mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

I am purposefully refraining from making appeals any appeals to any form of authority (other than of C14). My thesis and arguments have been layed out before you and you insist on avoiding the integrated issues that it addresses. Academics appear to be very much aware that that the apochryphal newt testament literature has been rightfully termed a textual critic's nightmare.

Manifestly, to all those earnest in seeing what is available in the field of new testament studies, criticism and ancient history, there is absolutely no cohesive explanation of the mainstream theories for the purpose, the authorship, the setting, the political environment or the ancient historical chronology for this corpus of literature. Apart from authoritative conjectures, of course. At least I have attempted to account for the evidence in our possession. The same cannot be said for the mainstream. Why is this you may ask me? The answer, of course, is that the mainstream have no evidence on the table for the period in question.

Integrating academic observations is a valid process Jeffrey.
That is all I am presenting here. OTOH u appear to be often
tangentiating my major points and issues without comment.


Best wishes,


Pete

avi

Let me be clear: I generally support the thrust of Pete's argument, particularly as this argument challenges orthodoxy. I agree with him about the bestiality of Constantine. I agree with him that Arius was a KEY figure in the fourth century.
However, much as I find Pete's argument intellectually satisfying, I believe it is complete fiction.
I think you are wrong, friend. I do not agree with your fundamental tenet: i.e. that the four "gospels" did not exist prior to Constantine, based upon radioactive 14C analysis (i.e. ratio of radioactive carbon fourteen to non-radioactive carbon twelve).
I do appreciate the novelty of your suggestion, and admire the tenacity of your convictions, however, 14C is the nail in the coffin, as far as I am concerned.

mountainman

Dear sschlichter,

My thesis has it that Arius was no christian priest, as the ecclesiatical (ahem) historians of the fourth and fifth century (and of course subsequent centuries) would have us believe. My thesis has it that Arius of Alexandria was simply a pagan priest, perhaps a clever neopythagoraean priest, a logician and gnostic, and as Constantine tells us, an ascetic priest who was popular with the rsistance against the Boss.


Again, my position is that the only words of Arius which may be certain are the words of Arius are those cited by a number of ecclesiatical historians well after the event. Do you know what those words of Arius are?.

My explanation for the Arian controversy is political.
Constantine published the fictive new testament.
The greek empire struck back with the apochryphal new testament.
The imperial tax-exempt christian regime became supreme.
By the time they had burnt down the library of Alexandria.
Well.

The rest is history ....

As one of the american presidents once said ...

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

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Thanks for the question Casper,

I know I am answering with a question but have you taken the time to read a very interesting article directly related to this issue, entitled Paradoxical Questions concerning the morals & actions of Athanasius & his followers by Isaac Newton?

I would be very interested in hearing your opinion (or anyone else's opinion) on the opinion that Sir Isaac Newton ---- rightfully or wrongfully ---- arrived at in this article.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Scholars conjecture that this is a fourth century forgery in the name of Lucian and as far as I am aware there are no other C14 citations related to any form of NT literature other than:

1) gJudas at 290 CE (+/- 60 years)
2) gThomas at 348 CE (+/- 60 years)


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

I recall I once asked you for a list of profane historians (that is, to be explicit, historians who were not christians) who wrote during the epoch of Constantine (shall we say 312 to 337 CE) , and who's literature survives today. Where is the evidence in contrast to this bunch of sworn perhaps 318 deputy tax-exempt figurehead bishops of the Boss Bishop? Nice list. Too bad it was gathered under military duress at the Council of Nicaea.


The problem with the list below is that it is lacking in contrast. Who was left who wrote against the continuators of Eusebius? Epsecially from the rule of Constantine? Ammianus is cut short.

The answer to this question Jeffrey, is?


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Such a touching scene. The boss goes to the underworld leaving a flock of tax-exempt galloping bishops, to run the circus with his sons. What happened after the year 337 CE through to the end of the fourth century has been adequately summarised by Vlasis Rassias.

Lest we forget.

Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

Pete, we know what your thesis and your position are. You've stated them often enough. It's your equally frequent omissions to provide evidence to support them which is the problem.

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Although posthumous, Sir Isaac Newton has at least 50 years citation priority over Gibbon AFAIK. Newton cites Athanasius as the distributor of the news that Arius was poisoned. However he cast serious displeasure over the morals of the canonical Athanasius in doing so, and questions the integrity of the tale which was preserved by Athanasius, and other continuators of Eusebius.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear NoRobots,

Supposing I am right, just for a moment. We have Eusebius who is quite obviously a gifted editor and rhetorician being sponsored by the warlord who liberated the city of Rome to write a small bit of fiction, by which he would replace the ancient religions of the Hellenes, assisted by military supremacy.

So on the day of the showdown, the Boss wins. He is victorious. He lines everyone who is anyone up to meet him at the Councils of Antioch and Nicaea. He coerces them at swordpoint, under military duress, to aquiesce to his initiatives, justified as Pontifex Maximus, for a new roman god JC.

What could Eusebius do? Constantine is described as a brigand. He executed his own family members. He was mad. He was a malevolent despot. Eusebius had only two choices in the matter.

The first was to say "NO BOSS".
The second was to say "YES BOSS".
Eusebius chose wisely.
Eusebius was well paid.

Best wishes,



Pete