Doug Shaver

For all X, if X is a statement about history and X is not disputed among professional historians, then X is not interesting.

Roger Pearse

Always verify our theories with concrete examples.

E.g. X = collapse of bank in which all my money was.

Von Bek

Mountainman, why do you think that Constantine waited until his death bed to be baptized? That seems like a strange action if in fact he was one of the primary inventors of the religion. Why would he have not made a big public show of his baptism ceremony as an example to his empire? I am no Christian so I am not too attached to the idea of a historical Jesus. I also love a good conspiracy theory, so consider me interested but unconvinced.

If you softened your position, and merely claimed that Eusebius fabricated portions of church history to make his own position appear as the true orthodoxy of the original apostles, I would agree readily. If though Christianity was an invention of Constantine and Eusebius how do we even explain the appearance of "heresy" at such an early stage? I have read your arguments that the "heretics" represent the last gasps of pagan resistance to a new imperial religion. Not an unreasonable argument, I grant you. Still, I have to ask, why would they (the "heretics") couch their resistance to "orthodoxy" in the language of an imperial creed that (according to your theory) had just been invented out of whole-cloth within their lifetimes?

As a quick aside, there is a modern Christian sect that is pretty close to Arianism, the Jehova's Witnesses. They consider Jesus to be the first creation of Jehova god (he is the archangel Michael), and that he created the rest of the universe. They do not believe that Jesus is co-eternal with the Father.

Roger Pearse

VB: Mountain man invented his idea himself, out of malice. He didn't actually know anything much about ancient history when he did so, and has since been gleaning whatever he can from queries and comments by people who tell him what nonsense it is.

Just place him on ignore.

mountainman

He was the supreme military commander of the armed forces.
He did exactly what pleased him. While he was was alive he
considered himself as the bishop of bishops and we may rest
assured so did the "christian bishops" whom he personally
appointed. When he planned his death, he wanted to be
buried as the "Thirteenth Apostle". The people were his.


For the umpteenth time this is not a conspiracy theory.
A supreme military commander does not conspire to give
orders to the people around him. Does he?

To answer your question I would direct you to the disclaimer
clause which is invariable appended to the earliest of the Nicaean
"creeds". The disclaimer clause runs like this:

But those who say
that there was a time when he was not,
and before he was born he was not,
and that he was made out of nothing existing
or who say that God’s Son is from another subsistence or substance
or is subject to alteration or change,
the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.

Why does this disclaimer clause exist?
Because of the rsistance and the words of Arius the heretic.
The corollary to christianity being a fourth century invention
is that Arius of Alexandria was the first "christian heretic".

It should be noted that arising from the first "christian council"
were edicts for the death penaly for heretics to the new state
religion. Heretics were concealing and secreting the writings
of Arius of Alexandria --- according to Constantine.

To summarise my argument I consider that Arius of Alexandria
was actually the author of many of the non canonical acts and
gospels between c.325 and 336 CE while Arius lived. Constantine
damned the memory of Arius, and burnt his books wherever they
could be found. In the later fourth century the name of Leucius
Charinus is associated (by the orthodox commentators) with the
earliest of the new testament apocyryphal acts. This may have
been necessary due to the Damnatio memoriae by Constantine of Arius.

mountainman

Did I invent my patents in the field of database technology
out of malice for the IT industry in the US and Australia?
Really .... did my invention arise from malice?

Roger has many times used this term malice against me.
Would anyone else classify me as a malicious person?
I would be interested to hear what people think about this.

Roger of course thinks that he is free to walk about and
slander people who happen to hold different theories in the
field of ancient history than the theory that he personally holds.'

Toto

Why would you even think that you could learn about Arius from what his enemies said about him?

Please try to make a coherent argument. Almost all of the surviving evidence comes from the Christian orthodoxy. You are using Constantine's words to make the case that Arius was in fact a Hellenistic pagan. But from what we now of how Christians operated, the fact that Arius was accused of heresy means that he considered himself a Christian. We have no evidence that he was a pagan other than your wild interpretation of the invective leveled against him by a political enemy. We know that Christians today continually accuse each other of not being true Christians, so why put any real stock in this?

We're still waiting for some validation of Rassias' claims.

Toto

Unless he relied on what his spirit advisors were telling him. I think Kersey Graves had a similar method.

Toto

:hijack:

I've already split off your first attempt to turn this thread into another discussion of your theories. The OP asked about a particular Constantine conspiracy theory, which is not yours.

I do think that "malice" overstates your apparent motives. "Impishness" or "mischief making" is more like it. But it is hard to think that you are actually operating in good faith. You have proposed an outlandish theory, and you have rejected the evidence against it on arbitrary grounds. If you were sincere and actually interested in history, you would do what every other theoretician does, and modify your theory in the face of new evidence - but you have not done this, and keep repeating the state statements.

Don't make me split this again.

fatpie42

Considering the references that Mountain Man was bringing forward, doesn't that suggest that Constantine was not favourable towards Arianism.

Considering the information I provided in the OP, it would actually seem to be partially supported by a claim that Constantine initially supported Arius but then changed his mind.

Is there any evidence that Constantine supported Arius at any stage and do we have any reasons as to why his opinion might have changed (especially to the point of claiming that Arius was a pagan)? Is it actually a reasonable suggestion that that the need to pose Jesus as more important than the existing gods and demi-gods of paganism (such as the emperors themselves) might have acted as a political reason to dismiss Arius?

- Please note that the only claim from the OP I am dealing with in my comments here is its claim that Constantine felt that Jesus needed to be fully God for political reasons. (That doesn't necessarily contradict the view that he fully believed what he was asserting.)