mountainman

Thanks for your questions which I have attempted
to respond to below, however I must adamantly
take exception to your reference to the word
conspiracy, for the reasons which have not yet
been openly acknowledged in this forum.

Namely, that a malevolent despot with supreme
military power and absolute civil power, does
not need to conspire. Actions brought about by
the abuse of such power are chaotic personal
spin-off's of the persona of the dictator. Any
juvenile student of modern history should be
able to understand this point.

See this thread:
Constantine's Bible: "conspiracy theories" vs "absolute political power"


Posters in this forum are versed, some skillfully, in the
fields of Biblical Criticism and Biblical History. Each has
a unique story to tell, as is to be expected in a diverse
collection of people such as this forum hosts.

Some of these posters already have a preconceived theory for
the emergence of chistianity into the realtime of history, by
and large variations upon the mainstream theme, but there are
of course exceptions to any rule. The strengths to which each
of these posters embraces their own theory varies: some are
quietly confident, others are agressive defenders, others quite
viriolic attackers, others juvenile, others didactic.

Other posters are searchers, not yet firmly attached to any one
strand of the mainstream theory, but attempting to perceive how
the environment may be better (personally) researched.

There are of course anti-christian sensationalists, christian
bashers, and other forms of loud and vexious people.

I have tried to learn something from everyone who responds.
Often, the posters themselves have taught me immediately and
without any effort on my part.

Early on in the peace, Ben Smith when asked by me if it was not
in fact that the case that he made the inference that Eusebius'
writings were to be essentially interpretted as true and correct,
admitted it so. I thought that this was very open, such that
the logic of the situation was not lost on Ben, but that he had,
perhaps for reasons of faith, accepted this inference as being
true. After all, the rest of the planet does. I admired too
Ben's sense of humour, at that time, and his willingness to go
the extra yard --- in an intelligent fashion and pace.

I dont just read my own posts, I tend to try and cover the ground
in order to observe how other people raise issues, and respond to
issues. The entire field is very broad, much detail is going on,
and every so often, textual gems are gleaned from such ascii
beachcombing, as I am sure most of us are aware.

I could mention Toto's steady assistance in all matters, and
the contributions of others who have show a similar tolerated
neutrality. I have learnt much from many people, but they were
often signposts on the path of my own research. But is not always
the way?

My acceptance of other posters' hypotheses, postulates, axioms
has been an important learning curve. Whatever these things are
that rest at the foundation of our belief systems, it is good
to get them out in the open form for discussion. This has been
quite instructive for me.

I understand that perhaps much of the above is not directly
related to "Did Constantine Invent Christianity?", nevertheless
my experience in this forum is multi-faceted. The atomic elements
of ancient history by which views are constructed are broad and
diverse, and first need to be identified, and then viewed, before
being examined to determine whether they can be considered to be
in alignment to any specific theory of history.

I would put it forward to you that it would be a statistical fact
that every person either posting or lurking in this forum has indeed
something positive to offer other people, even if it is only the
identification of some small "ancient historical fact" which was
before unknown to them.

I have learnt more silently reading other threads than I have learnt
though overt correspondence. This is not to belittle the dialogue,
but in fact, to praise the standards of some of these discussions
as perceived by a silent observer.


Much of the detailed specification for the articulation of the
mainstream "Biblical Criticism" and "Biblical History", including
along with Jeffrey Gibson, the activity of being critical of
things outside the box of these mainstream specifications.

Such conservatism is to be expected (in varying degrees) from most
posters in this forum, because is is very much part of the tradition
into which we were all born. By this I mean the tradition of BC&H.

I have learnt however that neither spin or Jeff appear to comprehend
the writings of Arnaldo Momigliano as being heavily ironic. I have
attempted to understand whether IRONY is a native quality of the
tradition of BC&H, or whether it is a foreign animal to the field
as a whole. I am not yet decided on this issue.

Yes, I have sensed that he has thrown many seemingly valid obstacles
against my articulation of the thesis such that I have had to explicitly
overcome issues which spin had clearly enunciated. Others of course
have also done the same.

I have done my best to respond to all issues raised against the thesis.
It is a difficult thesis for some people to physically get used to.
It raises a serious question concerning the integrity of the NT canon,
and more importantly, its chronological appearance in antiquity.

For this reason, I am tolerant of spin, and grateful for his dialogue
in most situations. However I am mindful that the thesis is antithetical
to the mainstream theses of the pack, and that the fact that spin
responds at all, is a mark of objectively and freedom of thought.

To conclude, spin values the atomic structure of ancient history.
By this I mean the minutiae, the details, some relevant to some
things, others apparently relevant to nothing, but just iota of
data, sparkling from the past. This is all we have. It is really
a huge amount of data, but severely limited as a voice of the past.

I have not yet decided whether spin is a better ancient historian
that a biblical historian, or vice verse. Perhaps spin himself
does not yet truly know himself. This is not a negative, since
the spotlight is on spin, because very few people on this planet
really know themselves at their own personal fundamental level.

I have taken the liberty to rave on a little Ted, mainly because
we have not exchanged too many ideas, and because I was lead to
this forum at that time by searches indicating your discussion
of the integrity of the writings of Eusebius. I may have misread
the context of the discussions, at that time, but have nevetheless
learnt alot in the interim period, about ancient history.

My webpages at www.mountainman.com.au
are subtitled Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls, yet
include representations of fundamental theories from the fields of
mathematics, physics, biological evolution and modern relational
database base management systems. The presentation of alternative
theories, and research notes is also included.

Essentially I see myself as a student of life.
In recent times, my life has said to me
'Become a student of ancient history'.

As if there was another ancient history which has been standing
in waiting behind the scenes for many generations, that needed
to be called out into the spotlight for examination. Unless we
know our history, it is doomed to be repeated.

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
To an historian human nature is not miraculous but predictable
within certain tolerances of normal behaviour. Momentous and
chaotic events have occurred in both geophysical planetary history,
and in the by-comparison-mundane-affairs of political supremacists.
Not to acknowledge such nature is to be doomed with it.

Noone in this forum has proven this thesis untenable. No citation
from archeology has been presented that refutes the implications
of the thesis --- a simple question ---- "Did Constantine invent
christianity?" I dont particularly like the thesis myself, but
it needs to be addressed - one way ot another.

History is often presented in a way that we like to identify with.
Perhaps national pride, perhaps simple human survival against the
odds. However some history, while just as true, is not nice. It
is by comparison a darkness of the good things that we would like
to narrate, and study and research. Sometimes, even the bad history
needs to be told, so that people will not allow it to be repeated.

Such IMO it is with the invention of christianity, and the literary
calumnification of "tribe of neopythagoreans" with effect from the
first century author Apollonius of Tyana, through to the
destruction by fire of the writings of the leading academic Porphyry,
of the easterm Roman empire at the turn of the fourth century.

mountainman

My philosophy is that the universe manifests living things
and should itself be regarded as a living thing. I have
absolutely no idea whether this is to be regarded as
atheistic, and would remain insensitive to any conclusion.

While this "spirit of life" inhabits the body I now identify
with as partly me, I shall continue to exchange the elements
of nature (food=earth; water and air and the fire of ideas)
with my body's environment.

When the spirit of life decides to withdraw from my body,
my body will collapse, like a fountain when the power is
shut off. Until then, the foundation is peace (IMO).

mountainman

Megalomaniacal dicators dont like to be told what to do by priests.
Especially if they regard themselves as publishers of an alternative.
Especially if those priests have gold, treasure, prestige, land, temples
and followers. Constantine was known as a great breaker of traditions.

His propaganda and publishing during his rule quite possibly permitted
no competitors. Although his own conditioning by tradition of Sol Invictus
was inate in him, his desire to implement a brand new regime in addition,
(with future plans) need not be seen as an internal conflict.


Who considered himself to be "bishop of bishops"?
The new Roman state church was an extention of power.
He had the military power.
He had the civilian power.
He created the church power.
It was yet another extention of his supreme benevolence.
Another channel of power and bidding for himself.

It seems as if christianity swallowed the old gods.
But hey, life goes on as it (hopefully) always will.
Children were born after Nicaea believing in an historical
Jesus, because their family tradition was such. A new
stream of religion is invented with effect from a date.
This happens more frequently today than in antiquity
perhaps, but it is a fact of life.

Christianity however could not swallow the true historical
figures of the antiquity its pseudo-history usurped. The
history of antiquity is today presumed somehow christian,
but the presumption has never before been examined.

mountainman

Perhaps in your words Arius failed. But J-D, surely you must
understand that according to my thesis, Arius did not fail to
deliver the message to posterity, since I am presently
considering his words as historical comments on the
appearance of the historical Jesus.

Four eye-witness accounts in a court of Roman law.
Four sets of stories generated from the Eusebian Canon
table concordance master-plan, with 80% variation
to appear realistic (one would not want 4 identical accounts).

I will leave assessment of the plausibility of separate compilation
to those who's postulates allow them to treat the Gospels as
anything other than the fictions that they are.

Ted Hoffman

Thank you for respinding to my question mountainman. I am somewhat flattered by your acknowledgement that I somehow "inspired" you to examine this hypothesis.
I abandoned it myself because I lacked the resources to carry out a research of the magnitude the theory required. Both in terms of sources, skills, time and instructional background. My initial discussions with Kirby dispensed with the idea that it was a thesis worth of pursuing. In other words, I reassessed the viability of the idea itself and I found it tenuous and the odds were stacked heavily against it.
With all due respect though, you have not answered my question. Your main objective in engaging discussants here was not to know the people here but to find answers and refine the thesis. You have basically answered by telling me yes you have learnt a lot but have not told me how you have changed your initial conception of the thesis.
The reason I asked my question is because from the exchanges I have seen between you and posters here, you have never changed your position from day one. I have never witnessed you conceding any point from other posters. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected.
What that means is that, in your view, you are right and they are wrong. That is simply not possible mountainman. And it would mean that your exchanges with posters here have not been beneficial to the thesis itself, even though you may have got some social benefits from the interaction.
I expected you to say for example that you started off believing X. But through a discussion with posters here, you got to learn that it is actually X.87 or that it is Y.
Jeff Gibson is very knowledgeable and there is a lot one can learn from him if one looks past his pompous arrogance and superciliousness. spin is also vastly informed and has a very sharp mind. In all likelihood, if spin tells you that your theory is bs, its 98% likely to be bs. If people like Carlson, Ben Smith, Andrewcriddle and other posters here have not helped to shift your theory one way or the other, then your theory is not likely to change one way or the other. If I am correct, then I think you need to ask yourself some questions regarding your objectivity and open mindedness.
Even if you choose to rely on primary sources, I would really like to see you write a thorough review of a book like Emil Schurer's A history of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ.
This, in my view is a foundational requirement for your groundwork before you start dealing with the Church fathers and ultimately Eusebius and Constantine.
This is a worldview similar to James Lovelock's gaia hypothesis, the idea that the earth is a living thing. Living things, by definition, occupy the biosphere of the earth. The earth, and consequently the universe, does not respond to stimuli, does not reproduce and does not grow or undergo metabolism and is therefore not a living thing. Plain and simple. But if you want to redefine the word "living" to accomodate inorganic planetary bodies, by all means, be my guest.
My house "manifests" living things like mosquitoes and cockroaches. That does not make my house a living thing.

Toto

Emil Schurer's A history of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk) is a five volume set, retailing for about $200.

mountainman

No reason to abandon all hope of resolution.
Complex systems require almost an organic research.


Be prepared to be corrected.

My thesis explores the range of answers to the simple question:
"Did Constantine Invent Christianity?" At the outset I made it
unambigous that the thesis could be refuted either in whole or
in part with the provision of appropriate scientific and/or archeological
citations for evidence that christianity existed over and above their
presence in the literary traditon of documents, prior to the fourth
century.

The field of the thesis is not biblical history, but ancient history.
You have never witnessed me conceding any point from other
posters because there are no such citations. I am just as
surprised at this result as you may be.

These above posters specialise in the field of biblical criticism and
biblical history, which relies upon the literary tradition for its integrity
or otherwise. My specialty is ancient history. They overlap, neither
bows to the other.

Momigliano's work provided much data for my thesis. Not all,
but much. My thesis prevents me from considering the hypothesis
that the time of Jesus Christ was any earlier than the time
of Constantine. Nevertheless, if in considering this alternate
hypothesis, you can see some value still in this book, perhaps
you could summarise these advantages for me.


Your house teems with life at many scales below the range
of the human eye, as does all our terrestrial abodes. My research
on the Gaia Hypothesis was conducted more than a decade ago,
and can be viewed from this index page.

See particularly Kirchner's Spectrum of Gaian Hypotheses ... from
Weak to Strong showing an approximate indication of the measure
of support from the scientific community.

CCC is not all about Constantine Creates Christianity.
CCC is also about Cars, Cows and Chainsaws (Lovelock?)

Ted Hoffman

Thanks mountainman. Best wishes in your research.

mountainman

U2 man.

J-D

If somebody's message is only successfully communicated to one person in seventeen centuries, I think it is reasonable to consider that a low success rate.

But which of these two is more plausible:

(1) Arius really meant what you say he meant, and you are the only person in seventeen centuries to realise it;

(2) Arius did not mean what you say he meant, and yours is a unique misinterpretation?

I'm afraid that in the absence of anything further, I would have to bet on (2).You wouldn't want four word-for-word identical accounts (on the forgery hypothesis), but you also wouldn't want overt contradictions, either. Just to begin at the beginning, there might be some reason to include a genealogy in some accounts and not others, but it makes no sense to forge two different inconsistent fabricated genealogies. And there are other contradictions between the Gospel accounts, which just don't sit easily with your hypothesis.That is totally illogical. What justification do you have for doing that? There is no reason why somebody who considers the four canonical Gospels to be fictions can't consider the hypothesis of separate compilation of those four fictions. If you don't want to assess the plausibility of alternative hypotheses, then you aren't really disinterestedly testing your assertion that your hypothesis is the most likely, you are simply engaging in special pleading.