mountainman

Pull the othe leg. What about the 4th century "pseudo-Justin"?

aa5874

"Pseudo Justin"? That is a dead giveaway. Does not "pseudo Justin" implies that the material was not written by Justin Martyr of the 2nd century?

I am refering to "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho" by Justin Martyr.

In "First Apology" Justin Martyr was probably the only writer who exposed the fact that Christianity in Samaria even up to the time of Claudius, 41-54 CE, was NOT at all based on AN ENTITY called Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, but on a character called Simon Magus a magician, the Holy one.

The author of Acts claimed Simon the magician was converted and believed in Jesus but Justin wrote no such thing about Simon.

Justin Martyr has a post ascension history of Simon Magus but has none of Simon Peter, the supposed 1st bishop of Rome.

This is exactly what I expect once Jesus was just a story.

I would expect that there would be NO historical records of Jesus and the diciples and that there would be a complete black hole of the activities of the supposed disciple after Jesus ascended.

Justin Martyr confirms the black hole of "Church History" from around 41-150 CE, from Simon Magus to Marcion.

mountainman

Eusebius quotes both Justin and Pseudo-Justin as if they were Justin. What does Eusebius know that modern scholars dont?

A massive Black Hole of profane history exists for the entire epoch of the rule of the emperor who first widely published the "Bible" and "Eusebius' s Church History". We have no accounts whatsoever from within the event horizon of this epoch other than the "orthodox christian ecclesiastical historians" who permit some orthodox light to escape from the event horizon.

Writings by Justin Martyr and Pseudo-Justin suggest that Justin's writings were simply fabricated in imperial scriptoria of the 4th century (or later). The same applies to a host of writers. In how many instances do we find writings being classified into two authors --- Author X and Pseudo-Author X? Would you or anyone else care to hazard a ball-park estimate? Notably most of the Pseudo-X authors are treated as 4th century or later "productions".

aa5874

But, Eusebius quotes the "TF" (AJ 18.3.3) as if it was by Josephus. I need Eusebius to talk. He is a prime suspect and I have to listen to him. I cannot ignore Eusebius.

If you listen to Eusebius you would realise that "First Apology and "Dialogue with Trypho" were not fabricated by him or the Roman Church.

This is Eusebius in "Church History" 1.1.4.
And we can't find the bare footsteps of the apostles of Jesus in Justin, but we can find the footsteps of Simon Magus, Menader and Marcion, so-called followers of the Devil, in his writings.

It supposedly was Irenaeus, Papias and others who provided Eusebius with the names of the bishops of Rome, the authors and time of writing of the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles.

Justin Martyr wrote nothing about the bogus history of the Church. You just can't find any footsteps of anyone that was associated with Jesus after he was ascended, only the footsteps of those associated with the Devil in the writings of Justin Martyr.

mountainman

Perhaps he had no other choice but to just do what he was told? He was apparently well renumerated for his labours in the 4th century. He may have been paid to keep his mouth shut about certain things. How are we going to get Eusebius to spill the beans? Do you have access to a time machine?

Do you happen to know the name and the date of the oldest manuscript which preserves Eusebius? Others may have tampered with the writings of Eusebius between the date of his death (c.339 CE) and the date of this oldest preserved manuscript. It is important to know this earliest manuscript date.

aa5874

Eusebius did spill the beans in "Church History". You just have to listen to him.

In a most unprecedented fashion, Eusebius explained in detail how he managed to write "Church History" after he had initially claimed he could not find the bare footsteps of those before him except for brief fragments.

He even named the writings that were written, manipulated or mis-represented by him or his co-conspirators.

This is a partial list.

Writings under the name of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Pauline writings, Clement, Papias, Hegesippus, Josephus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, Origen and others.

Eusebius did spill the beans.

mountainman

But the Vatican cleaned up the mess after Julian died. See Damasius, who openly fought in the streets of Rome with his personal army in order to secure the position of "Bishop of Rome". Damasius renovated the catacombs and opened up the tourists industry. When the emperor declined to assume the ancient role of "Pontifex Maximus", Damasius assumed this role --- and all the power in the eyes of the populace that went with it.

The continuators of Eusebius covered over the spilt beans with a concrete slab and rendered it authentic history, since they were simply protecting the authenticity of their own "Church Business As Usual". The finishing touches on the concrete slab were rendered by the thug Bishop Cyril of Alexandria, murderer of Hypatia and prime suspect pyromaniac for the buring of the library of Alexandria. Cyril is touted as the pinnacle and the greatest "Doctor of the Church". He is regarded as the final word in "High Christologies". He was given the name ---- "The Seal of the Fathers" --- for a very good reason since he secured the area after the beans were spilt, and he tidied up all the loose ends, such as Emperor Julian treatise against the Christians.

aa5874

The Church could not tidy up any loose ends. They had to prove that their history was true and so they documented the fraud.

It is too late now.

Eusebius has already recorded the fraudulent history and how it was done. See "Church History" under the name of Eusebius.

mountainman

What is the date of the earliest manuscript preserving Eusebius's "Church History"? The recording of the fraudulent history in the name of Eusebius could well have been tampered with any time between the epoch of Eusebius and the date of the earliest extant manuscript.

From here
Thus on the basis of the above, anyone preserving Eusebius before 462 CE could have added or subtracted details from the original.

aa5874

But, what is the earliest manuscript of the works of Josephus? We have a document called "Church History" which catalogues the fraudulent history of the Church and it may have been the product of multiple authors posing as Eusebius.

But, it is extremely significant to note that the names of writings or sources which have been used to fabricate Church History have been identified by the author/authors themselves.

I am not sure when "Church History" was finally compiled but we know what is inside and it is fraud.

That is true but does not alter the fact that "Church History" have documented the names or sources used to fabricate their fraudulent history.

In Church History, the writings attributed to an aurhor called Luke and his close companion called Paul are all part of the fraud.


This is in Church History 3.4.7-8 And now the death of Paul in Church History 3.1.2 Now, it has been deduced that gLuke was written after Paul was supposed to be dead.

We have discovered faud so easily.

I can't tell exactly when and who identified these authors as sources for the history of the Church but they are included as sources in the fraudulent "Church History".