Freethought & Rationalism Archive

IamJoseph · 07-22-2009, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Julian says when Contantine met Jesus, he also met Ares ..................................., Aphrodite, Pleasure, Incontinence, Zeus, and Kronos. Contantine huggged Pleasure which led to Incontinence, followed by Jesus speaking "He that is a seducer, he that is a murderer ..."

According to Julian, Constantine "came to Jesus gladly" but it didn't keep him from being punished by the avenging deities , and it was only Zeus who granted him respite.

So the question is, did any of this really happen or was Julian lying?

The very academic Emperor Julian wrote a political satire.
The satire was directed against Constantine, Jesus and
that class of people who for the period 325 to 360 CE
had known themselves as "christians" but whom Julian
had legislated to be henceforth legally known as "Galilaeans".

Constantine himself in writing calls Arius of Alexander an "Ares".
Quite obviously there was a probably a very chrestos reason that
everyone was employing political satire in the fourth century.

The recently unearthed gJudas, where Judas is one of twelve daimons
unable to look into the eyes of Jesus, who is thus presented as a
sorceror, arguably was authored by a satirist. Other NT apocryphal acts
and gospels also exhibit the signature of a satirist.

Another satirist affixed the name of the author of the Syriac History of John to the text as Eusebius of Caesare ....The text of this
apocryphal act specifically states: "This history was composed by Eusebius of Cæsarea"

Quote:

The history of John, the son of Zebedee, who lay upon the breast of our Lord Jesus at the supper, and said, "Lord, who betrayeth Thee?" This history was composed by Eusebius of Cæsarea concerning S. John, who found it in a Greek book, and it was translated into Syriac, when he had learned concerning his way of life and his birth and his dwelling in the city of Ephesus, after the ascension of our Lord to Heaven.

Get it right. The sorceror was a European and the name was Rome. One must wonder what criteria is used to accept whatever the Gospels says - this is perhaps the greatest onus on Christians who chant the truth will set one free: has the truth been pursued at all?

jakejonesiv · 07-22-2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Yes, it does.

You must then realise that ....

No. Some of what you say agrees with me, but I by no means agree with your "methodology" or all of your conclusions.

aa5874 · 07-22-2009, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You must then realise that ....

No. Some of what you say agrees with me, but I by no means agree with your "methodology" or all of your conclusions.

Dis-agreements or agreements are absolutely of no major concern to me. Everyone or anyone may or may not agree with each other at any time.

My obligation is to support my position.

So, when I say that Eusebius died before the TF was written, it is because I have Julian to support me.

The objective of the Roman Church is known. The Roman Church must find evidence to support their false claim that the Roman Church is the true Church of God and originated in the first century with Peter, a fictitious character, as their first bishop.

It must have been the Roman Church itself that inserted the planted evidence in the writings from Ignatius to Eusebius and beyond.

jakejonesiv · 07-22-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

No. Some of what you say agrees with me, but I by no means agree with your "methodology" or all of your conclusions.

Dis-agreements or agreements are absolutely of no major concern to me. Everyone or anyone may or may not agree with each other at any time.

My obligation is to support my position.

So, when I say that Eusebius died before the TF was written, it is because I have Julian to support me.

The objective of the Roman Church is known. The Roman Church must find evidence to support their false claim that the Roman Church is the true Church of God and originated in the first century with Peter, a fictitious character, as their first bishop.

It must have been the Roman Church itself that inserted the planted evidence in the writings from Ignatius to Eusebius and beyond.

I agree with you on these thoughts, but don't take it the wrong way. Indeed, I agree with you more than anyone I have disagreed with.

aa5874 · 07-22-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

I agree with you on these thoughts, but don't take it the wrong way. Indeed, I agree with you more than anyone I have disagreed with.

I am just really primarily interested in your position with regards to the OP and the information of antiquity that you have used to support your position.

Now, the objective of the Roman Church is already known. The Church must find evidence or information to support their false claim that the Roman Church is the true Church of God and originated in the 1st century with Pauline churches and a bishop called Peter a disciple of Jesus.

The Roman Church produced a chronology, authorship and date of writing for the Gospels where Scholars of today have rejected virtually all the claims about the Gospels with respect to chronology, authorship and dating.

The Church writers claimed all the Pauline Epistles are authentic, yet today, that claim appears to be false.

The mode of operation of the Church writers is clear. Plant evidence to support the Roman Church.

Now, even after the so-called Eusebius, the Roman Church was still engaged in planting evidence.

Examine Sacred History 2.34 by Severus

Quote:

Accordingly, Helena having first got information about the place of our Lord's passion, caused a band of soldiers to be brought to it, while the whole multitude of the inhabitants of the locality vied with each other in seeking to gratify the desires of the queen, and ordered the earth to be dug up, and all the adjacent most extensive ruins to be cleared out. Ere long, as the reward of her faith and labor, three crosses (as of old they had been fixed for the Lord and the two robbers) were discovered.

But upon this, the greater difficulty of distinguishing the gibbet on which the Lord had hung, disturbed the minds and thoughts of all, lest by a mistake, likely enough to be committed by mere mortals, they might perhaps consecrate as the cross of the Lord, that which belonged to one of the robbers.

They form then the plan of placing one who had recently died in contact with the crosses. Nor is there any delay in carrying out this purpose; for just as if by the appointment of God, the funeral of a dead man was then being conducted with the usual ceremonies, and all rushing up took the body from the bier. It was applied in vain to the first two crosses, but when it touched that of Christ, wonderful to tell, while all stood trembling, the dead body was shaken off, and stood up in the midst of those looking at it.

The cross was thus discovered, and was consecrated with all due ceremony.

Severus claimed that the mother of Constantine, Helena, found the cross on which Jesus was crucified and it was identified by placing a dead man, about to be buried, on the cross itself and he revived.

Severus wrote after Helena was dead.

Based on Julian, it would appear that the TF was forged after Eusebius was dead.

jakejonesiv · 07-23-2009, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

I agree with you on these thoughts, but don't take it the wrong way. Indeed, I agree with you more than anyone I have disagreed with.

I am just really primarily interested in your position with regards to the OP and the information of antiquity that you have used to support your position.

Hi AA,
Julian wrote, in (Against the Galileans, Book I ) just before the passage you quoted in the OP, that Jesus had been known by name for over 300 hundred years. Julian wrote that Jesus cured crooked and blind men, and exorcised those possessed by evil demons. Julian wrote that Jesus performed these deeds in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany.

How do you explain that?

Best,
Jake

jakejonesiv · 07-23-2009, 08:52 AM

Hey AA,

Another quick question.

When was the book of Acts written? Do you trust any ancient writer that considered it first century history?

Jake

aa5874 · 07-23-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I am just really primarily interested in your position with regards to the OP and the information of antiquity that you have used to support your position.

Hi AA,
Julian wrote, in (Against the Galileans, Book I ) just before the passage you quoted in the OP, that Jesus had been known by name for over 300 hundred years. Julian wrote that Jesus cured crooked and blind men, and exorcised those possessed by evil demons. Julian wrote that Jesus performed these deeds in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany.

How do you explain that?

Best,
Jake

But this is remarkably easy to answer. Julian was repeating what he saw written in the Gospels.

aa5874 · 07-23-2009, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hey AA,

Another quick question.

When was the book of Acts written? Do you trust any ancient writer that considered it first century history?

Jake

You ask me a million questions but hardly answer mine.

However, based on the writings of Justin Martyr, Acts of the Apostles was written after the middle of the 2nd century or after the writings of Justin and probably at around the time Church History was written.

I have only manage to find a few credible writers of antiquity, and these include Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras and tentatively Tatian.

jakejonesiv · 07-23-2009, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi AA,
Julian wrote, in (Against the Galileans, Book I ) just before the passage you quoted in the OP, that Jesus had been known by name for over 300 hundred years. Julian wrote that Jesus cured crooked and blind men, and exorcised those possessed by evil demons. Julian wrote that Jesus performed these deeds in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany.

How do you explain that?

Best,
Jake

But this is remarkably easy to answer. Julian was repeating what he saw written in the Gospels.

Why didn't Julian know it was false information "to support the false claim that the Roman Church is the true Church of God and originated in the 1st century?"

Jake

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

07-23-2009, 08:52 AM	#37
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Hey AA, Another quick question. When was the book of Acts written? Do you trust any ancient writer that considered it first century history? Jake

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.