Littlejohn

You guessed the mechanism. However, in order that things to be actually clearer and more closely to historical reality of the one distant past, it is necessary to refine the analysis, because not everything that is mentioned in the 'sacred' catholic-christian writing is false.

Many of the things reported in the New Testament's documents, almost always have a core of historical truth, although sometimes very small. This truth was often distorted and even heavily manipulated, so that the man of the third millennium, 'strong' of its rational 'baggage', refined over many centuries of intellectual and scientific progress, it inevitably appears a complete fake.

As I already said in other threads, the historical profile by Jesus of Nazareth was almost totally different from the one 'smuggled' by the 'holy' fathers of origins, which had to do 'somersaults' in the attempt to 'harmonize', as it was possible, the historical reality with their doctrinal inventions.

Surely the first texts (ie the first 'prototype') of the Gospels as we know today they, contained a large number of absurdities and contradictions, arising from an initial and crude 'harmonizing' approach. They were then the 'fierce' and sarcastic critics of the pagan learned world that drove the early counterfeiter fathers to review early versions, in an attempt to remove most of the inconsistencies that they could detect. According to the philosopher-writer Celsus, the 'missionaries' Christians (ie the' fathers' historical) rewrote 4 or 5 times their 'books' (ie the Gospels) to eliminate the grossest absurdities and contradictions and make them a bit' more credible

Keep always in mind that the main reason that pushed the saint counterfeiter founders to manipulate and falsify everything related to the Nazarene(*), was due to the fact that the REAL Jesus, namely the historic one, absolutely permitted not to build a religion like the Catholic one on him, on account of the many 'obscure' sides of the human story of this exceptional historical character (certainly very intelligent and extremely capable and confident in performing tricks and illusionism games: too little, however, to raise he to the 'divine' altars!).

To get a first 'impression' of the above, it is just consider the enormous scope of the document discovered by the prof. Morton Smith, namely the epistle of Clement of Alexandria, now in full revaluation (with 'good peace' of the quack Stephen C. Carlson!), taking into account the fact that the three synoptic gospels, certainly written before the Gospel of John (at least what we know today), do not mention anything about the resurrection of 'Lazarus', nor of this character, nor of Nicodemus: almost certainly the same character! .. (it is sufficient compare the Gospel of John with the epistle of Clement).

How has it been possible that three out of four evangelists have 'forgotten' to tell something about a fact so blatant also, as the alleged resurrection of Lazarus??... All of this is simply absurd!

All this can only have an unique explanation: the decision to keep secret such an incident as being too 'thorny', as evidenced by the epistle of Clement (**), which just for this aspect (ie the lack of quote on the part of synoptics), becomes highly reliable, even to cause of the vapid attempt, by the ecclesiastical authorities, to get rid of that document (carefully placed on the exact place where it was discovered by Morton Smith), with the clear purpose of supporting the thesis that everything was a fake produced by the same Smith: occasion that the 'pleasant' Stephen C. Carlson has not let escape, except then become the laughingstock of the erudite world! ...


Greetings

_______________________________

Notes:

(*) - And, in parallel, to destroy or hide all adverse witnesses, like those of Jews, heatens and gnostics. Surely, not only Tacitus and Suetonius, but other historians and writers of the time (such as Seneca) spoke of Jesus, but not in the way preferred by 'saint' catholic counterfeiters!... Hence the need to censor or expunging by the not christians texts all that compromising seemed for the 'holy' lies of the fathers, with the result that today the same historicity of Jesus appears doubtful !!....

(**) - As much as it may seem incredible, but there is still existent a pagan witness testifying, albeit in a way slightly 'cryptic' (due to camouflage of the characters), the 'pedophile' tendency or at least omosexual of the Nazarene. .. (actually, next to this trend there was also the normal one, ie 'heterosexual', so that Jesus had a wife and of the children).


Littlejohn
.

Doug Shaver

Is that an assumption or an inference?

Littlejohn

My statements are based firmly on the various 'riscontri' (confirmations) that I could find in various data sources.

As just one example, even banal if we want, we can consider the 'notorious' escape at Egypt of the 'sacred' family, as narrated in the Gospel of Matthew.

As it appears described, with all appurtenances (including threats of Herod, slaughter of the 'innocentini', etc.), such a narrative appears clearly a 'fictional' story, which is almost impossible to believe, as there is no historical news about a horrible massacre, like that of 2000 children massacred by Herod: something this that gives to the story a decidedly fictional nature.

However does it difficult to believe, there was actually an emigration of Jesus in Egypt, along with Joseph and Mary. However, the characters mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew was not absolutly that of historical reality, with only the exception of the figure of Jesus of Nazareth!

After some time I had begun to understand how things really went, I came across a witness that I never would have supposed to be able to find: a witness that fully confirms my hypothesis and my intuition ...


Greetings

Littlejohn


PS: I'm sorry I could not be more detailed in the description, however it is one of those aspects that I consider 'key' and that must remain unpublished for now, because they should appear in the book I'm laboriously composing from 6 years about!

.

Doug Shaver

Yes, well, whenever you are at liberty to provide some evidence for your claims, please do let us know.

Littlejohn

You should make specific requests ... then I will value what I can tell you about ..

However, meanwhile we can make an attempt to get together to understand something in a 'heuristic' way, ie pretending that there is no external evidence.

The case that I propose to consider is just what of the absurd Nativity proposal by Matthew, which, among the various improbable aspects, it moves back the Nativity of circa 10 years with respect to that described by Luke.

Since the Nativity of Matthew clearly appears as 'fictional', because of the absolute 'no-historicity' of some elements used by the author(1), such as the 'massacre' of 'innocentini', the first thing that, I think, is appropriate do, is try to understand what may have pushed the forger fathers to invent such a 'hallucinating' story, like the Nativity of Matthew. In 'second beat', you can groped to understand to what really historic elements they are 'inspired' the forger fathers to compose their blatant falsehood.

It would be appropriate to know our respective views on the question...


Greetings

__________________________

Note:

(1) - whoever he was in reality


Littlejohn

.

Doug Shaver

My view is that the gospel authors were writing fiction, not fraud. They intended no deception.

Littlejohn

Maybe I have been not clear enough: I wanted to know your opinion about the possible reason that drove the forger fathers by 19 centuries ago about, to build the absurd and thus unlikely Nativity of Matthew ... If there is something that it is not clear in my previous post, I would appreciate if you do note me such a thing..


Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Doug Shaver

Your question includes the premise that Matthew was a work of forgery. I do not accept that premise.

The author wanted to tell a story about a dying and rising god-man, using elements from various earlier similar stories that were known to him and making the story appear to represent a fulfillment of Jewish scriptural prophecy. Some of those earlier stories included virgin births, and the author thought there was a prophecy in Jewish scripture about a virgin birth. That was why he made up his nativity story the way he did.

mountainman

What evidence do you suggest might invalidate the premise of forgery, so that others too might reject it as well? The OP appears to be running with the hypothesis of pious forgery being at the root of the lies. There is certainly an abundance of evidence for early Church pious forgeries.

So this is an alternative premise/hypothesis? This sounds like a premise that ameliorates the lies -- that at the roots of the insidiously black lies, there are one or two little white lies, but no black ones. I find it difficult to find any evidence to support this alternative.

Littlejohn

"..I do not accept that premise..."

I understand ... So you think that the stories told in the Gospels (as they are told) correspond fairly closely to historical reality? ...

The one that evangelists (ie the 'authors') have wanted to do is to bring together heterogeneous material, from oral and written traditions, and, after appropriate adjustments, used it to 'package' the improbable version of the 'truth', that suits only at the catholic-christian faith, but surely not to the historical reality of those times, today so far ..

"...Some of those earlier stories included virgin births...etc."

Keep in mind that the catholic-christian worship was understood directed, by its founders, towards the universe essentially heathen of the entire Roman Empire (hence the attribute 'Catholicum' reserved to the new religion), differently by the 'Judeo-Christian' cult, founded in Antioch, which instead was aimed primarily (if not exclusively) at the Jewish world of Palestine and to the one of diaspora.

In the face of all this, then, we do not be surprised if find in the christian doctrine so many elements of exquisite pagan origins and from its mythological world! Certainly in the second century, a historic period in which the catholic-christianity really saw the light, the Gospel's texts abounds even more decidedly by heathen elements.

Over time, and after fierce criticism on the part of pagan and Jews intellectuals, these texts were refined and properly drained by the excessive presence of heathen elements, deemed necessary by the founders of the new cult, in order to attract the faithful of the old pagan religions.

"..That was why he made up his nativity story the way he did..."

I don't think it, because there was a precise reason why it was decided to use this literary device. A necessity that was not different by others that led the forger fathers to 'package' many other stories, equally unlikely that the Nativity of Matthew .. I will address the exposure of this 'my' truth (which, of course, I believe that historical) in another post.

Greetings

Littlejohn

.