spamandham

That's quite encouraging, after witnessing your lack of understanding of them, or more likely, simply an unwillingness to abide by them.

aa5874

My view is that the NT is fundamentally fiction, its sole purpose was to provide propaganda, distort history and mis-lead people into thinking that a god called Jesus Christ lived on earth during the 1st century.

I will provide another example of distortion and propaganda by Eusebius in "Church History".

Acts 12.21-23 And this is Josephus on the death of Agrippa in "Antiquities of the Jews" 19.8.2
Now this is Eusebius making reference to Antiquities of Jews 19.8 in Church History 2.10.6 Josephus clearly stated the king saw an OWL, a bird, yet Eusebius apparently quoting from Josephus erroneously claimed it was an ANGEL.

Another case of blatant distortion of written texts.

aa5874

I have found other instances of distortion by Eusebius in "Church History" where Eusebius distorts the information provided by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews. This mis-representation of Josephus is also found in the NT and it concerns information about John the Baptist, Herod, Philip and Herodias.

Mark 6.17-27 This is Eusebius in Church History 1.11 In Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus never mentioned that John the Baptist was beheaded, in fact it was King Aretas who was to be beheaded by Vitellius on the order of Tiberius.

"AJ 18.5 In Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus did not claim that John the Baptist was killed because of Herod's marriage to Herodias, Josephus claimed that Herod killed John the Baptist because he was fearful that John would start a rebellion.

"AJ 18.5.2 Also, Josephus never mentioned that Herodias was the wife of Philip, he claimed she was the wife of an Herod living in Rome.

AJ 18.5.1 It appears to me that the history of the early Church is completely bogus as written by Eusebius in "Church History".

aa5874

One of the most important persons of antiquity with respect to the authenticity of Christianity in the first century is Philo of Alexandria who lived at the same time of the supposed Jesus of Nazareth.

If Philo made mention of Jesus, his disciples, his doctrine, or a physical description in some credible way, then the history of this figure and indeed the early Church would be almost certainly assured.

Philo wrote over 40 writings which are still extant today.

Eusebius in "Church History" made mention of Philo of Alexandria, Eusebius appears to recognise the importance of Philo since he both lived and wrote when the supposed Jesus of Nazareth was alive and after this Jesus had vanished from earth, virtually disappeared without a trace.

This is Eusebius on Philo, Church History 2.4.2 From that passage, Eusebius tried to establish the following;

• Philo was known among the early Church.
• Philo was known among scholars outside the Church.
• Philo was very knowledgeable of the Scriptures.
• Philo was familiar with philosphy and liberal studies of foreign countries.

Now after reading the works of Philo and the works of others who mention Philo, there is one statement of Eusebius, as written in Church History 2.4.2, that appear to completely erroneous, and it is that Philo was known among the early Church.

Philo in all his extant writings, made about the time of the supposed Jesus of Nazareth, did not mention any prophecies concerning Jesus, did not write anything about the birth of Jesus, the life of Jesus, the miracles of Jesus, the crucifixion, the resurrection, ascension, nothing at all on his disciples, Peter, Mark, Luke, John or Paul. He never, in all his extant writings, make mention of any epistles, Churches, Christians or persecurion of Christians.

But Philo did mention Pilate.

Again, we have distortions of history, Eusebius uses an accepted figure of history, Philo, and uses him to try and authenticate fiction, the fabricated history of the early Church.

Philo is a most important witness to the fiction of Jesus and his disciples, since he denies Eusebius of an alibi for the whereabouts of Jesus and his followers.

Amaleq13

Not that you need additional support for your position but, IIRC, Eusebius criticizes or complains about Philo's failure to mention Jesus.

Jeffrey Gibson

To gain some sense of whether Philo's silence on this matter is really significant of anything, let alone leads to the conclusion that A what's his name thinks folows from it, it might be instructive to list all of the other first century Jewish kings of "Israel", Roman governors of Judea, chief and High Priests of the Temple, and other charismatic/revolutionary Palestinian figures whom we know through Josephus who are also not mentioned by Philo.

Anyone care to have a go?

Jeffrey

aa5874

The passage in Church History begins as follows: Church History 2.4.2 Philo made no mention whatsoever of any Christian Church, anyone within the Church or any-one called Jesus and his disciples in his extant writings. And the name Philo is not even found within the NT.

Jeffrey Gibson

Why would you expect it to be?

Jeffrey

Gamera

First Eusebius is retrojecting his notion of the Church with the condition of the church during Philo's time. The two are not in any way alike. The house churches of Philo's time would be unlikely to have attracted the attention of a Jewish scholar in Alexandria.

Second, this passage only says that Philo was celebrated among Christians and nonChristians alike. That doesn't imply that Philo was aware of his celebrity among Christians.

Gamera

I imagine this would make a very long list, and once again applying the anti-historicist standard, most of the dramatis personae of antiquity would be basically effaced.

Forgive them for they know not what they do.