mountainman

Firstly have a look at the Eusebian canon tables cross referencing exactly what it was that each apostle said and how many times they were agreed and how many times what they said was novel. What use to Eusebius were four identical clones when it is generally understood that eyewitnesses will always provide different accounts of the one issue, especially as time passes and especially if they are asked to write out the account. There are generally no problems in dealing with discrepancies, unless the forger gets too bold, such as in the case of Eusebius' forgery of the hand of jesus christ, the hand of dear King Agbar, and the hand of Josephus in the TF.

Secondly have a look into ancient history. We appear to have present two separate people in the third century called "Origen" and both of them appear to have had a teacher with the name of "Ammonias Saccas". This problem however becomes significant in that when we look for the person in the earlier third century called "Ammonias Saccas" we find two such people. WIKI already disambiguates between "Origen the Christian" and "Origen the Platonist", and articles are already extant which disambiguate between "Ammonias the Christian" and "Ammonias the Father of Neoplatonism".

Thirdly, Eusebius only had a finite amount of time to pervert the Greek literature under the sponsorship of Constantine .... say 312 to 324 CE, and his boss would not tolerate a late deadline - many like Pamphilus died. It is also feasible that Eusebius oversighted the fabrication of the "Historia Augusta" during this epoch. He was a very busy person and was well paid for his efforts - The Boss looked after his "friends".

mountainman

Who? Eusebius?

What freedom did Eusebius have?

mountainman

What you have put forward aa5874 is known in the business as an integrity exception. Its just another integrity exception in the critical and skeptical examination of the memoirs of Eusebius which is the collective description of all the literary output achieved between the years of 312 and 339 CE (possibly revised by later Christians on the 4th and 5th century).

Eusebius's "Church History" (in which Mark and Origen appear, as well as other places) is written to preface the war council of Nicaea with Bullneck's bullshit. Have you looked at the memoirs of the Manichaen Apostles about their crucified Holy Man c.372 CE in the Persian capital city. Have you looked at the Greek Holy Man Apollonius of Tyana whose memoirs were OBLITERATED by order of the Lord God Caeasar Bullneck? Have you looked at the Greek holy man Plotinus, who wrote about the Holy Trinity and his Twelve Apostles saw to it that his memoirs were collected and edited. Have you examined these memoirs of Porphyry about this Holy Trinity Man Plotinus? The memoirs of Porphyry were OBLITERATED. We have the letter ordering this. It is the letter of a military supremacist and malevolent despot. I will refrain from mentioning the memoirs of that "Porphyrian" Arius and whether and how they were OBLITERATED. And why.


The question is .... How many integrity exceptions need to be uniquely identified in the memoirs of Eusebius before discussion turns to the possibility that in fact, we may be looking at an entirely fabricated "Church mockumentary" ---- just like the massive 4th century imperial-level forgery known as "The Historia Augusta"? In this forged manuscript sources are invented hand over fist and false documents are produced at whim. Sources are invented to disagree with sources. (Think about the Gnostic heretics please). The forgery is so outlandish it has been called a "mockumentary" --- fresh from the 4th century. Hello? What is Eusebius's "Church History" if not another "mockumentary".

Who is capable of asking this question?
And what is its answer to be contrained by?
Evidence and/or superstitious tradition and/or objectivity and/or censorship?

OLDMAN

In the end there is nothing that indicates Jesus would have practiced this trade during his lifetime. He was a Rabi, taught and raised as such. According to the Gnostics, taken away as a deadly young God-child to be taught right from wrong.

aa5874

But, we have the writings of Justin Martyr where he clearly referred to the Memoirs of the Apostles and mentioned several passages found in it.

Well, that would mean that it is NOT Irenaeus who holds the key. Irenaeus is NOT credible. The dating, chronology and authorship of the Gospels as found in "Against Heresies" has been deduced to be 100% in ERROR.

How could a bishop of the Church be so wrong?

And how did all those errors pass through the Church?

I don't think Muslims are the key. The Islamic religions started well after the Jesus stories by hundreds of years.

Chili

Jesus destroys himself using the gifts of the HS in a circus like manner. You may read more on him in Rev.13:11 where he is the second beast that came out of the old earth.

avi

It is the Quran, not Muslims, which offers, in my opinion, the source most likely to yield fruit in this inquiry.

The general question is this: Why would this newest branch of Judaism, originating in the 7th century CE, consider Jesus and John the Baptist, equally, as prophets?

Orthodox Judaism has no such regard for them. Orthodox Christianity in the 6th and 7th centuries no longer regarded John and Jesus as of the same character, or magnitude. Prior to the first writing of the Quran, in recorded history, both men were linked, jointly, as if approximately equals in stature, only at the time of Constantine, who assigned John's birthday as the single most important holiday of the pagan calendar, the summer solstice, assigning to Jesus' birthday the second most revered pagan holiday, the winter solstice.

My guess, only fiction, not fact, is that a copy of "Memoirs of the Apostles" escaped the fires of Constantine, having traveled down to Mecca or Medina, just before Constantine's ascension to power, where it remained for a couple hundred years, largely unread, and ignored. Then the camel caravan thief, with his new treasury of gold and silks, hired some itinerant Greek speaking literate men to assist him in creating his own religion, since he himself was illiterate.

I simply lack imagination sufficient to account for the peculiarity, of regarding both John and Jesus as prophets of the same rank, absent such a mechanism--i.e. a sequestered volume of ancient writings, contradictory to all available papyrus, extant in that era. Had the founder of Islam examined contemporary Christianity for inspiration, he could not have imagined that John and Jesus occupied the same stratum in the theological universe. Had he remained convinced of the validity of orthodox Judaism, the two would not have appeared in the Quran, at all. Why did the founder of Islam focus only on those two men, and not others in the Christian myth: for example, Peter, the rock?

Why is there no mention in the Quran, of Paul, who, according to Galatians, visited Saudi Arabia? According to me, i.e. more fiction, "Memoirs of the Apostles" was written well before Paul arrived on the scene, hence, no one in Saudi Arabia had ever heard of Paul, since he would not have been mentioned in the Memoirs.

avi

aa5874

You must have noticed that I wrote "Origen destroys Mark 6.3" NOT "Origen destroys ALL of Mark".

Now, it is claimed by apologetic sources that gMark was written since the time of Philo or around or before 50 CE.

And if it is very, very, very, very, very common for people to make errors in antiquity then things that are regarded as commonly true in antiquity may all be in error.

You must agree that with your view then nothing in antiquity may be reasonably resolved.

Brian63

A lot of things that are regarded as commonly true today actually are in error, so that is not a stretch at all.

No, I would not agree with that. We cannot resolve things with complete certainty, but we can reasonably resolve them with differing levels of confidence.

All I am saying is that it is possible that Origen just made a mistake in his statement, did not consult gMark to confirm it, misread gMark, or some other minor error. People do such things all the time today, and we are able to "reasonably resolve" things anyway. People in antiquity could do the same, but we can still "reasonably resolve" some things from then anyway.

Brian

Chili

That is because John is the bearer of the celestial light and Jesus the illuminator of the light of common day . . . which had gone to zero when Christ was born and is why it can be said that the sun stopped when Christ was born and so is why Christmas is celebrated for 2 consecutive days. Further, his absense was the reason Magdalene was left in the dark when alone (Magdalene is temple tramp between John-to-be and Jesus-to-be ever since the age of reason).

This confirms: "Mother there is you son, son there is your mother" as spoken by Jesus from the cross.

Peter the rock is an illusion but is rock only in that faith is carved upon it who therefore was defrocked when all doubt was removed from his twin in faith-and-doubt called Thomas. Zamjatin used the word "zero-rock" after unloading "the material of an idea" in WE (record 20 on page 108 = midlife in this poem), which so remains a fantasy as prime mover in a material cause . . . but no more than that and is a liability if not annihilated (Gal.5:1).