FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-08-2006, 10:59 PM   #1
mountainman
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default Eusebian Fiction Postulate

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Your job in proposing the hypothesis that Eusebius was part of a conspiracy to create christianity in the fourth century, is to provide substantive evidence that supports your hypothesis.
That is the second step. The first step is simply to ask the question
"is it an inference that christians existed prior to the fourth century"?
in an earlier thread. What evidence to we have to prove this, etc?

If there is in existence reasonable and objective evidence for the
existence of the tribe of christians on the planet prior to the fourth
century, then why bother to research, provide and index substantive
evidence (effectively contrary to the former)?

Quote:
So far you ain't got any. You just run off topic with generalizations about what people are taught when asked to look at the historical implications of your vast conspiracy theory. A hypothesis is useless unless it allows for evidential support or refutation
The mainstream hypothesis is unstated perhaps, but essentially
could be stated in a fashion like this.

From the literature assembled by Eusebius in the fourth century
under Constantine, referrenced in his works "Ecclesiastical History"
and "In Preparation of the Gospels" we can with a reasonable
amount of integrity make the inference that "the tribe of christians"
existed prior to the fourth century.

We can call this the "Eusebian History Postulate" if you like.
Do you subscribe to this hypothesis?
Do you have any evidence for it?



As I see it there are two hypotheses:
Hypothesis (H): Eusebian History
Hypothesis (F): Eusebian Fiction

There may be no existing evidence for either.
Julian was the first proponent of fiction.

Thanks for the dialogue



Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_010.htm
mountainman is offline  
Old 06-08-2006, 11:42 PM   #2
rlogan
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 9,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman
That is the second step. The first step is simply to ask the question
"is it an inference that christians existed prior to the fourth century"?
in an earlier thread. What evidence to we have to prove this, etc?

If there is in existence reasonable and objective evidence for the
existence of the tribe of christians on the planet prior to the fourth
century, then why bother to research, provide and index substantive
evidence (effectively contrary to the former)?
Hi Mountainman. Not sure what you are using as a working definition of "Christian". Are the Nag Hammadi finds within the scope of that definition, for example?

It is tautological that there were no "Christians" as defined by what became canon ex-post-facto to some nascient "Christ" mystery cults.


Quote:
The mainstream hypothesis is unstated perhaps, but essentially
could be stated in a fashion like this.

From the literature assembled by Eusebius in the fourth century
under Constantine, referrenced in his works "Ecclesiastical History"
and "In Preparation of the Gospels" we can with a reasonable
amount of integrity make the inference that "the tribe of christians"
existed prior to the fourth century.
Well obviously, anyone who actually reads Eusebius quickly realizes he is writing fiction. The preposterous gospel story is in full flower with the backing of the police power of the state. Therefore the tracts must be seen as religio-political propaganda and not history.

Quote:
As I see it there are two hypotheses:
Hypothesis (H): Eusebian History
Hypothesis (F): Eusebian Fiction
Seems overly simplistic to me, mountainman.

Let's just set aside the idea Eusebius is strictly history because it is absurd.

The Church History piece and the events surrounding Nicea are of course the defining period for church canon.

But what remains is to articulate the extent to which pre-existing movements were co-opted, commandeered, or however you want to say it - into a centralized administrative body with uniformity in position.


That does not require the all-or-nothing dichotomy which, if it is what you propose, is something I would take issue with for sure.

Just FYI - it seems blindingly ovbious to me that the TF is completely forged in Josephus, and the James passage doctored to change the context. Whatever existed, if it existed at all, has completely escaped Josephus' writings insofar as Christianity being some outgrowth of Judaism. It simply did not happen that way.

But it also seems that by the time of Pliny writing to Trajan we have evidence of Christians existing - and not just on the basis of his request to clarify how he should treat them. I mean other evidence as well that slowly accumulates as time progresses.

It is telling that the first real documentary evidence of the Christans and how the emperor should treat them arises in Asia Minor and not the alleged historical haunts of the mythic Jesus.

So the question in my mind is more one of how Eusebius placed an official "capstone" over a fabricated history of Christianity in distinction to the actual history that neither stemmed from a historical big-bang Jesus, not arising as a direct offshoot from Judaism, and not even originating in the area alleged.
rlogan is offline  
Old 06-10-2006, 07:03 PM   #3
mountainman
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan
Hi Mountainman. Not sure what you are using as a working definition of "Christian". Are the Nag Hammadi finds within the scope of that definition, for example?
Hi there RLogan,

AFAIK the carbon dating of the Nag Hammadi literature which is purported
to be relevant to the "New and Strange Testament", is to a period after
the Council of Nicaean (325 CE).

In testing the consistency of the EFP against history, I am considering
that in fact zero "christians" set foot on the planet Earth before Constantine,
and that he fabricated the new testament, perverted the patristic literature,
and sponsored a massive literary campaign against Hellenism, and specifically
against the extant literature of the pythagoraean Apollonius of Tyana.

Quote:
It is tautological that there were no "Christians" as defined by what became canon ex-post-facto to some nascient "Christ" mystery cults.
I am examining the historical possibility there were no "Christians"
in history whatsoever prior to the fourth century, and that the
phenomenom now known as christianity was a fabrication "out of
whole cloth" under Constantine.

Quote:
Well obviously, anyone who actually reads Eusebius quickly realizes he is writing fiction. The preposterous gospel story is in full flower with the backing of the police power of the state. Therefore the tracts must be seen as religio-political propaganda and not history.
Our postulate is that is is not history, but fiction, according to Julian.
Thus, if it is a fiction of the fourth century. I have tried to make a
diagram showing how the fiction was perpetrated:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_010.htm


Quote:
Seems overly simplistic to me, mountainman.

Let's just set aside the idea Eusebius is strictly history because it is absurd.

The Church History piece and the events surrounding Nicea are of course the defining period for church canon.

But what remains is to articulate the extent to which pre-existing movements were co-opted, commandeered, or however you want to say it - into a centralized administrative body with uniformity in position.
AFAIK there is no physical scientific archeological evidence to support
the mainstream theory inference, that christians existed prior to the
fourth century.

All these pre-existing movements, whatever they were prior to Nicaea,
did not possess one skerrick of text related to the fabrication of the
Galilaeans (ie: the New and STrange Testament) because this was a
fourth century invention by wicked men.

So all these pre-existing movements in the Roman empire were largely
related to the predominant Hellenic movements, of which the Pythagoreans
and Platonists (Iamblichus, etc according to Julian). In the diagram
referred to above, the first three centuries are filled with the usually
accepted Hellenic philosophies, wisdoms and literature, and movements.
Absolutely nothing related to anything which was to become "christian",
wich was the trade mark of the Eusebian ahistory, or fiction.

Quote:
That does not require the all-or-nothing dichotomy which, if it is what you propose, is something I would take issue with for sure.
Perhaps I should have said
as I see it there are at least two hypotheses:
Hypothesis (H): Eusebian History
Hypothesis (F): Eusebian Fiction

Quote:
Just FYI - it seems blindingly ovbious to me that the TF is completely forged in Josephus, and the James passage doctored to change the context. Whatever existed, if it existed at all, has completely escaped Josephus' writings insofar as Christianity being some outgrowth of Judaism. It simply did not happen that way.
I believe the forgery was enacted at a particularly shameful hour by
Eusebius because he was coerced by Constantine to write a fiction
which required a priority date smack in the span of time for which
Josephus was considered the most reliable, most well published (by
the fourth century) Jewish historian.

Quote:
But it also seems that by the time of Pliny writing to Trajan we have evidence of Christians existing - and not just on the basis of his request to clarify how he should treat them. I mean other evidence as well that slowly accumulates as time progresses.
Pliny is similarly also a fourth century (or later) interpolation.
The presence of the interploation serves to create the inference
that there was "a tribe of christians". However, there is absolutely
no evidence for the inference, and more for the interpolated fiction.

Quote:
It is telling that the first real documentary evidence of the Christans and how the emperor should treat them arises in Asia Minor and not the alleged historical haunts of the mythic Jesus.
Where's this rlogan?

Quote:
So the question in my mind is more one of how Eusebius placed an official "capstone" over a fabricated history of Christianity in distinction to the actual history that neither stemmed from a historical big-bang Jesus, not arising as a direct offshoot from Judaism, and not even originating in the area alleged.
Constantine did the physical official "capstone" at the Nicaean Council.
Prior to that date christianity had been bred in Rome under Constantine
only since 312 CE. He let it loose upon the world in 325 CE. It was not
present in the world (in terms of the standard christian literature) prior
to this time, IMO, according to the Eusebian Fiction postulate.


Pete Brown
mountainman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:18 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.