avi

Yes, very good question, though, slightly off topic, but, not worth splitting, please.
Why, if Lord Constantine engineered all this NT business, was it done so sloppily?
In other words, why would there be so many contradictions, so many questions unanswered. To me, the ONLY reasonable solution to that question, is to consider that Constantine DID NOT create the NT, but rather endeavored to unify the hundreds of sects, by force if necessary, and to implore the various church members to clean up their stories....

Perhaps I envision a Roman Emperor who is much less organized than he really was. Somehow, to me, the task of leading an entire army over a whole continent, for a decade, seems extremely difficult, in comparison to organizing a few hundred scribes to sit in a room, calmly, no arrows flying about, just some quills, no blood shed, just some ink flowing, no horns blasting instructions, just some monotone bishop reading sentence after sentence, day and night for a couple of months. Had Constantine actually organized the NT, would it be so completely jumbled and chaotic as it is today?

mountainman

Dear figuer,

I am not altogether sure that you understand the thesis asserts that the fact that is was common knowledge during the fourth century that the new testament was a fictional contrivance of the emperor Constantine, but that this common knowledge was censored by Cyril of Alexandria at the same time as the library of Alexandria went up, and when he refuted 'b]those LIES of Emperor Julian and when Julian's treatise "Against the Galilaeans" was destroyed.

But did the christian regimes after the fifth century also attempt to preserve the knowledge of the Muhammadans, or the Indians, or the Buddhists, or the Jewish people, or indeed the Manichaeans? I dont think so. There was little mutual preservation. Each preserved their own.

Of course, we all know that the default historical christian position was to accuse the Jewish people that they had suppressed all record of the existence of this wonderful and fabulous Roman god Constantine called Clark Jesus Kent, whom he found when the Constantine Meteorite impacted in Italy around the year 312 CE. Since that time, the Jewish traditions have necessarily been on the defensive: against the demands of righteous christians who solemnly believed (following Eusebius) that Jesus existed.

I dont think Jesus existed, and thus IMO the Jewish people have been suffering under the clearly anti-semitic attitude invested in the frabrication of the Galilaeans by its anti-semitic creators, Constantine and Eusebius. This anti-semitism attitude was a characteristic of christianity since it was invented by these two, supported by a cast of thousands, and the Roman armies, c.312-324 CE. And it is only now just beginning to be recognised for the shimmera that it is.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Huon,

Our Eusebius was under sponsored instruction from Constantine, who besides considering himself an able fighter, a skillful soldier, a great commander and a mighty ruler, also dabbled in the literature. He used his military acumen to invest in the fabrication of an army of false credentials, in a most lavish and unconcerned manner, seeing he had great wealth, and a big army (from 305 CE). Constantine instructed Eusebius to invent legions of fictitious authors, the shear numbers of which would daunt academic assessment. But it was bogus and it involved the forgery of extant authors, such as Josephus, and Origen, and Porphyry (ie: Eusebius forged the anti-christian Porphyry literature).

Additionally, we must understand that the end-game to christian origins took another one hundred years to enact, until the time that the christuian regime had the authority to over-ride the common and true historical conception that the New Testament of Constantine had no authenticity.

Heretics were introduced by Eusebius to disguise the real-time implications of the heretical Arius of Alexandria, whom was the focus of the resistance against Consantine's new Roman religion being foisted over the top of the ancient Hellenic gnostic ascetic-priest-authority type of civilisation. Consequently, heretics had to be also invented by the Eusebian continuators - the supreme and tax-exempt christian militant bishops of the later fourth and fifth centuries. Have a look hard look at this document called the Decretum Gelasianum which although is dated to the year c.491 CE, may well have descended from the time of Damasius (c.365 CE) or earlier. We can be sure that Eusebius and Constantine had an earlier list of forbidden books - their hit list.

Who wrote these books? Clever satirists!

CONSTANTINE: My God, My God, why has this Satirist forsaken me? !!

These satirists had big rewards on their heads.
You know the old wild west:

WANTED: DEAD or ALIVE
REWARD OFFERED for information
of that seditious satirist person
whoever wrote "The Acts of Homer"
and "The Acts of Pontius Pilate".

Of course the greatest heresy was to deny the historical existence of the new Roman god Clark Jesus Kent, as a fictional being presented by the wretched author Hans Eusebius Anderson in his monumental fourth century Constantinian sponsored work of literature known to the greek academics of the fourth century, not as the new testament, but as the fabrication of the Galilaeans. The fourth century was the age of heresies. Notably, the fabrication of the galilaeans is still re-running at a basilica near you in the 21st century.

They were not chrestos enough. (Not good enough!)

Besides, the old religions had all the gold, the treasures, the land, the temples, the sactuaries, the kudos. Constantine was a MOCKER. He mocked the old religions. He mocked their sentiments. And he utterly destroyed them. The new testament is not important. It was tendered as a pirate takes the gold with one hand and on the other hand in return leaves a valueless trinket. Anyone thinking that the NT has an intrinsic authority is making a big mistake. Constantine was a mocker of the traditions. One need only read the NT apochrypha to understand the satire of the people to whom the NT was delivered.

The Boss did not have to lean on anything existing! He was above the world in a very big way, as the Bishop of Bishops, the Pontifex Maximus and the Thirteenth Apostle. Nobody but Arius dared to get in his way. And his ecclesiastical historians, and their continuators over subsequent generations and centuries, took care of Arius of Alexandria, and presented him not as an Hellenic priest, and ascetic gnostic, logician, pythagoraean and academic who said the new testament is Bullneck's bullshit, but as a "christian heretic".

Constantine THOUGHT OF HIMSELF above the world in a very big way.
It is not impossible that he had his son Crispus executed for laughing at the
fabrication of the Galilaeans in order to set an example to the empire
of the fate of any who might also think of laughing at his fabrication.




Best wishes

Pete

J-D

That says nothing about where, how, or why. About when, it says only 'long before' and 'over the course of several centuries'. That doesn't tell me when you think this process began--how many centuries is 'several'? five? ten? twenty? those are utterly different historical contexts.

mountainman

Dear Avi,

We are looking at it restrospectively from which perspective it appears sloppy. We must not forget that the NT business was not actually cleared of heretics and the Arian controversy until the end-game of the late fourth and early fifth centuries. The epoch of the tax exempt christain Bishop Cyril of Alexandria, the murderer of the female mathematician and philosopher Hypatia, and the suspected (by Carl Sagan) arsonist of the library of Alexandria, who is given the very appropriate title by his continuators as 'The Seal of the Fathers.

Why is this appropriate? Well before the time of Cyril, through the long and hard and brutal Arian controversy since the beginning of christianity, whenever a fourth century "church council" refered to the fathers of the christian church they had always referred explicitly to the 318 attendees whom Constantine had coerced to the military supremacy council of Nicaea, and who signed on the dotted line, under military duress, an oath to the Boss.

Cyril changed the meaning of the church fathers from this, to the characters who appear in the Eusebian Historia Ecclesiastica (ie: the fiction of christian history before the arrival --- just in time mind you --- of the Boss.

Well a few changes were actually made to improve the Boss's original selection, assisted by Eusebius, for the New Testament canon which he lavishly published at least 50 copies of c.331 CE from Constantinople. In the Constantine Bible, the Shepherd of Hermas was included. Constantine must have thought that the concept of the Shepherd was necessary. His continuators (337 to Cyril perhaps 437 CE) thought different.


Best wishes,



Pete

J-D

If it were true that Constantine wanted to mock the old religions and to discard their traditions in creating his new one (as Pete suggests); and if it were also true that Constantine was an anti-Semite, hostile to the Jews (as Pete also suggests); then Constantine would have wanted to discard Jewish tradition in his fabrication of Christianity. But in fact Christianity incorporated elements of Jewish tradition. So Pete's suggestions don't hang together.

J-D

You have no evidence for this. I suspect it's pure fantasy.

Sheshbazzar

When;
Logic would tell you that if I say that "the Gentiles employed (or rather abused) -The LXX- "in the fabrication of their own distinctive theology and religion." that the availability of The LXX, (dated to early to mid-third century B.C.) to work with would be necessary, and the approximate beginning point of the process, which spanned approximately 6 centuries, from the 3rd century BC through the 3rd century AD.

How;
This is discussed daily in these forums, in summary, tales from The Jewish Scriptures were revised and up-dated to form the underlying themes of The so-called "New Testement" texts. Sayings from The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings (The TaNaKa) were misappropriated, lifted out of their context, and turned into claimed "fulfilled" -"prophecies". What a crock!

Where;
In various gentile population locations. If done in Judea, it would have had to have been done in utter secrecy, as the doing of such a thing was in violation of The Law of Moses, and under that Law, if publicly known of, would have swiftly brought a justified death penalty.

Why;
It appears that the religion of the Jews was to rigorous for gentile tastes, in requiring a commitment to obeying The Law, and respect for that authority given by Scripture to the Jewish Priesthood.
The new gentile fabricated religion could now conveniently make an end-run around everything deemed to be "Jewish", and could now practice their sins without restraint, (say a little prayer, invoke the name "Jesus", and all is "forgiven")
No wonder then, that murder abounded among the "christians"!
Such a simple and convenient "solution" to their every controversy! and every opponent!
And no price to pay! 'cause Jesus has already paid the penalty! and "saved" us from our transgressions!
What a cesspool!

mountainman

Dear J-D,

Here is the evidence from the Boss himself:


Best wishes,



Pete


PS: Who is Lithargoel in TAOPATTA?

J-D

If people found the Jewish religion too rigorous for them, the obvious solution would be not to adopt the Jewish religion. That doesn't give people a motive to invent a new religion.