dating the birth stories?

[gryan]

I don't know why I wrote all that...

Cora, I think I might know "why" you wrote that--if it is the same reason I'm writing the stuff I'm writing--It is because of a beautiful logic. It is a way of putting together the puzzle pieces, given certain assumptions.

I'm in love with Paul, and the coherent logic of NT Galatians (understood in combination with Q/Thomas and proto-Mark as underground literature of authentic enfleshed spirituality of the historically insignificant Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified before the destruction of Jerusalem, and who was survived by a brother named James, who knew Paul personally, and who validated his experience of revelation). You are not.

[Bernard Muller]

to gryan,

the historically insignificant Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified before the destruction of Jerusalem, and who was survived by a brother named James,

I agree with that.

and who [Jame] validated his [Paul] experience of revelation.

But I don't for that.

Cordially, bernard

[hakeem]

Cora, I think I might know "why" you wrote that--if it is the same reason I'm writing the stuff I'm writing--It is because of a beautiful logic. It is a way of putting together the puzzle pieces, given certain assumptions.

I'm in love with Paul, and the coherent logic of NT Galatians (understood in combination with Q/Thomas and proto-Mark as underground literature of authentic enfleshed spirituality of the historically insignificant Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified before the destruction of Jerusalem, and who was survived by a brother named James, who knew Paul personally, and who validated his experience of revelation). You are not.

I don't know why you wrote that because it does not make sense. Assumptions are useless.

[cora]

Hi Greg,

Finally I have time to answer you. You say first you look at this as scriptures, not as history. But these scriptures claim to represent history. Is it not nice to know if this is true? I started investigating after reading 300 reactions on the question "did Jesus exist?" by some vicar. 50% said no. 50% said yes. But the yes was interesting: he was a teacher, he was a preacher, he was a socialist, he was a communist, he was a revolutionary, etc. etc. He was about 15 different things. They all may be possible, but NOT ALL AT THE SAME TIME. It may be written like that, that you can interpret different things. But who or what was he really? And where did it come from all? So I started an investigation. Not of only the texts themselves, because it all comes down about the son of god (Jahweh). But Jahweh has no son, he is the only god of the jews. Anything about a son of god CANNOT come from jews. Agreed?
So I studied Judaism, Gnosticism, and mystery religions, which is the least you must do to understand anything. And you know what? Nobody does that. They only look at the Christian scriptures themselves, the surroundings and other possibilities they refuse even to read. Everything is in the scriptures. I have found that all the scriptures are fake, or at least terribly forged (like Paul). With a historical investigation you can find out. Why is that important? I suppose you know about the power of the catholic church during the whole middle ages? You could say that they were out on power, wealth, and control over the whole population. By this control they were even more powerfull than kings. They were intolerant and violent. And after protestantism came this resulted in 150 years of religious wars throughout Europe. Only in 1648 it became more quiet again. And you know what? The protestants were just as bad: intolerant and violent.
So IMO Christianity has been very important from Constantine (313) until at least 1648, and even much longer. Wouldn't it be nice to know where is comes from? I think yes. Scholars are always complaining that there is no information before 150. Irenaeus is the first catholic writer in 185. Before that you have only Justin, the apologist, died 165. Can there be anything found out before that? Actually NO. Because the gospels are only presented by Irenaeus, in 185. It is certain that he put the names on them. Maybe he wrote them himself!! At least I find 4 gospels suddenly appearing in 185 suspicious. That is 155 years after 30. It was the first fact I found. It does not give the idea of anything reliable or true. Some time later I found that Irenaeus was quoting from 22 books of the NT (someone had researched this). I don't know about you, but by that time I really thought that he simply wrote it all himself. In the end of the research, after finding everything, it came out he did. And he forged, he forged everything. There is no scripture that has not been written or forged by him. There you have your scriptures.

So when did the church begin? After Irenaeus writing, the canon was opened in 200. Gospels and Acts in. The official beginning of the catholic church. So Peter did not found the church. This is just a story invented in rome in 160 (easy to find). A catholic lie, which they keep up of course.
Before 200 the church existed already longtime, but it was about Jahweh and the OT. (jews who did not keep the law, and others). You can also find this in the visit of Marcion: they had no scriptures at all except the OT. So in 145 they were still not Christian.

The virgin birth is of course invented. One of them was in the papers of Justin, the other one I cannot find. Why Invented? Because that cannot happen in reality. But very important for the church. In Marcion the divine spirit came to earth looking like a human being, most gnostics had a person receiving the divine spirit. It should be better. Through the virgin he became truly human and truly divine. I don't have to tell you that that is impossible. This was a new invention. Later everybody without a virgin was declared heretical. Nice and easy.

Paul, who was starting a religion, talked only about a god/divine spirit. Everything about Jesus being human, is forgery you know by whom. He knows a James who is the leader of a community, that is all. Paul's Jesus is a god, and thus has no brother: it is a forgery, which places Paul back in time AND proves Jesus was a real person. Brilliant forgery, they still have not found it out. Paul preaches a dying-rising-god, saviour, just look in a letter, and that is a mystery religion. It was the first thing I noticed about Paul. They are still denying it. Anything wrong with a mystery religion? Well, they are gnostic. Paul is a gnostic, and he started gnostic Christianity. You did not think that, did you? But it is true. All the gnostics call him THE apostle. In Egypt even "their GREAT apostle". And: it was the only form of Christianity there was. Paul preached between about 85/90 and 115/120. Cannot be any different because the original story was written in 72. I love history.
In the beginning I hated Paul. But later I learned to appreciate him. A very special person. He did a lot more or less on his own. That he was a gnostic is only an advantage: Gnosticism is a spiritual religion. Non violent, tolerant. Men and women are equal. We all would have been 20 times better off with Gnosticism than with the catholic church. In Galatians you can read that "the men from James" are following him, circumcising people. Paul does not. This shows that they are jews with a message for other jews. THAT CAN NEVER BE ABOUT THE SON OF GOD. They are talking about somebody else. Paul writes in anger that they should fuck off with their circumcision, and why not with their Law. VERY CLEAR: PAUL IS NOT A JEW. No jew would talk like that about the Law, ever. They break up. They never see each other again. This so-called 2nd visit is a forgery (otherwise you cannot write Acts). The letter to the Galatians is the first and most important letter because of what I just told. It is the only window to the original community in Judea.

So Paul started a religion. After Paul comes directly Marcion, one of his pupils. He goes to the church of rome. They have no scriptures. Marcion is widely known as having the first canon (the letters of Paul and the gospel from Judea Paul had, slightly altered because the god has to come down from the universe.) The terms old an new testament come even from Marcion. Just look under Marcion.
The church of rome knew nothing. This was the only gospel: from the community who wrote it to Paul, and from Paul to Marcion and from Marcion to the church. Where are the so-called other gospels? Not in the church. The original story was about a prophet: no miracles, no resurrection, no birth-stories, and therefore no Nazareth and no Gallilea. It played in Judea. This is what Paul had, and Marcion after him. It can only be this gospel which is out there. Because Paul spread it, or because the original community spread it themselves but then it can be found only among jews.

It can give the impression that "our gospels" were there, but that is only by people who do not know, or deny of course, that the synoptics are MADE by our forger friend OUT OFF the original gospel. In all the synoptics are pieces of the original gospel. They went into the canon. They were the official scriptures. And soon the rest became heresy. Meaning: the gospel of Marcion, of Paul and the original written story. They took what they could use, and the originals were declared heresy. It is all fraud. Have fun with the NT, there is no book that is real.

I hope to have answered your questions and that you will see the use of history!!!
greetings, Cora.

[Bernard Muller]

to Cora,

But Jahweh has no son, he is the only god of the jews. Anything about a son of god CANNOT come from jews. Agreed?

NO, Philo of Alexandria, an orthodox Jew, wrote:

a) "Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made" (The special Laws I, ch. XVI)

b) "... the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Being" (Questions and answers on Genesis II)

c) "For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest Son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn. And he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father ..." (On the confusion of tongues, ch. XIV)

d) "And even if there be not as yet one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labor earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angel, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called the authority and the name of God and the Word, and man according to God's image ..." (On the confusion of tongues, ch. XXVIII)

Note: the pseudo-Daniel Dead Sea scroll 4Q246 mentions a "son of God" as the mysterious "like a son of man" of Da7:13:
"He will be called the son of God; they will call him the son of the Most High ... His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and he will be righteous in all his ways. He [will jud]ge the earth in righteousness and everyone will make peace ... every nation will bow down to him ..."

e) "And this same Word is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. And the Word rejoices in the gift ..." (Who is the heir of divine things, ch. XLII)

f) "the most ancient Word of the living God ... he will never take the mitre off from his head, he will never lay aside the kingly diadem, the symbol of an authority which is not absolute, but only that of a viceroy, but which is nevertheless an object of admiration." (On flight and finding, ch. XX)

g) "the man [the high priest] who was consecrated to the Father of the world, should have as a paraclete [intercessor], his Son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings..." (On the life of Moses II, ch. XXVI).

h) "Who then is the chief butler of God? The priest who offers libations to him, the truly great high priest, who, having received a draught of everlasting graces, offers himself in return, pouring in an entire libation full of unmixed wine" (On dreams II, ch. XXVII)

i) "For there are, as it seems, two temples belonging to God; one being this world [heaven], in which the high priest is the divine word, his own firstborn son."(On Dreams I, ch. XXXVII)

j) "For we say the high priest is not a man, but is the word of God ..." (On flight and finding, ch. XX)

Does that ring a bell? Philo was not a loner but well esteemed among the Jews in Alexandria. The concepts of the above quotes would have been believed by Jews there.
It looks that Philo inadvertently provided Gentile Christianity through Apollos (also of Alexandria & the author of 'Hebrews') to Paul with many Gentile tenets, with some suggestion of incarnation. It was easy to make Philo's concepts stick on the pre-existent and post-existant Jesus.

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

I find it quite implausible that Irenaeus could have written four Gospels which are contradictory in many instances. It makes no sense whatsoever to write gMark without a birth narrative and post resurrection visits, write gMatthew and gLuke with contradicting birth narratives and post resurrection stories and then publicly argue that Jesus was crucified when he was an old man about 50 years old.

"Against Heresies" attributed Irenaeus was not the product of one writer but of multiple unknown writers.

Tertullian's Against Marcion is also a corrupted writing filled with errors as admitted by the author who stated that there were corrupted writings about Marcion filled with mistakes.

The character called Paul did not exist at any time but was fabricated in an attempt to historicise the apostles and the resurrection of Jesus.

[MrMacSon]

... Philo of Alexandria, an orthodox Jew... inadvertently provided Gentile Christianity (through Apollos, also of Alexandria; the author of 'Hebrews') and Paul with many Gentile tenets ...

Which was it Bernard? Was Philo an orthodox Jew? or a Gentile? (a Gentile subversive, perhaps?)

[MrMacSon]

Note: the pseudo-Daniel Dead Sea scroll 4Q246 mentions a "son of God" as the mysterious "like a son of man" of Daniel 7:13:

"He will be called the son of God; they will call him the son of the Most High ... His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and he will be righteous in all his ways. He [will judge] the earth in righteousness and everyone will make peace ... every nation will bow down to him ..."
.

Are you saying this might have been a key pre-Christian text, Bernard?
(or even a sort of para-Christian one? ie. concurrent to very early Christianity)

[hakeem]

It looks that Philo inadvertently provided Gentile Christianity (through Apollos, also of Alexandria (the author of 'Hebrews' and Paul) with many Gentile tenets, with some suggestion of incarnation. It was easy to make Philo's concepts stick on the pre-existent and post-existant Jesus.

Cordially, Bernard

Philo wrote nothing about Jesus and the Galileans and did not acknowledge any Jew who worshiped Jesus the Galilean as a God or mention anyone who started a cult of Christians.

In addition, hundreds of years before Philo, it is written in the books of Genesis and Job that there were sons of God.

Genesis 6

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. ..

Job 1:6

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

It must also be noted that in Greek/Roman mythology it was also believed for hundreds of years before the Jesus stories that there were sons of Gods born of a virgin which is not found in the OT or Philo.

Justin's First Apology

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all.

The writings of Philo are evidence that there was no Jesus cult of Christians who were Jews in his time up to c 50 CE.

[Bernard Muller]

To MrMacSon,
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4Q246) put 4Q246 as written circa 100 BC. But the translation is different of the one I offered (I don't remember from where I got it). Anyway, now, I would only keep that:
He will be called the son of God, they will call him the son of the Most High.
...
[. . .] he will be ruler over the land
[ . . .] will be subject to him and all will obey
[him.] [Also his son] will be called The Great, and be designated his name.

Cordially, Bernard