aa5874

But, please explain how secular historians verified part of the Matthean birth of the baby Jesus when it was all done in secrecy. The God of the Jews was afraid Herod would kill Jesus.

No-one knew that the Matthean Jesus was born in Bethlehem except the Magi, the angel, Joseph, Mary and the God of the Jews, not even Herod. And no secular historian knew he was in Egypt or when he arrived and left.


Now, it is patently obvious this passage does not confirm anything about the birth of Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Please show where the passage confirms anything with respect to the actual birth of the offspring of the Holy Ghost?

arnoldo

Celsus was a secularian historian who knew about the tradition of the holy family in egypt.

aa5874

Well, if you think highly of Origen and his writing "Against Celsus" now look at the preface to De Principiis under the very name of Origen.

You will read the nature and origin of Jesus. Jesus was a God.

"De Principiis" by Origen http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04120.htm

It would appear that Origen did not regard Jesus as a Man but as a God who assumed the flesh of man.

Origen's description of Jesus supports mythology.

aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

Once Jesus was just a Jewish man he would not have been worshiped as a God by Jews and asked to forgive the SINS of ALL MANKIND and to abolish the Laws of God including circumcision.

There was a real figure of history, a Jew called the Messiah, ruler of the Jews, Simon BarCocheba, and he was not deified by Jews or called the Lord and Saviour, Son of God by Jesus believers or Jews.

Justin Martyr wrote about Simon Barcochebas.

This is Justin in "First Apology" 31 Justin Martyr certainly did not worship Barcochebas the Messiah as a God.

Eusebius also did write about Simon Barcochebas and again there was nothing about Simon the Messiah as a God.

"Church History" 4.6.2 So, it is absolutely clear now.

If Jesus of the NT was just a mere human and was the Messiah of the Jews like Barcocheba, he would not have been deified by non-Jews or Gentiles.

Jesus as a Jewish Messiah would have been DEMONISED.

Barcocheba was DEMONISED by non-Jews.

Barcocheba the Jewish Messiah was described as a ROBBER and a MURDERER and this would likely have been the very description of Jesus once he was a real Jewish Messiah.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

mountainman

Dear aa5874,

If the historical truth of the matter turns out to be that the historical jesus did not exist at all but in the minds of myth-making people like Hans Eusebius Anderson then you are sooner or later going to have to ask the question who was Origen, and what are we to make of his literature and testimony in this entire "fabrication of the Christians". At that time you will need to consider the following issues:

1) There are two Origens in history - one a pagan Platonist and one a fictional christian. These are related to the two separate Ammonias Saccas's in history - one the father of Neoplatonic thought and a non-christian, and the other a "ficitious christian". In both cases (the fictional pair and the historical pair) Origen is the disciple of Ammonias. Ammonias is regarded as part of a lineage which directly leads from Plato & Pythagoras to Plotinus (another disciple of Ammonias) and then to Porphyry (the disciple of Plotinus). For more information on this unlikely pair of "doppelgangers" see this article

2) Origen may have been an author who wrote on LXX matters only. See his work the Hexapla. Origen may have been a Hebrew-Greek Platonic disciple of the sage Ammonius Saccas. Nothing to do with "chrestians", although the Neoplatonic thought contained a trinity, and in the very first place was "The ALL" or "The Good" or the Chrestos and sometimes called God. The fabrication of the "Apostolic Lineage of the Chrestians" is thus almost out in the open and exemplied with Eusbeius's twisting it from the "Apostolic lineage of the Academies and "Assemblies" of Plato as this stood in the early 4th century when Eusebius was searching the archives and reading between the lines of Josephus Flavius.

Rough Sketch - "Greek Apostolic Succession
of the Academies and "Ecclesiastics" (Assemblies) of Plato & Pythagoras

500 BCE Plato and Pythagoras
300 BCE Followers
BCE/CE (Note all these people reverred "Apollo and Asclepius")
020 CE Apollonius of Tyana <<<==== Another model for the HJ and "Dear Paul"
200 CE Ammonias Saccas (disciples included Origen)
250 CE Plotinus
290 CE Porphyry (via Eusebius) <<==== "Writings to be BURNT!!"
325 CE Iamblichus
325 CE Arius of Alexandria (?????) <<==== "Writings to be BURNT!!" (Arius claims his "father" to be Ammonias)
336 CE Sopater (executed by you-know-who "on a whim")
340 CE Pachomius (?????) --- Editor-In-Diaspora-Refuge of the Nag Hammadi codices


NB: (????) denotes my own conjectures - the rest is more or less accepted

3) Eusebius wrote additional books in the name of Origen in repect of "the christian fabrication". Origen was an author of the LXX only, and his "additional works" regarding the new testament were simply forged in an imperial scriptoria under the oversight of Eusebius, under the instruction of you-know-who.

4) The fact that Eusebius did this forgery (3 above) generated the "Origenist Controversy" of the late 4th and 5th centuries etc, when books of Origen turning up in monasteries aroused great consternation. Pachomius throws one into the Nile! Origen's original works IMO did not make mention of the senseless HJ proposition. The claim will be simply that the original books of Origen (which may still turn up in archaeological finds in the future) were extremely contraversial because they made no mention of the new testament and jesus. Because these "original books" may have been reasonably well known, they created severe authenticity issues for the "orthodox state christains" in the eyes of their prospective "pagan converts". Consequently we may see in this controversy one reason which may have prompted the christian emperor to order that the library of Alexandria was to be destroyed in the late 4th century. The christians had no further need for any written testimonies other than the new testament to the gentiles, which they preserved in imperially appointed scriptoria.

aa5874

I have already taken into consideration that many writings from the Church wholly or in part are fabrications.

At this present moment I only need to show that the Church writers contradicted one another and that their veracity is next to ZERO.

For example, Origen contradicts Irenaeus with respect to orthodoxy of the doctrine of Jesus believers and he contradicts Tertullian with respect to Marcion's mutilation of the Gospels.

Hippolytus contradicts Tertullian, and Irenaeus on Marcion.


Justin Martyr cannot account for all the Canon except Revelation.

Chrysostom claimed people were not even aware that there was a book called Acts of the Apostles as late as the 4th century.

Eusebius contradicts himself and the Pauline writer.

The author of gLuke contradicts the author of gMatthew.

The author of gJohn contradicts the Synoptics.

It would appear to me that the Jesus story was a fabrication very likely around the end of the 1st century and that the history of Jesus believers was fabricated most likely in the 4th cenury by Roman authorities. Constantine and Eusebius being some of them.

The fabrication of the history of Jesus believers appears to me to have been a massive undertaking involving virtually the entire Roman Empire, not just Eusebius and Constantine.

Imagine that almost overnight the citizens of the Roman Emperor replaced the God ZEUS with JESUS.

mountainman

Imagine a fat spider in the center of a web of absolute power. You are only talking about a massive literary undertaking. What's one or two scriptoria to a warlord like Bullneck? The "Pontifex Maximus" was supposed to be the responsible head of all literature preservation. But Constantine appears to have acted like a Nero, and discarding tradiiton, went his own inventive way.

Jesus has no archaeology, step outside the comfortable and familiar world of literary references and Jesus stands on transcendental (imaginary) claims. The fabrication of the christians is simply explained by imperial sponsorship. The emperor stood to make alot of gold and get alot of power. He needed both.

The Emperor Constantine did this. The citizens of the empire subscribed to a defence of the Arian controversy (whatever that may have been) for dozens of generations. Arius said very naughty and very shocking things about Dear Jesus, as if he were writing a Monty Python script "Life of Brian".

And the citizens and the emperors of the Graeco-Roman empire up until this very epoch actually subscribed to a younger version of Zeus -- in fact the grandson of Zeus --- Asclepius, son of Apollo. The coinage of the emperors sponsored Asclepius or a relative of Asclepius, and many emperors partonised the building and maintenance of the many Asclepian temples.

The Roman Emperor Constantine, by publishing the bible, by destroying the Asclepian temples, by converting people to christianity by the sword, and by prohibiting the "business-as-usual" useage of the temples, effectively replaced Asclepius with Jesus.

Jesus has no archaeology - Asclepius has an abundance.

aa5874

But, based on what I have seen so far it does not appear to me that the Jesus character was fabricated by the Roman Emperor or Eusebius.

I would not expect four contradictory Jesus stories from the same author.

It would be noted that Eusebius merely tried to harmonise the four Gospels which is a good indication that he did not invent the Jesus character.

It would be expected that there would have been one single comprehensive genealogy of Jesus or Joseph if all the Gospels were written by a single source.

It appears to be true that Jesus had no archaeology in the 1st century or at least not before the Fall of the Temple, but there are legendary fables of Jesus in the 2nd century.

Justin Martyr wrote about an entity born of a Virgin called Jesus Christ sometime around the middle of the 2nd century and claimed to have in his possession writings called Memoirs of the Apostles and a Revelation from John about the same entity.

Now, so far, I am of the impression that Arius did not claim that Jesus Christ did not exist. It would seem that Arius is denying that Jesus was equal to God and was always in existence as God.

mountainman

It may be logically expected that four independent "eye-witnesses" will certain not present four separate and accounts. The accounts will contain contradictions - certain things "remembered" by one witness and not mentiined by the others, some things in common, etc. It is common sense to expect divergence from a "tetrarchy" (leadership of four) of "witnesses".

Eusebius tells us that the "harmony" was created by someone called Ammonias -- see the history of what are called "The Eusebian Canon Tables". A fabrication may assume various forms, and Eusbius's involvement as described by himself, as a "harmoniser" is inconsistent with his history. In his history he does not present any harmonisation whatsoever, but a collage of opposing views, as you have pointed out many time. The key word is obscuration, not harmonisation.

But that was not the "storyline".



What I mean by archaeology is not the document or literature tradition. What I mean by archaelogy are monuments, statues, inscriptions, frescoes, art works, grafitti, funerary etchings, sarcophagus motifs, trinkets of various forms, relics, and other physical non-literature "evidence". There is no such evidence like this corroborating "the literature story".

Justin's writings cannot be separated from Eusebius' "research" and remain in the "literary evidence" category. They cannot be viewed as independent from Eusebius, except by assumption.

We cannot use the christian concept of "god" to reconstruct this epoch. Instead it would seem logical to ask what was the Greek (or Graeco-Roman) concept of divinity at that epoch. An outline of the greek concept of god is provided in the writings of Plotinus, preserved by Porphyry. It involved the concept of a "Holy Trinity" which is described by Bertram Russel as follows:

The metaphysics of Plotinus begins with a Holy Trinity: The One, Spirit and Soul.
These three are not equal, like the Persons of the Christian version of the Holy Trinity; the One is supreme, Spirit comes next, and Soul last.[2]

THE ONE is somewhat shadowy. It is sometimes called God, sometimes called the Good; it transcends Being.

THE NOUS "SPIRIT" - offspring/reflection of the ONE. includes mind - the intellect.

SOUL - offspring of the Divine Intellect. It is double: there is an inner soul, intent on NOUS, and another, which faces the external.

p.300 [end of chapter]

When we analyse the scant available writings of Arius then we can see that Arius' conception of "God" is in alignment with these principles espoused above by Plotinus. The key term is the first - THE ONE .... It is sometimes called God, sometimes called the Good; it transcends Being. If it is sometimes called the "Good" then in Greek it is called CHRESTOS.

Here are the writings (fragments) of Arius in accord witb the above:

In order to do justice to even a superficial understanding of this almost "metaphysical God Chrestos" of the Greek academic lineage of Plato (and Pythagoras) we need to understand the concept of "nonduality". Gurugeorge is the only poster that I have seen here attempting to examine this GREEK concept of nonduality.

aa5874

Well, why don't we have four contradictory Acts of the Apostles, four contradictory letters to the Romans or four contradictory Revelations in the Canon?

And it must be noted that Eusebius himself would not have been an eyewitness.

It simply appears to me that there were many versions of the Jesus story by the time the Roman Emperor Constantine was ready to make Jesus the new God of the Roman Empire.

But, Eusebius did try to explain away the obvious discrepancies found in the four gospels.

I cannot find even among the so-called heretics where a leader of a sect would have even two contradictory writings about his God and used them simultaneously.

Irenaeus, it would appear quite inadvertently, have written about how there are more than one version of the Jesus story in "Against Heresies" 3.11.7.

It would seem that by the 4th century there were multiple sects with various version of the Jesus story and that some used only a variation of the Synoptics and there were other sects that probably used only a variation of gJohn.

But, the literature from antiquity seems to give the reason for the absence of archaeology.

The writings of Justin Martyr show that NT Jesus believers were not at all prominent up to the middle of the 2nd century. It was an old man who told Justin about some people who knew the truth. Justin appears not to even know that these people did actually exist before he met the old man.

Justin mentioned that in his search for God he studied the leading philosophies of his time and went to see the philosophers for personal studies but never did mention one single Jesus Christ philosopher or that he studied the Pauline philosophy or the doctrine of Jesus with any one.

Actually once you examine Justin Martyr's writings and "Church History" by Eusebius it will be quickly and easily recognised that the writings of Justin Martyr did not suffer from the hands of the Church.

Justin Martyr does not corroborate the post ascension activities of the apostles in "Church History" unlike the writings of Papias, Clement, Ireaneus, Polycarp, Tertullian, Origen and others.

Justin Martyr wrote nothing about Acts of the Apostles, nothing about the Pauline writers and writings, nothing about any bishops of Rome, nothing about Clement, nothing about Polycarp and nothing about the martyrdom of Peter and Paul.

Justin can only account for characters not associated with the NT Jesus Christ.

IN "Church History" Justin Martyr was used to account for Simon Magus, Menander and Marcion.

In "Church History" Justin was NOT used to account for a single post ascension activity by anyone associated with Jesus Christ.

Justin Martyr writings appears to be fundamentally an independent source of Eusebius' "Church History".


The concept of "god" is not of any major concern for me right now. I am mainly interested in when people started to believe there was a God or an entity called Jesus offspring of the Holy Ghost. So far, it would seem that people started to be believe there was a God or an entity called Jesus the offspring of the Holy Ghost sometime after the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

And Justin Martyr confirms that the NT Jesus God/man concept was just a story since he did not write a single thing about the post-ascension history of the Church up to his own time and the time of Marcion.