mountainman

Invention period 312-324 CE.
Beta Phase over 324.
Implemented 325 Antioch & Nicaea.

He didn't like the old one.
It was too soft and tolerant.
The Persians had the right formula.
The army marches better with One Song.

Academics have a very difficult time understanding
the native cunning of the military mind.

Take a chair and a glass of water and sit down.
My thesis is that the gospels were written 312-324.
So far, to date, despite the Dura-Europa house-church
I have no evidence for prenicene christianity
but a huge explosion of christians in the fourth
century.

We might like to think that our western civilisation
is based on "the good book", but what if "the good
book" is a fabrication and a fiction of men composed
by wickedness. How are we to know? Are we
entitled to know, and/or to enquire? Are we free
to ask this question?

Is the hypothesis able to be ruled out and refuted
either in whole or in part by the provision of the
appropriate scientific and/or archaeological citation?

Time will tell.
best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman

Hi Jay,

It occurs to me that I should attempt to paint
a picture with the raw materials which you have
contributed in regard to the appearance of the
word 'totalitarian' below.

I would like you to contemplate the unthinkable
scenario inn which Mussolini and Hitler emerged
victorious instead of defeated by the allies.

In this instance, the ruling party would still be
using the term as it was originally coined by
Mussolini, and we would be having this conversation
probably by some other mechanism.

Yet the chronological exercise here is to understand
that the emergent christian regime behaved like
a totally intolerant top-down-emperor cult
from the word GO.

The key to this is the NICENE fathers, whom
Constantine established. It was that regime which
outlived Constantijne, and Julian and itself in
365 CE became supreme by having a christian
pope Damasius occupy the millenia old
traditional role of Pontifex Maximus. The
tolerant head of the colledge of pontifs of
different cults, religions and philosophies.

Cyril sealed the Fathers, as the prenice fathers.
Before Cyril and his "christologies" the fathers
referenced to by all the christian writers of
the later 4th century were "the Nicene Fathers".

The big brotherhood, remnant of the victors.

This may not be a good picture, but our
history may not be in alignment to our
best intentions. Yet must we attempt
to understand our uncommon herritage.

Best wishes ,


Pete Brown

aa5874

Mountainman, I think you must be able to show that, going backwards and starting at 325CE, there was no organised Christian Churches, that no Christians were at the Council of Nicea.

It probably can easily be shown there was massive fraud or forgeries to writings of antiquity with respect to the Christian writings, however I still have not been able to contemplate that Christianity originated in the 4th century.

mountainman

Thanks aa5874, I am working on that.


You see, it is really a very difficult thing to do.
Even if one is not a believing "christian" the
tradition and belief without proof is so innate
to our sensibilities, that we are unable to
chill out for a brief moment, and temporarily
contemplate a 4th century origin of our religion.

The act requires a suspension of our early
hypothesis; namely that its origins are earlier.
In fact many of us do not even term the
existence of prenicene christianity a postulate,
but a given.

Another unexamined postulate? Only this time
it is not the unexamined postulate of an HJ
position, but the unexamined postulate that
the chronology of things is as we have been
told with great authority with effect from the
Council of Antioch, and thence Nicaea.

One must temporarily suspend "disbelief",
and other postulates, in order to successfully
practice contemplation of 4th CE origins.

Best wishes


Pete Brown

mountainman

Thanks for asking spamandham,
Not yet published: a necessary
extention to the epigraphic review
started with Elsa Gibson's book:
"The Christian for Christian Inscriptions
of Phrygia.".

I should have it ready in a week or two.
Best wishes,

Pete Brown

J-D

This forum does indeed relate to history.

And you don't know how to do history.

The challenge you pose is simply an exemplification of your incapacity: it is not methodologically valid. You think you know how history is done, but you don't.

I've set out the methodological point in the previous thread to which you've linked, and anybody (including you) who thinks they can see a flaw in my argument is free to explain it. So far nobody's stepping up.

If it will help, I'll copy the relevant material from that thread and paste it here, but I presume everybody can follow the link without my doing that.

mountainman

History is about evidence and its interpretation.

Evidence from the fields of ancient history is critically examined
in regard to its support or otherwise, of various postulates that
are to be used to form theories of history.

The fields of ancient history from which evidence is forthcoming are the following.
If you disagree with any of this, speak up.


(1) ancient authors of antiquity coupled with their estimated historicity
(2) ancient texts of these (or unknown) authors, philology, translations

(3) the ancient documents (the physical written sources, original texts, codices, papyrii, papyrii fragments);
(4) architecture, buildings, monuments;
(5) inscriptions in stone and metal and mosaic - the epigraphic habit;
(6) sarcophagi, burial relics, funerary ornaments;
(7) coins (gold, silver, bronze, other);
(8) art, paintings and graffiti;
(9) sculpture, reliefs, frescoes, ornamental works;
(10) archaeological relics and other citations.

Other fields related to the interpretation
and analyses of evidence include:

(11) palaeographic assessment of original texts, papyri and papyri fragments;
(12) radio carbon dating citations;
(13) collective and collaborative databases (eg: epigraphic, numismatic, papyri, etc.).



Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

See, this is where you go wrong.

In practice, it turns out that what you mean by this is that you are justified in dreaming up whatever fantasy you like and that you are absolved from providing any case in favour of it or engaging in any examination of its merits so long as nobody can categorically disprove it.

That is not a satisfactory historical methodology.

mountainman

FOX: "At present a negative point does emerge from the papyrii."

R.S. Bagnall, Bulletin of the American Society
of Papyrologists (1985), p.105 writes ...

There are very few examples before c.300
of the personal names which christians in Egypt
later preferred to adopt. From c.340 onwards,
references to christians, churches and christian
authorities multiply as do the numbers
of favored christian names".

Where are the textual critics?


The evidence accumulates a little at a time.
At some point, there is a critical mass.

I'd like to thank members of this forum for
their dialogue over the last year. This will
be my final post here for some time due to
surfing commitments.

Best wishes, one and all,



Pete Brown
Revisionist THESIS in Ancient History:
Constantine Invented Christianity

spamandham

Keep safe Pete, and have a blast!