yummyfur

I'm not sure I can muster enough to go through that last stuff point by point. There have been many references to Ochkham's razor, but in truth, such a razor is not needed, as a hypothesis must first have explanatory power before it can even reach the possibility of being cut by Ochkam's blade. Yours has failed, as you have contradicted previous explanations, with new ones, and have almost no coherent explanations for any of the events and texts and propose pretty much a wholesale loss of memory among the Roman people for events that happend at no later than 20 years previous.

here are just a few of the changes/equivications you've made so far that can't possibly all be true:

Arius(or anyone) is incapable of seeing the fakeness of the Eusebian religion

Arius is a strawman, possibly not even real, created by Eusebius

Arius is a valiant and clever fighter against Constantine

Constantine had to appear at arms length, or no one would follow, thus the need for heresies

Constantine forces his opinion at Nicea, he is all powerfull

Constantine burns all the libraries of the Roman world(despite no evidence of such, and leaving our poor Constantius II(an Arian) and Theodosius with nothing to do)

this list could probably go on and on

Roger Pearse

If you're lucky! Libraries are hideously uncooperative institutions and always have been. They're not like modern lending libraries; more like the private collections of wealthy and suspicious individuals are today.

The official revival of an antiquarianised paganism by Julian the Apostate being a prime example.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

New religions have always been invented, only those linked to Political might will last for any time. Was not the Islamic religion invented after Christianity and now has over a billion followers. In order for religion to survive, it must continually re-invent itself. Eusebius, John Smith or anyone else, for that matter, may invent any religion if their own survival is at stake, not to mention personal ambitions and the need to control.

mountainman

Hermias Sozomen
Chapter XVI

CHAP.XVI. -- CONSTANTINE, HAVING HEARD OF THE STRIFE OF THE BISHOPS, AND THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION CONCERNING THE PASSOVER, IS GREATLY TROUBLED AND SENDS HOSIUS, A SPANIARD, BISHOP OF CORDOVA, TO ALEXANDRIA, TO ABOLISH THE DISSENSION AMONG THE BISHOPS, AND TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE ABOUT THE PASSOVER.

AFTER there had been many synods held in Egypt, and the contest had still continued to Increase in violence, the report of the dissension reached the palace, and Constantine was thereby greatly troubled; for just at this period, when religion was beginning to be more generally propagated, many were deterred by the difference in doctrines from embracing Christianity. The emperor openly charged Arius and Alexander with having originated this disturbance, and wrote to rebuke them for having made a controversy public which it was in their power to have concealed, and for having contentiously agitated a question which ought never to have been mooted, or upon which, at least, their opinion ought to have been given quietly. He told them that they ought not to have separated from others on account of difference of sentiment concerning certain points of doctrine.

For concerning the Divine Providence men ought necessarily to hold one and the same belief; but the minute researches in this province, especially if they do not bring them to the one opinion, must be retained in secret according to all reason. He exhorted them to put away all loose talk about such points, and to be of one mind; for he had been not a little grieved, and on this account he had renounced his intention of visiting the cities of the East. It was in this strain that he wrote to Alexander and to Arius, reproving and exhorting them both.

Constantine was also deeply grieved at the diversity of opinion which prevailed concerning the celebration of the Passover; for some of the cities in the East differed on this point, although they did not withhold from communion with one another; they kept the festival more according to the manner of the Jews, and as was natural by this divergence, detracted from the splendor of the festal sacrifice. The emperor zealously endeavored to remove both these causes of dissension from the church; and thinking to be able to remove the evil before it advanced to greater proportions, be sent one who was honored for his faith, his virtuous life, and most approved in those former times for his confessions about this doctrine, to reconcile those who were divided on account of doctrine in Egypt, and those who in the East differed about the Passover.This man was Hosius, bishop of Cordova.

CHAP. XVII.
OF THE COUNCIL CONVENED AT NICAEA ON ACCOUNT OF ARIUS.
WHEN it was found that the event did not answer the expectations of the emperor, but that on the contrary, the contention was too great for reconciliation, so that he who had been sent to make peace returned without having accomplished his mission, Constantine convened a synod at Nicaea, in Bithynia, and wrote to the most eminent men of the churches in every country, directing them to be there on an appointed day. Of those who occupied the apostolic sees, the following participated in this conference: Macarius of Jerusalem, Eustathius, who already presided over the church of Antioch on the Orontes; and Alexander of Alexandria near Lake Mareotis. Julius, bishop of Rome, was unable to attend on account of extreme old age; but his place was supplied by Vito and Vicentius, presbyters of his church. Many other excellent and good men from different nations were congregated together, of whom some were celebrated for their learning, their eloquence, and their knowledge of the sacred books, and other discipline; some for the virtuous tenor of their life, and others for the combination of all these qualifications. About three hundred and twenty bishops were present, accompanied by a multitude of presbyters and deacons. There were, likewise, men present who were skilled in dialectics, and ready to assist in the discussions. And as was usually the case on such occasions, many priests resorted to the council for the purpose of transacting their own private affairs; for they considered this a favorable opportunity for rectifying their grievances, and in what points each found fault with the rest, he presented a document to the emperor, wherein he noted the offenses committed against himself. As this course was pursued day after day, the emperor set apart one certain day on which all complaints were to be brought before him. When the appointed time arrived, he took the memorials which had been presented to him, and said,

"All these accusations will be brought forward in their own season at the great day of judgment, and will there be judged by the Great Judge of all men; as to me, I am but a man, and it would be evil in me to take cognizance of such matters, seeing that the accuser and the accused are priests; and the priests ought so to act as never to become amenable to the judgment of others. Imitate, therefore, the divine love and mercy of God, and be ye reconciled to one another; withdraw your accusations against each other; let us be persuaded, and let us devote our attention to those subjects connected with the faith on account of which we are assembled."
After this address, in order to make the document of each man nugatory, the emperor commanded the memorials to be burnt, and then appointed a day for solving the doubtful points. But before the appointed time arrived, the bishops assembled together, and having summoned Arius to attend, began to examine the disputed topics, each one amongst them advancing his own opinion. As might have been expected, however, many different questions started out of the investigation: some of the bishops spoke against the introduction of novelties contrary to the faith which had been delivered to them from the beginning. And those especially who had adhered to simplicity of doctrine argued that the faith of God ought to be received without curious inquiries; others, however, contended that ancient opinions ought not to be followed without examination. Many of the bishops who were then assembled, and of the clergy who accompanied them, being remarkable for their dialectic skill, and practiced in such rhetorical methods, became conspicuous, and attracted the notice of the emperor and the court. Of that number Athanasius, who was then a deacon of Alexandria, and had accompanied his bishop Alexander, seemed to have the largest share in the counsel concerning these subjects.

CHAP. XIX. -- WHEN THE COUNCIL WAS ASSEMBLED, THE EMPEROR DELIVERED A PUBLIC ADDRESS

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_056.htm


Arius and his words may have been misinterpretted.
The day of passover and easter is a red herring, as if
the supreme imperial mafia thug Constantine is concerned
over public holidays. But there is something about the
words of Arius that Constantine needs to address.

What do you think Arius is saying that is so important
that Constantiine calls Nicaea in order to set things straight.

It benefited Constantine to distance himself from the new and strange
religion which (this hypothesis considers) Constantine to have
fabricated (with Eusebian sponsorship) 312-324 CE, and implemented
at Nicaea, immediately after the moment he became supreme.

I made no claim pursuant to this. I did not say, "thus the need for
herecies". The Arian controversy quickly became the Arian Heresy,
and people and lands were destroyed over it.

What's wrong with that assertion.
Read the surviving minutes of the Council.


I happen to like this list ... unlike your list it appears to be
reasonably complete and accurate concerning the destruction
and chaotic mayhem enacted by the new and strange religion
once it was let loose upon the world at the Council of Nicaea
in the fourth century and no earlier!

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_060.htm




Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

mountainman

My concern is over the actual and true history of antiquity.
I hope to present a theory of history which is concordance
to scientifically and objectively established archeological and
historical events.

If in the history of antiquity it is actually true that christianity
was an imperially inspired fourth century fiction of men during
which the literature of antiquity was perverted and burned,
what has that to do with me?


I am convinced that there was no christian footprint on the planet
until Constantine set foot in Rome, and I hope to try and understand
what happened in the period of antiquity 0-300 which is missing from
knowledge the world, since the flames of the new and strange religion
burned the ancient books, as they did not contain the TMK TRUTH.




Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

Chris Weimer

I doubt this. You've thrown out every principle of science in favor of mere speculation. You have no evidence at all.

Because Christianity is not a fourth century fiction. You are dead wrong. There's archaeological evidence of manuscripts antedating them, and the best you got is some lunatic conspiracy theory.

You convinced yourself against all rational evidence for the contrary. In reality, we call that delusion. <edit>

spin

I guess you haven't made it to Toronto yet, Christopher.


spin

pharoah

To expound upon that, the hallmark of any useful hypothesis is falsifiability. Mountainman's theory can't be falsified.

The New Testament - all written by Eusebius
The orthodox non-canonical writings - all written by Eusebius
The gnostic texts - all written by Eusebius
The archeological evidence - all 4th century or later
handwriting evidence - fabricated by Eusebius
pre 4th-century secular texts that mention Xtianity - all interpolations by Eusebius
Textual conflicts - inserted so as to not to arouse suspicion, or human error by his cadre of scribes

To date, he has yet to present a single shred of evidence to bolster any of the above claims. There's literally nothing that you can present to mountainman that will make him say "You're right, my theory is wrong". As an example, he continues to use out-of-context Julian quotes to bolster his case although he has been shown repeatedly from Julian's own writings that Julian believed Jesus and Paul existed. This reeks of either gross delusion or intellectual dishonesty. Personally, I'm done trying to dialog with him. :wave:

Ted Hoffman

In other words Pete, your ad-hoc approach makes your theory so fluid that it cannot be falsified.
Please tell us how we can falsify your theory.

Chris Weimer

Nor do I think that's happening. It was something so positive not even a month ago - plans come crashing down. Heck, if I don't figure something out, I won't even have a home at all. You can't spare a couple hundred, can you?