mountainman

Ehrman's mainstream theory (about the most certain existence of the historical Jesus) has also been covered, and far many more times, and still there's more that people say. What you refer to as mountainman's conspiracy was originally a simple hypothesis about the chronology of the NT authorship. The theory does not pointedly interpret all the avilable evidence in any way that suits the theory. It is based on stress testing the chronological hypothesis of authorship, and as such expects a massive controversy to appear as a result of the Constantine Bible and Nicaea. None of this is contrived. It follows the hypothesis of 4th century authorship and forgery. Arius of Alexandria is the antichrist [Athanasius et al].




You should be informed that the Jewish historian Momigliano treats Emperor Julian as a monotheist (and, incidentally, Eusebius as possibly a man of Jewish descent). Everyone in general is little informed about the 90-95% demographic abundance of the pagans, neither of the Platonic philosophers who regarded the exisence of a supreme divinity which they did not refer to as monotheistic, rather as nondual.

Who are the powerful people behind the "Official propagandists"? One hunrded years before Nicaea, the major enemy of the Romans, the Persians, implemented a centralised state monotheistic Zoroastrianism. The Official Propaganist's name was Tanzar, and he gathered up the scattered writings of the "Avesta" and made a new edition, and then Ardashir, the war commander, caused it to be "canonized". These political changes in Sassanid Persia appeared to have made the Persians more vigorous, and they had subsequently been victorious in battle against the Romans. Perhaps the Persian army seemed to work better because all of the soldiers marched to "The One True Monotheistic Song". Constantine was a copy cat.

Sheshbazzar

How do we know what 'Eusebius' actually wrote in the 4th century? All of the works of other Christian authors were edited and tampered with, or were actually written by 5th and 6th century church hacks using pseudonyms.

How much easier was it to simply claim that an author had produced this or that, or half-a-dozen additional writings that were 'lost', rather than need to take all that time and effort to forge these texts? When it is so much easier just to forge a needed sentence or a paragraph and claim that it was quoted from some now lost work? Or not even bother with making the claim.
No one would ever have any way of checking up on any such claims. And 'historians' almost invariably swallow all of these 'lost works' claims without question.' or use 'lost works' as a term to describe 'texts' that may well never have even actually existed in the first place, simply because some latter Christian hack allegedly 'quoted' from it.

Questions are now being raised about how much of what was 'believed' or 'instituted' by Constantine was actually believed or instituted by Constantine.
No doubt at all that the latter Christian writers also effectively stuffed their evolved theological ideas and words into both Eusebius's and Constantine's mouths.
Our accounts of them and their alleged writings and works all come to us via way of latter Christian pens.
As has been borne out thousands of times, if it came down to us from a Christian source, whatever it is, it has most likely to have been exaggerated, corrupted, or outright fabricated.

Duvduv

I think Sheshbazzar summarized the problem very well in his last posting here.

Some demographic information suggests that the "Christian" population was increasingly dramatically during the 4th century, allegedly from 6 million to 33 million in fifty years.

Even if this is exaggerated by a great deal, which it probably is, a growing population only saw attendance of "bishops" at councils hover between 100-300, which is incredible given the supposed increases in population. And of course the traditional accounts give the (mis)impression of a uniform hierarchy of authority when certainly this could not have existed between "Athanasiusians" and Arians, who considered each other heretics.

However, most of the councils explicitly preferred and appealed to the Logos idea of GJohn and the unity of the Father and the Son starting from the 340s where it is referred to as "the gospel." Of course this is totally unlike the first Nicene Creed of mysterious origins that appeals to NO NT texts or doctrines except for being made flesh and suffering and rose on the third day.

Sheshbazzar

I am skeptical that Constantine actually ever called any 'Nicene Council', much less gave the Christian religion all of the 'authority' and 'power' which it latter claimed by forging alleged '3rd century' and earlier writings, and 'Imperial Decrees'.
This whole account of what Constantine allegedly 'said' and 'did' comes down to us from the writings of the Church, and a less trustworthy source could not be found.
As has been borne out thousands of times, if it came down to us from a Christian source, whatever it is, it has most likely to have been exaggerated, corrupted, or outright fabricated.

Christianity wants us to believe its utterly bogus and confused stories about its origins and history.
I doubt and question the legitimacy of the whole damned mess.

If we were able to ask Constantine about his support of the Christian religion, his reply would likely be; Huh?

Duvduv

How could he be described as even empowering "Christianity" (even under the banner of his Chi-Rho) if there were various sects?! What would he be "legalizing"? Arianism or Athanasiusism? Trinitarian or non-trinitarian?

Who were "the bishops" anyway, as if they were part of some kind of unified and uniform organization?! There is alot here that doesn't make sense. And why would the Creed say nothing about the virgin birth and crucifixion if the Creed were "Christian"?

And why did the Antioch Creeds sound more "Christian" 30 years after the Nicene Creed?

aa5874

What???

How easy was it to claim an anonymous letter was written in the 1st century??

mountainman

We dont really. It could be similar to a Quranic compilation over a century after the supposed action (of Eusebius). What we have before us, supposedly written by Eusebius, may be classified in two categories: a) contemporary events (e.g. "Vita Constantini", "Against Hierocles ...") and b) historical matters prior to the 4th century. Both these categories could have been forged or corrupted by the later rulers and their minions.



Except for independent archaeological and/or manuscript discoveries like gJudas and the NHC.



The most Holy "Transcendental 1st century Originals".

We have 4th century Bibles.

We have the rise of palaeographical arguments.

We have the rise of C14.





Charles Freeman's book "AD 381" talks about Theodosius.

Applying the same theme to Constantine requires some adjustment.


The evidence from that epoch shows confusion of belief, imperial prohibitions in many areas, and a massive controversial unbelief, punishable via inquisition with death.


Something went down.

We dont know what it was, but it was BIG.

Sheshbazzar

aa5874 got rid of Jeebus, got rid of the Apostles, got rid of Paul and the Pauline Epistles, got rid of Clement and most of the early church's writers.
So what the hell, might just as well get it over with and get rid of 'ol Eusebius (who wrote about Clement) and Constantine too,
ALL just a bunch of latter church made up self-serving, self-aggrandizing lying stories.

The Christian church writers just invented the entire NT, ALL of Christian history, and all of its characters sometime after the 5th century.

No. seriously. I do not believe that Constantine ever said or wrote all of that fawning Christian crap attributed to him by church writers, or ever actually issued all of these 'Edicts' that the latter Holy Roman Imperial Church foisted off on us.
I believe the evidence is conclusive. Early Christian 'history' is composed of lies and forgeries produced by religious liars. Disagree aa?

Adam

Shesh,
Pull yourself together.
Or it'll look like all your losses to me have unhinged you into outdoing aa and mountainman.

Sheshbazzar

From a present manufacturer of yet another plop! 'layer' of christian invented horse-shit to top off all of the former 'layers' of christian manufactured horse-shit.

I live in Kentucky, the 'Horse Capital of The World'. I have shoveled a lot of old horse shit, and when I finish there is never anything but bare ground left.








.