When it expands to dozens of posts, it can be considered an obsession.
...with the JoA myth pervades in two realms - those studying the myths associated with King Author (whom JoA is associated) / holy grail OR Anglo-Israeli groups, many also hold to tenants of CI
. Don't include me in those generalities.
Only an observation based upon my research over the past day. The above are the only ones who lend any credibility to the myth, as you are.
So. Historians also dismiss Jesus. Ever watch the history channel? You'd think Jesus was just an intelligent orator and nothing else.
So, they don't try to make up stories about his life either.
And we all know all historians agree on everything.
When it comes to the point at hand, there is pretty good agreement - historian touching the JoA story refer to it as a myth or legend. Same for Christian history who trace the initial arrival of Christianity to post Roman invasion, who by the time of Tertullian (150 years later) had pushed out of the Roman enclave throughout England and Ireland (where ever that pesty citation is ACTUALLY found).
If those monks were making up fiction about Jesus and Joseph, why didn't monks from all other areas also make up stories about Jesus' youth? Why is it that British monks are the only ones that can come up with good forgeries? What is your evidence that they are forgeries in the first place?
At the time the myths appeared, there was a schism developing between Britain and Rome, these myths were written to give greater 'authority' to Britain. I've already cited ancient scrolls of Jesus in India. Gnostic writings of the 2d century produce alleged stories. So the monks are not the only ones with myth making ability. Evidence for forgeries? Where is the pre-myth documentation - textural traditions. How do the 'history' produced in these documents match provable events - they don't. If they don't match that which can be confirmed, their veracity on other matters is highly suspect. Context of the greater historical period show falseness in the story. And it is these HIGHLY questionable 'documents' that discuss the JoA myth. Factually, there are multiple ways that Christianity spread in to the British isles.
If not for answering replies it would have been a two-line post.
Only an observation based upon my research over the past day. The above are the only ones who lend any credibility to the myth, as you are.
Don't include me in those generalities.
So, they don't try to make up stories about his life either.
Artifacts, logic, and evidence is not "making it up".
When it comes to the point at hand, there is pretty good agreement - historian touching the JoA story refer to it as a myth or legend. Same for Christian history who trace the initial arrival of Christianity to post Roman invasion, who by the time of Tertullian (150 years later) had pushed out of the Roman enclave throughout England and Ireland (where ever that pesty citation is ACTUALLY found).
As I said, historians also dismiss Jesus.
At the time the myths appeared, there was a schism developing between Britain and Rome, these myths were written to give greater 'authority' to Britain.
Why just Britain?
I've already cited ancient scrolls of Jesus in India.
Which is illogical because India and Tibet did not become Christian strongholds.
Gnostic writings of the 2d century produce alleged stories.
Again, unsupported by events.
So the monks are not the only ones with myth making ability.
Historical evidence shows it was no myth. The history supports their claims, that's where the mines were.
Evidence for forgeries? Where is the pre-myth documentation - textural traditions.
There's no doubt tin was mined there for thousands of years. The connection between the area Joseph hailed from and Cornwall is established through the Phoenicians.
How do the 'history' produced in these documents match provable events - they don't.
Tin mines, Phoenicians, rise of Christianity so fast as to compete with Rome...it's there.
If they don't match that which can be confirmed, their veracity on other matters is highly suspect. Context of the greater historical period show falseness in the story. And it is these HIGHLY questionable 'documents' that discuss the JoA myth. Factually, there are multiple ways that Christianity spread in to the British isles.
It was a heck of a rise, faster than anywhere else.