mountainman

Toto of course I have read the article. My argument is that the standard assessment has almost totally ignored the importance of political themes and political motives in Eusebius's life and writings and instead portrays Eusebius as a churchman and a scholar. This of course is the orthodox and traditional and current mainstream approach which has persisted unquestioned since the fourth century. I argue that Eusebius was simply a sponsored Constantinian religio-political polemicist who was set a task to perform in the sphere of (Second Sophistic) literature. I dispute the notion that a "Early Christian Universal Church" existed before the epoch of Constantine on the basis that we have not one iota of unambiguous archaeological for it.

I follow Momigliano in this ....

spamandham

If the origin is elsewhere, we should see evidence of that in terms of social constructs that appear to be Christian innovations.

For example, caring for the sick even during plagues, or sharing what little you have with others in the church. These are ideas foreign to Greek/Roman/Jewish cultures of the day. If Christianity did not invent them, where did they come from?

mountainman

Check the public hospital system of antiquity and
the Hellenistic network of temples to Asclepius
Apollonius of Tyana is supposed to have assisted during a plague.

spamandham

I know your position on when Christianity started, but the question really pertains to a more mainstream assumption of a 1st/2nd century (or earlier) origin for Christianity.

If Christianity was already well established by the 4th century, then it would be expected that others would follow what was obviously working.

aa5874

But, I think it is extremely difficult or virtually impossible to find out when "Christianity" started since the word "Christ" is not derived from the character called Jesus who was born of a virgin based on Isaiah 7.14.

Based on transliteration alone, Jews could have been called Christians long before the character Jesus was ever mentioned.

The word's "his anointed" or "mine anointed" as found in passages of the OT was transliterated in Greek as "his Christ" or "my Christ".

1 Samuel 2.101.Samuel 2.35 Once it is realised that the word "Christ" is derived from the transliteration of the word "anointed" into Greek then it would be seen that re-construction of the histority of Christianity is near impossible.

But, there is a "history" of the so-called Jesus Christ and hundreds of writings about this Christ. The Roman church writer Eusebius wrote a history of the Church with this Jesus Christ as the central figure.

The church wrirers and NT authors seem to know about when Jesus was born, the manner of his conception and how he left earth.

Once these writers were truthful, the history of Jesus Christ may have been the most well-documented historical evidence ever in the history of mankind.

Eusebius claimed he relied on many many writers to accomplish or complete his work. He named Philo, Josephus, the authors in the NT, Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Hegesippus, Papias, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Aficanus, and others.

Surely if all these writers were truthful, then the history of Jesus Christ and his followers should be a PIECE of CAKE.

The history of Jesus and his followers is not a piece of cake.

Is it possible that ALL these writers independently fabricated the identical erroneous information about Jesus and his followers.?

I thnk not.

Is it possible that Eusebius, when compiling his history of Jesus and his followers, did not notice any discrepancies or erroneous information in any of the writings before him?

I think not.

So, how did many of these writers manage to independently witness or knew people who witnessed fictitious events in the very same chronological order and within the very same time zone.?

Now the answer to this last question is a PIECE of CAKE.

All those who appear to have independently witnessed fiction or knew people who witnessed fiction in the identical chronological order and time zone got their information from one single source.

Now, who or what is that single source?

The answer is a PIECE of CAKE.

THE LAST SOURCE.

It was the last source that provided and co-ordinated all the fictitious material with the chronological order and time zone, that is why it appears as though many of the writers of Jesus and his followers independently witnessed fiction or knew people who witnessed fiction yet all the time appear to remain in perfect historical harmony.

The 4th century Roman Church was the LAST SOURCE.

Clivedurdle

I have been using fng thinking about the importance of the Greeks, but actually the main Greek and Persian influences were towards monotheism, but from different directions - Persians in the Most High like an emperor, the Greeks from a rational first cause direction.

Judaism was at the meeting points of these ideas - arguably Alexander was a Persian Emperor. As fng argue I do see a Jewish fantasy facory in play.

spamandham

I have no reason to believe any of them were truthful. ...and if they were not, then it still does not follow that Eusebius invented the history of the church.

aa5874

You must have not noticed that I did not use the word Eusebius.

The NT as we have it is a product of the Roman Church. The chonology, the characters and time zone are all approved that is why they are canonised and regarded as sacred.

However, the chronology, the time zone and the characters, including Jesus, the disciples, and Paul as presented in the canon provided by the Church are backdated fiction.

It must have been the provider of the canon that co-ordinated and fabricated the chronology, time zone and characters to present a false historical harmony.

The Roman Church is directly responsible for the backdated invention of Acts of the Apostles and the writer called Paul.

According to Irenaeus, Luke, the author of Acts and Paul are inseparable. Luke wrote fiction about Paul's conversion, Peter talking in tongues and the ascension of Jesus and Paul wrote fiction about Jesus.

Based on Justin Martyr, there are no activities of apostles after Jesus ascended to heaven. Justin Martyr wrote nothing about Peter with respect to the day of Pentecost, talking in tongues, preaching in Rome, the matyrdom of Peter, the matyrdom of Paul, the letters to any church, Paul preaching in Rome. Justin wrote about no bishops in his time. Justin wrote about no named gospels.

Several times Justin mentioned Jesus acended to heaven but the history of the apostles ended there, there only seemed to have written memoirs and published them, but there is nothing specific as found in Acts or the letters of Paul.

This is Justin's post ascension history of the Church.

First Apology 42 That is all the post ascension history from Justin

The post ascension history of the writers Luke and Paul are backdated fiction.

Acts of the Apostles and the writer Paul are inseparable, they are all BACKDATED PRODUCTS of the Roman Church.

spamandham

Uhm, yes you did.

aa5874

This is just absurd you produce a passage where I asked a question about Eusebius and erroneously claimed I made a statement about him.

You have presented the exact part of my post to expose your error.

It is not true at all that I wrote that Eusebius invented the history of the Church.

I wrote no such thing.

Look at the post again.