aa5874

The history of the Christianity based on the church writers is, at face value, very straightforward.

The God of the Jews during the days of King Herod or thereabouts sent his Son Jesus Christ to earth conceived through the Holy Ghost.

The stories about this son of God called Jesus can be found in the gospels called according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Now after Jesus was ascended to heaven or through the clouds, an author called Luke by the church writers, an inseparable companion of Paul, wrote about the post-ascension activities of the apostles and the same Paul who was blinded to reality when he talked to Jesus from the clouds or heaven.

In Acts of the Apostles, the post-ascension conversion rates were phenomenal, people were becoming Jesus believers sometimes 3 thousand and 5 thousand in a day when Peter was filled with Holy Ghost.

Later the Pauline author, first called Saul, became a Jesus believer and wrote letters to the churches he started with a revelation gospel called the gospel of uncircumcision while claiming Peter had the gospel of circumcision.


Now, it must be noted here that although the history of Jesus believers seems coherent, there are major problems with the history as provided by the church writers.

The date of writing of the gospels, the Synoptics in particular, as provided by the church, has been deduced to be erroneous. And, secondly a far greater error, the Jesus in the NT could nothave existed as described, and even the so-called prophecies about advent of Jesus were found to be mis-interpretations or transliteration errors.

The foundational character of Jesus believers was a complete error. Jesus was an error of conception, chronology and prediction.

It must logically follow that the entire NT or history of Jesus believers from prediction to post ascension is in shambles. The church writers who attempted to write a history of Jesus believers seemed to have no idea of the true history or deliberately fabricated a fraudulent one.

It is hardly likely that all the church writers could have independently made up stories about Jesus and Jesus believers and yet be in chronological harmony as found in the gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters although the date of writing, events, and prophesies are all erroneous.

The canonization of Acts of the Apostles, the post-ascension history of the apostles, including Peter and Paul with the Pauline letters cannot be just a coincidence. These were regarded as sacred scriptures, these writings must have been properly authenticated and verified by the church.

Yet they made full use of the erroneous dating of of the Synoptics, the false claim that Jesus was the son of a God, and the messed-up prophecies.

The history of the Church is all messed-up now with the addition of Acts and the Pauline letters, the church writers are basically using fiction as the foundation of the post-ascension history of Jesus believers.

There is one century when all this fiction and errors could have been synchronized, the fourth century Roman Church could have co-ordinated the post-ascension fiction with the fiction called Jesus who was a witness and a participant of fiction.

aa5874

As I have shown before the history of the Roman Church is very easily resolved.

Once it is understood that Jesus of the NT did not exist, it logically follows that the disciples of the NT are fictitious, including Simon Peter/Cephas.

There were no Jesus followers to persecute so Saul/Paul was a fiction writer when he wrote that he persecuted the faith.
Paul was a fiction writer when he wrote that he met Peter and stayed with him 15 days.

Paul was a witness and a participant in fiction.

Now, there was no Roman Church that had a first bishop called Peter, in fact the bishops named by Irenaeus are all fiction. These bishops of wrote nothing, did nothing except participated in fiction.

But if the preface of Against Heresies 5 is read, Irenaeus will inadvertently tell the reader where he got his information and who told him to write.

It was the Church.

But the Roman Church was started in the 4th century.

Much of the information in Against Heresies is from the 4th century Church and backdated.

Against Heresies 5 There was no orthodox Roman Church in the 2nd century with letters from apostles like Peter, Paul, James, Jude or John.. The so-called apostles are fiction writers. These letters with Acts of the Apostles were fabricated by the Church.

Based on Justin Martyr up to the middle of the 2nd century, he appeared to have only been aware of the gospels called memoirs of the apostles and a revelation by John.

The writer called Irenaeus appears to be a fiction writer from the 4th century or when the Roman Church was started.

Amaleq13

How did you logically eliminate the possibility that, rather than fictitious, they were actually the first to start belief in a mythical Jesus Christ?

aa5874

Now, how was that logically possible if they were also mythical or fictitious?

Where in the world do you expect me to find credible information about characters who both witnessed fiction and participated in the fictitious events?

You know that you are dealing with total fiction and fraudulent activities when multiple people claim they witnessed fiction and participated in the fictitious events using known historical figures like Pilate, Herod and Tiberius to give those very non-events a historical and chronological harmony.

Amaleq13

You claimed you reached your conclusion (the disciples are fictitious) through logic. If you assume they are fictitious, you are engaging in the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

Does this mean you did not eliminate this obvious possibility but are simply ignoring it?

That isn't my problem. You made the assertion. Apparently, it is yet another that you can't actually support with a logical or credible argument.

:wave:

aa5874

You make me laugh.

You think it is a problem for me because there is fiction in the NT.

"Paul" and the author of Acts both claimed Paul himself persecuted non-existent Jesus believers, and the author travelled along with Paul to see non-existing converts.

The author of Acts claimed Paul met with the fiction called Peter.

Paul himself wrote that he stayed with the fiction character, Peter who witnessed the fictitious water-walker Jesus walk on water during a storm at sea.

The entire NT is a book of fiction where a fictitious character became the first bishop of Rome.

The history of the Church appears to be fiction up to the 4th century.

Amaleq13

I was trying to make you think. :banghead:

No, I think defending your assertion by eliminating the alternate explanation is your problem.

Yet you continue to selectively accept some of it as reliable. :huh:

aa5874

When I think of the things you write I laugh even louder.

Your alternate explanations are problematic. Those are your problems.

My position is that Jesus, and the disciples are fiction while the author of Acts and Paul are fiction writers.

But I must rely on the NT and church writings to get the names of the fictitious characters and the supposed events. I would not have known that Jesus was born without sexual union, transfigured, resurrected on the third day, and ascended through the clouds if I did not rely on the writings of the church.

And they say Jesus is coming back for dead believers first after God sounds a trumpet or makes some kind of sound.

Pardon my selectivity, I wont rely on that.

The history of the Roman Church is fraudulent. The character called Paul and the author of Acts of the Apostles are fiction writers claiming to be in the company of one another visiting, what turns out to be non-existing converts, fictitious apostles, writing letters to churches that never existed, and claiming falsely to get revelations from the resurrected Jesus when Paul and the author of Acts may have attended the Council of Nicea with Eusebius in the 4th century.

mountainman

Robin Lane-Fox the British ancient historian in his book "Pagans and Christians", suggests essentially the very same thing:

p.339:
"Early christian literature ... multiplied to support their own practice.
Their methods were very simple:
where no authority existed, they invented texts
and ascribed them to authors who never wrote them."

and

p.586:
"To Eusebius, with hindsight, Christianity had enjoyed high favour in the years from 260 to 300.
Connoisseurs of his history may note that he cites no details for a view which he presents as a rhetorical question.
He names no christian senators or governors and, as usual, gives no idea of the scale of increase which he assumes."

and

p.587: "Evidence for the christian's growing presence is very tenuous indeed."

and

p.588:
"Eusebius knew only of 3 little "christian townships"
in the entire Holy Land 324 CE." [FN:6]

and

p.608: "[Eusebius] was an author who dictated to practised scribes"
[note: Fox actually mentions this twice.]

and

"Constantine promoted the Christians' cult as his personal religion,
not as the official religion of the Roman state."

"The religion of Constantine's family is not entirely clear to us."

p.657: "Constantine's family was so undistinguished that he had to devise a new ancestry."

and

"Christian prayers, said Constantine, were intimately connected with the safety of the state." [FN:45]
[FN:45] Codex Theodosius 16.2.1-6 and 14; Eus HE 10.7.1-2; T.G. Elliott (1978), 326

and

"Constantine enacted a law that stressed the validity
of a man's death bed legacies to a church fund,
a topic which was particularly sensitive because of
the clergy's special presence at the moment of death." [FN:48]
[FN:48] C.Theod 16.2.4

and

p.626: "After 312, Constantine still lived and ruled among an overwhelming pagan majority.
His troops were almost all pagans, and so were his ruling class and the aides whom he inherited.
They drafted his laws, they issued his publicity, they attended his panegyrics."

"The pagan Greek views are more readily ascribed to prejudice. To belittle
Constantine's Christianity, subsequent writers of pagan history postponed its date. [FN:58]
[FN:58] Liban. Or.30.6; Zos 2.29; Julian 336 A-B; F. Paschoud (1971), M. Stern (1968), 171

"Some ascribed it to greed: to pay for Constantinople,
Constantine, they said,
became a Christian and plundered the pagan temples".

"Others ascribed it to guilt:
Constantine, they said,
converted to Christianity after murders in his own family in 326."

One stubborn group of pagans in the city of Harran ascribed it to disease:
Constantine, they said, had been a leper
and had converted to Christianity when he learned
that it did not exclude lepers from its company."

and

p.667: "Constantine allowed the parties in a civil or criminal suit
to appeal to a bishop's final "judgement" and "testimony".
The bishop's decision was then binding on any other judge.
Perhaps this law only covered disputes between christians,
but it was a remarkable recognition of the christian "state within a state."

etc
etc
etc

How anyone could fail to suspect the obvious:
that Harry Jesus Potter was a literary invention
of Hans Eusebius Anderson and his imperial sponsor
indicates two things:

(1) the extreme gullibility of the human psyche.

(2) the momentous weight of blind emotional baggage
by which christian tradition was first created
and then afterwards preserved for centuries
by means of the simple "appeal to authority".

aa5874

It is inconceivable to me that Eusebius acted alone. The fraudulent history of the Church must have been a well-planned undertaking. I find it difficult to believe that Eusebius did not have persons operating as team with specific special duties .

I think that it must have taken sometime to get the chronology and theology in order.

Based on my research so far, it appears that the team working with Eusebius in the 4th century may have included persons using aliases like Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Papias, Aristides, Hegesippus, Paul, the author of Acts, Peter, the author of the epistles of John, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and all church writers who mentioned Paul, the Pauline letters, Acts of the Apostles, Luke by name, Mark by name, Matthew by name and the gospel witer John.

The Church had to fabricate about three hundred years of history, I think they would have needed a lot of " special historians" and "special archaeologists" to get their history in chronological and theological harmony.

I don't think the Roman Church invented christianity, I think they re-invented it with the revelation man called Paul.

Galatians 1:9 -