The manuscript Labyrinth of the Greek and Latin F-Fathers

[Leucius Charinus]

Regardless of where they come from. Vinzent evidently still lingers in the same womb that Bilby appears to be in ...

That is the supposed fertile womb of Patristics - the domain of the FF of which Eusebius - by virtue of his right as the first "historian" - was the mid-wife. Patristic scholars are those who know their Eusebius by heart. And by Eusebius I also mean the Eusebian continuators: the 10 volumes of the ANF, the 14 volumes of the NF and the 14 volumes of the PNF. All of which were "preserved" over centuries and centuries by an utterly corrupt industry which was highly influential and extremely rich.

I reserve the right to view all these FF writings (pseudo-historical propaganda) as being attributable to one single source - the long term operation of the [utterly corrupt] church industry over many long and dark centuries.

[mlinssen]

You reserve all the rights that you like Pete. Not that any of it is based on anything, not that you have Leuven anything, demonstrates anything to
Your entire sodden theory is nothing but a giant opinion

Tell me why Justin calls himself Chrestian, go on then - you will circumvent the case as usual because it would severely hurt your dumb assumption for which you haven't even provided a motive

[Leucius Charinus]

Tell me why Justin calls himself Chrestian, go on then - you will circumvent the case as usual because it would severely hurt your dumb assumption for which you haven't even provided a motive

You should be well aware that I think it is reasonable to suspect that the 2nd/3rd century sources such as Justin (and Tertullian and Irenaeus and the FF) were fabricated by the later 4th century church industry or by the church industry of the Middle Ages which supposedly "preserved" these sources. So the fabrication is likely to have been first engineered in the Latin church.

Justin's earliest manuscript is a 14th century "Omnibus edition". Tertullian has only late very late Latin manuscripts (not Greek). Of course this does not stop the best of modern scholarship from peering into the texts of Justin and Irenaeus as if they were peering into a time capsule from the 2nd century. The Pope would be pleased.

In fabricating the Chrestian Justin the (Latin) fabricators knew that Chrestian terminology was the original oldest layer. So they played into this.

[mlinssen]

Tell me why Justin calls himself Chrestian, go on then - you will circumvent the case as usual because it would severely hurt your dumb assumption for which you haven't even provided a motive

You should be well aware that I think it is reasonable to suspect that the 2nd/3rd century sources such as Justin (and Tertullian and Irenaeus and the FF) were fabricated by the later 4th century church industry or by the church industry of the Middle Ages which supposedly "preserved" these sources. So the fabrication is likely to have been first engineered in the Latin church.

Justin's earliest manuscript is a 14th century "Omnibus edition". Tertullian has only late very late Latin manuscripts (not Greek). Of course this does not stop the best of modern scholarship from peering into the texts of Justin and Irenaeus as if they were peering into a time capsule from the 2nd century. The Pope would be pleased.

In fabricating the Chrestian Justin the (Latin) fabricators knew that Chrestian terminology was the original oldest layer. So they played into this.

But how did they know, oh mighty Pete? From where did they get all the Chrestian stuff if, as you assert, they all falsified everything themselves?

Have you even read your own nonsense here?
I mean just for fun of course:

In fabricating the Chrestian Justin the (Latin) fabricators knew that Chrestian terminology was the original oldest layer. So they played into this.

I mean I have smoked some good shit in my life, being from the dopey Netherlands and all, but this stuff of yours Pete! Dude, high as a kite

[MrMacSon]

You should be well aware that I think it is reasonable to suspect that the 2nd/3rd century sources such as Justin (and Tertullian and Irenaeus and the FF) were fabricated by the later 4th century church industry or by the church industry of the Middle Ages which supposedly "preserved" these sources. So, the fabrication is likely to have been first engineered in the Latin church.

Justin's earliest manuscript is a 14th century "Omnibus edition". Tertullian has only late very late Latin manuscripts (not Greek). Of course this does not stop the best of modern scholarship from peering into the texts of Justin and Irenaeus as if they were peering into a time capsule from the 2nd century. The Pope would be pleased.

In fabricating the Chrestian Justin the (Latin) fabricators knew that Chrestian terminology was the original oldest layer. So they played into this.
.

But how did they know, oh mighty Pete? From where did they get all the Chrestian stuff if, as you assert, they all falsified everything themselves?
.

Oh, Martijn ...
Martijn Martijn Martijn ... Martijn ... one must learn to be a better exegete of Pete ...

The clue is in what you highlighted:

In fabricating the Chrestian Justin the (Latin) fabricators knew that Chrestian terminology was the original oldest layer. So they played into this.

Do ya see it now, silly ?? - - - - - the (Latin)

Geddit ??

No ??

Here:

the fabrication is likely to have been first engineered in the Latin church.

So, ya gotta reverse-engineer exegesis de-Egyptianize eisegesis Latinize de-ISIS-ize

Though you may be forgiven for being thrown off by the Black Hole of the Darke Ages sweet-Pete advertly threw in there:

it is reasonable to suspect that the 2nd/3rd century sources such as Justin (and Tertullian and Irenaeus and the FF) were fabricated by the later 4th century church industry or by the church industry of the Middle Ages

So, I'm with ya, buddy, dykes 'n' all:

this stuff of yours Pete! Dude, high as a kite

I mean, how on God's industrious Earth could industrious Pete propose any interval in the industrious church industry from the industrious 4th century church industry to the industrious Middle Ages ??

Proposing such a pause in the industrious church industry is beyond Heretical. As you continental guys n gals are always saying, " sacré bleu "

[mlinssen]

You should be well aware that I think it is reasonable to suspect that the 2nd/3rd century sources such as Justin (and Tertullian and Irenaeus and the FF) were fabricated by the later 4th century church industry or by the church industry of the Middle Ages which supposedly "preserved" these sources. So, the fabrication is likely to have been first engineered in the Latin church.

Justin's earliest manuscript is a 14th century "Omnibus edition". Tertullian has only late very late Latin manuscripts (not Greek). Of course this does not stop the best of modern scholarship from peering into the texts of Justin and Irenaeus as if they were peering into a time capsule from the 2nd century. The Pope would be pleased.

In fabricating the Chrestian Justin the (Latin) fabricators knew that Chrestian terminology was the original oldest layer. So they played into this.
.

But how did they know, oh mighty Pete? From where did they get all the Chrestian stuff if, as you assert, they all falsified everything themselves?
.

Oh, Martijn ...
Martijn Martijn Martijn ... Martijn ... one must learn to be a better exegete of Pete ...

The clue is in what you highlighted:

In fabricating the Chrestian Justin the (Latin) fabricators knew that Chrestian terminology was the original oldest layer. So they played into this.

Do ya see it now, silly ?? - - - - - the (Latin)

Geddit ??

No ??

Here:

the fabrication is likely to have been first engineered in the Latin church.

So, ya gotta reverse-engineer exegesis de-Egyptianize eisegesis Latinize de-ISIS-ize

Though you may be forgiven for being thrown off by the Black Hole of the Darke Ages sweet-Peter advertly threw in there:

it is reasonable to suspect that the 2nd/3rd century sources such as Justin (and Tertullian and Irenaeus and the FF) were fabricated by the later 4th century church industry or by the church industry of the Middle Ages

So, I'm with ya, buddy, dykes 'n' all:

this stuff of yours Pete! Dude, high as a kite

I mean, how on God's industrious Earth could industrious Peter propose any interval in the industrious church industry from the industrious 4th century church industry to the industrious Middle Ages ??

Proposing such a pause in the industrious church industry is beyond Heretical. As you continental guys n gals are always saying, " sacré bleu "

LOL Mac, A for effort anyway - I had to read this a few times but it may still be dawning on me as we speak (and I write this).
The Latin uses Christian, even though some MSS misspell that occassionally - I haven't dug too deep in there yet, not too interested in the Latin myself.
In related news, I just discovered 2 new XREISTOS - in Vaticanus even:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1434

Right column, line 13 from the top: μενον τα εις χρειστο(ν), 1 Peter 1:11

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1488

Right column, line 6 from the top: χρειστου ειναι τουτο, 2 Corinthians 10:7

Vaticanus is in Greek, I hear. But possibly schemed by Romans, or in or near Rome, or merely thinking of Rome - which would make it Latin and a Churchian fabriacation of around 4th-14th CE, correct?

You know, and then they say "It's all Greek to me". Pig Latin - now that I get now

[Leucius Charinus]

Tell me why Justin calls himself Chrestian, go on then - you will circumvent the case as usual because it would severely hurt your dumb assumption for which you haven't even provided a motive

///

So the fabrication [by this I am referring to swapping the Lord IS Chrestos to the Lord IHS Christos] is likely to have been first engineered in the Latin church.

Justin's earliest manuscript is a 14th century "Omnibus edition". Tertullian has only late very late Latin manuscripts (not Greek). Of course this does not stop the best of modern scholarship from peering into the texts of Justin and Irenaeus as if they were peering into a time capsule from the 2nd century. The Pope would be pleased.

In fabricating the Chrestian Justin the (Latin) fabricators knew that Chrestian terminology was the original oldest layer. So they played into this.

But how did they know, oh mighty Pete? From where did they get all the Chrestian stuff if, as you assert, they all falsified everything themselves?

They got it (in all likelihood) from the same sources you and I and everyone else gets it from. That is the Greek sources which we find in the earliest Greek codices and manuscripts. These appeared as a political instrument 325 CE. Eusebius pumped out Greek NT/LXX Bible codices for Constantine (325-337 CE). Athanasius pumped out Greek NT/LXX Bible codices for Constantius (337-360 CE).

The Latin church industry only sprang into its highly militant existence with the military victory of Damasus and with his "pupil" Jerome. Jerome first translated the Greek NT/LXX Bible into Latin c.363-381 CE. Along with the PETER-WAS-HERE Roman tourism trade, and the lucrative and completely pseudo-historical "Holy Relic Trade" it was an instant success with the Latin speaking west and forms the basis for the Vatican Business Model today.

[MrMacSon]

They got it (in all likelihood) from the same sources you and I and everyone else gets it from. That is the Greek sources which we find in the earliest Greek codices and manuscripts. These appeared as a political instrument 325 CE. Eusebius pumped out Greek NT/LXX Bible codices for Constantine (325-337 CE). Athanasius pumped out Greek NT/LXX Bible codices for Constantius (337-360 CE).

The Latin church industry only sprang into its highly militant existence with the military victory of Damasus and with his "pupil" Jerome. Jerome first translated the Greek NT/LXX Bible into Latin c.363-381 CE. Along with the PETER-WAS-HERE Roman tourism trade, and the lucrative and completely pseudo-historical "Holy Relic Trade" it was an instant success with the Latin speaking west and forms the basis for the Vatican Business Model today.

No, no, no, no : the Latins pumped out Greek NT/LXX Bible codices for Constantine and Constantius in the names of Esuebius and Athanasius

Stop misrepresenting yourself !!!

[Leucius Charinus]

Though you may be forgiven for being thrown off by the Black Hole of the Darke Ages sweet-Pete advertly threw in there:

it is reasonable to suspect that the 2nd/3rd century sources such as Justin (and Tertullian and Irenaeus and the FF) were fabricated by the later 4th century church industry or by the church industry of the Middle Ages

I mean, how on God's industrious Earth could industrious Pete propose any interval in the industrious church industry from the industrious 4th century church industry to the industrious Middle Ages ??

What I meant to write was that the FF "were fabricated somewhere between the 4th century and the Middle Ages. The upper bounds are given by the dates of the earliest physically extant manuscripts which I have cited for Justin and Irenaeus. This is standard deductive logic of classical source criticism. Biblical source criticism is an entirely different animal. Biblical source criticism deals in hypothetical manuscripts

Proposing such a pause in the industrious church industry is beyond Heretical. As you continental guys n gals are always saying, " sacré bleu "

There was zero pause in the forgery and fraud perpetrated by the church industry. The Ante Nicene, Nicene and Post Nicene "Fathers" were added to, revised and redacted over a long period of time.

In terms of the Post Nicene Fathers, the major Latin sources of the later 4th century (Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose) were officially deemed to be Doctors of the Latin Church in the year 1298 CE.

OTOH the major Greek sources of the later 4th century (Athanasius, Gregory N, Basil and Chrysostom) were official deemed to be Doctors of the Greek Church in the year 1568 CE. In the year 2022 Irenaeus was made a "Doctor of Unity" since the 21st century Vatican could not work out whether he should belong to the Latin Fathers or the Greek Fathers. He was supposed to be a Greek FF but all his manuscripts are those of a Latin FF. The title "Doctor of Unity" was an inspired alternative. Three cheers for Pope Francis !!!

The Latin forgery mill (as at 1298 CE) was centuries ahead of the Greek forgery mill (as at 1568 CE), But eventually the church industry was able to "harmonise" these very important "sources" and present a unified pseudo-history which could be poured over ad nauseum by biblical scholars.

https://infidels.org/library/historical ... istianity/

[Leucius Charinus]

No, no, no, no : the Latins pumped out Greek NT/LXX Bible codices for Constantine and Constantius in the names of Esuebius and Athanasius

Stop misrepresenting yourself !!!

Constantine and his sons were Christian Roman emperors. They knew how to operate.

‘The Summer of Blood: The “Great Massacre” of 337
and the Promotion of the Sons of Constantine’.

Dumbarton Oaks Papers 62 (2008), 5-51 (appeared in 2010)
by R. W. Burgess

https://www.academia.edu/3432092/_The_S ... ed_in_2010