Littlejohn

The speech is much more complex than you can imagine. Your solution is "simplistic". If only this reference was enough, then the truth about the origins of Christianity would have been unveiled for a long time ago, if you can imagine how many and what kind of scholars one are engaged to discover it!

However, initially at least, nothing should be excluded (**) and all sources must be evaluated carefully, especially by comparison, without to believe to "occhiuti" assumptions of the forger clergy, which would to pretend deprived of credibility all non-Catholic sources that not be contemporaries to the Gospels. It's useless you emphasize that the same forger clergy affirms that the current canonical gospels were written in the first century and that therefore any written not Catholic testimony, not belonging it to this historical period, it would be deprived of credibility!

In sounding the content of the written testimonies concerning the world gnostic, you learn many details useful to the exegetical investigation. However, the apologists Catholics estimate works gnostic drafted in the second century and therefore not reliable as the current gospels (which were written between 140-150!).

That this be a hallucinating lie and "sounding" bad-faith, is proven by the fact (absurdly never emphasized by not confessional erudition) that, under patristic writers, to found the gnosticism was Simon Magus, who lived in the FIRST century and NOT in the second one! (it is officially considered dead around 64). (*)

Why the followers Gnostics would had to wait nearly a century before to put into writing the teachings of their "guru", while those "Christians" they would have did that (under assumptions of Catholic clergy) only a few tens (two or three) of years after the death of Jesus, which they falsely estimate occurred around 33?... All this makes no sense for a person accustomed to use of intellect!


All my best


_______________

Notes:

(*) - There is another particular, that has almost of incredible, given that it has never been revealed in all its staggering importance: as reported by "clementinae" litterature, both Simon Magus that Dositeus (two known "magicians" and gnostic teachers) were disciples of John the Baptist, died for "decollaggio" (cut of head) in 30s (according to the Gospels, before Gesù and therefore before 33-34; under Josephus after Jesus). So, since Jesus in this period was in close contact with John (yet he also was a John's disciple) one does not understand why Philip, moved in Samaria, talked to Simon Magus about Jesus, in narrating him many wonders on Jesus, when the same Simon Magus WOULD had to know perfectly Jesus the nazarene, having been a con-disceple! (both disciples of John the Baptist)

(**) - Even references to Simon Magus and to Aliturius may be useful in the exegetical economy, since that almost all tracks that originally led directly to historical truth have been made to disappear by the counterfeiters who have controlled the transmission of all or almost of the historical informations until a few centuries ago. Now remain little more than crumbs of those tracks and they should be used wisely. In particular should be revalued at the maximum the most tracks emerging from rabbinic literature.

Littlejohn
.

mountainman

Josephus does not avail us as much in these issues as does the author Philo of Alexandria. As an authority, the authorship of Philo on the issues related to the essenes and the therapeutae as two distinct traditions, the former geographically confined to palestine, whereas the other ubiquitous inside and outside the empire, and seasonally gathered near Alexandria.

Most notably the author Philo mentions nothing about christianity however much Eusebius would like us to today make the inference that Philo was describing the "mists of christian origins and origens". The essenes were small and geographically bound and described by Philo. Their traditions and those described as the therapeutae are outlined in great length by Philo.

We need not rely at all upon Josephus for the data provided by Philo of Alexandria in the early first century -- at the time of the presumed christian origins.


Best wishes,


Pete