spin

Once again mountainman is the lone voice standing out in defence of his Grand Conspiracy.

But the aim of this thread was not so much for one person to defend or reject the cause, but to get as many people as possible to give their view. And you'll note that I have not taken a position in this thread, but merely facilitated the others' voicing of theirs.


spin

No Robots

Well, mountainman couldn't have picked a more fascinating historical nexus to get hung up on. Too bad he can't see that the truth is far stranger than his fiction. You have first this titanic figure of Constantine, raised in the easy camp-Christianity of his father, held hostage for years, fleeing across the Empire to join his dying father, rallying the army, conquering all opponents, and rooting himself firmly in Christianity. He becomes the first great Christian legislator, and establishes a political settlement with the Germans that will create feudalism and ultimately modernity.

Second you have the bishops warring over the nature of Christ, featuring such colorful characters as Arius, Athanasius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and, of course, Eusebius of Caesarea. This last is a study in the conflicted conscience, the scholar fighting the prelate, which is something we will see again and again over the following centuries. In the end, the Church votes to conceal the human Christ under a veil of divinity. But the great secret--that we are all but men--will live on.

judge

Aphrahat who lived in the Parthian empire, was writing at this time as well. In his his fifth demonstration he tells us the years from alexander 311 b.c to his time were 648 years meaning he wrote in 337 a.d. And this is his fifth one!

Demonstration 14 is formally dated the month of shebat 655 meaning 344 C.E.

How was Constantine or Eusebius responsible for this?

How did they plant this in the Parthian Empire?

mountainman

Do you realise that in the years 330 to 337 Constantine was
effectively bribing the barbarian tribes to become christian?
(eg: the Samatians).

Our thesis is that it is not altogether impossible that
Constantine sponsored the writing of the fabrication
of the galilaeans (including HE, etc) c.311-314 CE
from Rome, after he had Max's head sent around the
city (and then off to Africa as a warning) on a pike.

This is decades before Aphrahat.



Pete

No Robots

The fascinating thing is that most of the Germans--Goths, Vandals, Lombards--became Arians.

mountainman

What sources are usually cited for this claim,
aside from Eusebius in his "Life of the Thrice
Blessed Emperor Constantine" (c.337) which
is not generally regarded to have much (shall
we say historical) value?

Which historians support the claim?
Not too many you'll find.




Pete

mountainman

I have elsehwere defended that this has nothing to do with conspiracy
and everything to do with political power, unbridled ambition and the
unsatiable greed for gold (which belonged at the time to "the Pagans").

Well spin, I do appreciate this, because I am sure that if I had proposed a poll
it is just as likely that noone would vote on it. Having said that, I would have
thought by now that it should have been obvious that my thesis is best
summarised as:

"Did Constantine invent Christianity?"

We have it that Eusebius was sponsored by Constantine to implement and
coordinate the literature (and associated perversions, and interpolations)
which was to be later termed "The fabrication of the galilaeans", but he did
not invent the new religion.

It was IMO imperially inspired.




Pete

mountainman

There is also this reference to Apollonius of Tyana, from
his biographer Philostratus, related to Vespasian.



Pete

Roger Pearse

Indeed. But MM is merely engaged in finding excuses to ignore that evidence.

Persian empire; the Parthians had been overthrown by the Sassanid Persians during the 3rd century. The latter ran a much tighter and more aggressive state, which was much more of a problem for the Romans. They were eventually completed defeated only by the emperor Heraclius in 634 AD.

Two years later the Moslems poured out of the desert, and the Sassanids had no soldiers left with which to fight them, and so Persia was conquered - something that could have happened at no other period of history.

But a lot of Persians felt that they had been ambushed, and this was one of the considerations in the overthrow of the Ummayyad Caliphate and its replacement by the Abbasids, with their headquarters at Baghdad and which was Persian dominated, and arrogant about it.

You can read in the History of the Coptic Patriarchs of Alexandria an eyewitness account of the fate of the last Ummayad Caliph, Marwan II, fleeing through Egypt from the horsemen from Khorassan, and desperately trying to squeeze money out of everyone he met.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

No Robots

This comes from The Christianity of Constantine the Great / T.G. Elliott, p. 25-6. I don't have the exact quotation (a Questia subscription is on my Christmas wish list. Hint, hint) Here is my summary note from a few years ago:

Proposes that Constantius subscribed to a tolerant camp Christianity that accepted pagan symbols and rites, including sacrifice.