mountainman

I do not subscribe to the monkey box or any other media channels
which, I have on reasonably good authority (NYT) were described
by a NY Jewish rabbi in a terms similar to the following:

"Having a TV on in the house
is like having an open sewer
running through your living room"



Pete Brown
NAMASTE

mountainman

I have written a very short article outlining how the FJ class of theories
will arise naturally out of a consideration of a simple dichotomy of
the two classes HJ and MJ.

This can be seen clearly in the following diagram:

Mythra

Hi Pete. I glanced at your refutations link. And I understand that you question the validity of paleographic dating of ancient fragments.

I'm sure you've addressed this before, so if you want to just reference another thread, that would be fine.

But what of the parade of early witnesses and writings? Ignatius, Papias, Marcion, Justin, Irenaeus, Origen, etc.

Surely Eusebius is not the source of all of these.

And then, there seems like additional problems would arise. Like, if the gospels were composed in the fourth century by Eusebius and company, why bother to write so many gospels (incl. all of the gnostic works) that told so many different versions of the story?

Just trying to make sense of your position.

mountainman

I have a page on the paleographic dating of purported prenicene
papyrus fragments here.

Yes, these and others, including Josephus, as outlined here.
IMO Eusebius used a host of "profiles" to do his deed.

It should be noted that I think Origen is a special case, in that
he existed as an OT scholar, and his work on the LXX was probably
quite genuine, since the LXX had been sitting in the Alexandrean Library
since 250 BCE. Eusebius, IMO, writes as Origen for all NT related
texts and books.

Everything crossed the desk of Eusebius.


It is possible that this was simply the use of dissembling tactics.
Throw enough bullshit around, at a high enough level, and slowly
most people will believe in some of it, or a central core.

An army of gospels were called, but Constantine only chose a few.
The multi gospel deluge supported the notion of fictitious squabbling
between heretics and authodox in prior centuries, and the establishment
of what was to become canon. Noone suspected the entire package
was a complete fabrication, with the exception, IMO, of Julian.

Constantine was a mocker --- He was the boss for 3 decades.
He first bound the NT to the OT (LXX) 330 CE.

I dont really know why so many gospels were used in the fiction,
if it wasn't simply the use of dissembling tactics. Modus operandi, to
dissemble.


Thanks, its appreciated. I have always maintained that the postulate
or theory of fourth century christianity is refutable, and I am putting
all this forward in the expectation of refutation. If you have other
questions, later, fire away.