Freethought & Rationalism Archive

darstec · 07-31-2010, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Because other sources have mentioned it.

What other sources?

This is what you wrote in an EARLIER post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

...We only know what Orthodoxy said they said....

Why are you now accepting what "Orthodoxy" said about "Eusebius"?

It was "Orthodoxy" that claimed Jesus was truly DIVINE and still human during the time of Tiberius.

What makes you think I was referring to Orthodoxy as the source of Eusebius' change of heart. Why the hell would they diss their own hero?

Eusebius was Orthodoxy. The was the one telling us what those fictitious people he made up supposedly said. I don't know how I can make this any plainer to you (perhaps English is not your native tongue) but it was others not from Orthodoxy that commented on Eusebius change of views, heretical ones. Would they not be the exact ones that would have been destroyed by the Roman Catholic Church?

aa5874 · 07-31-2010, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What other sources?

This is what you wrote in an EARLIER post.

Why are you now accepting what "Orthodoxy" said about "Eusebius"?

It was "Orthodoxy" that claimed Jesus was truly DIVINE and still human during the time of Tiberius.

What makes you think I was referring to Orthodoxy as the source of Eusebius' change of heart. Why the hell would they diss their own hero?

Eusebius was Orthodoxy. The was the one telling us what those fictitious people he made up supposedly said. I don't know how I can make this any plainer to you (perhaps English is not your native tongue) but it was others not from Orthodoxy that commented on Eusebius change of views, heretical ones. Would they not be the exact ones that would have been destroyed by the Roman Catholic Church?

Well, please name the source which supports your statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

...We know he discarded Orthodoxy as he neared the end of his life....

mountainman · 08-02-2010, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The more I read the writings from the Church it is becoming clearer to me that they were not known OUTSIDE the Church itself. It would seem that the Church writings were wholly or in part just written for the sole purpose of "INVENTING" history and then STORED.

I agree - the "church writings" were fabricated, and an analysis of the most likely epoch for their fabrication points to the notoriously Draconic and Neronic throw-back rule of Constantine.

Quote:

There are many major contradictions, false statements and errors in the Church writings that would have been EASILY recognized by their opponents, HERETICS and Secular Historians, and would have gravely undermined the Church writer's arguments.

The politics of the implementation of the state religion coincides with the supreme military dictatorship of Constantine. Any opposition to the church writings and the new testament canonical books was dealt with by the military. There was no opportunity for anyone to undermine the new and strange state monotheistic cut-and-past-ianity. New laws binding on all citizens of the Empire were such to suggest to all the overwealming benefits of running with the emperor's new choice of god.

Quote:

For example, it is claimed by a Church historian that Irenaeus wrote "Against Heresies" in the 2nd century but upon reading "Against Heresies" Irenaeus made a claim so outrageous, so erroneous and so illogical, even when using his own Gospel of Luke, that I find it extremely difficult to believe any heretic, any secular historian or writer, Jewish or non-Jewish, ever saw "Against Heresies" in the 2nd century or around 180 CE.

Yes, Irenaeus is just another one of the legions of Eusebian "stooges". No pagan author witnessed the writings of Irenaeus in the 2nd and 3rd centuries because "Irenaeus" was yet to be invented.

Quote:

It would be expected that Irenaeus would have known the AGE OF JESUS at crucifixion based on the tradition of the Church, after all Irenaeus was supposed to be a BISHOP of the Church.

The idea of non existent Bishops of the non existent Church fits with the archaeological notion of the available evidence which looks like non existent churches and non existent church houses. A third rate structure, the non existent Dura-Europos "house-church" has been tagged by zoologists. The idea of a non existent historical jesus may be easily explicated as a literary manifestation with its own associated "Church History" manufactured in the same scriptoria as the HISTORIA AUGUSTA - a known lavish 4th century forgery.

Quote:

It would be expected that Irenaeus would have been able to make a chronologically sound argument for the AGE of Jesus at crucifixion once he opposed those HERETICS who claimed Jesus was ONLY 30 years old when he suffered.

The claims are basic.

1. Heretics claimed Jesus was crucified when he was 30 years.

2. Irenaeus claimed Jesus was OVER 50 years old when he was crucified.

Now, the points put forward by Irenaeus are so fundamentally ridiculous, weak and erroneous that it is inconceivable any HERETIC or secular Historian, Jewish or non-Jewish, did see and read "Against Heresies.

The "HERETICS" - it needs to be underscored - thus also only appear in the chronological record after the Council of Nicaea, when the new and strange religion was officially floated on the Empire. Start with the master heretic and Anti-Christ Arius.

Quote:

It is my view that "Against Heresies" by "Irenaeus" is wholly or in part PLANTED EVIDENCE known and fabricated by the Church for their "Church History" written long after the end of the 2nd century.

Emperor Julian refers to Eusebius as "wretched".
Emperor Julian specifically used the term "fabrication of the Christians".
He wrote that he was convinced it was a fiction of men composed by wickedness.
I think its about time to investigate Eusebius and Constantine's involvement in fraud.

We must remember that Constantine became the "Pontifex Maximus" in 312 CE.
This gave him special powers to sponsor his own cult.

Claudius: magnified the cult of Cybele.
Gauis: in Rome introduced Osiris (and other Egyptian deities accepted in Italy)
Vespasian: favored Isis and Sarapis.
Domitian: was a benefactor of Isis, Minerva and Jupiter
Hadrian: built the temple of Venus and restored many temples in Rome.
Severan Dynasty: sponsored Bacchus, Hercules and Sarapis.
Illyrian Dynasty: were devoted to Vesta.
Aurelian: built the temple of Sol Invictus, celebrated 25th December and established priestly colleges.
Diocletian: supported Sol Invictus, Isis, Sarapis, Jupiter and Hercules.

Constantine obvious selected the plain and simple christian cult.
But the question is whether he did not also fabricate it.
He had the power, the people, the means, the opportunity and the motive.

Finally, the Church writings of Eusebius were not used as any authority during the turbulent 4th century Arian controversy following the Council of Nicaea. During this epoch of over 100 years the sole authority was that of the 318 Nicaean Fathers of the Church. As far as I know the authority of the Eusebian "Pre-Nicaean Church Fathers" was novelised by the thug murdering Bishop Cyril of Alexandria in the early 5th century. From the time of Cyril, the "Church Fathers" ceased to be the 318 Fathers of Nicaea, and instead became the legions of Eusebian Church history fathers.

darstec · 08-03-2010, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

What makes you think I was referring to Orthodoxy as the source of Eusebius' change of heart. Why the hell would they diss their own hero?

Eusebius was Orthodoxy. The was the one telling us what those fictitious people he made up supposedly said. I don't know how I can make this any plainer to you (perhaps English is not your native tongue) but it was others not from Orthodoxy that commented on Eusebius change of views, heretical ones. Would they not be the exact ones that would have been destroyed by the Roman Catholic Church?

Well, please name the source which supports your statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

...We know he discarded Orthodoxy as he neared the end of his life....

I can't because I cannot remember what books I read that information. I've come across it more than once.

I read a minimum of 4 books a week and when I was younger more than one a day. I've got enough notes to fill a library and some of them have only recorded the information and not the source. I don't even remember what language I read it in.

Not everything can be validated by the Internet. For portions of my life I've had access to private libraries.

You might try using Google. I haven't bothered as I under the opinion that it was common knowledge of anyone who studied Eusebius.

mountainman · 08-03-2010, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, please name the source which supports your statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

...We know he discarded Orthodoxy as he neared the end of his life....

Arnoldo Momogliano uses the phrase "the continuators of Eusebius" to denote that subset of authors who continued the ecclesiastical historiographic tradition from the days of Eusebus. The predominant three - all of whom write over a century after the counil of Nicaea - are as follows. These three authors form the basis of the orthodox "historical" sources for the 4th century:

Socrates 303 to 439
Sozomenus 303 to 421
Theodoretus 303 to 428

The issue about Eusebius and orthodoxy is probably related to the Arian controversy, in which it has been remarked that Eusebius may have been an Arian sympathiser, etc. Arius appears as a heretic because he opposed Constantine.

It is evident that many authors -- especially those who authored the Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc -- had access to Eusebius Church writings. Here is the opening paragraph of The History of John: (from the Syriac). The text of this apocryphal act specifically states: "This history was composed by Eusebius of Cæsarea" ...

The history of John, the son of Zebedee, who lay upon the breast of our Lord Jesus at the supper, and said, "Lord, who betrayeth Thee?" This history was composed by Eusebius of Cæsarea concerning S. John, who found it in a Greek book, and it was translated into Syriac, when he had learned concerning his way of life and his birth and his dwelling in the city of Ephesus, after the ascension of our Lord to Heaven.

Here, IMO, Eusebius was being satirized by the gnostic heretics.

aa5874 · 08-05-2010, 06:13 PM

The errors and contradictions in the Church writings are so blatant that it appears that many of these writings were NOT really seen external of the Church.

Examine "Church History" 6.25.11-14 where the Church historian claimed Origen did NOT believe that Paul was the author of Hebrews and did NOT KNOW how wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Quote:

11. In addition he makes the following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon it: That the verbal style of the epistle entitled 'To the Hebrews,' is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself 'rude in speech' 2 Corinthians 11:6 that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge.

12. Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit.'

13. Farther on he adds: If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul's.

14. But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows.....

So, according to the Church historian Origen thinks that the author of Hebrews was NOT Paul but someone who wrote the teachings of Paul and only God knows who that person was.

But, it is incredible that Origen will ARGUE that Paul WROTE Hebrews.

Examine a writing called "Origen to Africanus" by Origen.

Quote:

For the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in speaking of the prophets, and what they suffered, says, “They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword.”

To whom, I ask, does the “sawn asunder” refer (for by an old idiom, not peculiar to Hebrew, but found also in Greek, this is said in the plural, although it refers to but one person)?

Now we know very well that tradition says that Esaias the prophet was sawn asunder; and this is found in some apocryphal work, which probably the Jews have purposely tampered with, introducing some phrases manifestly incorrect, that discredit might be thrown on the whole.

However, some one hard pressed by this argument may have recourse to the opinion of those who reject this Epistle as not being Paul's; against whom I must at some other time use other arguments to prove that it is Paul's.

Incredibly Orrigen contradicts the Church historian.

"Origen" was of the opinion that "Paul" wrote Hebrews.

Which heretic saw or heard the Church writings?

None. The errors and contradictions are too blatant.

What appears to be public documents were probably INTERNAL documents fabricated for the Church historians.

mountainman · 08-05-2010, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Which heretic saw or heard the Church writings?

None. The errors and contradictions are too blatant.

What appears to be public documents were probably INTERNAL documents fabricated for the Church historians.

Students of both "Biblical History" and "Ancient History" should take the time to make themselves familiar with the publications of literature in the fourth century, and specifically the "Historia Augusta".

Does this following modus operandi sound familiar to students of Eusebius?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HISTORIA AUGUSTA

The Novel Invention of ...
(a) Fake Sources and
(b) other Fake Sources which disagree with them

Among the many games that are played in the Historia Augusta is the invention of no less than 130 fake documents, most charmingly introduced in the introduction of the Life of Aurelian. Fake sources were not a new practice (cf. the invented letters in Plutarch's Life of Alexander). What is new, however, is that the author the Historia Augusta invents sources to disagree with them.

aa5874 · 08-10-2010, 02:23 PM

I have found another piece of information that augment my theory that many of the Church writings were really INTERNAL documents and were not circulated publicly or written very late since there are BLATANT contradictions that would have been easily refuted by the so-called heretics and historians of the day.

In "Against Heresies" a writer under the name Irenaeus claimed Jesus was NOT and could NOT have been 30 years old when he suffered and that even John of Ephesus an apostle of Jesus taught the Ephesians that Jesus was about 50 years old. And further "Irenaeus" claimed Jesus did NOT preach for ONE year.

Now, a writer using the name Clement of Alexandria BLATANTLY contradicts "Irenaeus".

Jesus was 30 years old when he suffered and he preached for ONE SINGLE year according to Clement of Alexandria.

"Stromata 1"

Quote:

And to prove that this is true, it is written in the Gospel by Luke as follows: "And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias."

And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on.

And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He has sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord ."

This both the prophet spoke, and the Gospel. Accordingly, in fifteen years of Tiberius and fifteen years of Augustus, so were completed the thirty years till the time He suffered.

Look again at "Against Heresies" by "Irenaeus 2.22.6

Quote:

....He did not
therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth
month of the year.

"Against Heresies" 2.22.6

Quote:

...they observed that He was above forty
years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of
age......

Based on "Irenaeus", the "bishop of Lyons", Clement of Alexandria would have been an heretic when he claimed Jesus preached for ONLY year and suffered when he was 30 years old.

It would seem that Clement of Alexandria was NOT aware that he was an heretic.

"Irenaeus" was a fake bishop and writer of the 2nd century.

aa5874 · 08-15-2010, 08:43 AM

The Church writings are so blatantly contradictory and erroneous that it seems that the writings were NOT publicly circulated but were INTERNAL documents to be used to FABRICATE the "history of the Church".

Examine the words of Clement in "Stromata" 7.17

Quote:

For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius.

And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero.

It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.

Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul.

For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics].

And after him Simon heard for a little the preaching of Peter.

So, here we have a supposed head theologian of a school who appears to have ZERO knowledge of the time of Peter, Simon Magus and or Marcion.

Clement quite SCHOCKINGLY claimed Simon was AFTER Marcion.

No heretic, historian or even Church writers could have heard or seen such RIDICULOUS and BLATANT errors.

Clement gave bogus chronologies or incorrect additions now he is falsely claiming that heresies AROSE during the time of Adrian the King.

There was no king called Adrian. Adrian was an Emperor.

And so- called heresies began, based on the historian of the Church, with Simon since the time of the Emperor Cladius.

"Church History" 2.13.6

Quote:

...6. We have understood that Simon was the author of all heresy.

From his time down to the present those who have followed his heresy have feigned the sober philosophy of the Christians, which is celebrated among all on account of its purity of life...

How could Clement of Alexandria be SO WRONG?

How could Clement of Alexandria make SUCH BLATANT errors and go completely UNNOTICED?

How could Clement claim SIMON was AFTER Marcion?

How could Clement claim heresies begin in the time of Adrian the king?

No heretic, or historian SAW those fundamental ERRONEOUS statements from Clement. They appear to have been written long after and were NOT publicly circulated.

mountainman · 08-16-2010, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Church writings are so blatantly contradictory and erroneous that it seems that the writings were NOT publicly circulated but were INTERNAL documents to be used to FABRICATE the "history of the Church".

It perhaps has a significance that the church history of Eusebius was categorised amidst an Index of Apocrypha in the Decretum Gelasianum. This document has been conjecturally dated c.491 CE but some place a good part of it as early as the rule of Damasius c.367 CE.

the History of Eusebius Pamphilii apocrypha

Classified Eusebius's "Church History" with the apocrypha, implied the following CURSE by the "Orthodox Christian Church Corporation" ...

Quote:

we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with their authors and the followers of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever.

Business was business after all.
Its as if the 318 "Church Fathers of Nicaea" buried Eusebius history for a century.
They had enough power so as not to need any "proof" from Eusebius for "Christian Church Authenticity Issues".
The 318 Nicaean fathers had the sword of Constantine behind them. That was all they needed.
Cyril reinstated the authority of the "Eusebian Church Fathers" over and above the 318 Nicaean Fathers.

Strangely, elsewhere in this same document Eusebius's "Church History" gets a second treatment and mention as OK - use with caution ....

Here added below is on the works of the holy fathers, which are received in the catholic church. .....

....

likewise the chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea and the books of his church history, however much he fell flat in the first book of his narration and [although he also] afterwards wrote one book in praise and to excuse Origen the schismatic, however on account of his narration of remarkable things, which are useful for instruction, we do not say to anyone that it must be refused.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.