GakuseiDon

I'm sorry, but I have no idea how this relates to the question at hand. It just seems an extension of your conspiracy theory: anything written before Constantine was a forgery by Eusebius. Anything written from the time of Constantine is a forgery also? Who wrote Arius's letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, the man who baptised Constantine, and called him "my fellow Lucianist"?

One thing that they are not are "dogmatic assertions" disclaiming historicity, since each statement implies an existence. Look at them again:

* that there was a time when he was not (implying there was a time when he was)
* before he was born he was not (implying -- if not stating outright -- that he was born)
* he was made out of nothing existing (implying -- if not stating outright -- that he was made)
* God’s Son is from another subsistence or substance (!!!)
* he is subject to alteration or change (!!!)

mountainman

I have pointed out to you that the letter surfaces in an "ecclesiastical
history" compiled by Theodoret, c.427, a century after Arius stood before
Constantine at Nicaea. No other historian before Theodoret mentions
this letter. Perhaps Arius wrote a letter, but our claim is that anything
related to Lucianism, Sabellianism, or even Arianism is an "ism", that
remains totally unrelated to the dogmatic assertions of Arius ...

Certainly, he existed in the propaganda in the period 317-324,
and in the COuncil of Nicaea under Constantine in 325, and
since that time. But before Constantine, he was not.

He was born in a supremely inspired fiction in Constantine's mind,
until he was woven into the fabrication of the Galilaeans (312-317)
and then born anew at the Council of Nicaea, as a fully blown package,
a new imperial power is created --- the new Roman religious order.

It was all a monstrous tale, a fabrication, and a fiction.
He was fabricated out of the whole literary cloth, by the
highly intelligent supreme imperial mafia thug, who wanted
more forms of absolute power.

New terms in vocabulary, never before cited by the theological
romancer Eusebius, or any of his pre-Nicaean literary profiles,
arose due to the Arian controversy. Consubstantiality and
the trinity in that order, were introduced under the door,
following the controversy caused by the above words.

The possibility remains that Constantine created christianity
in the 4th century, and that there was time when he was not
(eg: the first three centuries).



Pete Brown
Implications of the consideration of a Eusebian Fiction postulate

aa5874

Mountainman, doesn't the presence of apocryphal writings of the NT suggest that Eusebius did not invent Christianity from scratch? Surely some must have been written before the Nicean council or the cannonisation of the NT.

aa5874

Another point I would like to make, before the cannonisation of the NT, isn't it reasonable to expect that certain followers of Christianity, or groups of followers, to be in possesison of some of these apocryphal writings and were using these writings in their worship as spiritual texts?

Without cannonisation of the NT, there would not have been any external or internal pressure to reject any writings used by any sect of Christianity. I see Eusebius' role as standardising the NT, although he may have fabricated some history to accomplish his goal.

mountainman

Our stance at present is simply that "the fabrication of the Galilaeans"
(entire NT literature, history, fathers, in preparatio, interpolated books
of Jewish & ROman historians, perversion of Origen LXX scholarship with
insertion of NT related "commenaries", other literary profiles, and the
entire corpus of the non-canonical literature) --- was all created during
the period from 312 CE (Constantine takes Rome) for the next decade.

Eusebius was Constantine's chief minister (and editor-in-chief) for
propaganda. Constantine, not Eusebius IMO was driving the entire
project of "the fabrication of the galilaeans".

And in regard to the Non Canonical slash Apocryphal slash
pseudepigraphal (NT) texts, it is likely that "many were called,
but few were chosen" ---- by Constantine (312-324 CE)



Pete

mountainman

Not the way I view the history, namely, that the entire package,
inclusive of the "squabbles-of-intrinsic-heretics" was essentially
sold to the empire as a package of conquest by Constantine at
the Council of Nicaea. He accepted signatories against the words
of Arius against the implementation of the fabrication.

Eusebius lists the Muratorian canons, and then his own list of canon
in his history (a second citation for 'canon'). After this point, the next
thing in history that happens is that Constantine binds the LXX to
his fabricated NT-package, obviously in accordance to the canon
outlined by Eusebius (circa 312-324 CE).

The Constantine bibles were technologically created sometime
between Nicaea and c.330 CE. IMO, all the major surviving codexes
are quite reasonably grossly imperfect copies of one of the 50
Constantine bibles. Textual origins point to Constantine.

Sure, later councils after Nicaea formalised the processes of accepting
the fabrication ofthe galilaeans as non-fiction, and discussed the
canons, but this was after the horse had bolted, so to speak.

Best wishes,



Pete

mountainman

Concerning the words of Arius ....

Each statement by Arius is capable of being consistently
perceived as dogmatic assertions disclaiming the historical
jesus, when each statement implies an existence, but an
existence only before Constantine's rise to supremacy in
the empire 312-324 CE.

Let me put this another way.

Why do you think it is that we find these words of Arius
formally listed as the BIG DISCLAIMER CLAUSE on
the holy of holy Nicaean Creed? How would you like to
otherwise explain the relationship of their intrinsic significance
to their appearance on the creed of the new and strange
Roman religious order, which became christianity?




Pete

Hatchet

Libraries Australia http://librariesaustralia.nla.gov.au lists this book at 26 libraries. You should be able to get it via inter-library loan. Just do a search on the web site and let your local library know where to get it from. It typically costs around $15 per book for an inter-library loan.

Cheers,
Hatchet

mountainman

Hey thanks for that info Hatchet,

A phone call has resulted in the book becoming available locally
by this weekend, so looks like some more reading.


Pete