aa5874

I have been vindicated finally.

Iskander

You have indeed
Congratulations

stephan huller

Congratulations, your claim that all or most of the writings of the Church Fathers are forged is vindicated because I am not willing to 'guarantee' that Justus (rather than Josephus or some otherwise unknown writer) was the author of a first century or maybe (but less likely) a second century 'Jewish history' cited by the third century Christian writer Origen, a work which puts forward a version of history that no Church Father would have ever forged FOR ANY CONCEIVABLE REASON POSSIBLE - that Agrippa rather than Jesus was the world ruler of Gen 49:8 - 12 and the mashiach nagid of Daniel 9:26.

These forgers are so clever they even created references to works that destroy their most cherished beliefs just to 'throw us off the trail' of their nefarious plots for world domination.

Again congratulations! Just to remind you of your original challenge to me:

As Justus of Tiberias died either in the third year of Trajan's rule or shortly thereafter this would fall within the range you requested. The same would be true if the 'Jewish history' is attributed to Josephus. Same if the work was a recycling of the first century work of either author by a second century compiler read by Origen. If the material was wholly invented by a second century author the work would come from a period ranging from 1910 to 1810 years ago.

If this - assuming the fourth of four possibilities to be 'the right answer' (when this is by no means certain) - constitutes a 'victory' for you then I will give it to you because you so very badly need a hug ...><

charles

This is getting very silly. I'd like to continue with the discussion about Pauline authenticity. Here's my question. Origen I think did not think that the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul but most of the Church Fathers did. Has anyone discussed that?

spamandham

Hi Charles. No, that has no been discussed yet in this thread.

Here's what Origen said:

That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.

To me, what's interesting about this is that it's clear that the epistle was widely believed to be authentic in Origen's day, and that the only reason Origen rejects this, is that the writing style is so obviously different! Origen has no special knowledge that it is not authentic, but instead is using a cruder version of the same analytical techniques we use to come to the same conclusion.

The necessary implication then is that Origen has no special knowledge that the 'genuine' epistles are genuine either. He simply recognizes a consistent writing style in them.

Littlejohn

Like aa5874, I argue also that all, or almost, of New Testament's documents were forged, but not in the same way supported by aa5874, according to which such documents were invented 'from scratch', because it is never existed, according to him, a historical Jesus.

In historical reality, almost all of these documents contain a 'core', though sometimes small, of historical truth. It 's the way chosen to bring forward this truth, namely in a distorted and mystified form, that makes these documents basically a historic false.

Unfortunately, lingering on the thesis of a Jesus never existed or a mythical Jesus, certainly does not help to bring out the historical truth from the 'sands' in which the counterfeiter fathers have it buried 19 centuries ago! ..

It is just for this reason that the 'negazionist' thesis, on any basis they are based, they play entirely in favor of the forger clergy, who arrives, in a 'creeping' way, to support them through the various 'pasdaran' pro-clergy that operate with impunity on the network. (At least this is what happens on the Italian web!)


Greetings

Littlejohn

.

stephan huller

Thank you Little John,

I find your position quite rational and can be supported (IMO) by the existing evidence. I get frustrated sometimes when engaging people who like Akiva tell the texts to shut up while they are trying to 'interpret' them. It's nice to see people with reasonable positions.

Thanks

Stephan

Littlejohn

Thank to you for your esteem!...


Greetings

Littlejohn

.

aa5874

Let me make my position CLEAR. Based on the evidence that I have seen Jesus was just a story believed to be true by the DUPED.

It is very likely that someone or some people initially wrote a story about a God/man Messiah who was was rejected by the Jews who predicted the Fall of the Jewish Temple and that there would be a conflagration very soon afterwards.

Based on Hebrew Scripture, as in the book of Joel, it was thought that there would be a conflagration and that heaven and earth would soon pass away.

The rest is history, the Jesus story believers were DUPED and there has been no conflagration where heaven and earth have passed away.

Sometime later, Constantine made the story book Jesus the NEW GOD of the Roman Empire and gave him a NAME ABOVE EVERY OTHER NAME and that EVERY KNEE, in the Roman Empire, should BOW.

Please give the corroborative sources of antiquity for the "core" truth about Jesus.

But, it can be said that lingering on the thesis that there is an historical core to Jesus does NOT help to bring out the historical truth.

It certainly can be argued that Jesus has a mythical core.

The mythical or fictional core appear to be closer to the truth based on the abundance of evidence.

Iskander

What evidence?