aa5874

Why don't you read "Church History" for yourself?

It is completely UNHEARD of where the WRITTEN STATEMENTS of a Suspect is dismissed.

Duvduv

Has anyone who has ever read his book discovered any clues or codes about the fraud of the religion (which I assume means that it was created by a Roman Regime Committee despite discrepancies, contradictions, etc.)??

I am not a trained attorney or trial lawyer. So maybe you can get to the point......

Toto

Of course not. But that just means the conspiracy covered its tracks. :constern02:

Seriously, what are you after?

Chili

Eusebius was just a guy who put this game together that we call communal life with the promise of eternal life. It is primarily based on tradition but he has these iconic flashcards that leave an imprint in the minds of his followers by which they are mesmerised instead of by the old prophetic messages that soon get warped into fantsies and never bare much fruit and so deserved to be trown out.

So it does not matter who he really was and where he got these flashcards from but suffice it to say that the game is for real and is for keeps and if you do not believe that just go see for yourself where the gold is piling up, and where our cultural heritage is yearning for to understand.

To study the man to validate his effort is to look for a piece of the ark so that we might believe and that is much like studying Shakespeare as the man who wrote so that we might understand what he wrote, and so here now this was just another fruit of what Eusebius had in mind when he got the vehicle named Catholicism going, and of course, there is hundreds more like him, and so Eusebius is most likely just as enigmatic as the religion that he put together to remain like a poem of which the author remains "unknown."

aa5874

What you ask is irrelevant. You are implying that nothing can be resolved by some other person if others have failed to do so.

You must know that the "DONATION of Constantine" was found to be a FORGERY based on the VERY CONTENTS of the FRAUDULENT Document itself.

See http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/va..._vatican10.htm


The Fraud was EXPOSED about 700 years after the document was written.

It is the document called "DONATION of CONSTANTINE" that contained the CLUES that it was a FORGERY.

Lorenza Valla found the CLUES. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenza_Valla

"Church History" contains the CLUES and CODES that show which documents of apologetic sources are chronologically and historically bogus.

mountainman

There is a great deal of negative evidence. Take for example if we read Eusebius's history at its face value, Eusebius sets out to tell his readers the names of the religious opposition, whom he presents as the vile heretical gnostics. However neither Eusebius or any one of the orthodox christian heresiologists provides the name of the historical author behind any of the Gnostic Acts or Gospels. This is a rather peculiar situation. There is no doubt that Eusebius the heresiologists were peeved at the heretics to varying degrees, and yet despite this, they did not attempt to provide any names. We may conclude that they either did not know the names of the gnostic heretics who authored these books, or that they did know the names and did not write them for posterities sake, or, they wrote the names of the heretic author(s) in their accounts, but these names were expunged from the record by the later continuators and preservers of Eusebius.

Here is Eusebius, stating his intended plan of presentation of the history of the church:

Eusebius H.E. Book One, Chapter 1: The Plan of the Work.

It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.

It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.

We may read through all the books in the church history of Eusebius, but no names are mentioned as authors of any of the Gnostic Acts or Gospels. This is another example of negative evidence. Read Eusebius and he is able to list the names of legions of the orthodox bishops and apologists. The source known as Eusebius is silent on the names of the gnostic opponents to Constantine's christian initiatives c.324/325 CE.

The scenario appears as if the memory of the Nicaean opposition was purposefully erased from the public and historical record.

Duvduv

And then after Eusebius came along Socrates of Constantinople, who must also be quoted far and wide as another "reliable " source of historical information.
...

rlogan

You can understand early Christianity best by reading the first historical account of it, in letters between Pliny the Younger and Emperor Trajan in 112 CE. That contradicts the official history in important respects, namely that there was no human Jesus in Christianity as late as 112 CE.
There was no Christianity, period, by the time of Josephus' writings in the 90's where he wrote a chapter on sects of the Jews without mentioning Christians, nor mentioning this new King of the Jews.

But since Pliny says some have been Christians as long as 25 years previous, we can say that the 90's must represent the dawn of Christianity

Eusebius is Emperor Constantine's religious clerk in the 300's, serving at his right hand at the Council of Nicea. The purpose of this and other ecumenical councils was to complete the monopolization of Christianity into an official state religion so as to better control the people. As a practical matter this meant requiring people to register at parishes, which serves as a platform for census, tax enumeration, conscription, propaganda distribution, etc.

As a technical matter the way this was accomplished when there were more than four gospels and a number of epistles all circulating with different theologies in them is that you write an official history book that includes the favored books (in their redacted form) and epistles. You sew them together as best you can - Acts for example provides the bridge between the Pauline Christianity led by Marcion in the Black Sea area and the Gospel Camp centered in Rome.

So Eusebius writes this official Church History that is a four-gospel version of history. Since the Emperor has made Christianity the official state religion and forced it into one top-down theology and structure, any other books are not just religiously heretical but also subversive of the Empire. It is a crime against the Empire to profess anything other than canon.

Eusebius' most telling act is to make the first "citation" of the Testimonium Flavianum, and he is obviously the forger of it, because Josephus Flavius never once makes mention of Christianity in his two great works in the 90's. If anyone should have, it would be him since he was the defending general at the Battle of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

That forgery is imperitive (but painfully, laughably obvious) because there was no mention of Christianity before 112 CE, since it did not exist. There was no Jesus Christ. It starts with the revelation of the person with pen-name Paul (Marcion or his predecessor) and the Book of Mark in its original form, with the Markan author searching the Hebrew Scriptures for a new interpretation heralding a Christ who can remove our obligation to give money and goods over to the rich people running the official Temples in the Empire.

Pauline material is openly opposed to Hebrew theology rather than subversive of it, and Marcion writes some sort of tract specifically contradicting same. I forget the name of it now. But the Gospels and the Epistles both agree on one core theme: A belief in a Christ that removes our obligation to sacrifice (give our goods and money over to the Temple).

None of these works are in circulation until decades into the 2nd century. Not by 112 CE anyway. By the 130's though.

So there aren't any "codes" really - the Gospels are fables and childishly easy to see through for their lack of geographical accuracy, their ridiculous miracles (recycled from elsewhere), and in the first place for being easily shown as re-interpretations of Hebrew Script. Very heavy on Isaiah esp. Isaiah 50, but dabbling from elsewhere to weave a story about the Christ.

Eusebius is writing during a struggle for supremacy over doctrine which is defacto a struggle over history since the Protocatholics are tendering gospels with direct lineage between Jesus on earth and Peter, the first pope. (The rock upon which the Church will stand.)

The History to take from all this is what people were willing to do in order to empower themselves over the masses. The real story of Christianity, from its initial inception as secret cells of extended family in the 90's CE to its final police-state dictatorship under Constantine and his Secretary of Religion & History Eusebius - it is far more fascinating than the Gospels.

aa5874

If you examine Pliny's letter carefully you will see that he does NOT at all tell us about a JESUS CULT.

The PLINY Letters to Trajan actually SHOW that the JESUS CULT is AFTER the Pliny letters.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about a Jesus cult and Pliny himself does NOT mention a Jesus cult.

Pliny TORTURED some of the Christians to find out what they BELIEVED and PRACTISED and they NEVER mentioned JESUS.

Pliny's Christians were NOT part of a JESUS CULT. Pliny's Christians said ZERO about Jesus. NOTHING.

The Jesus cult was AFTER 115 CE.

rlogan

There is no Jesus cult in the Pliny-Trajan correspondence of 112. The Christians pledge to be honest in their affairs. They eat a communal meal. The temples have emptied and the sacrificial animal industry is in a shambles.

This tells us that Christians were significant both numerically and economically by 112 CE, but they had no literature nor "Big Bang" Jesus origin.

Pliny can get out of them this vague idea of a "Christ" figure, worshipped as a God, but scoffs at any details as depraved superstition. So it is abundantly clear this is a celestial or spiritual Christ at the origin of Christianity and not a historical Jesus.