gurugeorge

Eeek! I wouldn't touch that article with a barge-pole. That Bushby guys seems totally hokey to me. Somewhere in that article he cites some weird modern channelled text as if it's history - very flakey.

Sparrow

The current consensus seems to place the P52 fragment as the oldest surviving piece of the New Testament. Most of those dating it suggest it is from the first half of the second century. Some writers take the midpoint of that range and give the date as 125 CE. I think this can mislead some into thinking we have a more precise date than we really do.

But for now assume that 125 CE is an accurate date. Now go to the last link you provided and view an image of the fragment. From that image, you can tell that we do not know for sure what the Gospel of John said in 125. Perhaps the copies of the full text we have from the fourth century are largely correct. Perhaps not. The opening paragraph of your first link (IIRC) claims we have more than 5000 copies of new testament manuscripts, but admits every single one is different. While most of these may be simply transcription errors, there are known cases of changes made for theological reasons. So depending on the date you think a crucifixion occurred, the date you think GJohn was written and the date P52 was produced, how confident are you that the fourth century full text is correct down to the letter?

I'm not at all confident. There was plenty of motive and opportunity to make significant changes to whatever the originals were.

mountainman

Neither generation of paleographers will detect the 4th century
forgery of the early second century Hadrian script. If the
christian propaganda was lavishly published en masse its
"lavishness" could easily have been extended to a more
ancient script.

And if you want to make any comment whatsoever about
the use and abuse of fraudulent misrepresentation by
Constantine, have your say in this thread:

Evidence that Constantine fraudulently misrepresented the patristic literature



The article actually does not make this specific
claim, I happened to have done so. And you
dont appear to understand the implications
of the hypothesis of Eusebian fiction.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Goathead

You think Rattinger is a bad pope, check out the medicis.

Murder, incest, money.Now thats a holy trinity!!!

mountainman

“And remember,
where you have a concentration of power in a few hands,
all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control.
History has proven that. All power corrupts;
absolute power corrupts absolutely.”



Pete

Steven Avery

Yes, george, that would probably be the three references to 'God's Book of Eskra' with the ideas of competing deities at Nicaea, the voting for them and more. Appears to be related to 'Oahspe' which came to our attention through the automatic writing of a 19th-century dentist. However we don't have the Macguire translation easily available .

Shalom,
Steven

youngalexander

Now, that's what I call redaction!

Er, sorry about that.

jackal5096

If the four gospels were 4th century Eusebian forgeries, as you appear to be claiming, then what four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was Irenaeus referring to back in the 2nd century? Or did Eusebius create the fiction of Irenaeus as well (not to mention Muratori and Clement of Alexandria)?

mountainman

IMO he was ordered to fabricate an army of authors.
The chronology of publications is outlined here.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

jackal5096

While I agree that Eusbius may have had a hand in "interpolating" some things, such as Josephus's TF, that author says a bit more:

This seems to be saying that Eusibius also created Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Justin Martyr, Tertullian and a host of others, along with all their various correspondences. Frankly, I think that author has his tin-foil hat on a little too tight.

(Pete - since this article is on "www.mountainman.com", would that imply some connection between you and it?)