Clivedurdle

Or maybe not.

When lions take over a pride, they kill the step children. Humans may do similar things - when Henry VIII took over he rewrote the Arthurian legends to put him in the natural line, Darius did a similar thing, it is common.

Mountainman may be on to something with Constantine - I think at least a huge rewrite occurred - a computer shutdown and restart, but with more pre existing stuff than he thinks.

Next question is what is the nature of this pre existing stuff?

"Oriental cult" describes it well - a syncretic neo pythagorean Greek Jewish sect - remembering that Judaism itself is best understood as a Greek cult with very strong Persian themes - their priesthood resembles Persia, not something home grown or learnt in a non existant captivity in Egypt.

This cult has had Messiah and Christ themes for centuries and a diaspora Greek Jew has a vision and writes about it and 500 of his mates also have the same - allegedly - vision - very low number compared with numbers claiming to have seen Virgin Mary in Yugoslavia.

Then ordinary stuff about these gods being too high falluting for ordinary mortals kicks in and he is humanised.

Other suggestions are that there really was a godman, that he was an itinerant preacher, a Teacher of Righteousness, a rebel leader.

The reality is that it is unclear what we are looking at, but it does not look like an either myth or historical picture.

In terms of probabilities I think it is a heavenly Christ that later had stories added, using common Greek traditions.

Not sure if that is a mythological one unless you call Zeus mythological.

mountainman

WISDOM SAYINGS

The literature milieu in which Constantine lived and breathed and had his being was literally harvested. The greek LXX, the Hellenistic poets and philosophers and sage/authors (such as Apollonius) suffered massive plagerism without any acknowledgements, but with Eusebian calumny.


THE NEW TESTAMENT PLOT

A Jewish unknown Jesus who is to be believed
as being the God of the obervable universe
inside the Hubble Limit (read this as the Roman
Empire of the fourth century) spouts wisdom sayings
and is subjugated and terribly crucified under the Romans.
He rises again after three days and spouts more
wisdom sayings.


THE NT APOCRYPHAL PLOT

We need only cite Photius here.

Photius' BIBLIOTHECA OR MYRIOBIBLON

114. [Lucius Charinus, Circuits of the Apostles: Acts of Peter,
Acts of John, Acts of Andrew, Acts of Thomas, Acts of Paul]


Read a book entitled Circuits [1] of the Apostles, comprising the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, the author being one Lucius Charinus, [2] as the work itself shows.

...[trimmed] ...

In a word, the book contains a vast amount of

childish,
incredible,
ill-devised,
lying,
silly,
self-contradictory,
impious, and
ungodly statements,

so that one would not be far wrong in calling
it the source and mother of all heresy.

Constantine wanted to emulate Ardashir.
Creation of centralised State Monotheistic
Religions in antiquity had its precedent at
the time of Constantine.


Immediately 325 CE the great surviving lineage of the Greek Academies seek to strike back at the "Holy Writ of the New God". Do we really think the greeks took the implementation of this state religion lying down? Where was the Greek Ares of literature?

The Hellenistic Ares was Arius.
Constantine described him as such.
Arius went ballistic.
He authored the NT Apocrypha.
These were to immediately become the Hidden Books
of the New testament phenomenom.
It was death by immediate beheading if you were caught hiding these books.
They were unofficial books about Jesus and the Apostles.

They were also written in better greek since
Arius was far more an academic than Eusebius.
They were far more popular because
they represented The Resistance.



The sophisms of Arius are told to us
by Constantine ....

What did Arius say?


These sophisms represent the 200 year "Arian Controversy"[.
The controversy is inextricably bound up with the Hidden Books.
The herecies were bound up with the literature:
canon vs non-canonical/apocryphal status.


Gnostic.
Docetic.
Heretic.



THREADS TO UNRAVEL

1) CANON: The NT Canon (Eusebius editor, scriptoria, etc) - 325 CE
2) Ecclesiatical historiography (invented by Eusebius) - 325 CE
3) The NT Apocrypha (invented by Arius of Alexandria) - 325-336 CE
4) Ecclesiastical hagiography (invented by Athanasius) - 360 CE onwards.


If we go back to the time when Constantine became supreme
and forcefully implemented a new centralised state religion we
find the epoch in which the NT Canon was first openly talked
about by greek academics of the eastern Roman empire.

We need to separate the four threads of literature above.
We need to understand that the orthodox preserved 1,2 and 4.
We need to understand that the Earth itself preserved 3.



A Christ associated with the authority invested in the ancient temple traditions and practices of ascetisism - Hellenistic, Egyptian, Persian and Indian - and the medical healing traditions associated with the advancement of the equivalent of the public hospital systems of antiquity. See Ascelpius.


Zeus got old.
Apollo kicked in.
But Apollo got old.
His son Asclepius kicked in.
Constantine kicked Asclepius out.
Constantine decreed a new god was in.
Constantine's new god was a crucified god.

But Arius did not like the new testament canon.
He did not like one little bit this plot about God.
He did not want to see God humiliated.
The story adversely effected his sensibilities.
So he took up the pen and corrected things.
He authored better accounts of Jesus.
He authored more entertaining accounts of the apostles.

Constantine said Arius had the audacity which
deserved to be struck down by thunderbolts!!!!

Constantine informs us in his letter c.333 o Arius ...

He told Constantine to go away
He wrote that he did not wish God to appear to be the subject of suffering of outrage
He wrote that (on the above account) he suggested and fabricated wondrous things indeed in respect to faith.
He accepted Jesus as a figment
He called Jesus foreign.

Arius wrote that he did not wish
God to appear to be the subject
of suffering of outrage

Here Constantine explicitly tells us that Arius
did not like stories about God being the subject
of suffering and outrage (ie: the NT Canon)

Here Constantine explicitly tells us that Arius
on this account suggested and fabricated
wondrous things indeed in respect to faith.

Arius wrote Books.

Everyone thinks they dont survive.
That the "Songs of Arius" perished.
But they were made "Hidden".
They were made "Apocrypha".
They were buried.
They were hidden in Coptic.
They were hidden in Syriac.
They are now in front of our eyes.

The gJudas as a pagan parody is the most recently
published note from Deconnick. The Twelve Daimons.
Judas was one of twelve. She does not appear to
mention the text at the beginning when none of them
will actually look at Jesus in the eyes.

The Thesis that the NT Apocrypha are Arian inventions

Before we can answer meaningfully questions about the NT Canon
we need to understand the big picture. The big picture means
that we have to understand the nature of the NT apocrypha.

We need to be able to answer these questions:

What are the NT Apocrypha?
When were they authored.
Who was the author(s)?.
Why did he/they write?
How were they preserved?
Why were they heretical?

I have attempted to sketch an answer
to all these questions above.

Arius, Constantine and Eusebius
are the ace cards in understanding
the poker game known as "christian origins".

BTW if anyone wants to chat about this
lookup "Lithargoel Nag Hammadi" in
the Texas Holdem poker rooms.



BTW: Should the heading be "continuum"
as in space-time continuum?

spamandham

This is possible, but not necessary, and seems more complex than alternative theories that propose the simple evolution of religion. Could Constantine have been so successful if Christianity was not already wide spread?

I think Stark makes a good argument that the cults of Isis and Cybele paved the way for Christianity. We even see holdovers of those two belief systems in modern day Christianity (being bathed in the blood of the lamb, a metaphor in modern Christianity, but an actual ritual in ancient days...for example).

mountainman

Constantine had the one thousand year old authority
of Pontifex Maximus. Depending on his selection of
god and or gods the Pontifex Maximus was always
looked upon as successful, since they controlled
the Roman military machine.



Stark's demographics are conjectural.
There is no archaeology to back up his assertions.
And if he uses archaeology his citations are tenditious.
If you want to cite some "evidence" from Stark
it can be discussed.

The historians generally accept that when Constantine came to power
that the majority (ie: the large percentage) of the empire was "pagan".
That is a large majority (80 or 90 or 95%) of the populace were not christians.

Constantine was successful because he used the army
to destroy the competing religions which were pagan.
He offered bribes to Barbarian tribes to convert to christianity.
He offered tax-exemptions for christian bishops while
at the same time levelling the Poll Tax (chrysargon).

He stationed the army in the cities and major towns
in order to make his extortions in a more expedient manner.
The case might be successfully argued that well before
Mussolini appeared on the scene, Constantine himself
might be appropriately described as a fascist.

aa5874

It is virtually impossible for 500 people to have the same vision of Mary Magdalene and at the same time unless it was a hoax or that they all saw the same thing and then claim it was Mary Magdalene.

Plus, all 500 people must have some prior knowledge of some similar scenario that they are claiming to have visions of.

It must be that all the persons who claimed to have had so-called visions of Mary Magdalene knew of the name Mary Magdalene before-hand ,or saw some depiction, image or statue of the supposed Mary Magdalene, or knew in advance the Mary Magdalene story as found in the NT.

It is actually very clear, we are looking at total fiction with respect to the Church's depiction of their Jesus Christ.


But, it is documented that it was the human Christ that was expected first. Just based on Daniel 9, it is absolutely clear that the human Christ or Messiah was expected vey long before Marcion's phantom or Jesus the god/man.

The story of Jesus and even Revelations are based on so-called prophecies found in Daniel and other books of the OT or LXX. It would appear that Daniel's Christ or Messiah was later "spiritualised".


Any entity presented wholly as a God or God/man is a myth or fictional unless some credible evidence can be found to contradict the mythology or fiction. There is no such credible evidence available to put Jesus outside of myth or fiction.

The Church claimed that it was true and they believe it was true that Jesus was born of a virgin without sexual union and that he truly did resurrect and ascend to heaven, and further the Church claimed it is true that all those who presented Jesus as only a God or only as man were heretics and liars from the Devil.

The Jesus of the Church is myth or fictional, by their own depiction and presentation, and there is no other credible evidence to contradict them, today.

spamandham

That isn't true. Although there were no census records per se, he uses grave markings as a proxy. This seems valid since his argument is rooted in percentages rather than absolute numbers.

I know it's your position that these were not Christian grave markings, however, there is consistency that spans the period prior to Constantine and the period after.

If Constantine imposed a whole cloth new religion, surely we would see evidence of that in grave markings. Do we?

But what is this based on? If it's based on speculation, then who cares?

mountainman

Mainstream Chronology of the Jesus Continuum - Part 1
The New Testament Canon - "The Visible Books" of the Christian New Testament

mountainman

Mainstream Chronology of the Jesus Continuum - Part 2

The New Testament Apocrypha - the "Hidden Books" of the Christian New Testament

mountainman

Does Stark cite the necessary archaeological references
by which we can view the evidence he is presenting
in any independent sense? A famous inscription perhaps?
Stark's demographics were previously cited as:

Stark's %Christian Demographic Profile
Year Number of Xians % of pop

40 - 1,000 - 0.0017
50 - 1,400 - 0.0023
100 - 7,530 - 0.0126
150 - 40,496 - 0.07
200 - 217,795 - 0.36
250 - 1,171,356 - 1.9
300 - 6,299,832 - 10.5 -----<<<====== evidence ??
350 - 33,882,008 - 56.5

He could be mistaking a big jump at 300 CE
with a big jump to be obviously expected at 325 CE.

Yes we immediately see the Cross appear in the later fourth century
following Constantine's mother Hellena's archaeological discoveries
in the "Holy Land".

It's based on the available archaeological evidence.
The estimates by ancient historians are lower than
the estimates by "biblical historians" -- I think you'll
find Stark's demographics to be the upper bound of
the spectrum of conjecture.

Maybe there was an earlier thread where different
statistical population models were compared?

spamandham

Yes, but only via secondary sources as I recall. He's not doing basic research, he's performing meta analysis.

The point is, there is no big jump. This is just ordinary exponential growth at a moderate rate comparable to that of Mormonism.