Doug Shaver

I don't need any. It's the premise that needs evidence.

Doug Shaver

Nope. I don't think they correspond to historical reality at all.

mountainman

The TF was forged and probably by Eusebius. The letter exchange between Jesus and King Agbar was forged and probably by Eusebius. The letter exchanges between Paul and Seneca were forged, and the bulk of the letters of Paul in the NT were not written by Paul but by someone else to whom the name Pseudo Paul currently applies.

If we were to go through the writings of the early church tendered by Eusebius, the evidence is that for every single "author XXX" introduced therein, for a good percentage of these, we will find the existence of another separate and second author now referred to as "author Pseudo XXX". This situation is reasonable evidence of a massive and deplorable forgery perpetuated within the original books of the "history of the church".

The premise that there is pious forgery at the foundation of church history has an abundance of evidence to support it.

Doug Shaver

Yes, obviously.

Not so obviously.

Obviously.

On that particular, I have no opinion.

Obviously.

Maybe.

I'm not denying that quite a lot of the church's early paper trail was forged.

simon kole

Because the raising of Lazarus from the dead is reported only in John's gospel, it is asserted that John's report is a lie.

Does that mean that, because they do not appear in the other goespels, the
1) healing of the official's son in Capernaum,
2) healing of the sick man at the pool of Bethseda,
3) water turned into wine at Cana,
4) miraculous catch of fish by, and breakfast with, the apostles after Jesus' resurrection
are also lies?

They also do not appear in the other gospels.

spamandham

After having stated that the gospels are effectively propaganda reworked over and over, you then seem to be asserting there was a real Jesus who would not have permitted this. Why do you think it is valid to extract such a man from these repeatedly rehashed works of propaganda?

mountainman

In that case, in order to dig deeper and expose the roots of these lies, we have to ask the simple question, precisely when was the church's early paper trail researched and published. Do we have an author? Did that author have a sponsor? Who was in charge of the Roman Empire at that specific time? Who stood to gain the most by passing off lies as truth?

Other questions are also important and expedient at this time. Do we have any independent evidence of other parties coming forward with contraversial statements about the authenticity of any of the above parties? Do we have any independent evidence of major controversies in the populace of the Roman empire about this specific time? Who would an independent investigator like Sherlock Holmes be suspicious of?

A pious forgery must be shown no pity. If the Church historian has forged his own evidence, and his own "fabricated historical narrative", then we are not dealing with a Historical Jesus or a Mythical Jesus, but rather a Fictional Jesus or a Fabricated Jesus.

The answer to the first question is that the church's early paper trail was researched and published, according to a great consensus of scholarship, between the years of 312 and 324 CE, with a number of later revisions in order to accommodate the Council of Nicaea.

The answer to the second question is Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea.

Chili

He sure had a nice name to be remembered by Pete, but I was going to tell Littlejohn that the reason for Matthew's nativity is to show the difference between two kinds of rebirth wherein one leads to heaven and the other to hell, or hell by any other name to say that in my defintion eternity begins after the ego is crucified (or has raptured into oblivion for that matter), and so both eternal life and eternal damnation end with the second death.

In reality then there is no nativity as presented in Matthew or Luke while at the same time the difference between these two destinies (as I may call them now), are very much determined by the infancy of the 'new creation' after rebirth. So in that sense is there an infancy, but if you are going to 'hang' new religion on a superior kind of rebirth you must somehow create a historic event that is fabricated long afterwards so that 'skeletons may die' (as they say in the business), and that is about when Eusebius was called into action.

So then if in Matthew the inner child dies there must be a reason for this and then if you call Herod the total Human will and Pilate the faculty of reason under him in the mind of Joseph it is easy to see why the massacre took place when Joseph was absent in Egypt. The message here is that a 'one night stand' doesn't get you into heaven and that is why John has an altogether different infancy program with the elaboration of John the Baptist and Jesus to say that we must be born again from water and spirit.. . . and so Cana is opposite to the massacre and it is not just good enough to say "you must be born again" but I'll show you how. This then is probably when they started with their 'Holy Water' business for a reason that must be obvious between these two.

You also want to consider that when heaven was brought to earth, hell came crashing down with it because you just cannot have a pair of opposites without the other . . . and that is why Matthew was needed to show the difference.

There are lots of forehadows in Matthew that point towards a tragedy such as 'no manger' in Matthew, 'no swadling clothes' and when the magi came Joseph was not home, while in John the shepherds were enlightened in the mind of Joseph (they were his eidetic images), while Mary seems to be the overall winner here.

Doug Shaver

In that case, nothing. I assume no conspiracies. I assume nothing but ordinary human nature, fallible and credulous, not at all different then from human nature now.

Christians in those days were just like Christians nowadays, and Christians nowadays are in no important sense different from atheists nowadays.

Chili

Remember here that the woman was never banned from Eden so if we are going to survive the amphibious transition from hu-man to man that is innitiated by rebirth 'she' is the 'place' where we have continuity with our past. It is obvious and obviously wrong that Joseph never had any relation with Mary (we call her) in Matthew, which of course is wrong because she was betrothed to him as his past, is now to be his live, his love and his all also in the new world to come for she is and always will be the water without an identity of her own until we bless it and make it our very own . . . and we will do this purely for our entertainment (except that we think of her as a sexual being instead of simply the innermost depth of our very own being and so the storehouse of riches for man in the image of God).

It a pity that Mary is a like a four letter word that so is a 'no-no' in our puritan mindset of old.