mountainman

the work of Joseph Wheless entitled Forgery In Christianity (1930) spans the entire period century by century.

mountainman

The Times - September 19, 2008: Ancient’ Christian amulet exposed as modern hoax


And so the evidence accumulates on the table of all evidence ever tendered with regard to early christian origins. The issue is the nature of the gross bulk of it statistically: its is quite simply utterly fraudulent!!!

Another article from the Daily Mail Reporter on the same subject matter, is quite appropriately entitled Ancient' Christian silver cross worn by former Archbishop of Canterbury is exposed as a 19th century FAKE.

Hello? Clearly the New Testament and fraud are inseparable. Can anyone in all humilty tender anything in the field of archaelogy that may be even vaguely able to be categorised as possibly authentic?


Best wishes,


Pete

JoeWallack

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm

JW:
I passed on this first time through for my list:

Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected

because Eusebius does give his source:
The key to whether this should be on a list is what Christian Assertian are you countering. If you are countering the Assertian that Eusebius was a Historian, the standard for evidence is low as the historian's responsibility is high, and it should probably be on the list, as Eusebius is acting like an Advocate here, selectively presenting pro evidence and ignoring con (so to speak) evidence. Not at all like a real historian such as Dr. Richard Carrier. On the other hand, if you are countering the Assertian that Eusebius provided evidence as an Advocate and is not lying/foraging for spiritual food, than maybe it shouldn't be on a list if he gives a source. Think of Eusebius as writing/forging the original The National Enquirer. You can not believe anything he writes without outside verification but you also can not sue him if he provides his sources.



Joseph

"Remember Jerry, it's not a Lie if you really believe it's true." - George Costanza

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

mountainman

Yes, I have to agree here since Arnaldo Momigliano, one of the foremost ancient historians of last century claims Eusebius to be the inventor of the christian ecclesiastical historiography, and that the christian ecclesiastical historiographers of the later fourth and fifth centuries, are simply to be regarded as his continuators.

Best wishes,


Pete

show_no_mercy

Why would this be seen as a forgery? It alludes to the idea that Christians started the great Roman fire during Nero's reign.

Casper

Isn't everyone a saint in orthodox Christianity?

bacht

Great question. It applies also to the Jewish bible. The only comparable field I can think of is the occult.

mountainman

That specific idea is entirely conjectural and without any form of ancient historical authenticity. Have a look at the workWitnesses to the Historicity of Jesus: Arthur Drews (1912)

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Yes, of course. But the problem here Casper, is that these saints were only sung loudly from the rooftops in the fourth century and we have no evidence that they existed prior to the fourth century. In fact for almost the entire fourth century the "fathers of the church" were always regarded as the 318 attendees who were present at the Constantinian Council of Nicaea, and it was only with Cyril that the "fatherhood" passed backwards into the Eusebian history to alight, like the stool-pigeon of holy light, on the cast of fictional bishops who inhabited non-existent christian churches before the basilicas went up under the Boss.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

The purpose of this thread is to identify these thousands of citations to utter bullshit which once held sway in the minds of people. Readers must understand that these forgeries were once blatantly tendered as solid and substantial evidence for the authenticity of christian origins before Constantine. They need to be seen to be on the table of evidence tendered. The table of evidence in the field of New Testament history needs to be rightly perceived as being awash with utter rank forgeries.

Only then will readers understand the relative distribution of the evidence to be staggeringly and excessively weighted upon citations that are now regarded as rank forgeries. Thousands and thousands of utter rank common forgeries and is there even one authentic archaeological citation with which the christian apologists can say .... This citation is secure!?

I dont think so.

The clear implication is christianity is a fourth century phenomenom: an invented imperial emperor cult, associated with tax-exemption and with the automatic presence in the court of the emperor. Ammianus tells us that in the mid fourth century, when the Arian controversy was in full swing, that the highways were covered with galloping bishops. We dont hear anything of these christian bishops from profane historians before the fourth century. They must have been all hiding out at Dura-Europa, silently awaiting their moment of glory.



Best wishes,




Pete