mountainman

Popular (greek) political sedition against the historical jesus. The words of Arius were IMO historical commentary on jesus. They were made in resistance mode by Arius. But these words became a focus for unbelief. Constantine was being satired by Arius. And the boss could not stand this. He wanted Arius rounded up. Did you read the letter above from Constanine to Arius? I have sketched a political explanation. Let me know what you think.

In general I see the Arian controversy as the opposition by the greek speaking academics of he fourth century against the fabrication of the Galilaeans. That is, although there was a new state religion in the court of the emperor, it had a major credibility problem with the greek empire in the east. Constantine solved this with his army. And the rest of the fourth century Roman emperors, with the exception of Julian, did precisely the same thing.

The Arian controversy was about the fact that the new testament was fiction, a monstrous tale, and a fabrication of wicked men.



Ulfias was maybe ten years old when the military supremacy councils of Antioch and Nicaea were conducted, and when the face of the eastern greek speaking empire was given a once-over by Constantine's military command. Who does one listen to when one is ten years old?

This issue needs to be addressed by archaeological citations related to the chronology of christian origins. C14 is highly regarded.


Best wishes,


Pete

sschlichter

sorry, I do not see it. Lucian (prior to Arius) was not in line with orthodoxy, but was certainly not about historical fabrication. Ulfilas (after Arius) was not a missionary for a historical commentary against Constantine. He believed Jesus was a historical fact. If he was pressured politically, then why did he not conform to orthodoxy? He was not even around to be pressured politically.

Your proposition also ignores Constantine's sympathies towards Arius and his exile(s) of Athanasius. I think both Eusebi were also sympathetic to Arius prior to 325 as well. (I could be remembering incorrectly about this).

I swear I already posted this last night but I did not see it. Sorry, if this is a duplicate post.

~Steve

mountainman

My take on Lucian is that his textual works were present in the Roman libraries 312 CE and that Eusebius either forged or interpolated additional works in his name - Life of Peregrine, Alexander the Prophet. Have a look at the list of works attributed to Lucian but which are now known to be forgeries in his name that were so forged in th4e fourth century. Start looking with the text called the Philopatris.


Everyone conformed to Constantine during the period 312-337 CE.
Ulifas is too late to be a witness for any historical jesus.

Constantine's "sympathies" towards Arius are clearly outlined in an extant letter written by Constantine to Arius c.333 CE. If you want to read the english translation of the letter have a look at this page:

Thanks for your questions.

Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

In this post a few months ago I collected my remarks from several earlier threads about Pete's methodological bankruptcy.

aa5874

Perhaps it was just a hostile take-over. When I read Church History by Eusebius, I get the impression that the Roman Church colluded with others, including Eusebius and Constantine to "confiscate" the doctrines, written texts and history of other Christian sects and made them the "property" of the State, and call them their own retroactive to the conception of Jesus.

mountainman

Think Tibet on a grand scale. The tibetans sought refuge in India.
The greek speaking residents of the eastern roman empire in the
year 324 and following sought refuge in the deserts of Syria and the upper nile -- and of such were the stories of the desert fathers such as Pachomius - he who most academics assess to have possibly oversighted the
preparation and the secreting of the Nag Hammadi codices c.348 CE.

Constantine flattened the eastern empire.
It was more than a hostile takeover.
He publically destroyed temples of great antiquity.
He publicallly executed a number of leading priests.
He executed his son Crispus.
He executed his wife and associated innocents.
He published the christian bible.
He was a very sick man.


The academic greek speaking populace of the eastern empire supported the words of Arius for a century after the councils of Antioch and Nicaea. The new testament canon aa5874 is simply Constantinian forgery 312-324 CE. Eusebius also concludes his masterful church pseudo-history as the sun brightly rises over that fateful day of Nicaea.

The new testament non canonix is simply polemical satire, parody and sedition against the flagrantly fictive characters depicted in the Constantinian fiction. Have a long hard look at the new testament apochryphal acts and gospels. They are satires on 4th century "spirituality", since the christian ministry replaced the ministry of the temple priests to Apollo and to Asclepius, for example.

Best wishes,

Pete

sschlichter

Why would Eusebius forge Lucian to be similar to Arius? Why not forge him to be consistent with the orthodox view?


I am not saying he is a witness to jesus. I am saying his view (which smacks of Arianism as the rest of the world knows it) exists outside of the Roman Empire. If he was an Arian as you claim Arius really beleived then why was Ulfilas a missionary for the view that Christ did exist, but existed as a created being.

It seems to me, you have the view that Christ was created by the teacher of Arius, you have the words of Arius, and you have his followers living outside the range of being revised. All consistently Arians (as I know them).

Why didn't Eusebius remopve any record of his own support for Arius while he was at it?

mountainman

Read the text of "The Philopatris".
Let me know what you think.
I think it was just a priority date.
Same as the use of Josephus.
A fraudulent chronological priority date.




But what do you know of them, apart from the name stems from the words of Arius? And I am not buying into any theological explanation here.


Think about it for a minute. Eusebius is sponsored to write some material for the boss. He knows it is fraud and it will cause a great controversy. He has the full backing of Constantine. He is well paid. What's the problem?

Apart from this, we have ample evidence that the christian ecclesiastical historians who followed in the footsteps of Eusebius, were continuators of the Eusebian series of patristic fables, and embellishers of bits and pieces of history, such as Augustine trying to make Mani a christian. Not only that, the reputation and integrity and authenticity of Constantine's new Galilaean religion was at stake. Contrary books and tractates were regarded by the christians in the courts of the Emperor as heretical to the canon. The church, via the emperors following Constantine (with the exception of Julian), acquired supreme power over the greek literature.

Just as did Ardashir burn the literature of the Parthian civilisation one hundred years earlier, so too did the Roman christian emperors, commencing with Constantine, burn the literature of the Greek civilisation.

The Healing god Asclepius was out.
Constantine's new man was in.


Best wishes,



Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

What's the C-14 dating of the earliest extant MS of this letter?

A quote that you no doubt cribbed from here, but, in doing so, ignored and certainly failed to tell us that the context in which this quote appears is an account of Constantine changing his mind about Arius and how he recalled Arius to his province and reinstated him in his office, as well as how several "orthodox" bishops testified to Arius' orthodoxy.

Funny, too, that you should be quoting from, and accepting as true what is said by, an author who is one of those "Christain apologists" you deride who insists (and, unlike you, provided evidence showing) that Arius' words about the Son not existing cannot and should not be understood apart from the "ecclesiastical sense" that you claim is falsely given to them.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

What is the C-14 dating of our earliest extant MS of this text?

Jeffrey