Chris Weimer

In other words...no.

mountainman

Is there direct evidence that Jesus was an historical figure? NO
Is there direct evidence that Jesus was a mythical figure? NO
Is there direct evidence that Jesus was a fictitious figure? NO

Chris, do you understand the possibility that some of our evidence
(in fact all of our evidence about most things) is INDIRECT.

I do understand that some bits of evidence can effect certain
people in different waYS. EG: Some ppl believe that the James
Ossary is concrete evidence of christianity (in the pre-Nicaean).
Other ppl (such as myself) do not make this inference. But I
explain the reasons why I do not accept the James Ossary
as physical DIRECT EVIDENCE for "preNicaean christianity".

We are trying to establish the relative probability of things
in a shifting pattern of evidence, and I do not believe - as
it appears you do -- that there is absolute proof floating
around to throw mooring lines to.


Pete Brown

Chris Weimer

Let me put it this way:

There is absolutely no evidence for Jesus to be a 4th century fiction.

rlogan

I think this is the most important matter for the theory to address, Pete.

The scale of the forgery would have to be pretty large in order to encompass this material, and one would need to propose explanation for the fabrication of arguments over the gnostics or whatever.

Clivedurdle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mani_(prophet)

http://essenes.net/elkasites.html

Where does Mani fit if xianity is a eusebian fiction?

I have no problem with a catholic - trintarian takeover in the 380's - Ambrose et al - but Constantine was Arian and really saw Jesus as a useful war god.

Your hypothesis is not looking at Shapur, Zenobia and a whole chunk of history to the East and South of Rome/Constantinople.

Seriously, get hold of Barbarians!

Clivedurdle

May we be very clear about something?

Was Eusebius a catholic trintarian?
Was his boss Constantine an Arian or did he care less whether the son was begotten or eternal?

When can formal catholic trinitarianism be traced back to? Does this not enable us to date documents - if they make trinitarian statements they are showing evidence of being edited after the formulation of trinitarianism.

Doug Shaver

Works for me. I would expect an objective person to say that you should be ignored.

mountainman

Thanks --- I can appreciate this perceived obstacle.

My response to this "mass of writings labelled Eusebius" (Antiqua Mater Ref)
is that they need to be examined with some circumspect, since they were
indisputably manifest to the world in the fourth century, across the desk
of the Constantine sponsored literacist Eusebius. It was he, as he claims,
who gathered together the scanty records of the past, from his desk,
somewhere in the library of Caesarea, all that we now infer that these
earlier church fathers said. No other man, no other historian, and no other
archivalist has gone over this same ground of antiquity. At least 7 other
attempts were made to write a continuance of church history, but not
one of these attempts to cover the pre-Nicaean epoch. Each one, that
survives, commences with the Arian controversy.

The circumspect with which we should treat this earlier "history" is
genuine and tempered with the known historical fact that everything
was delivered to Constantine, quite justifiably presumed to be at, or
around the time of the momentous Council of Nicaea. This package
consisted of:

* The new (and strange) testament bound to the OT Judaic greek
* The Eusebian Canon tables, for quick reference purposes.
* The Ecclesiastical History & In Praeparation by our man E.
* The perverted works of Origen, Josephus, Plotinus, et al.
* Perhaps the letter from Jesus of Nazareth, on display.
* Perhaps all was on glorious display for harmonisation purposes.

All were delivered to the world, the planet at one momentous
occurrence, through the grace of Constantine, and the earnestness
(or otherwise) of Eusebius. Yes, the literary trail implicates a host
of apparently independent authors, discussing each other, and
their ideas and notions of calumny and philosophy, and theology.

We infer that if Eusebius is telling the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, then these earlier christian authors, our
primal church fathers, actually existed, and wrote what Eusebius
tells us that they wrote.

So we start with Josephus, and the problems of integrity immediately
begin to appear in the history of events, which presumably took
place in this period of antiquity, about which Eusebius appears to
be the only authority (for example, the account of Ammianus
Marcellinus is survived only from Book 14 --- all before 353 is lost)

So how long is a thread, and do we go through each of these early
church father authors. Perhaps it will be necessary, so I have
gathered them all together here:
The AUTHORS of ANTIQUITY:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_029.htm

You will see, for the moment, the detail concerning some of
these early christian authors is represented by the report on
them by Joseph Wheless, "FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY".

Our hypothesis is simply that the whole package may be an
exercise in technology and power under Constantine in the
fourth century, and that Eusebius was his sponsored literacist.

We seek independent scientific archeological citations such
that this hypothesis can either be falsified, or be seen to be
consistent with all available scientific evidence.


Pete Brown

mountainman

See my thread on Ammonius Saccas, the neopythagorean.
Was he ever a christian? Was Josephus a christian beleiver?
Was Plotinus? Mani may have existed and been a sage, but
it did not stop fiction being written about him in the 4th century.

Note that the elkasites comes down via Eusebius and his profile
Origen. Origen was a scholar and philosopher, and wrote pridigously
-- but I believe, about the OT alone. Our hypothesis would have us
attempt to see the new testament related writings of Origen, the
work of Eusebius, to whom presrvation of later Origen writings was
entrusted, at the library in Caesarea.

We see the statements made by the translator Rufinus from the
Greek to the Latin, of Pamphilus' and Origen's work, indicative
of the sitation that Eusebius could not have perverted all of
the extant works of Origen (via Pamphilus) c.390 CE. Rufinus
openly admits he needs to grossly CORRECT ORIGEN on DOCTRINE.


Eusebius delivered the package of the new and strange testament.
I do not trust him, or his boss at the time, and I seek to entertain
an alternative history for the period in question, until it can be
either be refuted by scientific and/or archeological evidence.


Point me at the Barbarians reference.
Thanks,



Pete Brown

mountainman

Eusebius was a highly intelligent perhaps genius calibre literacist.
His boss Constantine happened to be the supreme imperial mafia thug
of the whole shooting match.

The Arian controversy was the reaction of Arius and the empire
to Constantine's new and strange religion, and the new and
strange god who ....

"there was a time when he was not"
"He was made out of nothing existing".

and other suitable and appropriate phrases certain very very brave
people and philosophers, noted in their excellence and cleverness
in disputation, would say at the time, out of fear for their life.

Julian could afford to say outright
"it is a fiction of men composed by wickedness"
but Arius could not say the same words, so he I believe,
selected to use the ones preserved in the disclaimer clause
on the Nicean creed.



COuncil of Nicaea, IMO, and no earlier.



Pete Brown