aa5874

So, I hope you understand how easy it is for one person to make contradictory claims.

You admitted your Error but what if you changed your story without ever admitting your error simply to win the argument?

It would appear to me that sources were INVENTED by the Church to alter the Jesus story and history of the Jesus cult of Christians.

Since the 2nd century, Celsus accused "Christians" of ALTERING the Jesus story based on "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen.

"Against Celsus" It would appear that the Earliest gMark was CORRUPTED and the Jesus story was changed to one where Jesus was a UNIVERSAL Savior and Messiah, God the Creator who Abolished the Sacrificial Laws of the Jews.

There is NO such Jesus in the EARLIEST gMark.

The JEWS should NOT have known gMark's Jesus was the Messiah until AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple and the Desolation of Jerusalem c 70 CE.

The Pauline writings are products of the Interpolated CORRUPTED gMark.

The Pauline writings have EXPOSED that the author MOST likely read of the Great Commission of the "RESURRECTED" Jesus to the disciples to preach the Gospel.

No such COMMISSION as stated in the Corrupted gMark could have occurred AFTER Jesus was dead whether or not Jesus did exist.

Mark 16:15 - The Pauline writings are fundamentally historically and chronologically bogus and were most likely written to deceive.

The character called Jesus of Nazareth the Christ was UNHEARD of before the Fall of the Jewish Temple, UNHEARD of before the Jesus stories were written.

Paul, whoever he was, could have ONLY persecuted the Jesus cult and write Epistles about Jesus AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Duvduv

Origen says there in chapter 27 that the corrupters could only have been Marcion and Valentinus. So the accusation of corruption from something original was not made against the "orthodox" which he calls "genuine Christianity." Of course the bottom line is that if this is so, and Marcion and Valentinus taught something closer to the original it is really unknown what it was, despite all the talk about Marcion being a docetic gnostic, etc.
On the other hand, WHO really authored Contra Celsum and did Origen exist??

With regard to the epistles following a Mark gospel, you probably know the arguments that it was the other way around, i.e. that Mark was an allegory of the "Paulist" Christ mystery in the SECOND century. And if the epistles WERE after Mark, that would make them around the same time as Matthew or Luke, but again, none of the epistles describes any actual storylines or parables, etc. of any of the gospels.

Besides, isn't it believed that the "Great Commission" was a much later interpolation of the Church that would have happened AFTER the gospels and epistles were supposed to have been written?

aa5874

"Against Celsus".

The passage CLEARY states "Christian Believers" so I don't know where you get the idea that Celsus did NOT refer to "Christians".

Kent F

If all the early Church fathers are inventions, then why aren't there at least a couple who claimed to have met Paul, Peter or John? What stopped them from giving themselves this very strong connection to the 1st century?

Why didn't they then make these early invented Church fathers quote directly from the gospels and the epistles? Why didn't they make ”Paul” aware of Jesus' mission on earth? What stopped them from inserting a passage where Paul visited the empty tomb outside Jerusalem or met Lazarus or the virgin Mary?

The only logical answer has to be that there was another set of beliefs already established and widespread across the Roman Empire. The RCC interpolated the Epistles that already existed with the purpose of converting these believers. Then they added the Pastorals and Acts. They became the winning heretics.

Tertullian based his Against Marcion on Irenaeus Against Heresies, and perhaps several authors added to these books. But it's ludicrous to assume that the main target Marcion was also invented by the RCC. For what reason? It's much more logical that the Church fathers argued against a real rival, trying their best to date him as late as possible while giving their own beliefs a date as early as possible. This explains the presence of the fabricated letters of Clement of Rome and Ignatius. Is it merely coincidence that Clement of Rome is placed earlier in time than Clement of Alexandria, with his close connection to the Marcionites?

If we can't trust Tertullian and Irenaeus, then why should we trust Justin Martyr? Isn't he just as bogus? If so, then the biography of Marcion is an invention by the RCC. I happen to believe this is actually the case. Paul=Marcion and Marcion belongs to the 1st century, not the 2nd.

The archeological remains of a Marcionite synagogue was discovered near Damascus in the 19th century. Among the remains was an inscription which read, translated from Greek: The synagogue of the Marcionists, in the village of Lebaba, of the Lord and Saviour Is(u) Chrestos – erected by the forethought of Paul a presbyter in the year 630. The year 630 is the Seleucid Era, which corresponds to 318-319 CE in our calendar.

Are we to assume that the RCC created a time machine after the Nicean council in 325 CE and went back in time to build this synagogue to confirm that there was indeed a heretic named Marcion and that they deliberately renamed their saviour to Isu Chrestos? Of course not. These archeological remains prove that there was an earlier church than the RCC.

There's proof for the existence of Chrest, Chrestos, Chrestianoi during the 1st century. A site called History Hunters has shown this but there's nothing confirming the name Jesus Christ until much later. See here: http://historyhuntersinternational.o...gue-of-chrest/

We have Suetonius, writing his Twelve Caesars in the early 2nd century, who said that the Emperor Claudius expelled Jews from the City of Rome due to disturbances caused by one Chrestus. This was circa 44 CE.

Tacitus wrote in his Annals XV.44: Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestians by the populace. Again, a reference that their existed ”chrestians” in the 1st century. This in turn gives the Marcionite synagogue a link to the 1st century.

Who founded the ”chrestian” church? Do we have anything in writing that may serve as evidence that someone had established this new belief? Well, yes, we have the writings by Paul=Marcion!

Finally, if Paul's Jesus was in fact called Isu Chrestos, then Galatians 1.1. becomes really interesting. Because Jerome claimed that the Marcionite version of Gal 1.1. did not contain the phrase "and God the Father" and Tertullian doesn't mention the phrase either. Then we would have: Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Isu Chrestos who raised him from the dead.

Why would the RCC fabricate a version where Paul was the one who was raised from the dead? Isn't it obvious that "and God the Father" was an interpolation to hide this earlier belief?

Duvduv

Origen himself says they must be Marcion and Valentinus. Presumably Celsus confuses everyone together with "authentic Christians' and calls everybody "Christians."

Duvduv

Everyone can be taken with a huge grain of salt. But what stands out in the writings of Justin Martyr, whenever it was written, is that it makes no mention of the historical events of the gospels and no mention of anyone named Paul or his epistles whatsoever, and then a mere 30-40 years Irenaeus comes along and has everything nicely put together that provided the basis of the later canon.

My own best guess is that the book Against Heretics attributed to Irenaeus was written long after the mid-2nd century by someone else. Indeed, no one claims to know hardly anything about Irenaeus anyway. And it is rather doubtful that any one of the little sects, if they existed in the 2nd century would be positioned to already consider others heretics and write whole books about it. Way too early.

aa5874

Justin Martyr does mention a story of Jesus found in the "Memoirs of the Apostles" called Gospels.

1. Justin Martyr wrote about the conception by the Holy Ghost and birth of Jesus in a CAVE.

2. Justin wrote about the Magi and the Killing of the innocent by Herod.

3. Justin claimed Jesus healed the deaf, blind, dumb and raised the dead.

4. Justin wrote about crucifixion the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

Virtually all apologetic sources in the 2nd, and 3rd centuries claimed there were Christians (so-called Heretics) who did NOT believe the Jesus story.

There was simply no such thing as orthodoxy and "Against Heresies" actually confirms this when it was claimed Jesus suffered when he was about fifty years old.

The author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 did NOT know of Paul, the Pauline writings, Acts of the Apostles, and it was NOT even established when Jesus died as soon as he claimed Jesus was crucified at around fifty years old.

Duvduv

I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that this would only be true and relevant if it were occuring at a later time period (i.e. before the gospels and epistles were out there), such as the early 4th century.

Duvduv

I suppose it is just as easy to say that Dialogue with Trypho emerged closer to the 4th century, and is neither a dialogue nor a description of what mainstream Jews were thinking even in the 4th century. And of course, that this entire "dispute" would exist as early as the middle of the second century makes no sense. No Jew would care about the ideas of a tiny sect among many.

It was merely an opportunity for the author to pontificate about his teachings among the new church since his adversary didn't have the option of challenging the claims about the Hebrew scriptures put forth by the author. Some "dialogue".......

aa5874

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr do NOT reflect those of supposed apologetic writers of the 4th century.

Supposed 4th century writer made references to the numerous passages of the Pauline writings, Acts of the Apostles, Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. 4th century apologetics also mentioned numerous Bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and other parts of the known world but all these are all missing in the writings of Justin Martyr.

The writings of Justin Martyr do NOT appear to be 4th century at all.

"Dialogue with Trypho" attributed to Justin Martyr is an extremely significant book since it appears to be the ONLY source of antiquity where the opinion of a Jew is expounded to an apologetic source.

It is Trypho the Jew who tells the reader that Isaiah 7.14 was manipulated and does NOT state that a "virgin shall conceive" but "a woman shall conceive" and that the so-called prophecy was fulfilled during the time of Hezekiah.

Dialogue with Trypho Trypho the Jew also alerts the reader that the Jesus conception story is like Greek Mythology.

Dialogue with Trypho "Dialogue with Trypho" is an extremely significant writing most likely written before the 4th century.