mountainman

The Eusebian fiction postulate explores the possibility that
the subject matter of all writings and manuscripts which
were delivered for publication in the time of Constantine,
associated with the name of Eusebius of Caesarea, are
by any other name fiction, fictitious, mythical, or some
other related and appropriate term.

According the use of the writings by Constantine, in which
they purported to deal with historical truth, the charge
of fraudulent misrepresentation is appropriate, because he,
knowing he had only just created this "fabrication", delivered
it to his captive subjects of the rich Eastern Roman Empire
at the council of Nicaea, with only one man standing to oppose
such a traversty of justice: Arius.

Marcion did not exist exept in the mind of Eusebius and his
sponsor Constantine, who arguably took part in the creation
of the fiction, to be published in his empire, personally
recommended by the supreme imperial mafia thug dictator.

Marcion and the Marcionites are "literary profiles" invented
for the purpose of establishing a pseudo-history for the new
and strange Roman religion that Constantine was clearly
converting everyone towards. Fictitious squabbles between
more pure and less heretical was the literary mechanism by
which it was advanced by the authors that this squabbling
was being done in earlier centuries, other than the fourth.

The authors who had imperial access to all libraries over
the empire, selectively created new authors such as
Tertullian and Marcion, and Hegessipus, and a host of
others, which I have earlier listed.

The "TF" did not exist until the fourth century, neither any
perversions of the patristic literature, neither any persecutions,
neither the writings of any apologists. There were no matyrydoms
over the cause of christianity in the first three centuries, for
christianity was not invented until the fourth.

When christianity was created in the fourth century as a means by
which Constantine robbed the existent ancient religion of the Roman
empire, the Hellenic versions of neopythagoreanism and
neoplatonism, such as that embraced by Porphyry.

Any questions so far upon this "postulate"?

aa5874

This a passage from 'Against Heresies' by Irenaeus ( c. 130-202 CE) Are you claiming that there were no gospels or no text whatsoever about the Christ at all in the second century?

mountainman

That is correct, neither in the third century. Irenaeus is simply another
Eusebian profile, created in the fourth century. The new christian
historiography, invented by Eusebius, simply added a list of bishops
to the important sees, and the list of "pagan" kings, rulers and the
lineage of respected philosophers. These bishops were fabrications.
There are literary fiction, according to the postulate being tested.

The Eusebian fiction postulate explores the possibility that the
"tribe of christians" was invented in the fourth century, in a
twofold sense:

1) By means of the fictitious literature known as "the gospels" and all
its mass of associated writings, during the period 312-324 CE, and then

2) Physically, in the year 325 CE at the Council of Nicaea, where
the leading patricians of the rich and ancient Eastern Roman Empire,
were sent a letter by Constantine, requesting their appearance, to
meet the western bishops (bred by Constantine since 312), and to
use Constantine's own words: "To witness the fear of god". The
attendees at Nicaea were offered -- and accepted -- the role of
bishops in the eastern empire, directly responsible to Constantine,
who considered himself as "bishop of bishops". Thus, we have
bishops being created by Constantine in the west from 312 and
in the east from 325, but no earlier.


The Eusebian fiction postulate labels Constantine essentially as a
malevolent dictator, who immediately after Nicaea, wrote an edict
for the burning of the writings of Porphyry, the burning of the
writings of the "Porphyrian" Arius, and the death by beheading
of anyone found secreting these writings.

The new and strange writings of the Roman religious order called
christianity were promulgated by this same person, who within 5
years of issuing the above three edicts for death and destruction,
published the very first "christian bible". This is not a good thing.
Surely someone in this forum can see the writing on the wall.

neilgodfrey

This suffers from the weaknesses of most conspiracy theories in that it raises far more implausibilities and extreme improbabilities when one tries to picture in in detail how it could possibly be accomplished. Like the conspiracy theores about 9/11 and the moon landing really being an arizona movie and god creating the world in just 6 days and all humans today springing from Adam and Eve.

From whence did the christian controversies of constantine's day originate and how could they have failed to produce any documents in their earlier periods that were not preserved to any extent? How could even the "most malevolent of dictators" have possibly had sufficient support to impose carte blanche an alien religion on so vast a scale -- with what historical precedents can you compare such a thing? How could having "control" over all libraries (in what sense exactly and how? -- libraries were never just one-man businesses) would mean little more than having documents gathering dust and ignored unless there was substantially more behind them than that. How could one explain the survival of Constantine's religion beyond his death if it lacked roots prior to his emergence?

I'm not saying there are never any such things as conspiracies. History has recorded many conspiracies. But history itself and human societies are simply too complex to allow for conspiracy theories that defy all that we understand about the limits and natural workings of human societies and information dissemination and political power.

Neil Godfrey
http://vridar.wordpress.com

mountainman

The words of Arius ..... "there was a time when he was not",
"he was made out of nothing existing" we cite as an historical
comment. That BEFORE CONSTANTINE he was not. It is a fiction.

The controversy which was named after the words of Arius, was
over the implementation of christianity by Constantine. The party
which was victorious (at Nicaea) reported the controversy as
relating to "theology", and then proceeded to destroy the Hellenic
"pagan" culture, by robbing its gold, temples, treasures and land,
and then in the burning of the writings of the neopythagoreans.

I have before posted the text of a letter written by Constantine
immediately aftern Nicaea, in which the writings of Porphyry are
edicted for destruction by fire, the writings of Arius, called a
"Porphyrian" edicted for destruction by fire, and that anyone
caught sectreting these writings would be beheaded,

Writings were destroyed. Ammianus MArcillenus Books 1-13 did
not survive to tell us what Constantine did. The only report
comes from after 360 CE, when Aurelius Victor tells us of the
life of Constantine in this fashion:

"[Constantine] was a mocker rather than a flatterer.
From this he was called after Trachala in the folktale,
for ten years a most excellent man, [ Ed: the decade 306-315]

for the following second ten a brigand, [ Ed: the decade 316-325]
for the last, on account of his unrestrained prodigality,
a ward irresponsible for his own actions." [ Ed: the period 326-337]

Absolute power (324-337 CE)

One hundred years earlier, Ardashir created the theocracy he called
Iran using (an existent) monotheistic religion (Zoroastrianism) and
destroyed all the writings and knowledge of the Parthian civilisation,
just as the Constantine regime was to destroy the Hellenic civilisation.

His deathbed advice to his son Shapur I was this:

“Consider the Fire Altar and the Throne
as inseparable as to sustain each other.”.

The ability for example to "preserve" the "TF" in extant copies
of Josephus c.324 CE.

The arrangement which Constantine effected at Nicaea was a network
of absolute power -- a web that led back to the spider at the center,
the person who considered himself to be "bishop of bishops". It is
claimed that none of the eastern attendees walked into the council
as bishops.

Instead they walked in as attendees to witness "the fear of God",
in accordance to the text of Constantine's letters.

During the council they has two choices:

A) Vote with Arius
B) Vote with Constantine.

By selecting option (B) they lived and walked away as "bishops" of
the new Constantinian regime, and became very important people
overnight in their respective dioceses.

At Constantine's death in 337 CE, this network which had been operating
for the last 12 years, based in "The City of Constantine" perpetuated
itself through the reign of Constanius, weathered Julian, and then
ultimately became supreme under Theodosius.

Christianity emerged victorious under the rule of Constantine in the
fourth century, but according to the literature generated under this
supreme imperial mafia thug dictator (ie: The Constantine Bibles, and
Eusbius' Ecclesiatical History") the religion already had a "history".

Humanity ever since has been engaged on the quest for the search
for the "historical jesus", on the basis that the history has integrity.
However, the only singular result of a thousand years of scholarship
is that the history has some "integrity problems", to be polite.

Someone needs to ask the question:
"Did Constantine Invent Christianity"

And the question needs to be exhaustively answered.
So far, we do not have any hard physical archeological
citations for the existence of christianity prior to Constantine.

aa5874

Moutainman, I think Arius is refering to the 'Eusebian doctrine' being made out of nothing rather than Christianity itself, at that time.

In any event, Irenaeus, in 'Against Heresies', made mention of several doctrines that were based on the 'Christ or Christianity'. The list of 'Non-Eusebian doctrines' according to Irenaeus are the doctrine of Valentinus, Ptolemy, Colabasus, Marcus, Marcosians, Simon Magus, Menander, Saturninus, Balisades, Caprocates, Centhius, the Ebionites, the Nicolaitanes, Cerdo, Marcion, Tatian, the Encratites, the Borborians, the Ophites, Sethians and the Cainites.

It is very difficult for me to visualise that all these so-called Christian heresies were not extant at some time, even a partial list.

Are there no historians or writers that can corroborate that one of those philosophies, doctrines or persons were indeed extant in the 2nd century.

mountainman

No. Eusebius alone, an intrepid explorer, claims the sole rights by
conquest, of the history of his "tribe of christians" in the first three
centuries. Noone after Eusebius (324 CE) goes back over the same
ground, without acknowledgment of the trail-blaizer.

Our position, in examining the Eusebian Fiction postulate as an alternative
historical explanation for the events which radiate away from the Council
of Nicaea, is to state that all such references are non-christian, and that
what is now known as "practicing christianity" only commenced with effect
from the fourth century, and Constantine.

Other "tribes of heretical christians" were listed in addition during the
third century, and included Manichaeans, after the Sassanian sage Mani,
whom Eusebius --- in his literary tradition --- makes christian.

There were of course, a great diversity of neopythagorean and neo-
platonic sects and philosophies, but zero evidence for anything at all
"christian". The "christian history" written by Eusebius, with its references
to all these "heretical christian tribes" needs to be examined as a fiction,
along with the other fabrications which were delivered to the empire as a
package by Constantine circa 330 (ie: the "Constantine Bible").

There is no doubt that the fiction engineered by Eusebius (and Constantine)
is exceedingly complex and convoluted. Then again, we also have the
literature known as Historia Augusta being written at the same epoch,
by as yet an unknown collective of at least four "historians". For some
reason, a new political history was written about the same epoch as a
new ecclesiatical history.

More importantly, we have in the same epoch, what remains of Julian's
"conviction that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men
composed by wickedness" [362 CE].

The literary fabrication contains all these heretical christian splinter
groups, but between them all, including the proverbial "one true tribe
of christians" there is absolutely no physical evidence until the
basilicas start going up, in some cases over the top of ancient hellenic
shrines, after their plunder.

The Eusebian fiction postulate sees christianity being invented in the
fourth century, being implemented in the east of the Roman empire
with effect from the Council of Nicaea, and then going on the offensive
against the existent pagan traditions, as persecutors, as outlined in
Vlasis Rassias' Demolish Them!.

mountainman

Initially, as is the case with a new paradigm of thought, there
appears to be literally hosts of possible refutations by which the
postulate of Eusebian pseudo-history (and any theory constructed
thereon) might be very easily falsified and refuted.

However bear with the exercise of logical thinking. Go through the
exercise objectively. How many implausibilities and extreme improbabilities
exist in the mainstream "christian ecclesiastical history" account of the
history of antiquity for the period from -4 BCE until 325 CE, Nicaea?
The number is not known!

The key to the exercise is the Nicaea and the Arian controversy.
We all should be very much aware that the new and strange Roman
religion was implemented at Nicaea under very suspicious circumstances
and events focussed on the mental state of Constantine.

We need also to be very much aware of what history tells us was the
actions of the new and strange Roman religion after Nicaea, and in this
we cannot overlook the persecution and brutality cited by [url="http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_060.htm"]Vlasis
Rassias[/quote]. This persecution must be explained by mainstream,
who until now have ignored the symptoms of a ruthless and supreme
imperial mafia thug dictator wielding ABSOLUTE POWER.

So the nexus point and question may be articulated thus.

Did Constantine invent the new Roman religion, or did he
embrace an existing 300 year old religious cult, amidst the
many and varied diversity of religious cults we know to have
existed at the beginning of the fourth century?

And if the latter, how opportune was it that he met Eusebius
who flexed his monumental literary muscles against Apollonius
around the same time that Constantine flexed his military muscles,
took Rome, and sent Maxentius' head on a pike through the streets
of Rome and "then to Africa as a stern warning".


However, it occurs to me that I'd really like to be sure that
the first option (ie: whole cloth) did not actually take place.

The only way that I can be sure that it didnt happen is to
raise the postulate that in fact, it did happen, and see what
the logical consequences of the exercise reveal, what types
of exceptional archeological and scientific carbon dating citations
need to be reviewed, etc, etc, which is what I have done.

I have always maintained a position of falsifiability, and will be
happy to have the postulate refuted, but with the proper evidence,
if it exists, as any postulate concerning HISTORY. I will feel alot
better if it is refuted, and get some rest, and go surfing again.

However, I am beginning to suspect that the postulate, as crazy
at it might first appear, because it has not been delivered any fatal
death blow (in terms of historical consistency) could be a true
(postulate level) account of history, and that the postulate will enable
the picture of history for the first 500 years (0 to 500) to be ascertained
with an increased sense of historical integrity.

aa5874

I regard the Eusebian controversy similar to, but not of the same magnitude as the religion of Mormonism. It can stated that there was a time that Mormonism ,or should I say Joseph Smith, was not.
It can be shown that Mormonism is based on fiction, however, it is not very easy to persuade anyone that all doctrines contrary to Mormonism were fabricated by Joseph Smith, even though Mormonism was fabricated wholly by him.

Just based on observation alone, we see multiple doctrines surfacing all based on this Christ, even today, claiming to be the only true doctrine, some have disappeared, some are still with us, but the fabricators of these new religion would have an unimaginable task if they attempt to re-write history when there are others who have already documented texts to contradict them.

Based on your research, when was the first mention of Christians by a secular historian or writer?

Clivedurdle

Does not the phrase "a time when he was not" go to the heart of the catholic arian contoversy about was Christ eternal or begotten?