aa5874

And even 3rd century or beyond if John 21 is taken into consideration. Now, if it is supposed that Jesus lved in the 1st century and died at around 33 CE and John 21 was written sometime in the 3rd century or later then John 21 would have to be backdated by around 200 years or more.




.

aa5874

You have mis-uderstood me again. I have written before that there appears to be more than one person writing under the name of Tertullian. "Ad Nationes" and "Against Marcion" each appear to me to have been written by different persons using the name Tertullian.

And this is not unusual, the Pauline epistles suffered a similar fate. And the epistles of Peter. Also the Gospels, the epistles of James, Jude, and John.

Now even Tertullian or whoever wrote Praxeas seemed to have no idea that they have shown quite clearly that there was massive forgery. There were at least two persons using the name John to write the Gospel of gJohn.

And the Pauline Epistles were not written yet.

My restriction to Justin Martyr is not arbitrary at all. As I have pointed out before Justin Martyr appears to be a credible writer.

Can you tell the name of any other church writer that appears credible? Tetrullian, Irenaeus, 1 Clement, Ignatius, Eusebius and others wrote fiction.

Now Justin Martyr did not write that an apostle named John wrote any Gospel or that there were Pauline letters and that Peter was the 1st bishop of Rome.

But, when Justin mentioned the Christ of Marcion he did not write JESUS just Christ. Marcion's Christ was a phantom. The apparition was not human and was not born. Marcion's Christ did not need a name designated by humans.

On the other hand, the Christ of Paul or the Gospels was called Jesus after he was born.


Again, you seem not to be following my post or track. This is my position.

All the church writers that wrote about Peter as the first bishop of Rome wrote ficrion and are not credible. Peter was a fictitious character in the Jesus stories. No real person could have seen Peter as a bishop during the time of Nero.

All the church writers that wrote about an apostle or disciple of Jesus called John that lived until the time of Trajan wrote fiction and are not credible. The apostle John was a fictitious character in the Jesus stories. No real person could have seen the apostle called John in the time of Trajan.

All the church writers that wrote they knew persons who knew those who actually were with Jesus while he was on earth wrote fiction and are not credible. Jesus and the disciples were all fictitious characters in the Jesus stories.

And all the church writers that wrote that Paul was with Peter in Rome wrote fiction. Peter was fiction and Paul's history can be found in a book filled with fiction called Acts of the Apostles.

Justin Martyr wrote nothing about the disciples after the ascension of Jesus and zero about Paul. Justin appears to be credible.


Now, you have identified the conspirators. It was probably the Church, the pre-eminent authority that wrote "Against Heresies" and used the name Irenaeus.

This is not unusual, they used some-one to write John 21 and the epistles with the name Paul. The Church writers also claimed some named Mathhew, Mark, Luke and John wrote Gospels but has been deduced to be false or not credible.

Justin's credibilty is still intact. He did not write any post-ascension fiction.


How could they have? There was none.

Now, how come Justin wrote about Simon Magus, the magician, the holy one, Tiberius, Claudius, Herod and Pilate?

And how is it that the church writers wrote about Simon Magus, Tiberius, Claudius, Herod and Pilate?

It would appear that the church writers had some information about the 1st century but choose instead to write fiction about the fictitious adventures of Peter and Paul.

Justin wrote nothing about these adventures of Paul and Peter.

But when did Peter and Paul evolve? The evolution may have started only at the birth of the Roman Church. It must have been then when everything just changed. The Emperor took over.


You seem to have mis-understood me. I have pointed out before that it has been deduced that more than one person used the name Paul to write letters.

And I expect that all the redactions and interpolations were finalised and put in place when the Roman Church was ready to publish the New Testament, sometime in the 4th century.

Re-writing the history of Jesus believers and the Roman Church must have been a huge undertaking, almost overnight, all Romans would just become Christians.

jakejonesiv

That is pretty much what you have stuck yourself with.

aa5874

But are you claiming that you have not stuck to anything yourself?

I am STUCK to the notion, and it has been shown, that the Church provided erroneous, mis-leading and deliberate false information in the NT and their writings with respect to the history of Jesus believers.

Their Jesus stories are filled with fiction

Their chronology, date of writing and authorship of the Gospels have been rejected.

Their claim that all the Pauline Epistles were written by the same person has also been found to be false.

Their dates and chronology of the General epistles called Peter, James, John and Jude are bogus.

Now, the Church propagated, falsely, through Eusebius that Josephus, a Jewish writer, wrote about Jesus in the 1st century.

Only a naive person would think that the Church only STUCK to one writer, i.e. Josephus, to propagate their falsehoods.

It is just not true that Peter was a bishop of Rome. Peter never existed. But Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote that he was a bishop and met Paul.

Irenaeus and Tertullian are fiction writers.


I am STUCK to facts.

jakejonesiv

You are stuck to a huge conspiracy theory in which the entire New Testament and Ante-Nicene Fathers were forged overnight. Good luck with that.

bacht

I'm not sure this is exactly aa's position (his presentation can sometimes obscure the ideas). He's been arguing that the NT texts can't be accepted at face value as eyewitness reports of real historical events. This is hardly controversial in scholarly circles. The argument then becomes when and where did this material appear. For example, was Marcion's canon in the mid-2nd C the catalyst for proto-Catholic beliefs and artifacts?

jakejonesiv

Hi AA,

Why did the consirapitors go to such great lengths to invent heretics? After all, Tertullian (the real one, not Psuedo-Tertullian) wrote five books against Marcion. Why go to all that effort to oppose doctrines that you claim Marcion never held? (that is a rhetorical question; I have no doubt you can rationalize anything in your own mind!)

But I have a non-rhetorical question for you. What is your opinion of the Cerinthians? How do they fit (or not) into the grand conspiracy? Were they created out of whole cloth like every thing else???

The earliest known church inscription (found near Damascus) is Marcionite, and dates to 318 CE.

9/ Insc. Grec. et Latines, 3. 1870, No. 2558, p. 582; cp. Harnack in Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. (1876), pp. 103 f.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//cours...k/bk4ch3-1.htm

It is quite obvious that Marcionites and various other Christian heretics predated your alleged conspiracy. (Please note: paganism is not a heresy, only alternate varities of Christianity).

Jake

jakejonesiv

Hi bacht,

That is my position. The appearance of Marcion's canon forced the proto-orthodox to grapple with what was in their canon. And to be the catholic (i.e. universal) church, they had to appropriate Paul from the heretics, or else stand accused of not encompassing the gospel in all it's newness.

Best,
Jake

aa5874

Was not Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 forged overnight? Are you claiming that the Church did publish publicly when all interpolations and redactions should be completed and did warn all the people of the Roman Empire in advance that a new God called Jesus would be installed after all the history of Jesus believers were HARMONISED.?

Unless you can sucessfully contradict all the facts that I have presented in my previous post then it is almost certain that I will be able to easily show that the writings of Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian and other were either partially or wholly fictionalised to produce a fraudulent history of Jesus believers.

I have no conspiracy but facts. Look at them again.

Please point out the conspiracy . Good Luck.

jakejonesiv

I don't need luck because you did it for me.

However, you are giving yourself too much leeway. You need to choose between partially fictionalized and wholly fictionalized.

I do hope you choose "partially fictionalized" because then I will ask you to distinguish between the authentic and forged on text critical grounds.

Best,
Jake