PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

This seems a good methodology.

Perhaps the best source for non-backdated history of early Christianity besides Justin Martyr is Celsus' "True Discourse". He is writing probably circa 175-180 and he also knows nothing about the Acts of the Apostles or Paul. He is well aware of Marcion and a number of other Christian sects, but knows nothing about the Roman Church or any of its Pope.

He does not quote from any of the biblical gospels, but does quote from a Christian document called "A Heavenly Discourse" which is either a Marcion or Orphite document. He knows a pretty in-depth life story of Jesus, but it seems to be profoundly different then anything found in the Biblical Gospels, for example, the carpenter divorces Jesus' mother in his source, suggesting strongly that he knew a source document that might have been used after him to develop the synoptic gospels. Since Tertullian knows the synoptic gospels inside out by 205 C.E., we may suspect that the synoptics were written between 180 and 200 C.E..

Warmly,

Philosospher Jay

aa5874

The history of the Roman Church up to or around the end of the 2nd century is filled fundamentally with fiction.

In Against Heresies, the writer called Irenaeus wrote that he knew and had personally seen Polycarp. But, this Polycarp according to Irenaeus would have witnessed non-events, Polycarp knew John, a fictitious apostle of the fiction called Jesus.

In the same book, Clement of Rome was also a witness to fiction, this Clement was aware of the fictitious apostles of the fiction called Jesus.

Now, there is another witness to fiction in the same book, Against Heresies by the fiction writer called Irenaeus.

The next witness of fiction to be called is Papias. He will perjure himself in Against Heresies based on Irenaeus.

Against Heresies 5.33.4 Papias is a witness to fiction, he heard a fictitious apostle and was the companion of Polycarp who was him self a witness to fiction.

It should be obvious that Papias, Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius and Irenaeus are not the writers who are blatantly writing fiction if they did live at the time stated.

Jesus and his disciples did not exist at all, it would have completely ridiculous for Papias, Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius, during their lfetime, to write known fiction and still claim to be christians. Their veracity would have been destroyed

The source of the false information in Against Heresies must be external of the writer called Irenaeus and of a later time.

It is inconceivable that Papias, Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius could have independently witnessed or was aware of the same fictitious apostles.

It is just total fiction that Papias, and Polycarp could have independently seen or heard the fiction called John.

The Roman Church used the writings of Irenaeus as a credible source for their history, but Jesus, the disciples including Peter did not exist.

Where did Papias, Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius independently get their fiction from?

It must have been the Church that fabricated and co-ordinated the backdated fictitious information, only so could Papias, Polycarp, Clement and Ignatius appear to have independently witnessed post-ascension backdated fiction with chronological harmony.

aa5874

I appreciate the compliments.

It appears to be indeed true that "Against Celsus" by Origen is a very critical source in the reconstruction of the history of the Roman Church or Jesus believers.

Based on Celsus, Jesus believers were a group of people operating in secret associations, had no known public place of worship, and were not fully intergrated in the society. It would seem Jesus believers were not engaged in the military or positions in the goverment.

Ahainst Celsus 8.75 by Origen Excerpts of Origen's reply. Against Celsus 8.75 The reply of Origen to Celsus is extremely significant since Origen will allow the reader to have an idea of the state of Jesus believers up to or around the first quarter of the third century.

And based on Origen's reply, the state of Jesus believers approximately 100 years after Justin Martyr remains practically unchanged.

The change occurred about 100 years after Celsus with the introduction of the Roman Church as can be seen in "Church History" by Eusebius.

aa5874

As I have written before Irenaeus is a fiction writer.

He wrote that he knew Polycarp who knew the apostle John a disciple of Jesus.

Jesus of the NT did not exist likewise the so-called twelve disciples including the disciple called John.

Irenaeus wrote that Peter was the first bishop, but the apostles were fictitous characters.

Clement of Rome knew the apostles, but Peter never existed.

It is clear that that Against Heresies by Irenaeus is filled with fiction, but why would Irenaeus write blatant fiction when [b]skeptics, the pagans, possibly like Celsus, would have exposed him as a fraud.

Irenaeus wrote that there were about 12 bishops of Rome from Peter, a fictitious character, to Eleutherius.

Against Heresies 3.3.3 The preceeding passage is loaded with fiction, any person living at the same time as Irenaeus would have immediately rejected Irenaeus as a blatant liar and fiction writer.

The list supplied by Irenaeus of bishops of Rome is fiction.

Such a declaration would be held by Jesus believers and pagans if they had read such a list of bishops at that time.

It therefore could hot have been Irenaeus or a writer at the end of the 2nd century who enumerated the fictitious 12 bishops of Rome.

Who or what fabricated and co-ordinated the 12 fictitious bishops of Rome who wrote nothing theological, did not write a letter to any Emperor on behalf of any Christians, like Justin Martyr, except Clement who witnessed fiction?

It must have been the Roman Church itself. It must have been a team of people, possibly headed by Constantine that may have included people like Eusebius, “Paul”, his inseparable partner “Luke”, and witnesses of fiction like “Clement”, “Polycarp”, “Papias” and “Ignatius”.

The Roman Church team, it would appear, mutilated the works of known writers possibly like Irenaeus, and Tertullian or fabricated writers to create a fiction called the history of the Church but it was only post-ascension backdated fiction.

aa5874

The Roman Church had no history, except for a fraudulent one up to the 4th century.

The writer called Irenaeus in Against Heresies produced fiction and a bogus list of bishops of Rome that started with a fictitious character called Peter who never existed.

Peter witnessed fiction and participated in the fiction itself.

Peter saw Jesus walk on water and attempted to walk to Jesus and nearly drowned in the process.

Fiction nearly drowned.

Now, if Justin Martyr’s writings are examined there is a totally different picture to the fiction produced by the writer called Irenaeus.

Justin Martyr wrote nothing about any bishop. In his Apology to the Emperor, Justin did not even name the bishop at the time of his writings.

Justin Martyr gave a description of a typical Sunday meeting of believers and mentioned a president and deacons of the gathering, but no bishops or presbyters at all.

But it is interesting to note Justin Martyr’s recount of his conversion or how he became a philosopher. It will be seen that there was not any established place or person that was known to Justin where he could discuss the philosophyt or doctrine of Christianity up to the middle of the 2nd century.

Justin’s list of philosophers of religion did not include any known Christian or Jesus believer. He named Platonists, Stoics, Peripatetics, Theoretics, and Pythagoreans.

Excerpts from Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 2. It would appear that it was not Christianity that was orthodox at all, it was the Stoics, the Pythagoreans, the Platonists, the Peripatetics and the Theoretics, these were the leading philosophy of religion at Justin’s time.

Justin did not name any philosopher of Jesus Christ or mentioned that he visited or studied under any bishop.

Now, after Justin visited the Peripatetics, the Platonist, Pythagorean, and the Stoic, it was an un-named old man that he happened to meet that gave him encouragement to continue his search in philosophy.

The history of the Church as given by the writer called Irenaeus appears to be bogus. In the 2nd century, the doctrine of the Roman Church was not orthodox or properly established at all.

The Roman Church had no history or orthodoxy until sometime around the 4th century.

Based on the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian and Origen, there were a multiplicity of Christian sects or Jesus believers with another multitude of Pagan beliefs up to the third century, it was only after Constantine that there was orthodoxy in the doctine of Jesus believers.

The writings of Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Papias, Polycarp, and Irenaeus are all filled with backdated fiction.

aa5874

I have come to the realization that the history of the Roman Church was fiction for the entire 1st century up to at least Irenaeus writing it is claimed near the 4th quarter of the 2nd century.

Once it is admitted Jesus did not exist, that the disciples were fiction and that Paul really did not live in the 1st century, then it can be easily seen that the Roman Church was not built on a rock.

It would appear that it was the Roman Church itself that was supplying the fiction called Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters. These writings were just post-ascension backdated fiction, the foundation of the fraudulent history of the Roman Church.

Some may think it farfetched that the Roman Church itself could have fabricated the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters yet still have these very same fictitious writings canonized as sacred scriptures.

I thought that the notion was not even possible until I re-examined the “TF”, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3.

It is my view that the TF is a total interpolation.

Now, imagine that for 200 or more years Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus would have been circulated within the Roman Empire and it would have been known by all who read the book that there was nothing about Jesus Christ of the NT for over 200 years.

One day the TF appears and not even a skeptic complained.

No pagan writer said a single word.

No church writer complained that the TF just appeared from nowhere. There must have been at least one copy of Antiquities in the whole Roman Empire that was not manipulated, that was not in agreement with “Church History” 1.11.7-9, yet there are no known writings of antiquity that have exposed the forgery of the “TF”.

Immediately after “Church History 1.11.7-9 was circulated some church writer must have noticed the discrepancy.

It is farfetched that no-one noticed but that is what has happened.

Maybe [b]all the church writers, pagans and skeptics in the Roman Empire just thought Eusebius had found for the very first time the very original Antiquities of the Jews.

Perhaps, too all the church writers, pagans and skeptics just thought Eusebius had in his possession for the very first time the originals of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

How did fiction, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters, become canonized and regarded as sacred scripture.?

The very same way the TF was introduced to the Roman Empire as history when it was not.

And there were people that knew it was not history.

ripley

I'm curious what you make of Stephen Carlson's suggestion here, that Tacitus might have been working from a pre-interpolated copy of the TF. It has the virtue of explaining why Tacitus incorrectly referred to Pilate as procurator of Judea.

Clivedurdle

Paul writes of "glass darkly" a clear reference to the Platonic and gnostic idea of the cave and coming out into the light.

Paul makes sense as a gnostic modernising non circumcising pharisee classically into equality - in annointing there is no greek etc tying together his lord, his visions, his study of the septaguint and creating someone who does dstroy death - death where is thy sting!

Later on "Mark" writes a play about it and the rest is mythology!

Later on an emperor's mum get's this oriental cult.

DCHindley

ripley,

Another possibility is that he knew Pilate was a prefect but deliberately used "procurator" (financial agent) as a kind of put-down of the Jewish homeland, equating it with a backwater good only for revenue extraction. It has been suggested on these fourms that he could have functioned as both the prefect and the procurator of the province.

Even if he only knew Josephus' "hegemon" (the generic term for a governor), the use of "procurator" still reflects a value judgement of Jews in general. His Histories does have a rather stilted and unfavorable account of their origins.

DCH

ripley

It certainly is a possibility, and not one I'd thought about before. But the reference is made so passingly, I can't imagine Tacitus would have put in the effort. From what I gather, Judea was held in low esteem regardless of what Tacitus might say about the place. And to call Pilate a procurator would surely have been more of a slur on Pilate than on the region he administered, and an entirely undeserved slur at that.

Again, certainly possible. But my real quibble here is that I don't see how Tacitus would have known this.

Food for thought. Thanks.