Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 8:43 am Without shame we assume the integrity of MAGA supporters.

Fake news and false propaganda abounds in the modern epoch just as it did in the ancient world. Why should anyone be ashamed of suggesting Irenaeus is fake news from the church industry of antiquity? The church [industry] wanted to win the battle of propaganda, and history tells us that they did. So how did they accomplish this?

By fake heresiological news? This option is at least consistent with the evidence.

Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus.



Some questions:

* What historical evidence is there for the existence of Christianity in Rome?

* What is the date of this evidence and what dating methodology was used?

* How is that the church in Rome waited until the later 4th century for Jerome to produce a Latin Bible?

* When did the doctrine of Apostolic Succession become important to the Roman church?

* Does the doctrine of Apostolic Succession have a legitimate historical foundation?

* How opportune to the Roman church were these Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus?

* The US government forged electoral results in the 21st century for their own advantage. So why couldn't the Latin Church Industry of the 4th (or subsequent) century forge "fragments of Irenaeus" for their own advantage?

Why couldn't the ancient Romans also be thought to have used cell phones and computers and systematically destroyed all evidence of their advanced technology after being defeated by the barbarians? What if they were so ashamed that such a technologically advanced society could fall to homeless people that they rewrote history in a more favorable light.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Jul 16, 2022 6:34 pm Why couldn't the ancient Romans also be thought to have used cell phones and computers and systematically destroyed all evidence of their advanced technology after being defeated by the barbarians?

The Romans perhaps in the 1st century (via Martial) invented the codex which became the high technology of the empire in the 4th century. Of course some Christian scholars claim that the evangelists invented the codex. Nothing surprises me anymore about the claims of Biblical scholars. The Romans didn't destroy the NHL and other codices. There was a war of codices during the Christian revolution of the 4th century (325-381 CE). The NT + LXX Bible codex was published far and wide by you know who and was never defeated. OTOH the codices of the heretics were defeated by fire and anathema and were consigned to the earth as the safest place to have them. I equate heresy and political sedition.

What if they were so ashamed that such a technologically advanced society could fall to homeless people that they rewrote history in a more favorable light.

Powerful regimes conspire to rewrite their own history in a more favorable light all the time and all the world over. Rejecting the possibility of such a conspiracy flies in the face of evidence to the contrary. By all means read your Irenaeus as if you were reading through the contents of a 2nd century time capsule preserved by a divine institute.

I think Romans had space travel but destroyed all their launch sites because they got all their newly invented New Testament codices from an alien civilization which demanding too much money for the Quran. It was only when Muhammad used all the oil revenue from Saudi Arabia in the 7th century that the aliens sold it to him.

Lucky for us photos of Muhammad working in the oil fields of Saudi Arabia in the 7th century were recently found by archaeologists in a time capsule established by ancient Sumerians after their invention of the time machine (all of which were subsequently destroyed so that they wouldn't fall into the hands of the invading Elamites).

Strangely enough it turns out that all surviving religious texts in the world today were produced by this alien civilization except for the texts of Mormonism which really are chronicles of early indigenous peoples of the Americas.

There is absolutely no historical legitimacy to apostolic succession except in the fantasy of apologistic scholars.

YOUR LYIN' HIS NAME IS NOT MOHAMMED!

(John T 'line of reasoning'. Please note misspelling of you're.)

Actually he is named Muhammad. FWIW.