aa5874

Well, this is REMARKABLY easy to answer.

Once the writings of Justin Martyr are EXAMINED it would be noticed that Justin propagated the NOTION that the DEVIL knew IN ADVANCE that Jesus would come so INTRODUCED the HERESIES into the world BEFORE Jesus came.

For example, Justin Martyr claimed that the ritual of the Eucharist was "IMITATED" in MITHRAISM BEFORE it was practised by the Jesus cult.

"First Apology" LXVI Justin Martyr claimed that the DEVIL introduced the HERESIES BEFORE Jesus came to DECEIVE and CONFUSE.

The so-called Heretics did NOT have to wait until there was a Jesus Cult since the DEVIL already KNEW in advance that Jesus would come based on Justin.

"First Apology" LIV

OLDMAN

Like everything christian, there is no direct evidence of anything. Little wonder considering they lost an ark the size of a supertanker, christ's body, chalice, cross, the ark of the covenant, original Hebrew texts, and everything else that one would think would be protected at all cost? Being proof of said religion.

maryhelena

21 c.e. for the crucifixion of JC under Pilate? Is this really an outrageous suggestion? Whatever else in the Acts of Pilate - this dating is intriguing! One can only raise arguments re it being a contradiction of gLuke if one fails to appreciate that’s it’s not history one is dealing with but pseudo-history, or prophetic history, an interpretation of history. Particularly, once an ahistorical position re JC is upheld, then one does not need to take the gospel story at face value. Consider Luke 3.1,2.

Lysanias of Abilene = 40 b.c.

Philip, tetrarch of Trachonitis, Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee = 4 b.c. or 1 b.c. or 4 c.e. (depending upon dating the death of Herod the Great)

High Priest, Annas = 6 c.e. - 15 c.e.

Tiberius = 14 c.e.

High Priest, Caiaphas = 18 c.e.

Pontius Pilate? = 19 c.e. (Josephus placing the TF within an early timeslot.)

Pontius Pilate? = 26 c.e.

Tiberius’s 15th year in 29/30 c.e.

Luke 3.1,2. There is a context, a template, of a 70 year period from 40 b.c. to the 15th year of Tiberius in 29/30 c.e.

Now, according to Eusebius, the Acts of Pilate, places the crucifixion of JC under Pilate in the 7th year of Tiberius, i.e. in 21 c.e. The consensus position being that this is in error because, according to a reading of Josephus, Pilate was not in Judea until 26 c.e. And, of course, the JC historicists will want to run with a literal reading of Luke 3.1,2 - that JC was alive in the 15th year of Tiberius in 29/30 c.e. (since there was no historical gospel JC - that position can be ditched.......)

The immediate point of interest re 21 c.e. is that it is the 7th year of Tiberius. And when that number 7 rears it’s head - then so too should ones awareness that one is dealing with historical interpretation or symbolism. RED ALERT!

There is a striking parallel being made here. That is a parallel between the rule of Artaxerxes, 465 b.c. Like with Tiberius, the years, the 7th and 20th, of Artaxerxes are significant.

The 7th year, in 458/7 b.c. was the year Ezra returned to Jerusalem, with gold and silver for the temple. Ezra 7.8,13.

The 20th year, in 445 b.c. was the year Nehemiah returned to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 2.1, 6.15.

If, as seems to be the case, the interest in the 7th year of Tiberius, in 21 c.e., as the year in which gospel JC is crucified - then, as prophetic interpretation goes.....that would be considered to be the middle of a week of 7 years. Thus from 19 c.e., for Pilate until 26 c.e. The ‘big’ year being 26 c.e. - a year that is 483 years back to 458/7 b.c. and the 7th year of Artaxerxes.
So, a mini application, if one likes.............of Daniel ch.9 to the 7th year of Tiberius in 21 c.e.

But time does not stop still - and history moves on. Necessitating another mini application of Daniel.ch.9. This time as a follow on to the end of those 70 years in 29/30 c.e. 7 years to 36/37 c.e. This time JC gets crucified in 33 c.e., in the middle of the 7 years period. And 33/34 c.e. (the 20th year of Tiberius) is 490 years back to the 7th year of Artaxerxes in 457 b.c. The end of this 7 years, in 36/37 c.e., and it's Antipas that gets the chop - or at least his army.....so goes the Josephan story.....

(Josephus, interestingly, and not without some ambiguity, places the death of Philip in the 20th year of Tiberius - another story....)

Did Pilate really rule that long - from 19 to 36/37 c.e.? Doubtful, I would imagine. More likely he might have got the chop in 26 c.e. after a 7 year rule - bad PR with the Jews re standards etc. Thus the Pilate years between the 15th year of Tiberius until 36/37 c.e. are simply a replay of the earlier years....history repeats itself and all of that.....

What does all of this do for the Acts of Pilate - it might suggest an early date for it’s core ‘message’ re the 7th year of Tiberius. It might suggest that gLuke was not yet written - and even Antiquities.

Slavonic Josephus has it’s wonder worker crucified under Pilate - but no dating. Philo links Pilate to Tiberius. A next step from the bare bones story in Slavonic Josephus is to provide Pilate a historical anchor - that’s of course if he did not already have one ie is really a historical figure. Yep, I know, the Pilate stone - but it’s intriguing nevertheless....

It would also be of great interest to know if John the Baptist was mentioned in the very early Acts of Pilate - as there is no connection between the wonder worker and the Baptist figure in Slavonic Josephus. If not - then the very early Acts of Pilate, in it’s 7th year crucifixion storyline in the time Tiberius - could even be earlier than any of the gospels.....

The whole JC story is a developing storyline - so, as time goes on earlier drafts would get discarded as a better understanding or interpretation became available. Prophetic or symbolic time frames are simply the template into which historical interpretations are inserted.

Anyway, some ideas re that JC crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius in 21 c.e. Feel free to take ones pick - or not.....

mountainman

Hi aa5874,

Justin Martyr's writings are characterised by their forgeries, including the forgery of official replies from Roman Emperors .... "Dear Justin Martyr,
thank you for your recent Apology, etc, etc, drivel , drivel" ....

How the sybils predicted Jesus - O Christ!
Believe in Jesus because of the Sybiline GPS.
This stuff has got Big E plastered all over it.



Two Eusebian sources, Justin Martyr and Tertullian, make reference to the existence of some "Acts of Pilate" in the second and early third century. However we cannot be sure precisely what it was they were making reference to, especially in the case of Tertullian, who tries to assure us that Pontius Pilate became "christian".

We do not have any documentary evidence that either Justin or Tertullian witnessed the same "Acts of Pilate" which has survived to the 21st century. The earliest "Acts of Pilate" appear as apologetic assertions. Eusebius makes no reference to these earlier references when he is discussing the sudden appearance of the "Pagan Acts of Pilate". We might consider that the "Early Christian Acts of Pilate" are wishful thinking.

In their book Apocryphal Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk) Hans-Josef Klauck and Brian McNeil (2003) write:

"This is most likely not evidence that Christian documents in the name of Pilate already existed; rather,
these texts have inspired the composition of the Acts of Pilate."

In their book The Apocryphal New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk) James Keith Elliott and Montague Rhodes James write (p.164):

"It is unlikely that Justin was referring to the present work;
either he knew another treatise of this name or else merely
assumed such a document must have existed."

The early "Acts of Pilate" is an insubstantial forged rumor. The interesting and valuable examination is the 4th century "Acts of Pilate", which turned up in Big E's lifetime, and we can tell he was visibly disturbed by its appearance. Big E and his Boss had not control over the appearance of this 4th century "acts of pilate". They certainly had control over the publication of the Constantine Bible, for which Big E was Editor-In-Chief.

In the appearance of the 4th century "Acts of Pilate" we can clearly see the grass roots resistance of the Panhellenic civilisation against the appearance of Constantine's Bible. But who wants to go there?


Best wishes,



Pete

aa5874

Well, this is like claiming that "Antiquities of the Jews" by Josephus is a COMPLETE forgery because of the "TF".

You MUST first read and analyze "Church History" to KNOW what BIG E and his ACCOMPLICES wrote.

BIG E and his ACCOMPLICES did NOT or do NOT appear to have written the following

1."First Apology" or "Dialogue with Trypho" attributed to Justin Martyr.

2. "The Apology" attributed to Aristides.

3. "Octavius" attributed to Municius Felix.

4. "To Autolycus" attributed to Theophilus of Antioch.

5. "A Plea for the Christians" attributed to Athenagoras of Athens.

6. "Discourse to the Greeks" attributed to Tatian.

7. "Against the Heathen" attributed to Arnobius.


You seem NOT to understand that BIG E DEVELOPED a UNIQUE PROFILE that is EASILY detectable. Once you read and CAREFULLY study "CHURCH HISTORY" the PROFILE will jump out at you.

These are some of the writings that were written, wholly or in part, by BIG E and his ACCOMPLICES.

Writings attributed to Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria and Origen.


The WRITTEN STATEMENT of a PRIME SUSPECT cannot be IGNORED.

No INVESTIGATOR DUMPS, like garbage, the written STATEMENT of a PRIME SUSPECT just because it contains FICTION.

NEVER, NEVER, EVER.

Any WRITTEN statement of a PRIME SUSPECT CAN BE USED AGAINST him even though it contains Fiction.

And BIG E did give a WRITTEN statement.

BIG E did provide the CLUES to SOLVE "Crime".

Constantine STOLE Jesus Christ, a Ghost, and made him the NEW God of Rome.

It would appear that the 4th century Romans stole even the Gods they worship.

mountainman

No it isn't. Its like claiming that the Big E. physically controlled all the sources available to antiquity in Rome from 312 and in Alexandria from 324 CE.


One important stolen god that is often overlooked is the god of Plato.
The god or the divinity of Plato lived in the canon of Plato's books.
These were preserved by the Platonic lineage to Porphyry.
The first INTER-OFFICE MEMO arising from Nicaea was for
the burning of Plato (via Porphyry).

The Holy Trinity was not mentioned at Nicaea, but the term has been stolen from Plato's metaphysics, which begins with a holy trinity of "The One, Spirit, Soul". (Which are unequal in their interrelationship). It may have been incorporated into post Nicaean christology by ex-Platonists.

aa5874

Well, physical control does not mean all sources were manipulated.

Again, you MUST read "Church History" to get the PROFILE of BIG E. It is absolutely important. "Church History" has given the CLUES to solve the "crime".

mountainman

Yes, I agree, Big E's "Church History" is a must read. Clues are also present in other manuscript evidence, such as the "Historia Augusta", which does not need to be read, just understood as a "Collegiate Mockumentary - massive forgery - etc" and dedicated to, among other people, the publisher of the Constantine Bible.

I am very interested to the possible answers to the question - what specifically do we assess the "crime" to be? It may be important to get a consensus of opinion on this critical issue. Many people may treat this assessment on a case by case basis, such as an examination of the TF. While "pious forgery" is a crime for an historian, it is very general, and there other criminal activities to be examined and discussed here. FWIW, I think that there is evidence to substantiate the claim that one of the crimes is identity fraud. I have written an essay on this available here.

aa5874

I just want you to KNOW that BIG E and his ACCOMPLICES have a UNIQUE way of LYING and that ONCE you RECOGNIZE how they LIED then you will be ABLE to IDENTIFY ALL the writings from BIG E and his ACCOMPLICES.

For example, sometimes it is claimed that there is a SERIAL killer BEFORE even a suspect is held based on the EVIDENCE from the Crime Scenes ALONE.

Well, the very same thing applies to BIG E and his ACCOMPLICES, once you EXAMINE the "crime scene" ("Church History") then you should be ABLE to DETECT their MODUS OPERNADI.

It is that Simple.

BIG E and his ACCOMPLICES did NOT write "FIRST APOLOGY or DIALOGUE with TRYPHO.

I have IDENTIFIED the "CODES" of BIG E and His ACCOMPLICES. THEY ALL USE the SAME "CODES".

The "CODES" of BIG E and his Accomplices are NOT in Some Christian writings.

jakejonesiv

Hi AA,

That is an interesting theory. Do you believe that Justin Martyr was a real guy writing in Rome near the midddle of the second century, and that he was representative of a fairly new cult or sect? Is that a fair assement of your position?

I am not wanting to argue or dispute over anything, only trying to understand what you think.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV