Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Minimalist · 05-19-2010, 04:54 PM

Quote:

It has been said that this is the case because Philo was writing in Alexandria around the time when Christianity was an insignificant Jewish sect in Palestine.

Apologists never tire of making apologies.

mountainman · 05-19-2010, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Since christians primarily preserved the writings of Josephus and Philo it was remarkable that these texts weren't more heavily altered to support the gospel accounts.

IMHO the christian forgers (Eusebius as "Editor-In-Chief") used an impressive large numbers racket. A multitude of "authors" who were in some cases historical and in other cases entirely fictional were used IMHO in what Emperor Julian referred to as the "fabrication of the Christians".

Authors of texts/letters heavily altered (or fabricated) to support the gospel accounts and/or the "christian church"

Jesus of Nazareth (0-33), Judas (0-40), Simon Magus (0-50), Jude (0-60), Barnabas (0-61), Paul (20-65), Matthew (0-70), Mark (0-70), Luke (0-70), John (0-70), Peter (0-70), Clement of Rome (18-98), Ignatius of Antioch (40-117), Aristides the Philosopher (70-134), Basilides (120-140), Marcion (130-140), Papias (110-140), Quadratus (70-140), Agrippa Castor (90-145), Aquila of Sinope (of Pontus) (90-150), Aristo of Pella (130-150), Polycarp (110-155), Valentinus (120-160), Epiphanes (130-160), Marcion of Sinope (110-160), Justin Martyr (150-160), Isidore (140-160), Carpocrates of Alexandria (80-160), Minucius Felix (140-170), Melito of Sardis (165-175), Dionysius of Corinth (165-175), Excerpts of Theodotus (150-180), Athenagoras of Athens (175-180), Apelles (160-180), Apollinaris Claudius (120-180), Julius Cassianus (160-180), Hegesippus (110-180), Heracleon (150-180), Ptolemy (140-180), Pinytus of Crete (130-180), Rhodon (175-185), Theophilus of Caesarea (175-185), Tatian (135-185), Theophilus of Antioch (180-185), Irenaeus of Lyons (175-185), Apollonius (136-186), Anonymous Anti-Montanist (193-193), Maximus of Jerusalem (185-195), Polycrates of Ephesus (130-196), Victor I (189-199), Mathetes (130-200), Diognetus (130-200), Clement of Alexandria (182-202), Apollonius (200-210), Pantaenus (190-210), Serapion of Antioch (200-210), Tertullian (197-220), Bardesanes (180-220), Caius (200-220), Hippolytus of Rome (180-230), Ammonius Saccas (155-245), Octavius of Minucius Felix (160-250), Alexander (of Cappadocia,Jerusalem) (150-250), Cornelius (of Rome) (200-253), Cyprian of Carthage (200-258), Novatian (201-258), Dionysius (of Alexandria) the Great (200-264), Dionysius of Rome (210-268), Gregory Thaumaturgus (212-275), Paul of Samosata (200-275), Hermias (210-280), Malchion (of Antioch) (220-290), Anatolius of Laodicea in Syria (222-290) Victorinus (bishop) of Petau (240-303), Arnobius (245-305), Phileas (Bishop) of Thmuis (250-307), Pamphilus (250-309), Peter of Alexandria (250-311), Methodius (250-311), Miltiades (Pope 311-314) (270-314)

arnoldo · 05-19-2010, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Since christians primarily preserved the writings of Josephus and Philo it was remarkable that these texts weren't more heavily altered to support the gospel accounts.

IMHO the christian forgers (Eusebius as "Editor-In-Chief") used an impressive large numbers racket. A multitude of "authors" who were in some cases historical and in other cases entirely fictional were used IMHO in what Emperor Julian referred to as the "fabrication of the Christians".

The Emperor Julian referred it to as "the fabrication of the Galileans." It is clear the Julian believed that the Galileans, along with Paul, fabricated this new cult and not Constantine via Eusebius.

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth. Now since I intend to treat of all their first dogmas, as they call them, I wish to say in the first place that if my readers desire to try to refute me they must proceed as if they were in a court of law and not drag in irrelevant matter, or, as the saying is, bring counter-charges until they have defended their own views. For thus it will be better and clearer if, when they wish to censure any views of mine, they undertake that as a separate task, but when they are defending themselves against my censure, they bring no counter-charges. . .

But that not only the Galilaeans of our day but also those of the earliest time, those who were the first to receive the teaching from Paul, were men of this sort, is evident from the testimony of Paul himself in a letter addressed to them. For unless he actually knew that they had committed all these disgraceful acts, he was not, I think, so impudent as to write to those men themselves concerning their conduct, in language for which, even though in the same letter he included as many eulogies of them, he ought to have blushed, yes, even if those |393 eulogies were deserved, while if they were false and fabricated, then he ought to have sunk into the ground to escape seeming to behave with wanton flattery and slavish adulation. But the following are the very words that Paul wrote concerning those who had heard his teaching, and were addressed to the men themselves : "Be not deceived : neither idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And of this ye are not ignorant, brethren, that such were you also; but ye washed yourselves, but ye were sanctified in the name of Jesus Christ."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/more...ans_1_text.htm

aa5874 · 05-19-2010, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Since christians primarily preserved the writings of Josephus and Philo it was remarkable that these texts weren't more heavily altered to support the gospel accounts.

IMHO the christian forgers (Eusebius as "Editor-In-Chief") used an impressive large numbers racket. A multitude of "authors" who were in some cases historical and in other cases entirely fictional were used IMHO in what Emperor Julian referred to as the "fabrication of the Christians".

Authors of texts/letters heavily altered (or fabricated) to support the gospel accounts and/or the "christian church"

Jesus of Nazareth (0-33), Judas (0-40), Simon Magus (0-50), Jude (0-60), Barnabas (0-61), Paul (20-65), Matthew (0-70), Mark (0-70), Luke (0-70), John (0-70), Peter (0-70), Clement of Rome (18-98), Ignatius of Antioch (40-117), Aristides the Philosopher (70-134), Basilides (120-140), Marcion (130-140), Papias (110-140), Quadratus (70-140), Agrippa Castor (90-145), Aquila of Sinope (of Pontus) (90-150), Aristo of Pella (130-150), Polycarp (110-155), Valentinus (120-160), Epiphanes (130-160), Marcion of Sinope (110-160), Justin Martyr (150-160), Isidore (140-160), Carpocrates of Alexandria (80-160), Minucius Felix (140-170), Melito of Sardis (165-175), Dionysius of Corinth (165-175), Excerpts of Theodotus (150-180), Athenagoras of Athens (175-180), Apelles (160-180), Apollinaris Claudius (120-180), Julius Cassianus (160-180), Hegesippus (110-180), Heracleon (150-180), Ptolemy (140-180), Pinytus of Crete (130-180), Rhodon (175-185), Theophilus of Caesarea (175-185), Tatian (135-185), Theophilus of Antioch (180-185), Irenaeus of Lyons (175-185), Apollonius (136-186), Anonymous Anti-Montanist (193-193), Maximus of Jerusalem (185-195), Polycrates of Ephesus (130-196), Victor I (189-199), Mathetes (130-200), Diognetus (130-200), Clement of Alexandria (182-202), Apollonius (200-210), Pantaenus (190-210), Serapion of Antioch (200-210), Tertullian (197-220), Bardesanes (180-220), Caius (200-220), Hippolytus of Rome (180-230), Ammonius Saccas (155-245), Octavius of Minucius Felix (160-250), Alexander (of Cappadocia,Jerusalem) (150-250), Cornelius (of Rome) (200-253), Cyprian of Carthage (200-258), Novatian (201-258), Dionysius (of Alexandria) the Great (200-264), Dionysius of Rome (210-268), Gregory Thaumaturgus (212-275), Paul of Samosata (200-275), Hermias (210-280), Malchion (of Antioch) (220-290), Anatolius of Laodicea in Syria (222-290) Victorinus (bishop) of Petau (240-303), Arnobius (245-305), Phileas (Bishop) of Thmuis (250-307), Pamphilus (250-309), Peter of Alexandria (250-311), Methodius (250-311), Miltiades (Pope 311-314) (270-314)

But, there is no evidence that the writings of Aristides, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Tatian, Athenagoras of Athens, and Theophilus of Antioch were heavily edited or fabricated to "support the gospel accounts and/or the "christian church".

Athenagoras and Theophilus, for example, did NOT even mention Jesus, the disciples or Paul.

In Minucius Felix, Caecilius began to believe in GOD, not Jesus, through Octavius without making reference to Jesus Christ, the disciples or Paul. Octavius spoke about GOD exclusively, not Jesus.

Justin Martyr made NO mention of any named Gospel, Acts of the Apostles, and ALL the Epistles. In effect Justin did not account the NT Canon up to the middle of the 2nd century.

Tatain in his "Address to the Greeks" did NOT mention Jesus, the 12 disciples and Paul.

Aristides the Philosopher did not write about ANY activities of the 12 apostles as found in Acts of the Apostles and did not write about Paul.

The combined EVIDENCE from those writers clearly contradict the EVIDENCE given in "Church History" by Eusebius which tend to indicate that they were not heavily edited or fabricated to support the gospel accounts and/or the "christian church".

aa5874 · 05-19-2010, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Since christians primarily preserved the writings of Josephus and Philo it was remarkable that these texts weren't more heavily altered to support the gospel accounts.

IMHO the christian forgers (Eusebius as "Editor-In-Chief") used an impressive large numbers racket. A multitude of "authors" who were in some cases historical and in other cases entirely fictional were used IMHO in what Emperor Julian referred to as the "fabrication of the Christians".

Authors of texts/letters heavily altered (or fabricated) to support the gospel accounts and/or the "christian church"

Jesus of Nazareth (0-33), Judas (0-40), Simon Magus (0-50), Jude (0-60), Barnabas (0-61), Paul (20-65), Matthew (0-70), Mark (0-70), Luke (0-70), John (0-70), Peter (0-70), Clement of Rome (18-98), Ignatius of Antioch (40-117), Aristides the Philosopher (70-134), Basilides (120-140), Marcion (130-140), Papias (110-140), Quadratus (70-140), Agrippa Castor (90-145), Aquila of Sinope (of Pontus) (90-150), Aristo of Pella (130-150), Polycarp (110-155), Valentinus (120-160), Epiphanes (130-160), Marcion of Sinope (110-160), Justin Martyr (150-160), Isidore (140-160), Carpocrates of Alexandria (80-160), Minucius Felix (140-170), Melito of Sardis (165-175), Dionysius of Corinth (165-175), Excerpts of Theodotus (150-180), Athenagoras of Athens (175-180), Apelles (160-180), Apollinaris Claudius (120-180), Julius Cassianus (160-180), Hegesippus (110-180), Heracleon (150-180), Ptolemy (140-180), Pinytus of Crete (130-180), Rhodon (175-185), Theophilus of Caesarea (175-185), Tatian (135-185), Theophilus of Antioch (180-185), Irenaeus of Lyons (175-185), Apollonius (136-186), Anonymous Anti-Montanist (193-193), Maximus of Jerusalem (185-195), Polycrates of Ephesus (130-196), Victor I (189-199), Mathetes (130-200), Diognetus (130-200), Clement of Alexandria (182-202), Apollonius (200-210), Pantaenus (190-210), Serapion of Antioch (200-210), Tertullian (197-220), Bardesanes (180-220), Caius (200-220), Hippolytus of Rome (180-230), Ammonius Saccas (155-245), Octavius of Minucius Felix (160-250), Alexander (of Cappadocia,Jerusalem) (150-250), Cornelius (of Rome) (200-253), Cyprian of Carthage (200-258), Novatian (201-258), Dionysius (of Alexandria) the Great (200-264), Dionysius of Rome (210-268), Gregory Thaumaturgus (212-275), Paul of Samosata (200-275), Hermias (210-280), Malchion (of Antioch) (220-290), Anatolius of Laodicea in Syria (222-290) Victorinus (bishop) of Petau (240-303), Arnobius (245-305), Phileas (Bishop) of Thmuis (250-307), Pamphilus (250-309), Peter of Alexandria (250-311), Methodius (250-311), Miltiades (Pope 311-314) (270-314)

But, there is no evidence that the writings of Aristides, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Tatian, Athenagoras of Athens, and Theophilus of Antioch were heavily edited or fabricated to "support the gospel accounts and/or the "christian church".

Athenagoras and Theophilus, for example, did NOT even mention Jesus, the disciples or Paul.

In Minucius Felix, Caecilius began to believe in GOD, not Jesus, through Octavius without making reference to Jesus Christ, the disciples or Paul. Octavius spoke about GOD exclusively, not Jesus.

Justin Martyr made NO mention of any named Gospel, Acts of the Apostles, and ALL the Epistles. In effect Justin did NOT account for an NT Canon up to the middle of the 2nd century or any post-ascension activities of the 12 apostles and Paul as stated in the NT Canon.

Tatain in his "Address to the Greeks" did NOT mention Jesus, the 12 disciples and Paul.

Aristides the Philosopher did not write about ANY activities of the 12 apostles as found in Acts of the Apostles and did not write about Paul.

The combined EVIDENCE from those writers clearly contradict the EVIDENCE given in "Church History" by Eusebius which tend to indicate that they were not heavily edited or fabricated to support the gospel accounts and/or the "christian church".

mountainman · 05-19-2010, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

IMHO the christian forgers (Eusebius as "Editor-In-Chief") used an impressive large numbers racket. A multitude of "authors" who were in some cases historical and in other cases entirely fictional were used IMHO in what Emperor Julian referred to as the "fabrication of the Christians".

The Emperor Julian referred it to as "the fabrication of the Galileans."

Julian had already legally altered the official name --- "Christians" --- in the Roman Empire to be henceforth known as "Galilaeans". Thus was Julian specifically and directly refering to the "fabrication of the Christians".

Quote:

It is clear the Julian believed that the Galileans, along with Paul, fabricated this new cult and not Constantine via Eusebius.

The only text we have extant of Julian's work "Against the Christians" has been recovered from "Against Julian", a polemical refutation of the Emperor's three books ("Against the Christians") authored by the thug bishop of Alexandria, and murderer of Hypatia, Cyril. My position is that Cyril censored the detailed references to Constantine and "the wretched Eusbeius" from the original treatise.

aa5874 · 05-23-2010, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, apart from Pilate who else were important figures in Palestine that Philo should have mentioned?

The Gospels mentioned King Herod, Tiberius, and Pilate.

Philo also mentioned King Herod, Tiberius and Pilate.

Philo does not mention by name:
John the Baptist
The High Priests Annas and Caiaphas
Herod Antipas

Andrew Criddle

But, why did Philo have to mention John the Baptist, Annas, Caiaphas and Herod Antipas? Those figures of history were NOT worshiped as a Gods.

It was Jesus Christ, a Jew, who was given a "name above every other name to WHOM EVERY KNEE should BOW and was called the Creator of heaven and Earth according to a Hebrew of Hebrews, a supposed contemporary of Philo, called Paul.

Once Philo claimed that Jews would NOT worship a man as a God, then it would be expected that that he would have mentioned the Jew named Jesus that was EQUAL in STATUS to the God of the Jews with the Power to forgive their sins and abolish circumcision.

Philo being a Jew must be expected to be highly concerned about the STATUS of JESUS as EQUAL TO GOD when he was SELECTED by Jews of Alexandria to meet an EMPEROR of Rome, Caligula, to argue against the deification of a MAN as a GOD.

See Philippians 2.5-11.

There is no indication that Philo was aware of a Jew called Jesus to WHOM EVERY JEWISH KNEE should BOW.

Jayrok · 05-24-2010, 09:11 AM

Just because Philo didn't write about him doesn't necessarily mean he didn't know about Jesus or that Jesus didn't exist. So what if he didn't write anything about him?

His writings may lead one to believe he didn't know about Jesus but you can't know that for sure. Not simply based on the contents of his writing. How do we know he didn't write something about Jesus and it was lost?

josephchoi · 05-24-2010, 09:30 AM

Well why should we take Matthew as reliable? He's not exactly one who was writing everything down as it were. Zombie prophet invasion anyone? Herod Great's infant genocide? I don't think his claims of jesus as some superstar is any more reliable.

aa5874 · 05-24-2010, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

Just because Philo didn't write about him doesn't necessarily mean he didn't know about Jesus or that Jesus didn't exist. So what if he didn't write anything about him?

His writings may lead one to believe he didn't know about Jesus but you can't know that for sure. Not simply based on the contents of his writing. How do we know he didn't write something about Jesus and it was lost?

Well, if you use that methodology then no theories can be formulated about any matter.

The fact that we have nothing from Philo about Jesus a Jew who was supposedly worshiped as a God, the Creator and to WHOM EVERY JEW should BOW at the very time that JEWS refused to worship the Emperor Caligula as a GOD then that fact AUGMENTS the theory that JESUS of the NT did NOT exist as described in the NT at the time of Philo.

The fact that Philo mentioned Pilate who was supposedly a contemporary of Jesus and had a trial before Pilate where Jesus was executed due to the JEWS and because of BLASPHEMY then the omission of Jesus in the writings of Philo SOLIDIFIES the theory that Jesus of Nazareth did NOT exist as described in the NT Canon.

The fact that the Emperor Caligula, in Philo's writing, mentioned that ONLY the JEWISH nation refused to worship him as a God then that fact STRENGTHENS the theory that JESUS did not exist as a God or was worship as a God by Jews.

Now, the Pauline writings give a MOST UNPRECEDENTED scenario that there was a JEW, a mere man, that was CONSIDERED a GOD just like the Emperors of Rome and NO ROMAN writer or HISTORIAN wrote about JESUS the GOD of the JEWS.

Examine the STATUS of JESUS according to PAUL during the TIME of Philo.

Romans 14:11 -

Quote:

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Philippians 2:10 -

Quote:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth..

Philo did NOT say he BOWED HIS KNEE to anyone called JESUS.

The ABUNDANCE of EVIDENCE or the DATA supplied by Philo supports the theory that JESUS of the NT did not exist as described in the NT Canon during the time of Philo.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-24-2010, 09:11 AM	#18
Jayrok Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA Posts: 471	Just because Philo didn't write about him doesn't necessarily mean he didn't know about Jesus or that Jesus didn't exist. So what if he didn't write anything about him? His writings may lead one to believe he didn't know about Jesus but you can't know that for sure. Not simply based on the contents of his writing. How do we know he didn't write something about Jesus and it was lost?

05-24-2010, 09:30 AM	#19
josephchoi New Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Canada Posts: 2	Well why should we take Matthew as reliable? He's not exactly one who was writing everything down as it were. Zombie prophet invasion anyone? Herod Great's infant genocide? I don't think his claims of jesus as some superstar is any more reliable.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.