Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Yeah, take them inside the church so they can be close to Clark Jesus Kent and walled off from nature.

It is completely unthinkable that religious founders would engage in any conspiracy. Amen.



LC

Leucius Charinus wrote:It is completely unthinkable that religious founders would engage in any conspiracy. Amen.

It's not completely unthinkable. It's not even a new idea. It's in the Gospel of Matthew, in the form of the stolen body hypothesis.

Some conspiracy theories are just a lot more "thinkable" than others.

And in your heart of hearts, LC, you know that is true. You just like being the scrappy underdog in this fight.

Peter Kirby wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:It is completely unthinkable that religious founders would engage in any conspiracy. Amen.

It's not completely unthinkable. It's not even a new idea. It's in the Gospel of Matthew, in the form of the stolen body hypothesis.

Some conspiracy theories are just a lot more "thinkable" than others.

And in your heart of hearts, LC, you know that is true.

In my heart of hearts, Peter Kirby, I know it to be true the hypothesis that the "church organisation" is now, and was historically (i.e. century by century) corrupt. The question is really to what extent. The massive 9th century Pseudo-Isidore forgery is positive and incontrovertible evidence that the "church organisation" indulged in a conspiracy to forge literary evidence from antiquity to bolster their imaginary claims.

You just like being the scrappy underdog in this fight. :notworthy:

Am I the only person who is looking for a political history of this [corrupt] "church organisation"? Brodie calls them a "school" but backs away from the political history. The rest of the protagonists in this "fight" appear to be engaged (at least in part) in a reconstruction of the theological history of the "Divine Institute" in the "Apostolic Age". Good luck to them!


LC

Right, um, okay. soo.... keep on fighting the good fight.

Least some are not aware, or others have forgotten, there is the "Christos" of the LXX version of Daniel 9:25-26 circa 150 BCE
Believed by Christ ..ians to be the same "Christ" reported in Matthew 1:1 and following NT texts.

So I ask you to think. When did 'Christ' believers first begin to think, and discuss this 'Christ' they read about in their circa 150 BCE Septuagint translations of Daniel? 1 CE? 35 CE? 70 CE? ....or as soon as they had read that first Septuagint text of Daniel?

Being fascinated and caught up in the Gospel Jezuz tale, is like viewing the projected image of THE GREAT AND TERRIBLE OZ !!!
...and failing to see or detect the humbug 'christ' manipulators so poorly concealed behind the curtain of the 1st century.

Reading the 'New Testament' you are seeing the impressive and life-like projected image of Christ Jezuz.
But you need to look behind that curtain to see whom it was that set up the projector and is pulling all the levers and strings that caused 'Jesus' the 'Christ' to be 'born'.

How did anyone at his 'birth' know there was any such a thing as a 'Christ'?

Who told them of a 'Christ'? When and where were they informed of this 'Christ'?

Certainly not on the day that it was announced that "Christ" is born' (the hearers would have said (the equivalent of) WTF??? What is a 'Christ'???

Someone had to have done one hell of a lot of explaining, indoctrinating, and politicking about their "Christ" BEFORE the announcement of his 'birth' was made. Or the announcement would have been meaningless gibberish.

In short, the Hellenist 'Christ' cult hiding behind the curtain had been pulling strings and levers and indoctrinating their countrymen with their Greek/Hebrew mix of philosophical 'Christ' theology for over two centuries before their cock and bull "Christ Jezuz is born!" tale was broadcast.

Its high time to expose (by education) the humbug behind the curtain to the whole world.