACTUAL author.

Now, once it is understood that the Church got ALL three questions WRONG in their Canon then it cannot be NAIVELY believed that the Church did get EVERYTHING ELSE RIGHT.

Once the Church was virtually 100% WRONG about their OWN CANON then such MASSIVE ERRORS must be REFLECTED in their OWN ERRONEOUS Church writings.

After all, it should be that it was their own ERRONEOUS sources that caused their NT CANON to be virtually 100% in ERROR with DATING, CHRONOLOGY and AUTHORSHIP.

Now, this is a PARTIAL list of the writings that appear reasonably credible and non-historical. Of course, I have NO obligation to limit, increase, maintain or discard the list and my list is subject to change with or without notice at any time.


These are some of the writings that appear to be wholly or substantially reasonably credible.

1. Justin Martyr

2. Theophilus of Antioch

3. Athenagoras of Antioch

4. Minucius Felix

5. Tatian.

6. Aristides.

These are some of the writings that appear to be wholly or partially fiction, or forgeries or substantially non-historical writings.

1. Ignatius

2. Polycarp

3. Clement of Rome

4. Papias

5. Irenaeus

6. Tertullian**

7. Origen

8. Eusebius

**I find the writings of "Tertullian" to be rather interesting. It would appear that there were at least two different authors using the name "Tertullian".

The author of "Ad Nationes" does not appear to be the author of "Against Marcion" and "The Apology".


Once the writing called "Church History" by the Church historian is properly examined then the plot will be uncovered of how the "history of the Church" was FABRICATED.

The Church historian did CONFESS inadvertently.

Listen to the Church historian talk about "Origen"

"Church History" 6.16

Where are the writings that "Origen" found that were anonymous?

Once Jesus of Nazareth did NOT exist then the "history of the Church" MUST have been Fabricated or INVENTED and we ONLY have to find the documents which were used.

And it is SO VERY EASY. It is so RIDICULOUSLY EASY.

First READ "Church History" by the Church historian and then look for ALL the WRITINGS with the SAME "HISTORY".

This is a partial list of the writings that are very similar to the Church historian "Church History":

1. Ignatius

2. Polycarp

3. Clement of Rome

4. Papias

5. Irenaeus

6. Tertullian**

7. Origen

It was SO EASY.

It is ALL OVER.

It is like a walk in the park.

darstec

There was most likely an Eusebius writing in the fourth century CE. But how much of what he really wrote that has come down to us might be up for discussion.

We know he discarded Orthodoxy as he neared the end of his life. It is a shame that none of the material from that time survived.

A man using the name Irenaeus, may have written stuff, but most probably not as early as the end of the second century. What he might have actually written that has none of the interpolations is also up for debate.

aa5874

But, if you say that it is NOT known for certain what Eusebius really wrote how did you "know" he discarded "Orthodoxy".

darstec

Because other sources have mentioned it.

aa5874

What other sources?

This is what you wrote in an EARLIER post.

Why are you now accepting what "Orthodoxy" said about "Eusebius"?

It was "Orthodoxy" that claimed Jesus was truly DIVINE and still human during the time of Tiberius.