rlogan

Total frustration.

In trying to search out a reasonable date for the construction of the first complete new testament, the threads here led me to the writings of Irenaeus, among other things. It seems that if we go further back than that Christianity "history" starts devolving into a big steaming pile of horse manure.

I see that the Catholic Church has been identified as the "force" behind the canonization, and so that led me to investigate papal history as a way of "triangulating" on the new testament.

There is a paralell here as with Jesus - can't prove a damned thing. Paralell myths, it seems to me.

Peter is "sort of" the first pope, followed by (disagreement here, of course) Linus, Cletus, and then Clement. I'm pretty certain that Linus and Cletus are fiction. Probably Peter too. He was supposedly buried next to Linus, and we can't positively confirm either.

I can't determine if Clement was mostly myth,real or not, and the Catholic history sources are of no use whatsoever. Maybe he authored one epistle. But I'm lost in the manure pile for sure. banghead:

So my question is at what point do we have "historical" popes - ones where we can be fairly certain they actually lived, were in charge of the church, wrote what is claimed, etc. ?

My guess is that the early Papal history was manufacturted in paralell with the gospel "history" and it should be about the same time that we see the new testament emerging as a complete piece that papal history starts being more factually grounded.

I followed the torturous 11 page thread here arguing wheteher
Jesus existed:

Proof of Jesus Thread

Seems to me that we have a similar problem with early papal history. So when is it that papal history starts to emerge as more trustworthy by academic standards?

Bernard Muller

I would like to know myself when the first true pope emerged. And I mean pope, not bishop of Rome.
I did a study one year back, and concluded true "catholic" bishops started at the earliest around 135 in Asia and probably not before around 160 in Rome.
Primacy of the Church of Rome was first advocated by Irenaeus, mainly because of the developing legend of Paul & Peter preaching there together. This was progressively generated in order to fight back heretics/Gnostics.
I explained that in a page largely devoted to demonstrate that the Ignatian letters are all forgeries (and Ignatius not even a bishop). Here it is:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/ignatius.shtml

Best regards, Bernard

rlogan

Bernard, thank you. As I suspected - a bloody mess.

So I am starting to see elements jockeying for supremacy of the movement. Lies and intrigue - how ironic that it is all in the name of Jesus.

The Jesus myth-Rome nexus provides the organizational and cannonical impetus for seizing control over a hodge-podge of independent movements. It doesn't matter if he existed or not - the "personage" we have in the Bible is a construct for attaining power.

So that explains a lot for me - why the gospels are not "signed". Why they come after "Q", and why they add in Jesus. Why all of the inconsistences (Oh what a tangled web we weave..."). Why we can confirm nothing of Jesus and of the early church. Why the "interpolations" in Josephus. Why the catholic church early history is just as f**ked up as that of Jesus.

This makes me angry. It isn't just myth. It's a pack of lies.

So in Irenaeus we have a culmination. His piece on Heresies seems to be an edict of sorts. While other traditions were still alive, we see power being consolidated through the artifice of cannon.

I would request that the Infidels.org administration add an emoticon for throwing up so I could put it here.

Amos

Don't be so hard on yourself logan because the pope just occupies the papal seat and this seat was created by Peter already when he saw into the dual nature of Jesus as Christ. It was this keen insight of Peter that became the rock wereupon the Church would be built and that is still true today.

Bernard Muller

rlogan wrote:
So I am starting to see elements jockeying for supremacy of the movement. Lies and intrigue - how ironic that it is all in the name of Jesus.

The Jesus myth-Rome nexus provides the organizational and cannonical impetus for seizing control over a hodge-podge of independent movements. It doesn't matter if he existed or not - the "personage" we have in the Bible is a construct for attaining power.

Ya, the NT books are largely propaganda items in order to keep the flock(s) existing in time of crisis. That was started by Paul's letters and then the anonymous gospels & epistles.

rlogan wrote:
So that explains a lot for me - why the gospels are not "signed". Why they come after "Q", and why they add in Jesus.

For the record, I disagree a bit, because I think most of Q was generated after GMark, and HJ was, in the gospels, grossely distorted & considerably embellished, used as a "vehicle" (or trojan horse) for ideas foreign to him, with total fictional/mythical stuff added on.

rlogan wrote:
Why all of the inconsistences (Oh what a tangled web we weave..."). Why we can confirm nothing of Jesus and of the early church. Why the "interpolations" in Josephus. Why the catholic church early history is just as f**ked up as that of Jesus.
This makes me angry. It isn't just myth. It's a pack of lies.

Many times, I feel that way too, from the time I started to unravel this tangled web. The weaving was done to address the situation of the day, to solve problems as they came along, here and there, creating a mess of lies set above other lies, etc., etc. You have to dig very deep through that muck in order to reach the rock bottom. That's the way I see it.

rlogan wrote:
So in Irenaeus we have a culmination. His piece on Heresies seems to be an edict of sorts. While other traditions were still alive, we see power being consolidated through the artifice of cannon.

I do not think the other "traditions" were any better, probably worse, except maybe the ones kept by the Ebionites. But you are right overall about Irenaeus. His influence cannot be underestimated.

Best regards, Bernard

rlogan

Thanks Bernard. I'm still a beginner.

I have discovered a fascinating book in the archives here entitled "Forgery in Christianity" by Joseph Wheless in 1930.

Thus far it has been highly entertaining and illuminating. As Associate Editor of the American Bar Association Journal he puts forth the indictment and proof:

1. That the Bible, in its every Book, and in the strictest
legal and moral sense, is a huge forgery.

2. That every Book of the New Testament is a forgery of the
Christian Church; and every significant passage in those Books, on
which the fabric of the Church and its principal Dogmas are
founded, is a further and conscious later forgery, wrought with
definite fraudulent intent.

Amlodhi

Hello rlogan,

Another book you might be interested to read is:

"The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" by Bart D. Ehrman; (The effect of early Christological controversies on the text of the new testament); Oxford University Press, 1993.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

offa

offa,
When you learn to read Scripture you will discover a history.
In order to comprehend you must have "ears" (read Matt 11:15, 13:09,
13:16, 13:43, Mark 4:09, 4:23, 7:16, and 8:18). Evangelism is
fraudulent, why else would there be so many wealthy t.v. evangelist
who get caught in monkey-business? (if you know what "monkey" is in
slang then you have ears). Politicians are Evangelists and Larry
Flint caused a few to back off or resign because he was revealing
monkey-business.
It is a foregone conclusion by most of the participants of this
board that the gospels were written after the 1st century and that
Acts and "Q" preceded the gospels. It is kind of like what came first?
the chicken or the egg. The question is ... what were the sources?
It is like the "Little Apocalypses", the apologetics claiming
Jesus was talking about A.D. 70 when, in actuality, the "Little
Apocalypse" were about the events surrounding Jesus' crucifixion
in A.D. 33 (Jesus survived the crucifixion and lived until about A.D.
68 making him about 75 when he expires).
In regards to Peter, I mentioned the Recognitions and
Homilies of Clement. Toto posts that since those books were
not published until the 2nd century they were disqualified. What
kind of reasoning is that? What were the sources.
I have concluded (but I may be persuaded I am incorrect) that
Saint Peter was Herodias' 1st husband and that he was also "Doubting
Thomas". This would make his birthdate before 10 b.c.e. and making
him an old man when St. James was murdered in A.D. 62. Clement writes
that St. James was still alive and Peter had died. In the book of
John Peter is always at odds with Jesus, of course, the last
chapter of John was added years after the original and this
chapter tries to appease the notion that they were at odds.
Also, Josephus writes about Peter being chastised by (king) Herod
Agrippa. A different light can be shed on this encounter if Agrippa
is addressing his sister's ex. Reading with ears you may learn that
Agrippa was poisoned by Simon Magus. Reading Clement you learn that
Simon Magus was Lazarus. Putting two and two together you may discover
that Jesus coat was taken by Agrippa (the soldiers) at the crucifixion
and was later stolen from him by Eutychus (co-author of John, his real
name is John Mark).


rlogan wrote, "This makes me angry. It isn't just myth.
It's a pack of lies."

Offa, if you were a member of "those with knowledge" it would not be a
pack of lies. Where is honesty a priority in life? Our
politicians protect us by telling untruths that are beneficial to
them. Income Taxes creates broods of liars. Sex (monkey business)
cannot be conducted in truth. Sporting events thrive on deceit,
the pitcher throws a secret pitch, the quarterback calls secret plays.
But, life goes on.

Amos

To claim this one must recognize the pre-existence of a Christian church and that is exactly the error on which protestants built their church. It is an error because there just can't be any Christian Churches or there would be Churches in the New Jerusalem ("I saw no temple in the City [of God]", Rev.21:22). Those who saw one had been misled by the angel of light and therefore saw/see the inspired Catholic Church as an error and a fraud. Nothing has changed and this argument will never be over or hell would freeze over in which case heaven on earth would become be the norm once again.

Amos

Hi offa, you mean to say that speach was given to man to hide his secret thoughts so he could take advantage of his fellow man?