.
The opening post -

Zwaarddijk wrote:
Ok, so, basically, let's assume the non-historicity of Jesus. What can we learn about early Christianity from this? What does it tell us about Christianity's early adherents? Was the idea of his historicity an intentional deception, or did they just accidentally fall headlong into believing he had existed?

If the latter, how did it happen? If the former, why, who were the deceivers and what did they hope to achieve, and why by this method? Did they know previous godmen had been likewise fabricated? If so, how was that knowledge available to them?

This is relevant -

... the entire Greek manuscript tradition that has preserved Antiquities book 18 (ie. merely three late manuscripts, A M W, and the first printed edition) appears to have passed through redaction; either by Eusebius, or those influenced by Eusebius.

it provides a sort of ‘confirmation’ of the ‘testable predictions’ of a hypothesis ... one which is advanced by Ken Olson1 (among others), that Eusebius and the library at Caesarea may have specifically had a role to play in the origin and propagation of the Testimonium Flavianum, due to the fact that all the extant manuscripts of Antiquities 18 show an indication of alteration or addition by Eusebius-influenced Christian scribes.

http://peterkirby.com/table-of-contents-josephus.html

1 https://www.academia.edu/4062154/Olson_A_Eusebian_Reading_of_the_Testimonium_Flavianum_2013

As for Antiquities 20 -

Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200
Richard Carrier
From: the Journal of Early Christian Studies
Volume 20, Number 4, Winter 2012
pp. 489-514 | 10.1353/earl.2012.0029

Abstract:

Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to "Christ" in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians.

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?type=summary&url=/journals/journal_of_early_christian_studies/v020/20.4.carrier.pdf

It is more probable that the phrase, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, the name for whom was James,” originated in an accidental interpolation in the Caesarean library than that it came from Josephus’s hand. Without “who was called Christ,” we have no reference to this passage in Origen at all; and we have no evidence that the phrase was ever in Josephus, as the silence of Luke-Acts, Origen, and every other author, including Hegesippus (whose account shows no knowledge of the events related in AJ 20.200), suggests. Origen does not quote Josephus when he, in three places, uses the phrase “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,” because in none of these places does he quote or refer to other Josephan material (be it a distinctive construction like “the name for whom was James,” or content particular to AJ 20.200). Rather, he uses a story clearly found only in the Christian author Hegesippus, who also relates a story unknown to Luke and, therefore, probably a second-century invention, as its internal absurdities further suggest. Origen never claims that his material originated from the AJ, and Eusebius could not find it anywhere in Josephus’s writings either, so he simply quoted Origen, but passed it off as a Josephan quotation. Eusebius is the first to notice any mention of Christ in AJ 20.200; unlike Origen, he is the first to quote it; he is the first to declare it a reference to the same James. It seems highly likely, then, that τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ (“who was called Christ”) is an accidental scribal interpolation or innocent emendation, and never appeared in the original text of Josephus.3

We have now two exactly parallel threads. These should now be merged.

Scot Dutchy wrote:We have now two exactly parallel threads. These should now be merged.

The OP seeks some difference (see the top of this page).

RealityRules wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:We have now two exactly parallel threads. These should now be merged.

The OP seeks some difference (see the top of this page).

Originally I agree but as they keep losing more and more of the argument they have to turn to the HJ tactics. Quoting the same rubbish over and over again.

appealing to tradition and traditional dogma seems to be the only argument for some - no attempt to engage new ideas or ways of looking at or contextualizing information.

Yep. But it is typical theists practise. When losing a thread start an almost parallel one.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Yep. But it is typical theists practise. When losing a thread start an almost parallel one.

You saying I am a theist?

Scot Dutchy wrote:We have now two exactly parallel threads. These should now be merged.

They are not. The difference is maybe too subtle for you to grasp - that wouldn't surprise me at all - but there definitely is one. This thread should not be a debate as to whether a historical Jesus existed - it should be a thread about what the Mythicists here think about early Christianity. By stating at the outset that the assumption is that there is no figure per se which the Biblical Jesus is an exaggerated version of, this thread makes the debate as to whether he existed or not irrelevant. Thus, the conflict between the MJ and HJ sides (btw, only a complete retard would equate the HJ side with 'theists') is subverted. The HJers - the side that my arguments tend to align more often with - are thus basically weakened significantly in this thread.

I resent a lot of the vague accusations you are making, Scot.

Zwaarddijk wrote:Ok, so, basically, let's assume the non-historicity of Jesus. What can we learn about early Christianity from this?

Given this assumption we may explore the possibility not only that the first Christian historian Eusebius was the most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity, but that his continuators also indulged in forgery the fabrication of pseudo-historical narratives. We may also explore the possibility that the Emperor Constantine was not only aware of the fabrication of the NT but that he may have actually sponsored it.

What does it tell us about Christianity's early adherents?

They may not have existed until the 4th century.

Was the idea of his historicity an intentional deception, or did they just accidentally fall headlong into believing he had existed?

I'd argue it was an intentional deception.

If the former, why, who were the deceivers and what did they hope to achieve, and why by this method?

The deceivers were the incoming military regime headed by Constantine the supreme commander. The Christian revolution was designed to be anti-Hellenistic. The Hellenes were relegated to "gentiles" and subject to conversion. The canonical books of Plato were to be replaced with the canonical books of the "new and strange" Christians. The Christian revolution under Constantine was designed to effect the end of the Greek dominance over religious and philosophical issues in the Roman Empire. Plato was asserted to have received his wisdom from Moses. By this method, by telling a "BIG LIE" over and over again while holding a sharp sword to the necks of dissenters, a supremely powerful military dictator (who had no allegiance to the Greek intellectual traditions) could unite the Roman Empire under a monotheistic banner by military duress.

Did they know previous godmen had been likewise fabricated? If so, how was that knowledge available to them?

The public and private libraries of the Roman empire were obviously available to the emperor and his agents. But more to the point, a century before Nicaea, the greatest enemies of the ROmans - the Persians - had regrouped under a centralised monotheistic state. In 222 CE Ardashir, the Persian King of Kings, at the zenith of his supreme military power implemented Zoroastrianism as the centralised monotheistic state religion of the (Sassanid) Persians. Since that time the Persians had exhibited a new vigour, and had dished out some humiliating defeats to the Roman Emperors and armies. They all had marched to the "One True Monotheistic Song", and Constantine wanted his own State monotheism (which was not Greek).

Constantine was legally the "Pontifex Maximus" and was legally entitled to sponsor the god of his choice as had all the Roman Emperors before him. However Constantine fabricated his own god, a "Holy Writ" for that god, and a history of the followers of the non existent god, and then legislated "Religious privileges are reserved for Christians". It is apt to see Constantine as a military dictator who wanted to BIND-TOGETHER the empire. According to Sosomen no one dared to openly challenge the doctrines of Constantine while he lived (specifically between 324 and 337 CE). I wonder why that was.

Emperor Julian c.361 CE expressed all this as follows ...

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

I think the various authors of the various texts had various motivations. Maybe some really did have visions, maybe some were scam artists like those who prey on the credulous.

Leucius Charinus wrote:It is apt to see Constantine as a military dictator who wanted to BIND-TOGETHER the empire.

It's not unheard of to take a smidgen of etymology on which to base one's reading, and simply run off with it. This isn't necessarily muddled or dogmatic in itself, but such a reading isn't one we can prescribe for other people.

Hmmmmm. Prescriptive hermeneutics. I know I've come across that practice somewhere before. OTOH, if this is only running something up a flagpole to see if anyone salutes, have fun.

They didn't invent anything. "Christos" (Anointed One) was a title in the Old Testament. They simply evolved a theology that interpreted "Christos" as a saviour figure through a highly selective, misleading reading of the holy text. They found information about his life, death, and resurrection by reading the Old Testament.

God bless Father Thomas Brodie

He considered that Christianity was founded significantly on a process of rewriting, and that the rewriting indicates coordination—a group or school. In Chp. 19 he expands on the mimesis model by exploring the “role of the process of writing” in ancient times. He notes that the codex came into its own about the turn of the era, eventually replacing papyrus as the dominant medium.

At the center of Brodie’s mimesis model are two parallels: the patterning of Paul after Moses, and of Jesus after Yahweh.



Along with many others, I have begun to show the increasing evidence that the New Testament portrayal of Paul is modeled significantly on the Old Testament picture of Moses, and that the portrayal of Jesus is largely a synthesis of the Old Testament account of God and of all that God does, often through people. [183]

So the starting point for the history of Christianity is as follows. The story/narrative and institutions of Christianity are an adaptation of the story and institutions of Judaism. But the leading figures in the story, Jesus and Paul, were not the originators either of the story or institutions. Rather, the account of them is modeled on the old story in such a way—complete, complex, detailed, artistic—that they emerge as scriptural figures formed by others. [184]


http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2013/03/ ... odie-pt-2/

The codex appears substantially in the 4th century.



All this points towards a very late "literary school".

Leucius Charinus wrote:God bless Father Thomas Brodie

He considered that Christianity was founded significantly on a process of rewriting, and that the rewriting indicates coordination—a group or school. In Chp. 19 he expands on the mimesis model by exploring the “role of the process of writing” in ancient times. He notes that the codex came into its own about the turn of the era, eventually replacing papyrus as the dominant medium.

At the center of Brodie’s mimesis model are two parallels: the patterning of Paul after Moses, and of Jesus after Yahweh.



Along with many others, I have begun to show the increasing evidence that the New Testament portrayal of Paul is modeled significantly on the Old Testament picture of Moses, and that the portrayal of Jesus is largely a synthesis of the Old Testament account of God and of all that God does, often through people. [183]

So the starting point for the history of Christianity is as follows. The story/narrative and institutions of Christianity are an adaptation of the story and institutions of Judaism. But the leading figures in the story, Jesus and Paul, were not the originators either of the story or institutions. Rather, the account of them is modeled on the old story in such a way—complete, complex, detailed, artistic—that they emerge as scriptural figures formed by others. [184]


http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2013/03/ ... odie-pt-2/

The codex appears substantially in the 4th century.



All this points towards a very late "literary school".

It's interesting to think how the new technology might have impacted the development of this religious cult.

Leucius Charinus wrote:Given this assumption we may explore the possibility not only that the first Christian historian Eusebius was the most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity, but that his continuators also indulged in forgery the fabrication of pseudo-historical narratives. We may also explore the possibility that the Emperor Constantine was not only aware of the fabrication of the NT but that he may have actually sponsored it.

A thorough scientific [criminal] investigation into writings of the Church may show that many writings attributed to Church writers are forgeries or falsely attributed.

The fact that writings of Josephus, Tacitus and the very NT Canon were manipulated hundreds of years later means that other Church writings themselves may have been interpolated or fabricated.

For example, "Church History" attributed to Eusebius may not have been written [wholly or in part] by such a person in the 4th century.

In Church History supposedly written by Eusebius c 325 it is claimed that Josephus wrote about Jesus.

"Church History" 2.23.20.

Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.

But, Julian the Emperor c 361-363, was willing to be branded as a LIAR, if anyone could show that a contemporary writer who mentioned Jesus, Paul or any of those Galileans.

Julian's Against the Galileans"

But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.

Julian the Emperor c 361-363 CE did not know of the forgeries of Josephus and Tacitus or "Church History" where it is claimed that Josephus mentioned Jesus and Tacitus mentioned Christus.

It would appear that writings attributed to Church writers were forged and manipulated BEFORE and AFTER the 4th century.

Scholars have already admitted that many writings of the NT Canon are forgeries, falsely attributed and were manipulated and even Eusebius in "Church History" admitted 2 Peter does NOT belong in the Canon.

The short gMark in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices dated to the 4th century and the Long gMark in the Alexandrinus Codex dated to the 5th century ALSO is EVIDENCE that authors of the Church Canon did FORGE, MANIPULATE, and FALSELY attributed the LONG gMark to the same author of the short gMark.

Once a thorough [criminal] investigation is carried out on Church writings it would be shown that many writings attributed to Church writers are really forgeries or falsely attributed and manipulated.

Another quick example of possible forgeries, false attribution and manipulations are the writings attributed to Tertullian of the 2nd -3rd century

There are many, many writings attributed to Tertullian including "Against Marcion" but virtually all of the writings presently attributed to Tertullian were NOT attributed to him in "Church History" attributed to Eusebius and "De Viris Illustribus".

Up to the end of the 4th century it was claimed by Jerome that Tertullian wrote AGAINST the Church.

The Donation of Constantine is also another of example of forgeries and false attribution in the name of Constantine carried out hundreds of years AFTER Constantine was dead.

The very same manipulation and false attribution may also be found in other writings of the Church like "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, supposed presbyter and bishop of the Church of Lyons.

Leucius Charinus wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:Ok, so, basically, let's assume the non-historicity of Jesus. What can we learn about early Christianity from this?

Given this assumption we may explore the possibility not only that the first Christian historian Eusebius was the most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity, but that his continuators also indulged in forgery the fabrication of pseudo-historical narratives. We may also explore the possibility that the Emperor Constantine was not only aware of the fabrication of the NT but that he may have actually sponsored it.

What does it tell us about Christianity's early adherents?

They may not have existed until the 4th century.

Was the idea of his historicity an intentional deception, or did they just accidentally fall headlong into believing he had existed?

I'd argue it was an intentional deception.

If the former, why, who were the deceivers and what did they hope to achieve, and why by this method?

The deceivers were the incoming military regime headed by Constantine the supreme commander. The Christian revolution was designed to be anti-Hellenistic. The Hellenes were relegated to "gentiles" and subject to conversion. The canonical books of Plato were to be replaced with the canonical books of the "new and strange" Christians. The Christian revolution under Constantine was designed to effect the end of the Greek dominance over religious and philosophical issues in the Roman Empire. Plato was asserted to have received his wisdom from Moses. By this method, by telling a "BIG LIE" over and over again while holding a sharp sword to the necks of dissenters, a supremely powerful military dictator (who had no allegiance to the Greek intellectual traditions) could unite the Roman Empire under a monotheistic banner by military duress.

Did they know previous godmen had been likewise fabricated? If so, how was that knowledge available to them?

The public and private libraries of the Roman empire were obviously available to the emperor and his agents. But more to the point, a century before Nicaea, the greatest enemies of the ROmans - the Persians - had regrouped under a centralised monotheistic state. In 222 CE Ardashir, the Persian King of Kings, at the zenith of his supreme military power implemented Zoroastrianism as the centralised monotheistic state religion of the (Sassanid) Persians. Since that time the Persians had exhibited a new vigour, and had dished out some humiliating defeats to the Roman Emperors and armies. They all had marched to the "One True Monotheistic Song", and Constantine wanted his own State monotheism (which was not Greek).

Constantine was legally the "Pontifex Maximus" and was legally entitled to sponsor the god of his choice as had all the Roman Emperors before him. However Constantine fabricated his own god, a "Holy Writ" for that god, and a history of the followers of the non existent god, and then legislated "Religious privileges are reserved for Christians". It is apt to see Constantine as a military dictator who wanted to BIND-TOGETHER the empire. According to Sosomen no one dared to openly challenge the doctrines of Constantine while he lived (specifically between 324 and 337 CE). I wonder why that was.

Emperor Julian c.361 CE expressed all this as follows ...

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

Actually, while Constantine was no pussy cat, people tend to forget that it was not Constantine who jackbooted Christianity as the faith of the realm. He simply gave Christianity official status as one of the Empire's legitimate faiths. His official policy with respect to other doctrines/traditions was more pluralist than hegemonic: "Let those, therefore, who still delight in error, be made welcome to the same degree of peace and tranquility which they have who believe. For it may be that this restoration of equal privileges to all will prevail to lead them into the straight path. Let no one molest another, but let every one do as his soul desires.....With regard to those who will hold themselves aloof from us, let them have, if they please, their temples of lies....". (http://latter-rain.com/eccle/constant.htm)

In fact, the jackbooting of Christianity as the only faith of the Empire came with Constantine's successor, Theodosius. Theodosius outlawed all other practices, even in private homes(!), effectively "bull-dozed" all the temples, etc. In fact, in all of human history, not just Roman, Theodosius may even be the first(?) ruler ever to have legislated the draconian policy of one faith for all. I'll have to double-check that, but that may be the case. Yes, feuds and massacres among devotees of different faiths have happened throughout human history, of course, long before Theodosius. But Theodosius may have been the first(?) to pro-actively codify the ascendancy of one specific belief as LAW.

Stein

The supposed early "history" of the Church is bogus.

The mere fact that the very Canon of the Church is littered with FAKE 1st century authors is evidence that no Apologetic writing can be accepted as credible WITHOUT corroboration.

It took hundreds upon hundreds of years before it was deduced that the authorship, chronology of authorship and contents of the NT Canon was manipulated.

It is extremely important to understand that virtually ALL CHRISTIAN writers of antiquity put out the false bogus propaganda that the Gospels of the NT Canon were composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and a single writer under the name of Paul wrote ALL the Epistles of the Pauline Corpus including Hebrews.

The False claims of authorship and chronology of authorship was INVENTED to promote the FALSE PRIMACY of the Jesus cult of Christians.

The history of the Jesus cult was really LATER than the history of the so-called Heretic.

In effect, the stories of the so-called Heretics PREDATED the Jesus stories of the NT Canon including the Pauline Corpus.

The so-called Heretics were most likely the FIRST cult of Christians with stories of Jesus--NOT Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude are ALL FAKE 1st century authors.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James and Jude have NO history outside the NT and Apologetics.