aa5874

Please, please, please I beg of you, tell us when was the time of Eusebius? What was the state of Christianity before the time of Eusebius?

You seem to know about Eusebius and his "OWN" time.

You have a true time machine???

Get it re-calibrated, if you have one.

Duvduv

So much of church information and history is based on the book attributed to Eusebius that it is perfectly reasonable to examine whether more than one author was involved, when the texts were likely to have been written, and whether this person himself really existed as claimed, especially since the sheer bias on so many matters has to be kept in mind.

Doug Shaver

Is that a general historiographical principle, or does it apply only to church history?

mountainman

When an historian fabricates and piously forges the sources that he later uses in support of historical narrative one is entitled to not only dismiss these sources as worthless to the historical truth, but to denounce these sources as criminal activity.



A pious forger is a liar. It's really quite simple. Josephus does not mention Jesus. Jesus did not write a letter to Agbar. Paul and Seneca did not exchange correspondence in the 4th century. The Christians rose to the top by forgery around about the same time that Constantine converted to Christianity. Nothing is clear even about events at Nicea and the first part of the fourth century or an ascendancy of Christianity during that time.

We may turn the other cheek for another 1687 years but that will not change the underlying fact that Eusebius indulged in pious forgery and that such criminal activity is inextricably interwoven into the foundation of so-called Christian "Ecclesiastical History", of which Eusebius is the inventor.

Given this situation, it is reasonable that they can, and do attempt, to get that information by assuming an equivalence between "Christian" and "liar".


As an example of this tendency (outside of Eusebius) we need only examine how the orthodox 4th century heresiological sources reported the history of the heretics (e.g. the Manichaeans). These orthodox sources (e.g. Hegemonius, Ephrem and Augustine) are now known to have purposefully invented their own polemical pseudo-historical narratives of the heretics. With respect to the history of the heretics, the heresiologists were liars, fabricators and compulsive forgers. It was a racket. It's quite simple.

The Roman Emperor Nero may have thought he was an actor on the stage of life. The Roman Emperor Constantine may have thought he was a high technology (codex) publisher to the entire Roman Empire, of "Good Greek News". He was at war, and was very good at his business, which was war. We all know by now that "War is a Racket", and the products of war are rackets. The Constantine Bble and its specific flavor of imperial monotheism was a product of war. The Pagan Greek intellectual and historiographical traditions lost this war.

Duvduv

How would it then be possible to actually identify the line of lies in the historian/apologist writings specifically being in the 4th century and thereafter? Who ran the racket at such an early date? Who were the actual perpetrators?

aa5874

But, you should always taken into account that writings attributed to Eusebius may NOT have been written by him whether wholly or in part.

You must remember that the "Donation of Constantine" was attributed to the Emperor Constantine but it was later discovered to be fraudulent.

It has been brought to my attention to me that "Church History" attributed to Eusebius may not have written, wholly or in part, by the same person.

The fraudulent activities of the Roman Church seems to have been carried out over a very long time period perhaps covering hundreds of years.

mountainman

If one is to explore the hypothesis that Eusebius's "Church History" is a pseudo-historical narrative that is devoid of historical truth with respect to the existence of a) the historical jesus, b) the historical new testament canonical books and c) the historical nation of christians prior to the Victorious War Council of Nicaea, then there are logical consequences that may be summarised as:

1) the evidence of a) and b) and c) prior to Nicaea will not exist. If unambiguous evidence for the existence of either a,b or c exists prior to the 4th century then the hypothesis cannot be entertained.

2) there will be expected a massive controversy from Nicaea about a) and b) and c)

3) there will be expected a concerted effort from the 4th century "church" to anathematize, to censor, to burn, to destroy, to execute and to exile dissidents (heretics)

4) there will be expected a second stage pseudo-history to have been written by the orthodox church at some stage after the 4th century, harmonizing the events which ensued from Nicaea through the 4th and early 5th centuries (at least).


Needless to say, aside from 1) above, the expected logically implied evidence listed as 2, 3 and 4 is evidence that must be elicited from a thorough study, examination and analysis of the evidence between 325 and c.444 CE.



The major racket was the racket of war and this was run by the war commander Constantine. The successive Christian Emperors after Constantine played the END-GAME that Constantine had opened. The first was his son Constantius who, after a mass execution of relatives, according to Ammianus "obscured the plain and simple religion of the christians with a dotard's superstition".

Despite what we have been lead to believe for over 1600 years it is not impossible that Christian origins is a 4th century phenomenom.

mountainman

Yes it is true that what we have before us as the the writings attributed to Eusebius may themselves have been corrupted by their transmission from the year c.339 CE when Eusebius entered Hades to look for the Boss and at least 444 CE when the despotic bishop Cyril of Alexandria finally gave up the ghost. Whether the criminal activity was performed by one person or an organisation of people over a long span of time is a question that may be answered by a thorough analysis of the sources. There is a line of transmission after Eusebius that Arnaldo Momigliano refers to as the "continuators of Eusebius".


Eusebius had no rivals but many continuators. Nobody went back to re-examine the Eusebian claims of the pre-Nicaean epoch. Of course that did not stop the orthodox heresiologists of the later 4th century from embellishing some of Eusebius's material. For example, as I have outlined above, at least three orthodox christian heresiologists of the 4th century (Hegemonius, Ephrem and Augustine) are heavily suspected, if not known to have written pseudo-historical narratives about their heretical enemies, the Manichaeans.

Duvduv

Mountainman, was the forgery of the 4th century centrally managed to represent assorted alleged writers and if so by whom? How would it have been possible to do it so smoothly without them giving themselves away in their writings? If Eusebius is fake, that means his history of heresies, events in Nicea, etc. are also suspect, including the events at Nicea and the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc. Then the whole image of pre Nicea is like a house of cards, even. for modern scholars who more or less accept traditional church chronologies and scenarios.

mountainman

Use of the sword. Very few if any were prepared to argue with Constantine's sword. During WWII the "Allies" united to combat Hitler's European agenda, but during the battle in the Roman Empire c.324.325 CE the Eastern predominantly Greek city states had no such allies, and no such victory. The Greek intellectual tradition was suppressed for over a thousand years.


If Eusebius is a fake then the history of heresies commenced c.324/325 CE as soon as Constantine appeared in the eastern empire. If Eusebius is a fake then it is logical that the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts etc" were all authored (by dissidents) after Nicaea in direct reaction to the appearance of the Constantine Bible.



It's just like a fairy tale.


There is a banned thread (Toto did not like it at all) in the ~E archives entitled The Early "Christian Poker Association" - exploring History by way of Analogy in which I explore the notion that the collection of books in the canon and the collection of books in the non canonical coprpus of christian literature may be seen to be similar to two different packs of cards.