Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 10-22-2008, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I don't think falsification is the appropriate standard, which is why I didn't vote in spin's poll. I think it is appropriate to ask that somebody putting forward a historical explanation should give some reason to think it is true. 'It has never been falsified' is insufficient. Pete has never given any evidence in support of his preferred historical explanations.

I wouldn't say that the Dura evidence 'falsifies' Pete's explanation, but I would say that it gives (additional) reason to reject it.

When mountainman's theory is that Eusebius and friends created christianity in the 4th century -- despite a number of the no-voters having remodeled his theory to suit themselves and accepting the existence of pre-Eusebian christian religions --, there is enough data in the frescoes and in the fragment to falsify his claim.

The only no-voter who has elucidated views in this thread and who has voted "no" based on mountainman's claim seems to be mountainman.

spin

J-D · 10-22-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Ancient history as an academic discipline, like other branches of history and other academic disciplines, proceeds by looking for the explanation that fits best with the evidence. 'Eminently possible' falls a long way short of 'fits best with the evidence'.

Dear J-D,

We may certainly be able to say that one day about this thesis if, in the fullness of time, one of my detractors cites any evidence which is exceptional in its characteristics, between the thrust of the theory and the scientific and/or archaeological evidence which is available to us and which is admissable to the field of ancient history.

At the moment I am backing and defending my thesis.

Not by providing any reason to think it's true, you're not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Do you have a ancient historical citation other than the Ulfian Creed, which I hope I have shown to be descended from that horrible Oath of Nicaea, made by its attendees under military duress, to the Boss.

Best wishes,

Pete

You haven't shown that the Creed of Ulfilas is descended from the Nicene Creed (horrible or not). Part of the content of the Creed of Ulfilas is not present in the Nicene Creed. But that isn't really the point. The point is that the Creed of Ulfilas does not fit with your views about what the doctrines of Arianism were. You say the doctrines of Arianism were X; the Creed of Ulfilas is evidence that the doctrines of Arianism were Y; and X and Y are irreconcilable.

spamandham · 10-22-2008, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I don't think falsification is the appropriate standard, which is why I didn't vote in spin's poll. I think it is appropriate to ask that somebody putting forward a historical explanation should give some reason to think it is true. 'It has never been falsified' is insufficient. Pete has never given any evidence in support of his preferred historical explanations.

I wouldn't say that the Dura evidence 'falsifies' Pete's explanation, but I would say that it gives (additional) reason to reject it.

We're almost in agreement then, except that I don't think it's true Pete has presented no evidence for his position.

He has pointed out similarities between Jesus and other popular characters of the time, which loosely supports his idea.

He has also presented a case that Constantine was in position to make the national religion whatever he wanted it to be by brute force - a legitimate point few historians tackle. This is particularly important when we see signs of both Sol Invictus (Constantine's birth religion) and messianic Judaism in 4th century Christianity.

...to name a couple.

spin · 10-22-2008, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I don't think falsification is the appropriate standard, which is why I didn't vote in spin's poll. I think it is appropriate to ask that somebody putting forward a historical explanation should give some reason to think it is true. 'It has never been falsified' is insufficient. Pete has never given any evidence in support of his preferred historical explanations.

I wouldn't say that the Dura evidence 'falsifies' Pete's explanation, but I would say that it gives (additional) reason to reject it.

We're almost in agreement then, except that I don't think it's true Pete has presented no evidence for his position.

He has pointed out similarities between Jesus and other popular characters of the time, which loosely supports his idea.

That is not evidence. I can show you similarities between porpoises and sharks. Similarities in themselves tell you nothing about origins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

He has also presented a case that Constantine was in position to make the national religion whatever he wanted it to be by brute force - a legitimate point few historians tackle.

This is not veracious. Antiochus IV was in a similar position to impose religion. Instead, after a resistance of several years his attempt failed. The reason why the situation was different for Constantine was that he had a ready-made support group of christian believers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

This is particularly important when we see signs of both Sol Invictus (Constantine's birth religion) and messianic Judaism in 4th century Christianity.

...to name a couple.

What a number of people have failed to understand is that messianic judaism was a dead letter in the wake of two bouts of failed messianism. (At the same time, christianity isn't messianic. Jesus was not portayed in christianity as the messiah: he wasn't supposed -- through military prowess -- to put the Jews in rulership of the world, thus liberating Israel from foreign dominion.)

Constantine was originally a "believer" in the mithraism which was that of Sol Invictus. His sign put on shields I believe was made up of stylized rays of the sun, which formed a species of cross.

This all is irrelevant to the thread. You're preoccupied with similarities which have no value without some demonstrable linkage to render them meaningful.

As things stand we can see that a religion existed before 257 that featured Jesus and the crucifixion, the central tenets of christianity, falsifying the mountainman theory.

spin

spamandham · 10-22-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

That is not evidence. I can show you similarities between porpoises and sharks. Similarities in themselves tell you nothing about origins.

Miniscule evidence is still not 0.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As things stand we can see that a religion existed before 257 that featured Jesus and the crucifixion, the central tenets of christianity, falsifying the mountainman theory.

Reviewing the evidence and the thread again, I seem to have missed where the Dura evidence discusses Jesus' crucifixion. The text snippet states the women went to see the crucified, but it does not state Jesus is among them.

spin · 10-22-2008, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

That is not evidence. I can show you similarities between porpoises and sharks. Similarities in themselves tell you nothing about origins.

Miniscule evidence is still not 0.

Evidence is based on relevance. If no relevance can be shown you don't have evidence for the issue under consideration.

spin

J-D · 10-22-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Sorry, I misunderstood you. When you said that the words of Arius were a 'legal disclaimer clause', I thought you meant that they represented an attempt on the part of Arius to disclaim something. It is now apparent that what you meant was that they represented a view which the Council of Nicaea was 'disclaiming' (I think 'rejecting', 'denouncing', and 'anathematising' would all be better choices of word, but not much hinges on this). Of course the Council of Nicaea disclaimed/rejected/denounced the views of Arius.

Dear J-D,

I am glad we agree on this.

Quote:

That is not evidence that your interpretation of Arius's views is to be preferred to the generally accepted one.

The generally accepted view is that the words of Arius are all to be perceived as theological, despite the fact that the history of that epoch is all about death and destruction, and moreso, the death and destruction, and the brutal intolerance and persecution was being perpetrated by the Constantinian political regime upon the citizens of the Roman empire.

My view is that the words of Arius are perceived to be comments on the historical Jesus of Constantine's canon, 324 CE. These very same words of Arius which are recorded as being delivered by Arius to Constantine's face at the council of Nicaea, are satirical. Constantine did not understand them as such - they were probably either written by hand by Arius after a trip to the gallows with the Constantine's chief henchman (like the story of Secundus he Philosopher) or they were delivered in dance and appeared silly. At any rate, Arius was banished, and lived for another decade, to write subversive material against Constantine that Constantine reveals (See his letter to Arius c.333 CE) were subversive, cutting, bitter and seditious against christianity.

Those same words were bandied about the empiure for many generations under the social turbulence known as the Arian controversy. They were political words IMO of sedition against Constantinianism. The accepted view, that everyone was concerned about theology, when people were being killed left right and center, is effete.

Best wishes,

Pete

I don't think anybody has suggested that everyone was concerned about theology. The question is only whether some people were concerned about theology. And I see no reason why there should not have been some people who were concerned about theology during a period of violent political turmoil. Some people were concerned about theology during the English Civil War. Some people were concerned about theology during the French Revolution. The propensity of some people to discuss theology at the oddest times was noted by Gregory of Nyssa ('Ask a man for change, he philosophises on the Begotten and the Unbegotten; ask the price of bread, you are told "the Father is greater, the Son inferior"; ask if the bath is ready, they say the Son is made from nothing').

It is not in dispute that Constantine saw Arius as a religious subversive. This is just as compatible with the generally accepted view as it is with your view.

spin · 10-22-2008, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As things stand we can see that a religion existed before 257 that featured Jesus and the crucifixion, the central tenets of christianity, falsifying the mountainman theory.

Reviewing the evidence and the thread again, I seem to have missed where the Dura evidence discusses Jesus' crucifixion. The text snippet states the women went to see the crucified, but it does not state Jesus is among them.

Umm, Salome and the women following him from Galilee to the crucifixion...?

Such reductionism seems obtuse.

spin

mountainman · 10-23-2008, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patcleaver

My understanding of your theory is that "Constantine invented Christianity and Christian History".

What do you mean by Christianity?

Dear Pat,

Thanks for the questions.

What do I mean by Christianity? The imperial basilica cult.

Canonical christianity - the followers and perpetuators of the authority deemed to be invested in the authenticity, genuineness and historical significance of the new testament canonical literature published by Constantine in the fourth century.

Quote:

What do you mean by invented?

Fabricated the new from the old extant literature, narratives and historical accounts available in he libraries of Rome c.312 CE.

Quote:

You are claiming that there were no Christians before 312. By Christian do you mean they had to believed all the things in the Nicene Creed of 325, or do you include Gnostic Christians, or messianic (Essene) Jews?

My claim is that the canonical new testament literature was not available before Constantine to be believed in. In that sense, by defining christians as believers in the authority of the new testament canonbical literature, there could not be such since the literature itself was not fabricated until 312-324 CE.

Quote:

Are you claiming that Constantine forged documents and revised other documents as evidence that Christianity (as defined above) existed before Constantine invented it?

YES.

Quote:

Can you give us a minimum list of documents that Constantine would have had to forge or alter to establish the existence of such Christians.

YES. I have written an article entitled The Fabrication of the Galilaeans . Here is an index.

Quote:

What is the fabrication of the Galilaeans?

Modern academicians theorise that this fabrication referred to by the Emperor Julian, is simply another form of invective, utilised by Julian; as part of Julian's "general invective" against Jesus, against christianity, and against the new Roman christian church. Something like some form of final pagan refutation of the spread of christianity. The empire-wide-acceptance of the new Roman religion, had followed closely it's personal adoption by the supreme imperial mafia thug Constantine. At the council of Nicaea, less than forty years before the time Julian wrote, Constantine had sold the new religion, against the advice of Arius, to the eastern empire.
It has been customary for academicians to learn to ignore the invectives of Julian, particularly the explicit reference to to word fiction, as it is couched above. In today's politically correct terminology, most commentators use the word "myth". It is nowhere near as forceful, and it also evades the issues of the fraudulent misrepresentation of fiction, as literal history.

As a result of this view of Julian, despite his very specific charge, that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction, most historians, and all ecclesiatical historiologists, genuinely believe that Julian is not here, a rational analyst of historical facts. This article suggests we reconsider this belief.

For it will be presented below that in fact the fabrication of the Galilaeans is an extensive series of a number of important modules of literary effort, all of which are either fiction, or perversions, and other activities which have been used in combination.

It might be called "a package" with a number of parts.

It was a technologically advanced achievement requiring careful and detailed correspondence between all its disparate textual realms, and modules of operation. At the time it was implemented at Nicaea by Constantine, the package was quite sophisticated having attracted R&D for at least a decade. What was the package? A package is known by the sum of its modules, and the primary module of this package is known today as "the bible". This primary module was first bound together and delivered to the commonwealth of the Roman empire by Constantine. This occurred shortly after the Council of Nicaea, perhaps 330CE. The first series of 50 bibles were known as the Constantine Bible.

However, as will be outlined, it is better to approach this whole subject bit by bit, and introduce the entire series of modules which comprise the package of the fabrication of the Galilaeans. This first module - the Constantine Bible - is only the tip of an iceburg which has been waiting to melt for many centuries.

The following analysis provides for a package consistent of the following series of modules:

Module (1): Texts bound within the "Constantine Bible" - High profile visible texts, but why was Constantine the very first to have bound together the Hebrew Texts and the New Texts?

Module (2): Text support, service manuals, tools, horror stories, etc. - Researchers in the field understand that their is a large corpus of text scaffolding behind the scenes, and that is was all generated under the name of an editor Eusebius, who sat at the right hand of the despot Constantine. It is by no means inaccurate to see Eusebius as Constantine's minister for propaganda, and many commentators have already remarked on this relationship.

Module (3): Texts described as {Non Canonical/Apocryphal/pseudepigraphal} - Many were called (by Constantine) but few were chosen (by Constantine). The two extant NT Carbon dating citations are gThomas (350 CE) and gJudas (280 CE +/- 60 years).

Note here that I need to revise this entry on the apochryphal new testamant literature. Since I wrote the above (sometime last year I have come to understand that the new testament apochryphal literature was certainly not written by Eusebius or any Constantinian supporter. Elsewhere and here I am now supporting the position that the apochryphal NT acts, gospels and tractates were authored by the greek speaking academic and ascetic priests of the temple networks (to Asclepius and Apollo, etc) which Constantine had closed down for business. I consider Arius of Alexandria now to be regarded as the father of the new testament non canonical literature (Eusebius et al being the father of the NT canon), and to be associated with the pseudonymous author Leutius Charinus.

Continuing on to Module 4 ....

Quote:

Module (4): Prenicene historiological citations re: "tribe of christians" - This is an analysis of the authors in antiquity who are publishing anything whatsoever related to "christianity". A number of sub-categories are examined in sequential order, as follows:

Sub-Module 4(a): Prenicene Author identifies as a christian bishop (or greater)
Sub-Module 4(b): Prenicene Author identifies as a christian apologist (or greater)
Sub-Module 4(c): Prenicene Author identifies as a christian writer (or greater)
Sub-Module 4(d): Prenicene Author identifies as non christian

Module (5): Text creation, preservation, perversion and destruction in antiquity. - It was a hard job before the printing press and E-BOOKS, but someone had to do it, or the books would not have survived.

Module (6): Burning and destruction of textual petitions at the Council of Nicaea. - The ecclesiastical historians tells us that Constantine asked that written petitions be handed to him. Once this was done, he lectured the attendees on the importance of harmony and then publically burnt the petitions in the presence of the petitioners.

Module (7): Fourth century book-burning; destruction of heretical texts and heretics. - It is notable that the fourth century saw a lot of books destroyed. The library of Alexandria, and other libraries were targetted for destruction of heretical texts. By the end of the fourth century, the new Religion adopted and/or created by Constantine at Nicaea, was itself supreme in the power structure of the empire. Constantine was simply following the precedent set 100 years earlier by Ardashir, who created the new Zoroastrian religion, and then burned every single existing line of writing of the pre-existent (Parthian) civilisation.

Package Summary: An army of new texts were assembled - they were gathered into cohorts, others extant patristic writings were perverted, interpolated or fraudulently extended in scope. The Imperator Rex Constantine had high regard for literature, and a brilliant theological mind. He conceived of the fabrication of the galilaeans to enhance his control the empire by means of a new monotheistic religion.

Also, at the index page to my thesis at this page you will see a list of authors whom I regard to have existed, but whom were forged in order to present christians in the epoch before the fourth century. These are:

Quote:

Josephus Flavius - The Testimonium Flavianum, Antiquity of the Jews
Tacitus - Annals 15:44, 15th Century Forgery of Poggio Bracciolini
Suetonius - Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Nero, 16.
Pliny the Younger - Plinius, Ep 10:97; a letter to the Roman Emperor Trajan
Emperor Trajan - Dear Pliny (a rescript)
Marcus Aurelius - The "christian" reference at Meditations 11:3
Hegesippus - The "shadowy Hegesippus" according to Momigliano
Celsus: Fourth Century Eusebian forgery of anti-christian writings
Julius Africanus - Chronologer used by Eusebius, whom Eusebius "corrects" by 300 years.
Lucian of Samosata - Life of Peregrine, Alexander the Prophet
The Vienne/Lyon Martyrs' Letter - Independent analysis of Eusebian forgery.
Origen - Ascetic pythagorean academic; specialist of the (LXX) Hebrew Bible (alone).
Porphyry - Ascetic pythagorean academic; Eusebian forgery of anti-christian writings.

If you have any questions on any of this material ask away.

Quote:

What predictions can you make based on your hypotheses (or if your hypotheses were wrong what things would prove that it was wrong) i.e. what documents dated before 312, that claim that Jesus Christ was God, could be carbon dated to before 312 to prove that your hypotheses was wrong?

Carbon dated canonical literature would refute the hypothesis. If we have a C14 date on the texts bound by Constantine, to have existed as christian literature before the fourth century, then they predated Constantine. So far the only two C14 citations are essentially saying "fourth century".

COROLLARY to THESIS

Although I mentioned this earlier I will repeat it because I feel it is a significant breakthrough. IF the thesis that Constantine invented (canonical) christianity as I have outlined above, is actually the ancient historical truth of the matter, THEN as a corollary, Arius of Alexandria and the author Leucius Charinus are one and the same ancient historical author --- and is to be regarded as the author of most of the NT apochryphal literature, in the period from 324 CE until his death by poison c.336 CE.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 10-23-2008, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

When mountainman's theory is that Eusebius and friends created christianity in the 4th century, there is enough data in the frescoes and in the fragment to falsify his claim.

Dear Spin,

The data in the frescoe and the data in trhe fragment is by all accounts not necessarily canonical. The fragment is not part of the canon, is it? And the frescoe is not part of the artistic canon, now is it?

You are clearly just making assumptions with the data in the attempt to make the data fit your preconceived notions that the canonical new testament must have necesarily existed before Constantine. And you have no evidence for this position other than Eusebius' fourth century Constantinian say-so.

Best wishes,

Pete

View Poll Results: Has mountainman's theory been falsified by the Dura evidence?
Yes	34	57.63%
No	9	15.25%
Don't know/don't care/don't understand/want another option	16	27.12%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.