Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 10-28-2006, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countjulian

OK. Then why doesn't Libanius or Zosimus or Ammianus Marcellinus or any of the many pagan writers who lived after Constantine mention the fact that Christianity was really an invention of the 4th century, or even hint at it?

As you must already be aware CJ, the first 13 books of Ammianus Marcellinus
which cover the period of history that include the rule of Constantine are
lost, and thus we dont know what Ammianus Marcellinus actual wrote.
Libanius was 10 years old when the Council of Nicaea happened, and
Zosimus was not to be born for another 125 years.

The rule of Constantine, covering 3 decades was a dictatorship of
absolute power, which was described in the following manner:

16. He was a mocker rather than a flatterer.
From this he was called after Trachala in the folktale,
for ten years a most excellent man, (307-317)
for the following second ten a brigand, (317-327)
for the last, on account of his unrestrained prodigality,
a ward irresponsible for his own actions. (327-337)

--- Abbreviated from the Books
of Sextus Aurelius Victor - Translated by
Thomas M. Banchich

Anything written had to be preserved, and the new ecclesiatical orders
set in place by Constantine, especially from Constantinople, were largely
responsible for the preservation process. Look at what Cyril did for the
work of Julian, etc.

Quote:

Early church records record hundreds if not thousands of heresies, where did they all come from? Are telling us that every pre-Eusebian mention of Christianity by pagan writers is fake?

I am telling you that we owe it to ourselves to do the check.
References to christianity by Josephus, by Pliny, Seutonius, Tacitus,
etc I believe are --- yes --- all fake, and interpolations from
the fourth century, at the earliest. SOme may be later.

I believe that all the rescripts of Roman Emperors to the writings
of purported christian apologists, are fraudulent in totality, such
that someone in the fourth century created the apologists, created
to literature of the apologies (and of course the persecutions), and
then created the imperial rescripts - totally fraudulently, but most
likely on official supreme imperial parchment, or vellum (ie: Constanine
provided any raw materials, and sponsored the exercise).

Quote:

Sounds more and more like the rantings of

A.T. Fomenko to me.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Have a nice day.

Pete Brown

countjulian · 10-28-2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

I am telling you that we owe it to ourselves to do the check.
References to christianity by Josephus, by Pliny, Seutonius, Tacitus,
etc I believe are --- yes --- all fake, and interpolations from
the fourth century, at the earliest. SOme may be later.

Please. Have you ever read On the Passing of Peregrinus?It's classic Lucian, and there is not a hint of interpolation. Even the most diehard MJers readily admit its authenticity. As for Christianity being a faked religion made for empire, give me a break. The cult of Sol Invictus/Mithra would have been much more useful to this end, and considering how hard many of the later bishops and Christian politicians tried to justify dstroying paganism, Judaism, and heresy, you'd think the Christian scriptures would be full of a lot more calls to violence against. The Christian scriptures don't say anything about running a state or administiring the laws, a la the Old Testament or the Quran and Sunnah. If you're looking for a religion made to suit an empire, I'd advise a closer study of Islam and Islamic origins.

post Scriptum

I'll get around to Ammianus Marcellinus later.

mountainman · 10-28-2006, 04:05 PM

G'day Jay,

Your clarification of these issues below is particularly succinct,
as is usual for your writing style in general, and I have no doubt
that your book will be most popular. In fact, in time I intend to
write a small and positive review of it, at my website, because
I believe that it is resonate with the changes in the world.

We live in a world which not only is rich in change, but rich
in the acceleration of change, both in the way we, as human
beings, perceive the world, and perceive our relationship to
the world. This is not just about technology, but about the
human spirit itself, in its natural and evolving state.

Thanks for your contributions to this. They are appeciated
for their rare objectivity, and are thus much contemplated.

Best wishes for now,

Pete Brown
Authors of Antiquity

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Peter,

First let me thank Toto and you for recommending my book, Evolution of Christs and Christianities.

It does present evidence that much of what is taken as the standard or scholarly history of Christianity is really an invention of Bishop Eusebius. However, it also suggests that there were many forms of Christianity before him. It suggests that we can roughly place them by century:

!st Century: purely Jewish forms of Christianity which suggest that the Jewish God will send or select a person to be an anointed (Christ) King and take back the land of Israel from Roman domination. This form seems to have ended with the defeat of Bar Kochbar circa 136.

2nd Century: Greek Heretical Christianity which mixes all kinds of old and new myths in with Jewish scriptures in a mulititude of different ways.

3rd Century: Roman Apologetic Christianity which developes Christianities with stoic and apocalyptic outlooks. It is meant to appeal to cosmopolitan and wealthy aristocratic sensibilities in a time when the overextended Roman empire is crumbling.

It is not until the 4th Century and the time of Eusebius that we get the Rome-centered Imperial type of Christianity. This is what Eusebius propogates by essentially giving it an imaginary three century history. Here Christ is the Son/Hero/Founder/Savior of God's eternal Church. (If it is a view suggested by Constantine to him or by him to Constantine is an interesting question.)

In a sense, if we credit Eusebius with creating Christianity ex nihilo, we are fulfilling his wish of erasing the first three centuries of Christianities. We are starting Christianity with the Imperial Roman type of Christianity, albeit in the Fourth Century, rather than the first, as he proposed. I'm afraid if we do this, we will also not be able to see his cleverness in not only altering certain passages, but in mislabeling, erasing and rearranging other passages in historical works that opposed his viewpoint. I think we can separate out what say Tertullian wrote from Eusebius' revision of it.

On the other hand, I think starting with the idea that Eusebius created Christianity, as you suggest, is probably a good corrective to the dominant paradigm that Eusebius essentially reported a true history of Christianity. Only with a careful study of what contradicts and clearly opposes that history will we be able to see what Eusebius built upon.

Warmly,

Philospher Jay

aa5874 · 10-28-2006, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I am telling you that we owe it to ourselves to do the check.
References to christianity by Josephus, by Pliny, Seutonius, Tacitus,
etc I believe are --- yes --- all fake, and interpolations from
the fourth century, at the earliest. SOme may be later.

Are you claiming that Eusebius and Constatnine fabricated Marcion and the Marcionites? As far as I understand the Marcion doctrine was around since the 2nd century. I find it difficult to think that Eusebius and Constantine would invent followers of a form of Christianity that they themselves were trying to eradicate.

I would say that Eusebius is the Father of Roman Cathlocism, possibly using forgeries and interpolations to achieve that goal, but surely, Eusebius was not the inventor of Christianity.

In my opinion, Christianity evolved, with differences in doctrine, long before Eusebius. All that appears to have occured, is that Eusebius had the good fortune to be supported by the Political Arm.
It was just a matter of which doctrine Constantine supported, if it was Arianism, then 2000 years later, we probably would have only heared about Arius.

All believers in Jesus have the same problem as Eusebius, they cannot locate Jesus in history, and that is probably why, in my opinion, forgeries and interpolations were necessary.

mountainman · 10-29-2006, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countjulian

Please. Have you ever read On the Passing of Peregrinus?It's classic Lucian, and there is not a hint of interpolation. Even the most diehard MJers readily admit its authenticity.

Please. Do not be impulsive.

Each of the purported authors of antiquity need to be properly
and carefully analysed in regard to their purported contribution
to this history of the first 300 years. One at a time, without haste.

There are alot of authors to deal with in this "mass of writings labelled
Eusebius", to use the term of the author of "Antiqua Mater".

There is another text, thought to be classic Lucian up until some
time back, exactly how far back, my research has not yet been
completed. But I suggest you take a look at the hitherto
classic Lucian entitled "the Philopatris".

the Philopatris passed under his name. This dialogue, unlike what Lucian had written in the Peregrine and The Liar, is a deliberate attack on Christianity. It is clear to us now that it was written two hundred years after his time, under Julian the Apostate; but there can be no more doubt of its being an imitation of Lucian than of its not being his; it consequently passed for his, the story gained currency that he was an apostate himself, and his name was anathema for the church.

Quote:

As for Christianity being a faked religion made for empire, give me a break. The cult of Sol Invictus/Mithra would have been much more useful to this end, and considering how hard many of the later bishops and Christian politicians tried to justify dstroying paganism, Judaism, and heresy, you'd think the Christian scriptures would be full of a lot more calls to violence against.

Why share the profits of a new religion with an existent landholder?
With a new one true Roman religion based on the antiquity of the
Hebrews, who needed the Graeco/Roman/Egyptian traditional religions?
By default, all existent temples, lands, sanctuaries, relics, scultures,
jewellery, gold, silver, and all other forms of associated wealth, and
specifically the LAND ITSELF, became Constantine's by conquest.

Quote:

The Christian scriptures don't say anything about running a state or administiring the laws, a la the Old Testament or the Quran and Sunnah. If you're looking for a religion made to suit an empire, I'd advise a closer study of Islam and Islamic origins.

No, you only need go to the 22 sub-creeds associated with, and signed
in addition to the main Nicaean OATH to Constantine. These clearly
concerned the running of the new emperial state religion. They are
listed out clearly on this page

Pete Brown

mountainman · 10-29-2006, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you claiming that Eusebius and Constatnine fabricated Marcion and the Marcionites?

Yes.

Quote:

As far as I understand the Marcion doctrine was around since the 2nd century. I find it difficult to think that Eusebius and Constantine would invent followers of a form of Christianity that they themselves were trying to eradicate.

You will have to agree with me that it is in fact Eusebius who informs
us, in literary media (ie: in writings) of Marcion. You may make the
inference that Marcion existed independently some centuries before
Eusebius picks up his pen and so informs us from the fourth century,
but for the moment I seek to test this inference.

Quote:

I would say that Eusebius is the Father of Roman Cathlocism, possibly using forgeries and interpolations to achieve that goal, but surely, Eusebius was not the inventor of Christianity.

This IMO needs to be tested for integrity.
It seems possible that he may have been the sponsored editor
of new technology writings assembled in the rule of Constantine.

Quote:

In my opinion, Christianity evolved, with differences in doctrine, long before Eusebius.

And so Eusebius would have us believe. He is our sole guide.
As per the second post --- Lightfoot quote.

That is what we have been traditionally taught as the subject
matter of ancient history, for the period of antiquity covering
0-300 CE, but is there an alternative option? YES, my research
indicates that an alternative theory of the history can be framed
in which these forst 300 years contained nothing whatsoever
christian (ie: new testament), for it was yet to be FORGED in
the fourth CE.

Quote:

All that appears to have occured, is that Eusebius had the good fortune to be supported by the Political Arm.
It was just a matter of which doctrine Constantine supported, if it was Arianism, then 2000 years later, we probably would have only heared about Arius.

Wasn't it so lucky the way things worked out right for christianity?

BTW, it appears from the above that you assume that the Council
of Nicaea was called by Constantine on account of the doctrine of
Arianism. This is incorrect. Nicaea was called by Constantine on
account of the words of Arius, which were simple, and totally
dogmatically asserted .....

there was time when he was not.
he was made out of nothing existing
he is subject to alteration and change
etc

Quote:

All believers in Jesus have the same problem as Eusebius, they cannot locate Jesus in history, and that is probably why, in my opinion, forgeries and interpolations were necessary.

And all believers in Eusebius have the same problem as you.
You know he interpolated and forged literature, but you refuse
to countenance the possibility that in fact he forged the entire
package of the writings witnessing any and all evidence of the
existence of pre-Nicaean christianity.

This easily explains the reason why noone since Constantine has
located Jesus in history, except for his mother, and mother-in-law,
who were christianity's second and first recorded pilgrims,
respectively.

Pete Brown

Roger Pearse · 10-30-2006, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you claiming that Eusebius and Constatnine fabricated Marcion and the Marcionites? As far as I understand the Marcion doctrine was around since the 2nd century. I find it difficult to think that Eusebius and Constantine would invent followers of a form of Christianity that they themselves were trying to eradicate.

There were still Marcionites in the mid-6th century, since Cosmas Indicopleustes mentions them.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman · 10-30-2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

There were still Marcionites in the mid-6th century, since Cosmas Indicopleustes mentions them.

The memory of Apollonius of Tyana is mentioned in independent
attestations also through the intervening centuries. The question
becomes one of relative and comparitive historicity, wherein, as
is the subject of this thread, we have one single (purported living)
human being called Eusebius, in tghe reign of Constantine, providing
us with practically every single bit of chronological information that
is known to have existed (in the 4th century) regarding "the tribe
of Marcion" and "the tribe of christians" in the pre-Nicaean epoch.

Nice article on Cosmas btw.

Pete Brown

Clivedurdle · 11-01-2006, 12:50 AM

Could we be very clear about Constantine, Arianism and Trintarianism? I thought the Church only went Trinitarian in the 380's with Ambrose.

I keep on plugging Jones Barbarians because this does discuss all of this in detail. Would someone else look at it and point out errors in it?

Gamera · 11-01-2006, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Origen is a special case due to his chronology in the period
being (more or less) the last of the presumed christian authors
in the period of antiquity being reviewed by Eusebius (0-312 CE).

I have no problem with Origen existing, and being a very scholarly
figure in relation to the LXX, which had been around the empire
for centuries, and probably sat, along with the Dhamapada, the
writings of Apollonius of Tyana, and other works, in the great
libraries of the then Roman empire (eg: Alexandria).

The "MM Theory" states that the new testament related portions
of Origen's literature (ie: any writings which references the Eusebian
Trade Marked "Tribe of christians") were fabricated by Eusebius
in situ at the library of Caesarea, where Origen's "genuine literature"
(philosophy and the like) was purportedly preserved.

This theory thereby explains a number of issues related to the big
problems which arose concerning "Origenistic doctrine" and the need
for later christian apologists (historians?) such as Rufinus, having to
mention that the writings of Origen had obviously been perverted by
Arian heretics. EG: See this thread

This provides the text of Rufinus, in his Epilogue to Pamphilus the
Martyr's Apology for Origen Otherwise the
Book Concerning the Adulteration of the Works of Origen.
Addressed to Macarius at Pinetum a.d. 397.

We see Origen perhaps as a real author of antiquity, but due to his specialist
field being that of the LXX, (ie: the Judaic/Hebrew traditional writings,
called the Old Testament, only when Constantine grafted and bound
his new fiction to it), he was targetted by Eusebius to become a doctrinal
mouthpiece for a (ficticious) pre-Nicene "tribe of christians", and the very
new and very stange literary testament which was attendent thereto.

Pete Brown
Authors of Antiquity

So we would expect, following the MM theory that there was a "pristine" Origen, whose writings were devoid of NT references. Yet we never find such manscripts. So the MM theory assumes the following options:

(a) either the Constantine hitmen got lucky, and the pristine writings of Origen were all lost, so that we can't show the MM theory is false, or

(b) the Constantine police hunted down and destroyed every extant pristine ms of Origen, over a far flung empire, at a time when it was a big deal to sail from Rome to Alexandria, and despite there lack of technological tools, they hunted down and destroyed every pristine Origen mss, in every library and every dresser drawer throughout the Empire.

Is that a fair rendition of your assumptions?

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

11-01-2006, 12:50 AM	#39
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Could we be very clear about Constantine, Arianism and Trintarianism? I thought the Church only went Trinitarian in the 380's with Ambrose. I keep on plugging Jones Barbarians because this does discuss all of this in detail. Would someone else look at it and point out errors in it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.