mountainman

This thread highlights the massive problems inherent in the position of the biblical historians as reliant upon the testimony of Eusebius. I have cited the opinion of a foremost ancient historian on the reputation of Eusebius as a chronographer - he does not have any reputation for being a competent chronographer. If one is not a competent chronographer, one is certainly not a competent historian.

The history of the Christian church is exposed as the product of a Constantinian propagandist whose works were published during the rule of Constantine and HAVE NEVER BEEN ADEQUATELY QUESTIONED.


All I am doing is questioning Eusebius in discussion and as a result the INSIDERS claim that this questioning and discussion is not just a conspiracy theory, but a fucking conspiracy theory.

Someone must ask these questions. The Nicaean church was about as corrupt as you can get, and has protected its interests for over 1600 years by fascist inquisitional inhuman actions.

mountainman

Since stephan only likes keeping his threads for his own rambling agenda towards "Dear Marcion" I will respond here.

Peter and Paul are the focal points of Pope Damasius's tourist business in Rome c.370 CE, and Jerome is Damasius's UNDERLING. The Platonist philosopher and academic Porphyry is being cited by Jerome for things he never wrote. After the death of the Emperor Julian the forgery mill is in full swing - the orthodox heresiologists have a "carte blanche".

Toto

This is not exactly true. Eusebius does not have a good reputation as an accurate historian. But it is still a stretch to claim that he invented Christianity out of whole cloth.


All you are doing is an endless repetition of the same tired talking points without making any progress.


Godwin's law!! You lose.

mountainman

If this were not exactly true we would not be having this discussion that you have labelled "Pete's fucking conspiracy theory".


Eusebius is guilty of the fabrication of sources, such as the "Agbar Letter" and the "TF" in order to fabricate his historical narratives. As such Eusebius not only does not have a positive reputation as an historian, he is also to be assessed in the negative sense as a pious forger.



That Christianity (and Islam) are founded on forgery mills is a distinct possibility. People might like to see this as a fucking conspiracy theory, but we are dealing with a barbaric antiquity and the field of ancient history. The evidence itself is so tenuous and ambiguous, and in many cases hypothetical or even fraudulent, that it supports the hypothesis that the Greek NT Bible was cooked up in a 4th century scriptorium, just like the "Historia Augusta" - a mockumentary which was dedicated to, amongst others, Constantine the Great.




I have cited Momigliano on Mussolini and how this "man of providence" arose in Italy. The WIKI page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law does not seem to mention Mussolini.


You are generalising use of Godwin's law to something for which it was never intended. In dealing with ancient historical events it is to be expected that the narrative must deal with military despots and their actions against various parties. Momigliano puts it very well. Nobody here seems to appreciate the merits of Momigliano and Gibbon as insights into the corruption of the "Earthly Church", sometimes refered to as the "universal church".


Questioning the entire Eusebian package is akin to questioning the Quranic package.

Unless of course, critical questioning is a menace to the state.

la70119

Please, please, please!!! We have the DATED fragments of various New testament texts, all paleographically dated to the 2ND AND 3RD CENTURIES CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

But you'll come back with C14 analysis. Yes, the calibrated C14 analysis for gJudas, at 95% probability, dates gJudas to 390 CE give or take 150 years.

C14 gJudas - Calibrated

Yet this confirms the PALEOGRAPHIC dating method used by NatGeo to date the codex.

Paleographic - about 350 to 450 CE, possibly 400 CE (Stephen Emmel) NatGeo gJudas Paleograph

The uncalibrated C14 Analysis? 280 CE give or take 60 years.

C14 gJudas - Uncalibrated.

This is consistent with the Ink Analysis and Multispectral Analysis dates for gJudas.

Ink Analysis - consistent with inks with known ingredients from the 3rd and 4th Centuries CE NatGeo gJudas Ink Analysis

Multispectral Analysis - Ink Samples displayed characteristics similar to those of ancient iron gall or carbon based inks from the 3rd and 4th Centuries CE. Ditto with the corrections. NatGeo gJudas Multispectral

Contextual Analysis - Text comes from the same time period when texts of the Nag Hammadi codices were first written to paper and reflects a second-century thought process that is very difficult to falsify.

NatGeo gJudas Contextual Analysis

Conclusion: I do NOT think the C14 dating of the various manuscripts and fragments of the NT writings DATED to the 2nd or 3rd Centuries CE would reveal a post-Nicene date of manufacture.

mountainman

Thanks for the analyses.

It's called falsifiability and it is a two edged sword. My wager would be on the possibility that the canonical Bilbo Jesus Baggins first appeared inside Constantine's Bible, and the non canonical literature was authored by pagans who read the imperially published codex in a very academic manner.

The answer to the question (about palaeographically dated NT fragments) may be solved by a new technological means to date material without destroying it. I have always called for bringing on these tests. Oxford radiocarbon unit and the Oxford Papyri Dept one would assume to be on good speaking terms. Bring it on !!!!!!!!!!!