IamJoseph

The biggest issue against the Gospels is not even concerning Jesus or any apostles. Its the non-mention of over a million Jews who sacrificed themselves and their land for their beliefs. This occured under the very eyes of the alledged Gospel writers, and it constitutes a lie-by-omission of the greatest historical and biblical proportions.

The event of 70 CE was the most pivotal one in Geo-History, and the greatest defense for the right to freedom of belief ever witnessed: if this war never occured, there would be no christianity, then Palestine, then Islam, or the mosque which today stands in Jerusalem. History would look totally different and unrecognisable from today. Its omission is a dead give away the entire Gospels was a Roman/Greek hoax, there was no trial of jesus, nor could Jesus have survived the hovering Roman decree.

The omission of the Roman war with the Jews in the Gospels is equivalent to the NY Times not mentioning 9/11 on 9/12.

IamJoseph

Yes, Josephus was the most widely read document in Europe outside of the NT. Josephus does mention Paul - which is in contradiction of what the Gospels subscribe being written by Paul.

The passage in Josephus of jesus is also a cntradiction of history and math, and must be a later cut and paste:

The terms christianty and christ did not emerge till 174 CE, and at the time of Paul, no one on the planet subscribed to what the gospels says regarding Paul or Jesus. Not even the Ebonites and Nazerites - the only followers of Jesus and who knew him first hand, while Paul never met Jesus and was expelled by the Nazerites.

The Europeans who became Christian never read the Gospels - this document was forbidden from anyone's possession for some 800 years, and the entire belief enforced on the peoples, same as was the heresy charge of Rome. In a sense, this factor clears the Christians from guilt and its inculcation - the peoples of Europe were as sitting ducks, enforced under the rake to make only a small step from Hellinism to Christianity.

mountainman

Julian c.360 CE legislated that the "christians" were henceforth
to be legally known as "The Galilaeans". This term aa5874 would
appear to have been taken directly from Josephus, perhaps via
the author Epictitus. Julian is the first to use this term (as a
perjoritative term) for "the christians". How many other sources
in antiquity at that time mention the term "The Galilaeans" as those
beyond the law, lawless Hebrew gangsters, etc ...

aa5874

Julian asked specifically for well-known writers who had written about Jesus and Paul.

And it should be noted that Julian referred to a character called Jesus not Christus, or Chrestus as found in Tacitus and Suetonius.

mountainman

You can rest assured that Julian had access to the imperial archives
and that he was well educated in the fabrication of the christians
which he was convinced was a fiction of men. Julian's original three
books entitled "Against the Christians" were ordered burnt and destroyed
by the lineage of Christian emperors who followed him, and the only
account of what Julian actually may have written is preserved in the
orthodox polemical work of the thug bishop Cyril of Alexandria, who
was anathemetising people at the drop of a hat for various heresies.

It would be a wonderful archaeological find, the original three books
written by Emperor Julian. I think these books would expose the new
and strange christian religion as a new and strange imperially inspired
top-down-emperor-cult instigated by Constantine the Great Fascist,
and a Neronian dabbler in Greek literature.

mountainman

Julian actually cites the words of Jesus.
I wonder where he read this account of Jesus' sayings?
Does this occur in the Godspel of Thomas?


It would appear that salvation was an off-the-shelf thing
in the fourth century just as it is in the twenty-first.

jakejonesiv

HI AA

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? What say you AA?

aa5874

But, you have not even told me whether or not you think Julian is lying.

Anyhow, it would appear, based on the passage alone, that Julian spoke in a metaphorical manner.

This becomes all too obvious when it was claimed Pleasure and Incontinence were present and met Constantine.

mountainman

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"

aa5874

In light of the possibility that even Tacitus Annals may have tampered with even later than the 4th century, it therefore cannot be of any surprise to understand that based on Julian, the writings of the writer called Eusebius were manipulated after his death.

The writings of Josephus appear to have been forged after his death.

The manipulation and forgery with respect to writings of antiquity did not just suddenly begin and end with Eusebius and the Church or was simply discontinued in the 4th century.

It would appear to me that in the 4th century, the authors of the Roman Church in their zeal to establish the Church as the only true Church of God used forged documents by established writers. after these writers were already dead.

In Church History, the author showed his inclination to interpolate or to produce interpolated writings of those who were already dead.

Examine Church History, Eusebius claimed Josephus wrote that Herod saw an angel above his head, but Josephus DID NOT write "angel" but "OWL".

Church History 2.10.6
Antiquities of the Jews 19.8.2 At another time the author of Church History claimed Philo wrote about the churches that a character called Mark started in Alexandria. Upon examining the wrtings of Philo there is nothing at all about Mark or any of his churches.

Church History 16.2.1-2

Philo wrote nothing abput Mark and his churches.

The Roman Church had developped a mode of operation, i.e manipulate the writings of known or established writers, apologetic or not, to manufacture a history for the Church.

In order for the author of Church History to show that the Roman Church had its origin with the disciples, Peter in paricular, the author needed evidence but there was none.

Peter did not exist in the 1st century. Irenaeus, if he did live, could not have produce any evidence at all to support Peter's existence.

But, the author of Church History needed evidence to prove that the Roman Church was the true Church of God and the evidence just miraculously showed up in Against Heresies by Irenaeus.

It would appear that information was planted in Against Heresies at about the time Church History was written.

It is already known that information was planted in the NT and other writings.