aa5874

There are those who propose that Jesus was not a god/man, the son of the god of the Jews and born of the Spirit, but just a mere human being with an earthly father and mother who was some kind of preacher in Judaea.

But, in Against Heresies, Irenaeus called all heretics, and those who proposed that Jesus was just human, liars and fabricators of plausibilities, evil interpreters who falsify the oracles of God.

Carpocrates and Cerinthus in Against Heresies declared that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary and born just like ordinary men.

Against Heresies 1.25.1 "Against Heresies"1.26.1.

So, about 1800 years ago, some heretics claimed that Jesus was just human, like any other man, but the early church fathers denied that such a thing was possible, there was gMatthew and gLuke where Jesus had no earthly father at all and his mother had no sexual intercourse with any human.

Carpocrates and Cerithus are liars. Joseph never had sexual contact with Mary. It was the Holy Ghost

Jesus was God and man born of the Spirit and all other versions are blasphemous.

Now, today, there are some who claim Jesus was just a human being, the HJers. But from where do they get their information of this Jesus who was just a man? What is the source of the HJers for such a claim?

The source could NOT be the NT.

It could NOT be the writings of the early church fathers.

It could NOT be the writings of non-apologetics.

The source is their imagination and faith.

Irenaeus has something to say to those who were considered heretics and held that Jesus was just a man.

Against Heresies, Preface to book 1:
The HJers are in a predicament, the early church fathers refer to those who claim Jesus was just a man as liars and evil interpreters, and perhaps Irenaeus is right, since HJers have no evidence to support their position, just faith and their imagination.

aa5874

The most devastating fact for the history of the early Church is that Eusebius, in his "Church History" could not locate Jesus, the god/man, his history could not be verified or corroborated by any known contemporary writer.

Eusebius named many writers of antiquity, he wrote about Philo, Josephus, Polycarp, Hegesippus, and Papias, but it is Philo who lived throughout the supposed lifetime of Jesus that could have been the most impressive witness for Eusebius in his quest to show that there was a god/man called Jesus.

Eusebius should have had about three hundred years of history of Jesus, the god/man, and the Church at his disposal. There should have been writers both inside and outside Judaea that saw this god/man preaching and teaching thousands of followers sometimes following him up to three consecutive days.

However, Eusebius produced the philosopher Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of the so-called Jesus, but only mentioned that Philo may have met Peter in Rome and Mark, a disciple of Peter, and his converts in Alexandria when Mark was preaching there.

Philo did not have anything about Mark, Peter or Jesus. Philo never claimed he saw or heard any one of them.

But, Eusebius had another contemporary of the so-called Jesus, this time he produced a King called Abgarus who wrote a letter to Jesus to which Jesus promptly replied.

"Church History" 1.13.2 Excerpt of the letter of Agbarus to Jesus, Church History 1.13.6-8 And this an excerpt of the reply from Jesus, "Church History" 1. 13.9 It appears that this letter has only been seen by Eusebius, but in any event Jesus has not been seen not even by King Abgarus.

aa5874

As I have shown in my posts so far the author of "Church History" could not locate Jesus of Nazareth in the 1st century, but in reality, since Eusebius and the authors of the NT claimed Jesus was a God, then it would have been extremely unlikely that Eusebius or any other person would be able to provide credible information to show that the son of a God was actually on earth.

Now, according to the Gospels and Acts, before this God Jesus resurrected ascended to heaven, he choose 12 disciples, but how could this be?

There is no history of Jesus as a God or even as human in the "Church History".

Now, if Jesus of the NT, the God who became man, has no history, then where can we locate the history of the 12 disciples, or the thousands of followers?

How could "Paul" get revelations from a God that was dead and later ascended through the clouds? When did these things happen?

The canonisation of Acts of the Apostles has ,in my opinion, destroyed the entire credibilty of the early Church history.

If Paul was truly a figure of history why would "Christians" like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius, find it necessary to use a fictitious conversion of Saul/Paul to try to establish that "Saul/Paul" was converted to Christianity.

If there were actual converts of the Churches, they would have known that the conversion of Paul as described in Acts was fiction, that is, "Saul/Paul could not have been blinded in both eyes covered with scales and then sometime later the scales fell off and his sight was restored after prayer.

Acts 9.18 But all of "Paul's" ministry is based on this fictitious event, this so-called miraculous conversion where he was blinded and yet AMAZINGLY heard the voice of Jesus whom he NEVER met.

How did "Paul" know he was indeed talking to Jesus if he was blinded at the time?

This conversion story in Acts is just complete fiction and still it was canonised.

So here lies the major problem of the veracity of the history of the early Church, the early Christian writers, Irenaeus, Tertullian Origen and Eusebius called those who they regarded as heretics liars and of the devil, but these so-called church fathers were themselves propagating obvious fiction, the conversion of "Saul/Paul" as described in Acts.

The extant writings of Justin Martyr is most important to make a determination of time of writing of Acts of the Apostles and the name "Paul".

Justin Martyr, writing around the middle of the 2nd century, made no reference to the Acts of the Apostles, and no reference to the epistles to the Churches or made any reference to "Paul".

And further Justin Martyr, in First Apology, solidifies the notion that he is not aware of Acts of the Apostles, "Paul", or the epistles to the seven Churches since he gave an account of the activities at a chuch meeting.

"First Apology" LXVII So, based on Justin Martyr, it would appear that up to the middle of the 2nd century only the OT and memoirs of the apostles which he called the Gospels were actually read in the churches, no mention of Paul, the epistles to the Churches or Acts of the Apostles.

However, in the last quarter of the 2nd century, about 20-30 years after Justin, Irenaeus made reference to Acts of the Apostles, "Paul" and quoted verses from the epistles to each Church.

These facts augment the indication that Acts of the Apostles and "Paul" are late 2nd century fabrications to spread propaganda and to distort the true history about Christianity, that is, followers or believers of the God/man Jesus.

aa5874

The NT, as I have discovered, is a just a compilation of propaganda designed to distort , there is no real history with respect to Jesus, his disciples and Paul.

But, the inclusion of the Acts of the Apostles in the canon of the NT has totally undermined any little credibility that could have been salvaged.

The author of Acts is not known, and never identified himself in the writings.

Early christian writers, sometime after Justin Martyr, claimed some physician or follower of "Paul" wrote Acts, however in all the epistles of "Paul", no physician or follower of "Paul" claimed to have written Acts and "Paul" did not claim a physician or one of his followers wrote Acts.

The author of Acts claimed he and "Paul" travelled together from place to place, yet "Paul" in his epistles never mentioned that he "Paul" ever travelled with the author Acts to anywhere at all.

But, when one reads Acts, it is found that Peter, the so-called "rock of the Church" just vanishes without a trace and "Saul/Paul" , the apostle of the "revelation Jesus", emerges as the new "rock of the Church".

In chapter 1 of Acts, the apostles, the original 12 disciples without Judas, are given the so-called Great Commission and are told by Jesus, ".....And ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon thee, and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

And Jesus promptly flies to heaven.

So, Peter had, in effect, a universal Gospel, not "a gospel of circumcision" as indicated by "Paul. The Jesus of the apostles said, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations and baptising them...", but "Paul," the "apostle of the revelation Jesus," claimed he did not come to baptise but to preach the "gospel of the uncircumcision."

In Acts 2, Peter and the other 11 apostles received the Holy Ghost, and immediately begin to speak in "tongues" and their evangelism began.

Peter began to heal and and raise people from the dead and had thousands of converts, even converting three thousand and five thousand men in a day on two occasions.

By Acts 5, Peter became so filled with the miraculous power of the Holy Ghost that he used this awesome power to cause the death of Ananias and Saphphira. Peter told this husband and wife that they lied to God and they just fell down, dead.

All there is so far is just fiction. But, there is more.

In the same Acts 5, Peter's shadow is so powerful that sick people are healed as his shadow is cast on them.

Peter brings the dead back to life in Acts 9.

In Acts 12, an angel removes the chains from Peter's hands and feet, and allow him to pass undetected and escape from prison.

And then in Acts 15, Peter disappears, after a meeting with "Paul" and others, never to be heard from again. The author of Acts just ceased to write another word about Peter, the rock of the Church.

For the next 13 chapters, the author of Acts would write about the "new rock Paul", "the apostle of the revelation Jesus" and even travelled with him.

But Acts of the Apostles was probably written sometime in the 2nd century long after the supposed death of Peter, so why did the author of Acts never include the manner of Peter's death, why did he stop writing about Peter so abrutply?

I think that Peter was fiction, since all the events surrounding Peter are fundamentally fictitious as written in Acts and the author of Acts may have just ran out of fictitious material for his character called PETER.

aa5874

The deduction by Biblical scholars that there were more than one person using the name "Paul" in the "Pauline Epistles" has, in my opinion, destroyed the credibilty of the these Epistles.

This finding has, in effect, reduced the entire "Pauline Epistles to fiction or mere propaganda.

When the "Pauline Epistles" are examined, it is soon realized that it is very unrealistic and useless for a person to pretend to be "Paul" while the real "Paul" is still alive.

Look carefully at Titus 3.12, someone using the name "Paul" writes a letter to another called Titus.

Titus 3.12 Now if it is assumed this letter writer of Titus called "Paul" is a fraud, then there is no benefit whatsoever and hopelessly foolish for this fraudster to ask a real person, Titus, to meet him in Nicopolis.

So, it can be deduced that Titus did not receive this letter, or Titus himself did not really exist.

But the entity that can benefit from this forgery is the so-called Early Church.

If 2 Timothy 4.11 is also examined, the same severe problems arise, if "Paul" is regarded as a fake, then it is utterly nonsensical for this fake to ask Timothy to take Mark to him (to the fake "Paul") when the real "Paul" is still alive.

2 Timothy 4.11 Again, Timothy did not receive the letter from the fake or Timothy was also non existant, but the Early Church can still benefit from the forgery.

It would then appear to me that the Early Church History is dependant upon forgeries and erroneous information. And further without external non-apologetic corroboration the "Pauline Epistles" have no real credibilty.

dog-on

Well, AA...of course none of these writings have any credibility, just look at the subject matter.

OTOH, some of the epistles may have, indeed, been written by someone named Paul. Proving this to be the case is, at this time, highly unlikely.

Ted Hoffman

Which scholars, where?

Doug Shaver

Well, yes. I suspect that that is why NT scholars are pretty much agreed that the inauthentic epistles were written sometime after Paul died.

aa5874

There are no such things as authentic Pauline Epistles. There is no confirmed known verifiable writing from anyone named "Paul" in the 1st century.

No independent writer external of the Christian Church writers can account for a person called "Paul".

No non-apologetic source has confirmed that "Paul" could have died in the 1st century.

"Paul" is a dubious character, even Justin Martyr appears not to know a single thiing about his revelations, his epistles to the seven Churches or his history.

Doug Shaver

So you say. I've seen your efforts to prove it. They are pathetically fallacious.