Littlejohn

Hello RParvus!

“that disciple of Marcion’s, who became the founder of a certain sect, and treated the writings of the Jews as fables.”

One of the reasons that led to such a long "misconoscenza" (not perfect knowledge) of the Christianity's true origins, was also not aware of the nature and origins trues of "Nazarenes."

To keep such a hidden aspect were not only the ancient "fathers" and those who founded the Catholic worship, but the Jews themselves. While the ancient fathers tried to pretend that "nazarene" meant "inhabitant of Nazareth" (*), the Jewish religious authorities (priests + rabbis) in turn tried to pretend that the Nazarenes were "nazirei", namely the Jews who had expressed a vow of "nazireato" (see Samson). In both cases it was false justifications and pretexts, aiming to "obnubilare" (rendering foggy) the reality of the world nazarene, where Jesus was raised and educated, although he was not a native of that community.

The Nazarenes, and especially their leaders, were detested by the priests of the temple and a good part of rabbinical class, ie the one nearest to the views of priests. Thanks to Epiphanius, we know today that the Nazarenes strongly objected to the priests of the temple, saying that the Law that they taught was not true Law that Moses had issued to his people, but a falsified. The Nazarenes were right, as with the reform impressed by the Jewish King Josiah (**), was upset writing and ancient traditions of hebraism of the origins, which, unlike the monotheism of Josiah (a sort of Jewish "Akhenaten") was exquisitely polytheist.

It is now clear that if the Nazarenes asserted the Law that was taught at the time of Jesus was false, so, of course, claimed the same thing also this later, and all those who depended on his preaching happened them similarly the same thing.

Before proceeding further, you must make it clear that the followers of Jesus (virtually worldwide gnostic which made reference to his figure) must absolutely not be called "Christians", phenomenon with which Jesus did not had anything to do, having developed it in the second century, but "jesuans" or at most "chrestiani", the latter resulting from the adjective "Chrestos," one of the many attributes with which Jesus was indicated (the same name Jesus is an attribute of purely Greek origin and not a name !).

As reported in the literature patristic, Marcione belonged, for birth, to a sect other than that to which he gave rise. His father, a "bishop" of the Pontus, drove him because of his religious "deviations". It 'very likely that the father may have belonged to the jesuan world while, for reasons that are not known, Marcione ended with the approach to the Judeo-Christian church of Antioch.

Belonging he, therefore, originally to a sect "jesuan", that of his father, Marcione had borrowed the teachings, including those relating to the Law falsified by the priests of the temple of Jerusalem. At this point, I think, there should be no doubt about the fact that the aversion of Marcione (and therefore of Apelles) was not directed at hebrews in general, but almost exclusively to the world of "Judaism", ie against Jews, the latter intended not as simple inhabitants of Judea, but the faithful of Judaism or "reformed hebraism".

The Law of the Jews was the basis on which they based the faith of "Orthodox" (catholic-Christians) and that of the Gnostic "jesuans", so to call it a falsehood or a series of fables, would have been absurd and counterproductive, both by the Orthodox than by the Gnostics. It's clear, therefore, that the target of the dispute of latter was not the Law of the Hebrews of the origins, but that adopted by Judaism. The hatred and contempt towards the Jewish world (ciòè of the faithful of the "Judaism") moved through Jesus and his disciples, even to the gnostic sects world and, in some ways, even to the "orthodox"

«Hippolytus writes: “He (Apelles) composed his treatises against the Law and the Prophets and attempts to abolish them as if they had spoken falsehoods.”»

Here Hippolytus is even more precise than Origen. Indeed, the Nazarenes not only challenged the priests and the false Law which they taught, but also the prophets, because they, the Nazarenes, believed them as tools in the hands of priests, which used them to pretend to the mass of the faithful that what they said or taught, came directly from God, through the "visions" of the prophets. A mechanism, this, of which the founders of Catholic worship will abuse widely.

Pseudo-Tertullian: He (Apelles) “has his own books, which he has entitled Syllogisms, in which he seeks to prove that whatever Moses has written about God is not true, but is false.”

In this case we certainly have an example of bad interpretation of instances of Apelles (considering he aligned with the thought of Jesus and therefore of the Nazarenes), and it is unlikely that this is due to a mere "accident", but rather to a precise determination "desecrating". Indeed, the controversy of the Nazarenes was NOT against Moses and his Law, but rather towards the priests of the temple of Jerusalem and towards the Law that they preached, viewed by the Nazarenes not genuine, ie not the true Law of Moses but a falsified .

Will return to comment on the rest of your post in the near message, since this is very prolonged.

The best regards

___________________

Notes:

(*) - Indeed it is true exactly the opposite: it was the village of Nazareth to borrow its name from nazarene families who lived in

(**) - The name "Judaism" stems from the fact that this reform occurred in Judea by initiative of a Jew king. It was rejected by the Samaritans and various communities, including that of the Nazarenes, who, before the reform, probably were not called again so.

Littlejohn
.

Littlejohn

I have not carried out studies and research in this sense, as they went beyond from my direct objectives, which envisage a reality as a whole, rather than on a theme or more specific items, such as you have proposed. I do not know if I explained adequately. I did, however, a quick control of the data that you have shown and I saw that they respond to what today is known about. However, as I said, my research leads me to conclude that the mysterious character that Lucian wanted to hide behind the figure of cynical philosopher Peregrinus (ie "Proteus") is Paul of Tarsus and not others.

This aspect that you mentioned is very important because there is a witness documentary (inter alia recognised by Catholic apologists as genuine), which makes us understand indirectly that none of the so-called Epistles of Paul was written by him!

However, based on my experience, emerged from my research, I was able to establish that some of those letters contain elements that probably belonged originally to a letter written by the character "Paul of Tarsus."

There is another between current Epistles of Paul, which contains elements that originally belonged to a letter written, almost certainly, from Paul/Saul (one of two "Paul" as I will explain later), probably during the period of time ranging from 35 to 40 AD. Only those who, like me, has not neglected any source in his research can guess this.

All this only shows that when it was originally written the letter, irrespective of its author, John had not yet established in Ephesus and therefore we are in an earlier age than 80 AD. This should exclude, in my view, the notion that writing this letter could have been an 'apellean'. It's also possible, as indeed you yourself say, that the original letter has been interpolated to achieve their purposes. This is a phenomenon extremely recurrent in the New Testament context .

"...John the Apostle or John the Elder (Presbyter John).."

This is another aspect very "charming": namely the presence in Ephesus of two "John" (difficult to say whether simultaneously), of which one was listed as "the Elder" (bresbyter).

Behind all this there is a disconcerting truth, which is rooted in the same composition of the "twelve" Apostles! Indeed, into list of 12 had to be present TWO John, but one of them, in fact, was shown with his "nick" ... Why? ... Do to avoid creating confusion between the two characters? ...

Or to hide a truth very "embarrassing" for those who have accumulated lies over lies to give life to the disconcerting Catholic worship? ...

"...From the ruler of this age were hidden Mary’s virginity and her child-bearing, in like manner too the death of the Lord.."

What does means "too the death of the Lord "??.... Maybe that the death of Jesus was not known by all people?? ... Or perhaps his death on the cross was actually a "pious" deceit? ...How does one would keep hidden the fact that Jesus was "crucified" when, according to the gospels, the whole Jerusalem people had witnessed his alleged crucifixion? ... Or Jesus was killed in a "manner" (as indeed it was!) for which agreed to maintain silence? ... How it was possible that such a step has been ignored or underestimated by experts in New Testament exegesis? ..


.........to be continued


My best regards

Littlejohn
.

RParvus

[QUOTE=Littlejohn;5459994]Littlejohn,

What was hidden was not the fact of the crucifixion, but the identity of the one crucified. Some in the early church apparently held that it was only at the ascension that the aeons realized that the one crucified was not just a man but was the Lord. Their surprise upon learning that is described by IgnEph 19:2 and by other early Christian writings (See, for example, Justin’s “Dialogue” 36.6; Irenaeus’ “Demonstratio” 84; the “Ascension of Isaiah” 11.24-29; the “Pistis Sophia” 11).

Best regards,

Roger Parvus

Littlejohn

Hi Roger!

"..What was hidden was not the fact of the crucifixion, but the identity of the one crucified.."

Not, this is not the case. For to understand that, you only need to know much more things ...

How, for example, the other statement: ".. were hidden Mary's virginity .." What does this mean? ... How can one keep hidden a" virginity "?... All this needs a proper "decrypting " or interpretation that you want to say.

Just like the affair of the "seven demons" that Jesus had "drawn out" by Mary Magdalene. All this is a senseless and seemingly even more absurd and pueriles are the pseudo-justifications that the apologists Catholics have wanted to give this passage of Gospel! Despite can seem disconcerting this step, it is, "encryptment", linked to the legend on St. George freeing "virgin" by the "dragon"...

"..Some in the early church apparently held that it was only at the ascension that the aeons realized that the one crucified was not just a man but was the Lord.."

The truth is that both the Orthodox Catholics than "jesuan" Gnostics, hid their faithful the TRUE modality of death of Jesus: STONED IN CITY OF LYDDA! For the Gnostics, who rejected the absurd lies of the Jesus' crucifixion, the latter was "simply" ascending in heaven with all his body. As can it be strange, even a number of pagans who knew him, took true this version. (at that time was "normal" that the various charismatic characters ended their lives being ascend in heaven!)



All my best


Littlejohn

.