mountainman

Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice
T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72

The centralised monotheistic state religious cult was forced upon the eastern Roman Empire by a despotic warlord. The real battle has been in the resistance against the acceptance of a 300 year dead Jewish fiction character as the official god of the Roman Empire.

We are dealing with psychological warfare in the centuries after centuries during which men, women and children have been mind fucked by the monstrous fiction and the legions of its male authoritarian-following priests.

Three cheers for JRR Tolkien and Bilbo Baggins.

aa5874

What??? Who would assume that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate???

Eusebius of Caesarea wrote the History of the Church?? So what DID the Bishop of Rome write??

This is most amazing. The Bishop of Rome wrote NOTHING about the History of the Roman Church!!!

Please, mountaiman, you must at least try to be consistent.

There is no evidence at all that Eusebius' writings about the history of the Jesus story and cult are reliable and accurate even up to the 4th century.

mountainman

T. D. Barnes.

One needs to clearly differentiate the reports of Eusebius in all of his sources. Much of Eusebius's works concern the past before the Council of Nicaea, and his "Church History" was designed to be a history of the new and strange testament prior to the Council of Nicaea. This data from Eusebius is questionable.

However, secondly, some of Eusebius's works, especially the "Life of Constantine" are accounts of events to which Eusebius was essentially eyewitness, and involve the period of time between 324 and 337 CE during which we can be reasonable sure, he worked directly with Constantine in the production of bible codices. This data set may also be questionable, of course, but it falls into a different category of historical data. And some reports, regarding Constantine and his actions, may be reliable.

aa5874

Your resonpse is most remarkable. You believe "Bullneck" wanted "Eusebius" to write the truth!!!

Please, mountainman, tell me who were the "eyewitnesses" of the Donation of Constantine??

The Bishop of Rome wrote NOTHING about "Bullneck" just some guy called Eusebius.

Eusebius was a reliable historian??

mountainman

Eusebius wrote "Life of Bullneck" after Bullneck went to the Underworld.

Do not forget Eusebius was known to Emperor Julian as "the wretched Eusebius".



Either Pope Hadrian I in 778 CE or
Pope Leo IX, in a letter of 1054 CE

Both of which tells us nothing about who commissioned the forgery mill of "Early Christian Origens".



The wretched Eusebius forged the "TF"



Of course not, but he (and/or his continuators) did leave a trail of evidence.

For example, In the "Life of Bullneck" Eusebius writes:


The saviour of Diocletian was Asclepius, as is evidenced in the centre of that emperor's palace. Jesus was Constantine's saviour.

The old temples had to go. The new saviour did not fit with them.


Eusebius is describing Bullneck flattening of the temples of Asclepius. Quite independently, there are a great number of archaeologicval citations to these temples of Asclepius, that they had once been scattered in a network around the empire, but that they had been destroyed.

The chronology of destruction matches Eusebius GLOATING report.

aa5874

Of course you have NO C 14 dated manuscripts to support your claim and is just guessing.

You must take your accusations seriously. You are accusing Eusebius of Fraud and Forgery WITHOUT any actual evidence when you admit that there was a forgery mill in the time of Constantine "Bullneck".

Again, I must caution you. You admit there was a forgery mill in the time of "Bullneck" and even later. You must understand that writings may have been forged under the name of Eusebius.

Please, please, please, Julian did NOT mention "Church History" or the Life of Constantine attributed to Eusebius.

This is EXTREMELY important.

Julian mentioned Eusebius in reference to " Praeparatio Evangelica"---NOT "Church History" and NOT the "Life of Constantine".

If you want to accuse Eusebius of Fraud and Forgery you are going to need Hard Evidence. Right now you have NOTHING but unsubstantiated claims.

You keep making accusations without hard evidence. Where is your C 14 dated manuscripts for "Church History" and the "Life of Constantine"??

Now, if you admit that Eusebius was already DEAD when Julian composed "Against the Galileans" then it is highly likely that Eusebius was DEAD before the TF was forged.

Julian was NOT aware that Josephus mentioned Jesus or Paul.

Please, first get hard evidence before you make unsubstantiated accusations against Eusebius.

Right now, you have NOTHING.

mountainman

Bullneck owned mints and manufactured coins as did the emperors before and after him. His coins stop 337 CE. Coins of his sons follow. There is little doubt that Contantine went to the underworld c.337 CE. Eusebius wrote the praise of Constantine after his death sometime between 337 and 339 CE (when by all reports Eusebius followed the Boss to the underworld).

None of this is guessing.



There have been plenty of other earlier researchers who have accused Eusebius of fraud and forgery. Carrier says that Eusebius is either a liar or an idiot and most of us suspect that Eusebius was not an idiot.

The evidence for the fraud and forgery of Eusebius has been already discussed ad nauseum.

Do we need to substantiate these details again by starting with the TF and the wonderful letter of Jesus Eusebius Christ to King Agbar?

Eusebius has been called the most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity because of these and other forgeries.

The forgery mill of the 4th century has a great deal of evidence for it.

We could start with a list of known forgeries from the 4th century.

Here are a few entries ....

The epistles of Paul to Seneca and Senecas epistles to Paul.

The forged books under the name of Lucian

The entire "HISTORIA AUGUSTA" - a massive mockumentary dedicated to Bullneck.

Many of the NT related non canonical books are regarded as "forgeries".

Of course they may have been. In fact the prolog of The History of John: (from the Syriac) - specifically states: "This history was composed by Eusebius of Cæsarea"

None of this changes the claim that the forgery mill was commissioned and commenced operations under the rule of Constantine and has continued year by year and century by century to the present day.


Please please read where Julian mentions
"the wretched Eusebius".







Therefore Julian attests to the historical existence of a wretched Eusebius.


See above.



Isn't it thoughtful of Toto to give us our own thread?

mountainman

The OP dialog split out by Toto concerned the report of Eusebius about Constantine's actions as studied and analysed in Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice by T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72.

You have presumed to pronounce judgement on this report.

Have you got any idea what this report was about and what it said?

OVER

Here is the context again ....

What report of Eusebius was Barnes referring to aa5874?

Chili

He has either got the wrong Eusebius or the wrong Church because the Cathoilic Church is not Christians. Or do you think maybe he's got shit in eyes Pete instead of soup to be that far worng?

Or are we supposed to know what he means?

Chili

So the difference between snot and shit really amounts to this:

It's OK for him to have snot because he does not know, but then to say that Eusebius was wrong is judge him by his own rules as either Christian or burned-out Christian that are different than the rules Eusebius presents. In comparison this is much like watching a soccer game and judging it with football rules, and then on top of all be adament about it. That is why I call it 'protestant theology,' that so is different than ours.

All Catholicism has done is replace the OT with the NT as a new way to reach the end, except that we do not go by prophesy but by example set, and so 'know' what heaven is all about and how to get there too.

In this we walk side by side with Jews and indeed go West because that is where the end of the world is at, so that when we get there we can just do a 180 (metanoia) and go back East.

Significant here is that Catholics are baptized and not circumcized because they know how it is done. Hence the water is a reminder of their past wherein they walk on faith that is based on experience instead of the prophecy by which the Jews are mesmerized.

It's all ritual, you can say, but it can also be said the Jews wear their identity on the bottom of the kundalini while we wear it on top where knowledge is the end instead of the beginning, and so a baptism cross with water is made on our forehead, that, for example on ash Wednesday re-appears now black as cool to deliver three days later the eternal day called Sunday. Again, just a reminder like a whisper in our ear, however silent it may be, of the faith that leads us, and got us to this point so far in life.

The fact is that knowledge is the end were we come full circle in their OT Genesis, and so it can be said that we walk side by side with Jews and neither of us are Christian, but in our own way are waiting for the arrival of Christ that they still call the 'first coming' and we call 'second coming' that for both Jew and Catholic is in person first person to us.

It so then can be said that Catholics are like a 'grafted branch' on the old Jewish trunk for whom then symbiosis is natural, and we cordially bow in respect to them.

And so then I would ask, what is all the shit about, and don't you see?