Von Bek

That's odd. I have been a practicing Buddhist for many years; and, while I am not an expert on Mani, I have never encountered anything about him that made me think he was a Buddhist. Not saying you are wrong, but, what specific teaching of Mani's makes you think he was? If you think it might derail the thread you are free to send me a private message on the subject. I am genuinely curious, not trying to bust your balls.

mountainman

I am suggesting at the end of the day, even if there were additional authors, or even extant works in Greek containing elements which were to be woven into the fabrication, such as the LXX quote mining industry, Eusebius acted as an editor-in-chief of the source material.

Eusebius as the "redactor" of the "Nomina Sacra"

The mainstream theory of "christian origins" postulates a "very early redactor" of the nomina sacra, which appear almost universally in all the earliest available manuscript and papyri evidence - both canonical and non canonical, both in Greek and in Coptic. If Constantine commissioned a fabrication then it is logical to see Eusebius as the inventor and "redactor" who wove a system of useage of "nomina sacra" into the earliest produced versions of Constantine's Bible in the Greek for Nicaea. (My argument is that the canonical and non canonical new testament related Oxyrynchus papyri are from the mid fourth century, and have been incorrectly assessed by paleographers as earlier i.e. 2nd/3rd century)

This Nicaean Greek source new testament and bible was copied fifty times under the due authority of the "Pontifex Maximus". From Nicaea, the use of the system of nomina sacra was also employed by the "Gnostic heretics" who commenced authoring the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" in Greek, in Alexandria, employing the same "official imperial system of nomina sacra" approved by the Pontifex Maximus. These Gnostic books were very conrtraversial. Constantine prohibited them. They had to be preserved in Coptic and Syriac.


The exchanges between the "orthodox" and the "gnostics" that are present in the "Church History" of Eusebius, are imo a mockumentary of the exchanges between the orthodox followers of Constantine and the pagan Alexandrian Gnostics in the years commencing c.324 CE, when Constantine's army appeared on the western horizon.

The massive controversy between the old religions of the Egypto-Graeco-Roman priesthoods (inclusive of philosophical and proto-scientific academies) and Constantine's Christianity has hitherto only been narrated by the victorious orthodoc heresiologists. Christianity succeeded by dividing and conquering the heretics.

The codices manufactured by these "gnostics" are still turning up in archaeological digs. In decades past the Vatican scholars would be the first upon the scene, and the vatican would assume responsibility for the analysis and assessment of any newly discovered historical material. Under such a modus operandi has the process operated between Constantine's agents in the 4th century, and the vatican's agents in the 20th century discovery of the DSS. But there it ended.

The DSS were finally released from the protection of the vatican and the world saw them. Then followed the Nag Hammadi Codices that saw a far more "open academic management" of the evidence. In the 21st century we have just witnessed material being publicized direct to the world by National Geographic in the Gospel of Judas.


See an above post which discusses Ashoka and Buddhism and Mani and Manichaeanism, and why Constantine needed to present these events as having occurred within the Roman Empire, and why he wanted to "canonize" his "Holy Writ" (fabricated in part by data mining the Greek LXX) in order to create, or cause to be, a state monotheism - that he, Constantine, would be in charge of - the Bishop of Bishops.

mountainman

Consider how Eusebius inserts text into not only Josephus, but into Origen and Irenaeus and others, who are the witnesses for the new testament canon orthodoxy and its gnostic heresies. There is no canon and no heresies before the epoch of Nicaea. There is no orthodoxy and no opposition until Nicaea. But Eusebius retrojects both into his "Church History" in much the same modus operandi and the author of the "Historia Augusta" fabicates sources using fake documents, and other sources to disagree with them.

After Nicaea we see evidence of the utter turbulence of this massive Nicaean "push-over" fabrication and the resultant "Arian Controversy" which would persist from Nicaea through to the closure of the NT canon c.367 CE. We see that "the highways were covered with galloping bishops" throughout the rule of Constantine's son Constantius who, after engineering a massive mafia style execution of many relatives, took control of the army and, "with a dotard's superstition obscured the plain and simple religion of the Christians".

mountainman

Just set aside for the moment for the purpose of examining the old evidence in the light of new evidence which has been discovered in the recent century, particularly relating to the "Gnostic" opponents of the NT Canon.

You had alot of questions in that post. I will return to them later. I am not ignoring them

mountainman

The editor of the Cambridge Ancient History is comfortable with the phrase "Ardashir created Zoroastrianism" out of a pre-existent religion because epigraphic and monumental evidence suggests the pre-existence of the earlier legitimate religion of the Mazdeans in the epoch of the Parthian civilisation. It was a legitimate "creation".

There is no real doubt that Constantine created the monotheistic centralised state version of Christianity. But he failed to canonize "The Shepherd of Hermas" and thus closure of the canon occurred after his death. But there is a great deal of doubt in my mind as to whether there was a pre-existent Christian religion because of the great silence of the epigraphic and monumental evidence .

Constantine was not averse to making stuff up out of the blue as evidenced by recent academic treatments of his "Oration to the Saints" at Antioch. As Pontifex Maximus he had the right to subscribe to any religious cult of his own choosing. All the emperors before him had done so. He did not like any of the traditional (Graeco-Roman) religions or philosophers. He may have decided that he enough power and initiative simply to create his own cult. After all Nero had called forward the Olympic Games and won all the events. What we can be sure of is that he started the snowball that all other cults but his cult were effectively prohibited. With respect to the pagan religious cults, he was a destroyer and a despot.

mountainman

I list the following three bits of evidence, not as "proof", but as sufficient to arouse the suspicion that there may exist more explicit "proof" available in future manuscript discoveries. (eg: Ammianus's early books, Emperor Julian's original works, maniscripts that explicitly name and/or provide a history of the author(s) of the "Gnostic Acts and Gospels" known to the orthodox history as "Leucius Charinus", Constantine's Last Will and Testament, more explicit "heretical material" from the 4th century, manuscripts that describe the events of Constantine's rule from the pagan side, etc)


(1) The five sophisms of Arius of Alexandria relate to the historicity of Jesus ("He was made out of nothing existing").
(2) Emperor Julian's conviction that the fabrication of the christians was a fiction of men composed by wickedness.
(3) Extracts from the Nag Hammadi Codices indicating nobody believed in the Brand New Jesus Person such as:


New explanations are put forward as the bases for the major 4th and 5th century "Controversies" involving Christianity ....

(a) The Arian controversy was a historical reaction to christianity.
(b) The Origenist controversy resulted from Eusebius forging new testament related books under the name of Origen.
(c) The Nestorian controversy was over Nestorius publically describing and reporting upon the beliefs of the heretics, including "fiction".
(d) The "Non Canonical Books" Controversy - explanation for the authorship of the non canonical sources as a pagan reaction to the Constantine codex after Nicaea.

Toto

Pete - you're just recycling old arguments that didn't fly the first time your typed them, not to mention the second, third, etc. You persist in misinterpreting Arius and Julian. Your explanations explain nothing.

stephan huller

These aren't proofs. These are wacky interpretations of evidence which everyone but you takes in a completely way. What you need to find is EXPLICIT references to Constantine organizing a conspiracy (not information that you twist into some tangential proof for PART of your theory).

The problem is that even the references which argue for some kind of Imperial conspiracy reshaping Christianity (al Jabbar for instance) don't specify the name of the Emperor and - more importantly - make the case that something pre-existent was RESHAPED by the Roman government NOT created from scratch.

I do not disagree with the idea that the Roman government had a hand in reshaping Judaism, Christianity and Samaritanism by encouraging schools of thought represented 'right thinking' in the religions. I just think that you are going to have to jettison the stupid parts of your theory like:

a) there was no Christianity before Constantine
b) that it was all some cruel joke on the part of elites
c) that there wasn't some kind of 'valid argument' at the heart of the tradition

Let me be very specific about what I mean by 'valid argument.' I am not arguing that there really is a God or the like (even though I think the leaders of Christianity fully believed this). What I am saying is that there was some overriding 'logic' for why people converted to Christianity.

A sociological example from Julian. Julian notices a number of times that the Christian effort to take care of their poor and widows was earning them the respect of even non-Christians, especially among the poor. The same thing can be demonstrated in modern times with regards to Hamas in Palestine. It can be argued that the reason why Hamas enjoys such popularity is that it actually provides the Palestinian people with 'services.' The same could be argued for Nazi Germany or any totalitarian system.

My point is that I don't know that even in modern times people necessarily join a church simply because they 'believe in God.' One can believe in God and never leave bed. People join religions because they 'get something' from the experience whether it is a sense of community, a reinforcement of established belief systems, perceived benefits, comfort etc.

While there are examples from history of authoritarian regimes reshaping pre-existing national religions, it seems to me at least to be utterly misguided to suggest that Constantine would invent from scratch the idea of a 300 year old Jewish messianic sect to be that kind of religion. Surely Jews would have reminded people that this religion was utter nonsense. Moreover if Constantine had that kind of magical power to do whatever he wanted and have it succeed (a fourth century King Midas) why not create a religion with Roman nationalistic gods and heroes?

This is what you are arguing happened in Persia. When has their been an example of a culture wholly inventing a religious tradition based on someone else's cultural legacy and favor that foreign religion with legal decrees. That seems utterly absurd.

mountainman

Hey Von Bek,

Have a look through the thread entitled Was Mani "Christianized", was Mani crucified, and had Eusebius read Mani's "Gospel"? . I will make a response to your questions there.

mountainman

I have disclaimed that these above explanations provide any direct proof for the invention of the new testament in the 4th century. My position is that I am highly suspicious of the possibility that Constantine fabricated a "Tall Story" and that there may exist more explicit "proof" available in future manuscript discoveries - and I listed serveral examples.

We have seen with the case of Mani how the orthodox heresiologists in Hegemonius and Ephrem are now perceived as being the authors of polemical and non historical fictions. My position is that the name and memory and books of Arius of Alexandria in the time of Constantine, and the name and memory and books of Emperor Julian, in the time of Bishop Cyril, were purposefully obscured, refuted, burnt, prohibited, made illegal, censored, etc, etc, etc.

My claim is that Arius and Julian have been fraudulently misrepresented by the orthodox regime in whose twisted fictional accounts we think they are matter-of-factly presented (just like Mani).

The scope of the theory is broad, explaining the core of both the canonical and non canonical literature as two distinct products of a few brief decades punctuated by the council of Nicaea. Other parties known to Athanasius were between 337 and 367 CE responsible in establishing a slightly different canon for the new testament as published by Constantine. The closure of the canon could not have involved Constantine or Eusebius, but it could have involved the Arian controversy.

What is the mainstream explanation?

Mainstream explanation

It is highly unlikely that the books of the NT canon were authored in Greek by the named apostles in the 1st century, ditto for "Paul" and "Acts". Some like to conjecture that the NT was authored in the 2nd century, while MArcus Aurelius was writing his "Meditations". Nobody knows. Everyone is making conjectures, based on snippets of Eusebius and "textual criticism" of the source texts. Who wrote the non canonical books? The mainstream explanation is that they were being continuously authored through the 2nd and 3rd and 4th centuries. No non canonical author names are known. It's all a big mystery and it happened just the way Eusebius says it did.

The mainstream explanation for christian origins is authoritarian:

"IN EUSEBIUS WE TRUST".

My explanations are for those who are comfortable to hypothetically consider the possibility that Eusebius was well paid by Constantine to lie, and that there is nothing reliable at all in Eusebius, apart from his literary mission. As such my explanations explain nothing to someone who cannot in comfort hypothetically consider this possibility.