wordy

Pete To my amateur eyes that makes it very likely so. They seems to have stolen it almost word for word from them and then kept kind of silent about them when they referred to those religious and political active at the time of the alleged historical Jesus.

But the sad thing is that even if you make this plausible, the historical Jesus is as insignificant as the mythical Jesus are to the "true believer" cause to them the "Inner Experience of the Living Christ Jesus" is the real source for their acts of faith. Their political acts are motivated by their inner experiences and not their take on the HJ. HJ is more like a referent that is not questioned.

To question him would make them into Liberal Christians who do accept??? that the HJ is on shaky ground. Albert Schweizer is on example.

mountainman

Immediately after Constantine rises to power in Rome
he begins his christian propaganda by sending the
edict of milan about the empire. I think that noone
at that stage had heard of "christianity".

What then existed? Only the ancient Hellenic religions
and their Romanised versions (such as Mythra) and
both of these were linked to the same antiquity that
the Hebrew religion(s) grew up with - the Egyptian
religions, and hence the place of the Hermetic tradition.

Constantine created a new Roman religion which was
based upon the antiquity of the Hebrew tradition, in
an attempt to cut off the "Pagans". The attempt
was successful, and after 250 years of christian
persecution from 314 CE, the greek traditions were
overpowered, and a great deal of writing was burnt,
books destroyed and innocents persecuted.

Letters of Constantine before and after Nicaea
witness the beginnings of all these actions. Also,
if we look, he actually is recorded to have called
for submission of written petitions from the attendees,
and when they were gathered, rather than opening
them, he addressed the petitioners.

He lectured them on the need to remain harmonious
and in accord, and then he burnt their petitions in
their presence. It was after all, his military supremacy
party, and he was the new boss.

Arius tried to stand up to him, but his words were
turned into comments relating to theology, rather
than comments relating to the very historicity
of the new ROman god Jesus Christ (publication
date 331 CE; Constantine Bible).


Of course, a generation after Nicaea, christianity
was in power, and noone really knew that the history
of the religion, prepared by COnstantine via Eusebius,
was a pseudo-history. But the wise ones suspected.
But what could they do?

We have no historian --- other than (ahem) "ecclesiastical
historians" writing during the rule of COnstantine. I wonder
why that might have been. I'd say there's a good
possibility that he was very much in control of the
literature. Its generation and its destruction.

However then Emperor Julian comes upon the scene,
the very first non-christian historical commentator
to be in a position to make a comment (and live long
enough to get it published --- ironic). But what
did Julian say?

He said that the fabrication of the Galilaeans (which IMO
includes the new testament) was a fiction of men
composed by wickedness.

I am inclined to think that in his original books he
actually named these wicked men (as Constantine,
and Eusebius), but that Cyril did not deign to pass
this particular bit of information down to us via
his Ecclesiastically Sponsored Censorship of the
3 books of Julian.

As the generations passed, being born into a christian
family became as normal as being born into any
other family that holds traditions from their parents.

Authority is handed down.
From then until today.

The question is which century did it start.
I believe there is reason to suspect the
christian religion was invented in the 4th.


Such is the nature of all personal experience.
It is rationalised according to the conditioning
of the person. This is perhaps a question of
psychology. People perhaps connect to Buddha.
People connect to an inner source when meditating.
Yoga is a thing many people believe in, without the
need for an external deity, unless it is the universe
itself, out of which we are created, and to which
we will return.

However I am interested in the ancient history aspect.

The HJ has never really had a place in the field of
ancient history, since a specially reserved field had
already been established, called "Biblical History".

The HJ lives in the theory space of Biblical History,
but makes little or no appearance whatsoever in the
theory spaces of ancient history, because there is
literally no evidence of the HJ from the perspective
of an "ancient historian".

An alternative theory of antiquity now exists in which
the appearance of "anything whatsoever christian"
first becomes novel during the rise of Constantine,
and the fourth century witnesses the invention and
implementation of the new religion.

The Arian controvery is the resultant chaotic
turbulence associated with the actions of a
malevolent despot, who robbed the ancients
of their gold and their traditions and their history.

One postulate: Eusebius wrote and delivered fiction.

You and I both know he used the writings of the Essenes
via Philo and Josephus to fill out the gospels, and the
purported words of this "Jesus Christ". The words
that do not come through the essenes come through
the Hebrew texts.

All the existing codexes were sourced from Constantine.

Cyril did a cover up job on Julian's whistle-blowing.
Interesting times ahead for archeology.

J-D

No you don't. You disagree with a perverse misrepresentation of my assessment. Either you actually don't understand what my assessment is or you are unwilling to admit what my assessment is.

This is easily tested. Can you paraphrase and restate my assessment in your own words? If you do so accurately, I will apologise and then give a defence of my position in response to your remarks. But there is no point in my even attempting to do this unless we can first establish that we have a shared understanding of what my position is.

(If anybody else apart from Pete thinks that his remarks give any reason to doubt my assessment, as stated, then please say so now and I will respond to you.)

mountainman

DATA:

1) The words of Arius, and
2) The words of Emperor Julian
3) The political climate depicted during the rise of Constantine.
4) The fact that Constantine first published the complete "bible".
5) The subsequent christian persecution of pagans after Nicaea.

HYPOTHESIS A:
Christianity existed in the prenicene epoch.

Data discussion:
1) Arius words were "There was a time when Jesus was not".
This traditionally by mainstream is interpretted to mean the
period of time BCE. Arius' other words implicate fiction and
fabrication, and in order to be taken to literally apply to the
BCE period of time, require many assumptions.

2, 3, 4, 5 etc


HYPOTHESIS B:
Christianity did not exist in the prenicene epoch.


DATA DISCUSSION:

1) The words of Arius support this in an historical sense.

2,3,4,5, etc

This should be sufficient for you to understand that
I know what your assertion was.

HYPOTHESIS A has interpretted the words of Arius
as theological. Is there any evidentiary proof in
the words of Arius that "christians existed before
Constantine"? No, it is mere supposition.

HYOTHESIS B has interpretted the words of Arius
as historical. Is there any evidentiary proof in
the words of Arius that "christians did not exist
before Constantine"? Yes, I think that there
is sufficient evidentiary proof.

And when we go out to the field of ancient history
to otherwise view perspective upon these two
separate HYPOTHESIS A and B, what do we find?
What does the evidence say with respect to the
field of ancient history. (Not "Biblical History").

However, if you feel you can state the case for
HYPOTHESIS A in a better manner, based on the
5 elements of data, be my guest.

J-D

On the contrary, they reveal, as I expected, that you do not understand what my assertion was. They also shed more light on the precise nature of your misunderstanding.

mountainman

It is the inference and assertion and unexamined
postulate (hypothesis if you prefer) of most people
that there existed christianity before Constantine.

It is very much similar to the hypothesis of the HJ
for those who by faith "know" that the HJ exists.
Formally, this is termed as unexamined postulate.

We have been taught that since Constantine, and
it is quite obvious that many people believe it as
a fact. I have no desire, or inclination to argue
the merits of the mainstream interpretation, or
of your related assertions. Give me one good
reason why I should.

ClassicsFiend

Wow, no, mountainman, Arius's words aren't about the time BCE. These ancient world Christological conflicts were about Jesus's cosmic level of existence -- whether or not he was the same substance as God or, like all of creation, manufactured by God. This kind of discussion is already there in Origen, who believed that the Son was eternal and united with the Father, but that the son was still separate from and subordinate to God. Peter Frend's Rise of Christianity quotes one of Origen's dialogues:

This snippet should give you an idea of what the crux of the matter really was -- it's a trinitarian issue, not the conspiracy theory one you're trying to turn it into.

Here's a quote from Contra Arianos, when stating Arius' views. I took it from Rowan Williams' Arius: Heresy and Tradition p. 100:

As you can see, Arius' idea that there was a time when the Son was not involves a time before the creation of the world -- since God created everything else through the son. You are trying to turn a cosmological conflict into something else by twisting Arius's words around.

Again, let me show you how normal this language was. In one of his sermons about the Arian controversy, Gregory of Nyssa complains about how obsessed everyone is with Arian doctrine:

All of this "the son did not exist at one point" talk that you are seizing on, let me repeat, has NOTHING to do with Jesus's physical existence on earth. It is a matter of whether, within the Christian divine hierarchy, the Son is equal to the Father or whether he is subordinate. There is no question that the Son existed before the world. Arius, a presbyter himself, was not implying anything about the grand conspiracy you are so in love with.

ClassicsFiend

I also felt a need to discuss what you, mountainman, have done with poor Emperor Julian, attempting to cite these words as proof of your theory: Have you actually read this document? It's basically Julian talking about Bible inconsistencies and how ridiculous they are. In fact, he is particularly obsessed with the Old Testament, taking the subject matter further afield from NT Christianity and the "fabrication" you're trying to prove. He openly admits that Pagan myths are made up, too. This document has nothing to do with what you want it to reference.

For anyone interested, Julian the Apostate is a badass and Against the Galileans is a great read. Knock yourselves out. Against the Galileans.

Roger Pearse

All well argued.

J-D

Because failing to do so exposes your utter methodological bankruptcy.