aa5874

This is like asking me why did the author of Acts of the Apostles contradict the Pauline Epistles when the Church writers claimed Paul and the author of Acts were close companions and travelled together all over the Roman Empire.

The author of Acts and the Pauline writer contradict each other about the Jerusalem travels.

How in the world could Josephus believe what he did not write. According to Josephus, Vespasian was the predicted ruler of the habitable earth as found in Jewish scripture.

And again, based on Julian, Origen could not have seen anything in the works of Josephus about Jesus. No well-known writer who wrote about events during Tiberius and Claudius mentioned Jesus or Paul in those events.

But, this so obvious and basic, once all the forgeries and contradictions happened after 363/364 CE, then it really is of no significance that the author of Contra Celsus contradicted Eusebius when both of these writers have very little credibilty with respect to their own writings and the writings of Josephus.

Based of Julian, there was no well-known writer that wrote about Jesus and Paul up to or around the time he wrote "Against the Galilleans".

The claim by Julian STRONGLY indicates that he Julian was not aware of Church History 1.11.7 and Against Celsus 1.47 or that the passages were NOT written yet.

Smithereens!

jakejonesiv

HI AA,

You wrote “the Church writers produced forgeries of well-known and circulated writings without fear of contradiction or that their errors would be exposed.”

Even if (for sake of argument), "all the forgeries and contradictions happened after 363/364 CE", Contra Celsum 1:47 STILL contradicts AJ 18.3.3.

You contradict yourself. You are wrong.

mountainman

Julian patently used the imperial satire card in his works.
We might adequately portray Julian as a satirist against Christianity.
The name he coined "Galilaeans" as the legal name for "Christians"
is a satire using Josephus. Josephus' Galilaeans were robbers and
outlaws, Hebrew rebels and gangsters who were outside the law.
Julian was trying to protect the old (almost lost) Hellenistic traditions
from a brand new Constantinian regime which Julian perceived as
a bunch of Hebrew gangsters and robbers.


Background to Julian's rule

Less than forty years before Julian's rule massively ancient and highly revered
temples had spread out in vast networks across the Roman empire
from the City of Alexander (Alexandria). But Constantine having no
regard for these structures, destroyed them and legislated that
the temple services and practices were to be forthwith prohibited.
The epoch from 325 CE to 360 CE had been one of prohibition.
Christian gangsters were in control and they had the support
of the imperial military machine, and that machine had been
deployed in the cities to do the bidding of the emperor. It had
been a period of lock-down. Land tax had tripled within living
memory. There were forbidden books. Poll tax, the chrysargon,
was implemented by Constantine and continued by Constantius.
Ammianus reveals torture of the upper classes became a reality.
The precedent being set by Constantine's torture of the leading
citizens of Antioch c.324 CE. (before Nicaea)

Constantine constructed new monumental structures - christian
churches or basilicas, and staffed them with a new religious
regime which had no regard for the ancient Helenistic taditions
of the Graeco-Roman empire, especially at Alexandria.


The very academic emperor Julian had access to the imperial archives
for a number of years (360-363 CE) and we may safely assume that
he had briefed himself on the books written by Eusebius for two reasons.

(1) He wrote that he was convinced that the fabrication of the christains
was a fiction of men composed by wickedness. This implicates Eusebius
since everyone knows he was the editor of the new testament canon at
the time Constantine decided to lavishly publish fifty copies of it.

(2) Secondly, Julian expressly refers to Eusebius by name, and in
no uncertain terms called him "wretched". Eusebius is the
chronographer who boldly asserts what no man had asserted before
that the antiquity of the Hebrew sages was greater than the antiquity
of the Hellenic sages. That the LOGOS was really Hebrew.

aa5874

I told you already that the author of Acts contradicted the Pauline writer even when both were supposed to be close companions and travelled together. The author of gMatthew contradicted the author of gJohn while they were claimed to be disciples of the same Jesus.

Contradictions do not inherently make one author right and the other wrong, both could be wrong. The church writers essentially have different VERSIONS of fiction

Now, you are the one who has put forward the notion that ALL the forgeries and contradictions happened after 363/364. I did NOT make such a claim.

I was very specific. I mentioned Church History 1.11.7 and Against Celsus 1.47 that were written after Julian's Against the Galilleans.

Now claiming I am wrong is of very little consequence to me since there are always three fundamental position with any statement made.

1. It is right.
2. It is wrong.
3. Don't know.

And now if you claim I am wrong about anything, the next step is to prove it. Right?

tradewinds

As I see it, one might find in acts, after acts 15, the beginning of a mid-acts transitive, of a Jewish faith that could survive the fall of the Roman Empire. I am quite certain of Paul knowing that the grafting of a strong national faith would work for the preservation of the Roman Empire, this inspired Constantine, Paul's movement including Paul's revelation, as to the possible outcome, the advantage was on the side of Christianity.

What men cannot do by the power of the arm could be done better by the power of the mind. Paul may have had his own motives, but with Constantine, it is clear.

Paul wrote about 50 CE, or AD if you prefer.

aa5874

There is really no corroborative evidence outside of the Church writings that a character called Paul wrote anything in 50 CE. Even Justin Martyr, up to the middle of the 2nd century, did not give an account of Paul, his letters, his churches or his revelation gospel of uncircumcision. And Justin wrote nothing about Acts of the Apostles.

And further, the history of Paul is internally linked by a book of fiction called Acts of the Apostles. Based on the writings attributed to Paul, the letters appear to specifically target Jews trying to convince them not to continue with their Jewish Laws, there is virtually nothing on Paganism, or any of the numerous religions with their pagan gods.

The character called Paul is not a 1st century character at all, based on Justin, this character, it would appear, was planted by the Church around the time Church History was written, to promote erroneously that the Roman Church was the true Church of God.

Jesus did not exist in the 1st century , yet Paul claimed Jesus was betrayed in the night, was crucified, died, resurrected, ascended to heaven and [b]revealed activities of his earthly life to him.. Now, this is all fiction.

Paul was a manufactured product of the Roman Church desigbed to mis-lead and propagate falsehoods about the history of Jesus believers.

Based on Justin, there were no bishops installed in any churches that he attended. Justin did not name a single bishop or refer to the bishop of his church. And no NT author appeared to have been influenced by the Pauline writer. Also, when "Against Celsus" is taken into consideration, the condition of Jesus believers appear to have remained the same where Jesus believers were still meeting in secret with no known churches or fixed places of worship.

mountainman

Constantine used military power to the excess
and he may be appropriately called a fascist.
Paul plays a very transcendental part in history.
He is likely a purely literary fabrication based on the
travelling philosopher and sage, author of books
and man of letters gathered up after his death,
Apollonius of Tyana.


Constantine was responsible for the dubious honor of first widely
publishing Paul and the New Testament to the Greeks in the
footsteps of his military supremacy, his torture of leading citizens
and the utter destruction of their ancient and highly revered places
of traditional worship c.324 CE.