Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jdboy · 01-09-2013, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are accusing Eusebius of forgery WITHOUT any evidence. Why??

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...Eusebius has been accused of forgery by many researchers well before I was born aa5874 and I thought I made this quite clear above at post # 7 in which I have cited such evidence...

What logical fallacies you write!!! All of a sudden you now put forward a most absurd notion of 'guilt by time '.

How long did people accuse Constantine of composing the Donation of Constantine??

Hundreds of years before you were born. It also took hundreds of years to EXPOSE that the Donation of Constantine was NOT composed by the Emperor.

You claim there was a forgery mill. Do you understand what that means??

Even Writings under the name of the Emperor of Rome the very Constantine were forged.

Only writings of Constantine were forged??? Please, mountainman, you seem not to understand how a Forgery Mill functions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You very well know that the evidence suggests even the Canonised NT is filled with FAKE authors or FALSELY attributed authorship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

And you very well know that Eusebius was the editor-in-chief of the very first widespread and extremely lavish and expensive publication of bible codices under the rule of Constantine. We are dealing with a forgery mill that was commissioned by that emperor and which has continued operations century after century to the present day.

Again, mountainman, it was Exposed that writings attributed to the very Constantine, the Emperor of Rome, "Bullneck" were FORGED---the same Bullneck" Constantine that you accuse of operating a Forgery Mill.

I must remind you that Julian, the Emperor, did NOT acknowledge that Eusebius wrote "Church History" or the the Life of Constantine.

In "Against the Galileans", Julian acknowledged the " Praeparatio Evangelica" and it does NOT contain the TF.

The "Praeparatio Evangelica" mentions Josephus many times but NOT the Forged TF.

Julian is NOT a corroborative source for the authorship of "Church History".

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Writings of so-called Apologetics suffered the same fate. There was probably a 4th century character called Eusebius of Caesarea but he may NOT have composed "Church History".

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

There is little doubt that the continuators of Eusebius may have altered at least some of his works. However there is also little doubt that a history of the church up until the all important Council of Nicaea in 325 CE was set out by this wretched Eusebius propagandist.

Again, you have actual ZERO evidence that "Church History" was composed in the 4th century and was actually written by Eusebius.

You argue that the writings of Justin and all Apologetics were forged or manipulated before the 4th century and seem not to understand the very Bullneck Constantine the MOST Powerful Emperor of Rome was a victim of a Massive Forgery.

Eusebius wrote "Church History"??? Eusebius was more powerful than the Bishop of Rome??

When you read and carefully examine " Praeparatio Evangelica" and "Against the Galileans" you will see that "Church History" was most likely a MASSIVE Forgery.

Eusebius was probably ALREADY DEAD before "Church History" was composed.

Constantine "Bullneck" was ALREADY for hundreds of years when the Donation of Constatine was FORGED under his name.

Eusebius and Constantine appear to be VICTIMS of the Forgery Mill of the Roman Church.

Please, desist from accusing Eusebius of forgery when you have NO evidence.

aa, you are fucking incredible. i mean that sincerely. Happy New Year to aa and this board.

Sheshbazzar · 01-09-2013, 09:53 PM

Its all a big conspiracy, Jesus, Paul, Christianity, the Church, and Eusebius and Constantine didn't exist until the Catholics invented them last Tuesday.

mountainman · 01-10-2013, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Eusebius and Constantine appear to be VICTIMS of the Forgery Mill of the Roman Church.

Investigate the archaeological and monumental evidence, the basilica foundations, the emperor centric jesus art and mosaics, the sudden appearance of the inscriptions in Phrygia and elsewhere, the appearances of crosses, etc . Ammianus tells us that Constantius was involved with the councils of the "plain and simple religion of the Christians (or chrestians).

There was an emperor centric church under Constantius - we can rely on Ammianus. We know that Constantius performed a mafia style execution of many family members when his old man Bullneck finally went to the underworld (after being poisoned by his brothers). We can be sure therefore that there was an inaugural state monotheistic Roman church under Constantine. The church sheltered the forgery mill and the forgery mill sheltered the church.

The Bible Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sinaticus etc are regarded as either copies of, or one of Constantine's 50 bibles. The forgery mill seems to have commenced operations during the rule of Constantine and Eusebius.

Constantine is supposed to have personally appointed over 1800 bishops throughout the dioceses of his 4th century empire. He was not a victim of forgery rather he commissioned what Emperor Julian later called the fabrication of the Galilaeans.

Do some research on the "Historia Augusta" for the sake of Jesus Eusebius Christ.

Quote:

Please, desist from accusing Eusebius of forgery when you have NO evidence.

Send an email to Kenneth Olson who has argued that the entire Testimonium must have been forged by Eusebius himself, basing his argument on textual similarities between the Testimonium and Eusebius' writings in the Demonstrations of the Gospels.

Eusebius was the most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity.

Eusebius forged the letter exchange between Jesus and Agbar.

Eusebius was well paid in gold.

Eusebius was so good at his job most of the people who study him believe he is reliable.

After all if you want to doubt Eusebius you are about to doubt anything before Nicaea regarding the so-called "Christians"

Unless you believe in the Yale-Dura-Europos "house church" that is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier

Eusebius, the First History of the Church, and the Earliest Complete Bibles

The first Christian scholar to engage in researching and writing a complete history of the Christian church, Eusebius of Caesarea, reveals the embarrassing complexity of the development of the Christian canon, despite his concerted attempt to cover this with a pro-orthodox account.

Two things must be known:

first, Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous
(see note. 6), and either way not a very good historian;

second, Eusebius rewrote his History of the Church at least five times
(cf. M 202, n. 29), in order to accommodate changing events, including
the ever-important Council of Nicea ...

Richard Carrier: The Formation of the New Testament Canon

aa5874 · 01-10-2013, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

There was an emperor centric church under Constantius - we can rely on Ammianus. We know that Constantius performed a mafia style execution of many family members when his old man Bullneck finally went to the underworld (after being poisoned by his brothers). We can be sure therefore that there was an inaugural state monotheistic Roman church under Constantine. The church sheltered the forgery mill and the forgery mill sheltered the church.

The Bible Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sinaticus etc are regarded as either copies of, or one of Constantine's 50 bibles. The forgery mill seems to have commenced operations during the rule of Constantine and Eusebius.

Constantine is supposed to have personally appointed over 1800 bishops throughout the dioceses of his 4th century empire. He was not a victim of forgery rather he commissioned what Emperor Julian later called the fabrication of the Galilaeans...

You have NOT presented any actual evidence for your claims that Eusebius forged the TF. You have NOT presented any actual evidence that Eusebius wrote "Church History".

You state that there was a Forgery Mill operated by Constantine "Bullneck" so it is IMPERATIVE that you submit credible and authenticated writings of Eusebius for examination.

You argue that Justin Martyr's writings are forgeries so you MUST, MUST, MUST show that the writings of Eusebius are NOT forgeries and that Eusebius did actually forged the TF

Do you have any originals of "Church History"?? Did "Bullneck" forge writings under the name of Eusebius??

You have NOTHING.

However, it is certain that the Roman Church Forged writings under the name of Constantine.

It has been EXPOSED that the Roman Church itself was a source of Forgeries.

Eusebius of Caesarea was NOT a bishop of Rome.

It was Sylvester who was supposedly the Bishop of Rome when "Church History" was composed sometime after the death of Licinius.

Examine the "Donation of Constantine".

Quote:

...... the pontiff Sylvester - has taught us, in God the Father, the almighty maker of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord God, through whom all things are created; and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and vivifier of the whole creature.

We confess these, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in such way that, in the perfect Trinity, there shall also be a fulness of divinity and a unity of power. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and these three are one in Jesus Christ.

Please explain why Eusebius wrote the History of the Roman Church when Sylvester was supposedly the Bishop of Rome???

If Justin writings are forgeries, the writings of All Apologetics before Eusebius are forgeries, Writings under the name of the Emperor Constantine are forgeries then how in the world can you prove that writings under the name of Eusebius were NOT forgerieS???

You have no evidence, no credible sources--NOTHING to support your claim that Eusebius wrote the TF.

Sheshbazzar · 01-10-2013, 11:21 AM

Now let's try that same shoe on the other foot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have NOT presented any actual evidence for your claims that Eusebius forged the TF

You have NOT presented any actual evidence for your claims that Justin Martyr wrote 'The First Apology'

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have NOT presented any actual evidence that Eusebius wrote "Church History".

You have NOT presented any actual evidence that Justin Martyr wrote "Dialog with Trypho". (or for any writing attributed to Justin for that matter)

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You state that there was a Forgery Mill operated by Constantine "Bullneck" so it is IMPERATIVE that you submit credible and authenticated writings of Eusebius for examination.

You state that Justin was a credible 2nd century Christian writer so it is IMPERATIVE that you submit credible and authenticated writings of Justin Martyr for examination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You argue that Justin Martyr's writings are forgeries so you MUST, MUST, MUST show that the writings of Eusebius are NOT forgeries and that Eusebius did actually forged the TF

You argue that Justin Martyr's writings are authentic so you MUST, MUST, MUST aa, show that the writings of Justin Martyr are NOT forgeries and that Justin Marty did actually write 'The First Apology'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you have any originals of "Church History"?? Did "Bullneck" forge writings under the name of Eusebius??

Do you have any originals of Justin's "The First Apology" ?? Did "Bullneck" forge writings under the name of Justin Martyr??

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have NOTHING.

Puts you in the same boat aa. You have NOTHING

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It has been EXPOSED that the Roman Church itself was a source of Forgeries.

Amazing that you noticed that aa.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If Justin writings are forgeries, the writings of All Apologetics before Eusebius are forgeries, Writings under the name of the Emperor Constantine are forgeries then how in the world can you prove that writings under the name of Eusebius were NOT forgerieS???

You have no evidence, no credible sources--NOTHING to support your claim that Eusebius wrote the TF.

If Justin writings are forgeries, the writings of All Apologetics before Eusebius are forgeries, Writings under the name of the Emperor Constantine are forgeries then how in the world can you prove aa that writings under the name of Justin were NOT forgeries???

You have no evidence, no credible sources--NOTHING to support your claim that Justin wrote the First Apology.

We are all still waiting for you to haul out your c.14 and paleographically DATED authentic copies of Justin Martyr's First Apology.
It has been EXPOSED that the Roman Church itself was a source of Forgeries. It is IMPERATIVE that you submit credible and authenticated writings of Justin Martyr for examination. You MUST, MUST, MUST show that the writings of Justin are NOT forgeries.

You demand the types and levels of evidence from others that you cannot even provide for your own theories and assertions.

Chili · 01-10-2013, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdboy

aa, you are fucking incredible. i mean that sincerely. Happy New Year to aa and this board.

He is very good at what he does, and much like a balloon deflating every time he writes with only one way to go, and that is out.

aa5874 · 01-10-2013, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have NOT presented any actual evidence for your claims that Eusebius forged the TF

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You have NOT presented any actual evidence for your claims that Justin Martyr wrote 'The First Apology'

You do NOT understand my arguments at all.

My argument is that Justin's writings are COMPATIBLE with the HARD EVIDENCE--THE DATED recovered manuscripts from the 2nd century.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

I do NOT need the writings of Justin to show that the Jesus story and cult were NOT invented by Eusebius and "Bullneck" Constantine in the 4th century.

That is precisely why I told you already that you can SIMULTANEOUSLY BURN, SHRED, and IGNORE the writings of Justin because we have ACTUAL DATED RECOVERED MANUSCRIPTS that destroy and obliterate ALL CLAIMS by mountainman that the Jesus story originated in the 4th century in a Forgery Mill of "Bullneck" Constantine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

...You demand the types and levels of evidence from others that you cannot even provide for your own theories and assertions.

Your claim is utterly erroneous. I have already PRESENTED THE DATED RECOVERED MANUSCRIPTS that show the Jesus story and cult PREDATED Eusebius and "Bullneck" or a 4th century Forgery Mill.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

You very well know that the RECOVERED DATED Manuscripts--the Hard Extant Evidence--support my arguments.

Now, where is the Hard Evidence from mountainman to support his claims that Eusebius Forged the TF??

So far, the existing evidence shows and it has already been proven that "Bullneck" Constantine was a VICTIM of the Forgeries of the Church of Rome. See the Donation of Constantine.

The Church of Rome has already been Busted.

Why is NOT Eusebius also a Victim of the very Church of Rome??

mountainman · 01-10-2013, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have NOT presented any actual evidence for your claims that Eusebius forged the TF

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You have NOT presented any actual evidence for your claims that Justin Martyr wrote 'The First Apology'

You do NOT understand my arguments at all.

My argument is that Justin's writings are COMPATIBLE with the HARD EVIDENCE--THE DATED recovered manuscripts from the 2nd century.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

You have no chronological argument without hard evidence for that chronology.

This is not HARD chronological evidence like C14 dating.

Its a bunch of professional Christian theologians' paleographical certifications for Christ's sake.

This soft evidence is not considered to be primary evidence because it is soft.

You are just hedging your myth bet with the 2nd century flock of seagulls.

Justin is a Eusebian stooge.

mountainman · 01-10-2013, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Now let's try that same shoe on the other foot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have NOT presented any actual evidence for your claims that Eusebius forged the TF

You have NOT presented any actual evidence for your claims that Justin Martyr wrote 'The First Apology'

I have a shoe horn somewhere.

mountainman · 01-10-2013, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have no evidence, no credible sources--NOTHING to support your claim that Eusebius wrote the TF.

Ken Olsen: Eusebius forged the TF

"There is nothing new in the world
except the history you do not know".

--- Harry S. Truman
33rd US President (1945-1953).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-09-2013, 09:53 PM	#22
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Its all a big conspiracy, Jesus, Paul, Christianity, the Church, and Eusebius and Constantine didn't exist until the Catholics invented them last Tuesday.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.