mountainman

Dear gentleexit,

In a nutshell yes. Eusebius 312-324 and Arius 324-336 CE.

Since it appears to have been originally bound with the canon I'd suggest that it was Constantine's original intention to have this included with the canon in his epoch. Subsequent epochs appear to have removed it from the canon.

The old priesthoods in the east were almost broken up and disbanded because the access to the temples had been forbidden by COnstantine. There was now a brand new official state religion and plenty of "new positions vacant". The bishops reported to the "bishop of bishops". They were tax-exempt. Get the drift? The social conditions were rife for the consequences that Ammianus describes of the time of Constantius.


I would not be too sure about this claim.


Well let's start discussing the creations of Constantine by looking at the City of Constantine which I believed he started to pace out as early as the year 324 CE. The City of Constantine may in one sense be described as a brigands horde, since Constantine adorned the new expanded and lavishly appointed city with expensive trophies from all around the empire. He took the temple treasures to adorn his new city. Did He used the LXX to adorn the authenticity of his new testament.

Best wishes,


Pete

spin

Read and learn.


spin

mountainman

Dear Huon,

Thanks for making this point, however I am working my way outward from the impact date of 325 CE, and have examined the precedent of Ardashir, one hundred years before Nicaea, in the first instance.

Well that's the problem. I have examined and reviewed the monumental and archaeological evidence. If I had found some evidence for "early christianity" I would not be making the claim that the NT canon was fabricated. The new Sassanian state religion appears to have valid precursors in both the literature and the archaeological record (esp inscriptions in the Parthian epoch). The new Roman state religion does not have the archaeological corroborations.



Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Shesh,

My thesis must regard the claim, usually attributed to Porphyry, that "the evangelists were not historians but inventors" as a forgery of Eusebius. Eusebius (eg: Celsus) was not too proud to scattered offending references to christians in his fictitious history compendium. Eusebius leaves the claims of fiction out in plain sight, but fraudulently assigns them to Porphyry - in additional books. Porphyry wrote many books on many subjects, such as Euclidean geometry. He probably died before the year 312 CE. His works were ordered to be destroyed by Constantine, perhaps even before 324 CE, since he was apparently based in Rome in his later life.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Shesh,

Apollonius of Tyana as a figure of history, as an author of books and a letters collected after his death is one possible source for some of the new testament canon. We might be able to assume that the original writings of Apollonius of Tyana (and perhaps the Sassanian sage Mani) were available to Constantine and Eusebius in the libraries of Rome 312 CE. We have secure monumental evidence to the existence of Apollonius, and Eusebius seems to regard him as a historical figure.

The problem with Apollonius was that his story involved wandering around in the face of the Roman emperors, telling them about philosophy and pointing out their bad qualities. Apollonius apparently escaped the councils of at least one Roman emperor who would perhaps have otherwise executed him. Constantine wanted a hero god who was well and truly nailed by the Roman administration, and so he fabricated two people: Jesus and Paul, the wandering man of letters who spread a new philosophy. Its a collage.


And the history of the non-christians of that epoch has never yet been told in its full and complete sense. We have been spoon fed by the one dimensional history of the victors. We need to turn over the coin of the evidence and look at the pagans. We need to look at the new testament apochrypha. Who wrote this? Why? When? [ARIUS]

Also we need to be familiar with the contents of the Codex Theodosianus, the legislations enacted against the non-christians of the fourth century to get the full picture of the intolerance and persecution of that age. Finally we can all hope and pray bits of vital evidence continue to turn up out of the blue. For example, Constantine wrote a will, and we might easily presume that Ammianus wrote Constantine's obituary. I wonder what each said?


Best wishes,


Pete

spin

You might have noted:

In fact before the 1st Nicene Council, there are no indications that Constantine had more than a passing knowledge of Eusebius' existence.

and saved yourself the effort... unless of course you want to jump on the bandwagon and think that a young Constantine already had interest in a world religion other than that of the emperors, ie Sol Invictus?


spin

mountainman

Dear gentleexit,

Was this "church" associated with a legitimate history?

We are still not clear if and why Diocletian took his own life. However the dates for the event coincide with Constantine's successful arrival in Italy. Besides that, as earlier mentioned, you appear to be underplaying the significance of the appointment of The City of Constantine.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Transient,

Take some time to examine the historicity of Apollonius of Tyana.




Best wishes,

Pete

gentleexit

Read and learn ... "Theodotus of the Laodicean church, Narcissus of the church in Neronia, and Eusebius from the church in Caesarea of Palestine ..."

The key figures of the dispute central to Nicea were Eusebius of Nicomedia (hence the label "Eusebians"), Alexander of Alexandria (then Athanasius), Arius himself obviously and Hosius, but only in so far as he was Constantine's man and from the Council of Egeria's rules, a stickler for rules. Not Eusebius of Caesarea (or Theodotus or Narcissus). Other names were also-rans. Not initiators, not fire-stokers, just water carriers.

gentleexit

Ok one by one. First let me say where I'm coming from. So we're not just firing randomly. Constantine was a Roman emperor, acting within the precedents he knew. He lived in a century more focused on other-worldly religion than those before. One such group were Christians, a mainly eastern sect. Constantine (at his mother's instigation?) adopted their version of "highest god" and let loose a force that would transform Rome - unintentionally.

Where Christians came from, you can't know, anymore than you can know the "original" Pythagorians or the "real" Apollonius or did Homer exist, was he "really" blind ... too much legend, no first hand accounts. Digging for Jesus is like digging for Troy.

But this doesn't mean you can't date elements of legends. Legends serve their own time. For example, read the Christian testaments and there's the fall of the second temple "predicted". You peal apart early and late - hence exposing "genuine" == early from later letters of Paul.

As you say ...

Once Rome was no longer the emperor's residence, her rulers went through a phase of making their own cities, their "Rome". Diocletian had Nicomedia, Maximianus made Mediolanum. Constantine had false starts. He loved Serdica. He even started building out Troas before settling on Byzantium. These were their "Rome".

Constantine paced out his city (324 as you say), ala Alexander (no Christian stuff here) and endowed it as emperors endowed. Much old, some new, some sent (for favor), some robbed. By his death, it was still unimpressive. He died in a suburb of Nicomedia.

His mausoleum was in his city (ala Alexander's and shaped like Diocletian's at Split) and so there he was buried. The city's subsequent growth owed much to its location but also to Constantius, Constantine's "Arian" and much overlooked son. Nicomedia's devastating earthquake helped too.

Just read the books. There's no writer ever who's written in such different styles, exhibits such variations as you claim for Eusebius - or maybe I'm sheltered. As for Arius. I think you can tease his positions out from Athanasius' writings and he's coherent as much as anyone then. His is a Christian dilemma - their books contradict each other. Books by different authors.

Agree totally. And where are Constantine's rival bashing edicts? CTh ??? Constantine, the unprecedented thug, the Christian maker. Not here.

One thing Protestantism muffled was the Christian notion of "Church". It is best read in the Shepherd of Hermas and the notion Mother Church etc runs across the appropriately named church fathers. Christianity is "the Church" == assembly of God. There's no "personal Jesus" per se. That's reformation haze. In this, Christians are of their time, much more collective than ours. All communities have "insiders" and "outsiders", rules on who gets in, who's out. Hence disputes. Donatists, Arians etc. Who owned the "real" Church? BTW, I'm not saying a Jesus of Nazareth created this. But Paul alludes to it and the Shepherd is all over it.

Constantine endowed the Church (or churches? He left the donatists have a basilica and built the orthodox another). He gave her the keys, but he didn't know it and the shift in power wasn't apparent until much later in the fourth century.