mountainman

Dear Philosopher Jay and Others who may
be interested in processing Eusebius,

The last two or three centuries might be described in a summary
form as rejecting Eusebius in bits and pieces. The vital integrity
to the only purported historical account on the existence of the
christian religion before the fourth century has been critically
questioned and found full of integrity exceptions.

How do we reject Eusebius? A bit at a time or all at once?
How do we go about creating an alternative historical account?
These appear to be very reasonable questions requiring research.

What have we got to lose by rejecting Eusebius?
Certainly not integrity.

If you reject Eusebius then Nicaea dawns on a
non Christian gnostic world, and the story is
far from inspiring, yet it may represent historical
truth. Are we willing to confront such a truth?

How do we reject Eusebius?
Is there a nice way to do it?
Is rejecting Eusebius the "Hard Problem" of BC&H?

Eusebius holds the keys to the story of the history
of the transcendental kingdom of christendom.

How do we tell Eusebius to stand in the corner for a while
while the scientists, inter-disciplinary analysts, C14 crew,
along with Coptic, Syriac and Greek specialists get
to examine all the evidence from scratch?

How do we keep the defence attorneys employed by
the tenured apologists at bay?

Any ideas?

I have already suggested that a study of the appearance
and the politics surrounding the authorship of the new testament
non canonical texts (books) - clones - may be the
most expedient starting point - data to analyse.

However I can understand that most people in the field
are naturally subject to a fatal attraction with the canon,
and perceive the NT apocrypha as "insipid and puerile
amplifications" [Ernest Renan] --- of the gnostics.

IMO we need to sketch a non Eusebian gnostic history
and I have attempted with a broad brush to do just this.

What happens to the big picture
when Eusebius is removed?

aa5874

If you discard Eusebius, then you discard the evidence.

One cannot ignore the crime scene because it was tampered with or because evidence was planted.

If you were given a counterfeit dollar bill you must keep it in pristine condition as evidence. The counterfeit must not be discarded.

The writer called Eusebius, in order to show the world the history of the Church, was forced to keep securely and recorded many of the fabricated documents that were manufactured precisely for the bogus writing called Church History.

The writer called Eusebius named many of the fabricated writings with fraudulent or bogus information about the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and perhaps even the 4th century.

Once the list of writings or writers provided by Eusebius are not ignored or discarded, then C14 dating, scientists and Specialists are just icing on the cake.

It is almost certain that ALL the writings that were used as corroborative sources for "Church History", that is ALL the writings that were used by Eusebius to confirm that the Church was in existence since the 1st century are bogus or propaganda and did not represent history in any fundamental way.

All information from any writing that pretends to corroborate "Church History" is bogus and appears to have been backdated, and this includes information found in Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and a host of other Church writers, including information found in the Gospels and ALL the Pauline and General epistles.

Once Church History is not credible then the sources must have been the same.

PLEASE DO NOT discard the writings of Eusebius, he was instrumental in keeping the crime scene in pristine condition. He named his co-conspirators and recorded their writings in Church History.

Thanks to the Church and Eusebius. We now have the blueprint of the fraud for eternity.

This is Eusebius in Church History And after that introduction, virtually everything about the NT has been found to be erroneous by scholars today.

Eusebius claimed Jesus was divine, scholars say no.

Eusebius claimed gMatthew was written first, scholars say no.

Eusebius claimed all the Pauline epistles were authentic, scholars say no.

Eusebius claimed Acts of the Apostles was probably written when Paul was in jail, scholars say no.

Eusebius claimed Josephus wrote the TF, scholars say no.

The sources or passages that Eusebius used must have been bogus. And Eusebius did name his sources.

Please do not discard the list of the bogus sources provided by Eusebius.

Do not discard the evidence.

The case has been resolved. Just look at Church History.

See http://www.newadvent.org

mountainman

Dear aa5874,

An investigation of the evidence is perhaps best modelled
on the operations of Scotland Yard or Hawaii Five Oh.
Evidence is never discarded - it is locked up and impounded.
It is taken away from public circulation and the keys
to its visibility are kept under the responsibility of the
person in charge of the case.

The crime being investigated is thus set in the fourth century.
The rejection of Eusebian evidence implies an investigation of
the crime scene by an independent team of data gathering
experts while at the same time the Eusebian evidence is
locked up and unavailable as simply a fake dollar bill.

Scotland Yard and Hawaii Five Oh would conduct the following
operation in rejecting the Eusebian counterfeit ....

[and to reiterate Philosopher Jay's OP with a slight paraphrase ...

... How do we go about creating a trustworthy historical account ... ??? ]

1) Lock up the counterfeit evidence in solitary confinement.
2) Take it out of circulation - no more discussion of it!!
3) Get the apologetic defence attorneys out of the office.
4) Study the crime scene of the fourth century ....


4.0) Ask lots of questions in lots of multi-disciplinary fields

4.1) Were any other fake gospels and/or Acts and/or "Historias" manufactured in the 4th century?
4.2) What witnesses exist to the crime?
4.3) What was the political situation like?
4.4) Was there any "Boss"?
etc

spamandham

Suppose for the sake of argument, that the jury would disregard everything that came to us exclusively via Eusebius.

What would a truly objective mind make of what is left?

mountainman

How do we go about creating a trustworthy historical account
without using Eusebius is a challenge in objectivity and in the
coordination of research from many inter-disciplinary fields.
Evidence would need to be gathered and admitted in categories
which have yet to be determined. Statements made by the players
at the crime scene in the fourth century (and afterwards) would
need to be read again - perhaps several times - and compared
against each other for relational integrity.

It would be particularly notable to interview in detail anyone whom
Eusebius considered as an enemy. It would also be quite mandatory
to gather up any known major controversies which effected either
the religious arena or the political arena about the time Eusebius
becomes instrumental.

The legwork has hardly started. It is far too early for the jury.
We need to gather up what evidence remains.

The prosecution attorney waits to review the total big picture
of the evidence (without Eusebius) by which an alternate political
history of the fourth century can be sketched in which Eusebius is
to be implicated in fraud - quite possibly imperial fraud - which
has remained unchallenged to this day.

This fact alone suggests there may have been collusion after
the Eusebian events, by imperially sponsored continuators of
the Eusebian tradition of common fraudulent misrepresentation.
Implicated thus are the following figures and their respective
testimonies to the veracity of Eusebian details, and to novel
insights which they themselves added: Athanasius, Jerome,
Rufinus, Augustine, Socrates, Theodoret and Big Cyril of Alexandria.

aa5874

Eusebius and the Church are being tried in the public arena. The evidence must be brought forward publicly to the world so that everyone can see the fraud. T



But, the Church has already plastered the world with their counterfeit history, in effect, everyone has been issued, so to speak, fake dollar bills. The evidence of the fraud is right in our hands.

We can see all the details of the fraud, just like when we have a fake dollar bill.

Just look at Church History by Eusebius. See http://www.newadvent.org

It must be noted that it was when the counterfeit evidence was released for the confines of the Church that the world slowly began to take account of the fraud.

The discussion of the fraud can now not cease at all, even after the Church someday, hopefully, apologies to the world.


Church History by Eusebius has already answered all those questions. The answers have been recorded.

The matter has been resolved.

The 4th century Church and beyond are the culprits.They invented the counterfeit.

mountainman

The Eusebian evidence has been likened to a counterfeit currency which the entire world has been dealing with for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years. The modus operandi of Scotland Yard would suggest that the Eusebian evidence will be brought forward after the case has been solved and not before. In order to solve the case a number of key facts have to be determined by research and legwork in the field, and these key facts include the following ......

1) What currency (religion) was in place at the time the fake currency was tendered?
2) Who suffered the greatest financial losses (persecutions) from the fraud?
3) Who covered up the fact of the swindle, and when and how?
4) Who were the key players who opposed this swindle when it happened (325)?

5) Eusebian statements about the "OTHER SIDE" (gentiles)

Who were the gnostics? Who were the heretics?
These two questions are critical to the prosecution of Eusebius.

If we are going to reject Eusebius then we have to paint an alternate picture of a history in which these gnostics and these heretics were in fact innocently trading their own ancient forms of religious currency when Eusebius' history and new religion "turned up".

What does Eusebius actually tell us about these people?
Eusebius (or someone following) retrojects his opposition also into the past.
The gnostics are still presumed Eusebian Valentinians, or Eusebian Sethians.
This is due to traditional reliance and trading in Eusebius veracity.

We need historical figures and names for the gnostics.
We need historical figures and names for the heretics.
Eusebius provides none! This is a lie by omission.



We need to see the currency of the heretics and/or gnostics.
These people need to be interviewed immediately for any information
that they may be able to provide about the fraud when it was
implemented --- we must gather up statements from the heretics
and the gnostics and reconstruct what happened in the fourth century.

The case for the prosecution of Eusebius must cover the alteration of the Eusebian accounts by the church fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries some of whom enjoyed the personal support of "christian emperors".



"The world" said Jerome, "groaned to find itself Arian".


What was the Arian controversy all about? Do we know?
I would like a specialist unit of researchers to concentrate
on this Arius. Arius appears to be some sort of central figure
at the time of the perpetration of this fraud. We need to get
all the data available about Arius, and about this large
controversy over what Arius said in response to Eusebius.

This is new legwork. New research. The case cannot
go to court until we have sketched out these background
facts from a totally Eusebian-independent perspective.


"Oh what profit this fable of Christ ..."


Eusebius may have deliberately lied by omission.
I want to know about all the fake gospels.
Not just about the ones locked up in a cell as fabricated.
I want to know who authored these "Other Books".
I want to know when these were circulated.
I want to know the big picture about these heretics.
The prosecution attorney needs to known who the gnostics were.
At the moment nobody has a clue, or if they do it is Eusebian.
(ie: Oh Valentinus the Gnostic! --- this is Eusebian and false).

We need names of the gnostic heretics at the time
the curtains went up for the trading of the counterfeit
currency. We need to have some statements from those
who suffered as a result of the swindle.

Eusebius (or continuators) have not provided this data.

The church may not have invented the NT Apocrypha currency.
Other fake gospels and acts exploded into circulation!
What is their history? Who produced them?
We need to know the big picture.

We know they were forbidden to be read by the church.

We need to sketch a faithful history of the fourth century.
We will need to critically question the later christian "ecclesiatical
historians". Isolating Eusebius is just the beginning.

We need to understand the original currency at that time
when the false bills were first floated at Nicaea.

Toto

This is turning into another overworked topic - mountainman's request for an alternative Cristian history. Please no more posts like this. We understand that you want to bury Eusebius. Give an alternative instead of preaching about what we need to do.

mountainman

What are your thoughts on this toto?

Toto

Jay wrote a book on how to tease meaning out of the sources that we have.

You just keep endlessly repeating a few undeveloped ideas about Eusebius being fiction, but you never get beyond that.

If Eusebius is reliable, then we might in fact not have any sources for much of early Christian history, which will forever be unknown. I can live with that.