avi

My view is a little different.
I see Constantine, a military guy, instructing big E on how military folks get things accomplished, with some rather successful accomplishments, subsequently, by big E, in terms of fulfilling Constantine's mandate. No, I don't know at all, which texts, documents, or maps big E modified, created, interpolated, or trumped up.

The analogy is not with Donald Trump, but with Warren Buffett, who, as I suppose you know, was the big financial and doctrinal source behind Obama's initial victories in the primaries. Having the world's wealthiest person publically in your camp, does not guarantee success, but it improves the odds. Isn't it remarkable, that, two years later, Warren Buffett gained enormous additional, new wealth, as a result of the Obama political machinery, political manouevres which transferred money into Buffett's coffers today, and out of the pockets of our grandchildren decades from now....

Obama could have followed the more traditional posture of a representative claiming allegiance to the needs of the homeless, the worker/farmer, those who comprise the social strata with the least economic power, but, instead, he chose to ally, pragmatically, with the most powerful and mighty, individuals who could deliver the votes needed to accomplish the goal of gaining office.

Do you suppose Constantine was less skillful? I don't. I think he was a ruthless, and brilliant megalomaniacal mass murderer, capable of anything, if it suited his end result. For him, copying a few thousand manuscripts, with essential changes, would have been a trivial pursuit. Even the more difficult task of rounding up and burning all the antecedent texts, would have been childs' play, for him. How does a man march thousands of troops across deserts, mountains and oceans, for DECADES, engaged in deadly hand to hand combat with opponents, and then, upon achieving success, find it difficult to order wholesale changes to silly little pieces of parchment?

a. what is your source for Diocletian's persecutions???? EVERY Roman emperor, every Jewish King, every Egyptian pharoh, every Persian ruler, every leading man, of that era, committed atrocities, including wholesale persecutions of opponents, real or imagined. Constantine even murdered his own son, on a rumor of infidelity...Diocletian's persecutions are perhaps better documented that some others, but how do we know that x number of Christians died, under his hand? What would have been his motive?

b. Nicene Creed: In my view, the challenge posed by Arius was genuine. His accurate observation that JC, as the son of yahweh, must have arisen some time AFTER the arrival on the scene of yahweh himself. He could not have existed at the same time, from the beginning, there must have been an instant of time, no matter how small, when JC did not yet exist. Nicea was Constantine's way, in my view, of ensuring 100% conformity to the party line.

c. I don't know the origin of Paul's epistles, or the four gospels. They can just as easily be post Nicean' inventions, as 2nd century creations. Arguing against this are a handful of papyrus scraps, dated by handwriting analysis to the third century.....Handwriting style is remarkably easy to forge....

To me, it is not essential that Constantine and Eusebius created the religion de novo. It is more likely, much more likely, in my view, that they took over one of the many, many christian sects, modernized it, equipped it, and instructed the messengers, giving them ample funds from the state coffers, to expand instruction of the new religion among the populace. I simply claim that Pete's hypothesis is not outlandish, I don't claim that it is correct. I don't know what happened, when, where, or to whom.

peace,

avi

avi

haha.

made me laugh. thanks, Toto.
umm. Did you laugh when you read about the enormous profits reaped by Warren Buffett, profits derived from the government following policies of his choosing, profits derived from mythical sources of revenue?

I would not deign to ascribe motives to Pete or anyone else, but, I think you err, here, Toto, for making a relatively improper statement--
a. We don't know Pete's motives for anything;
b. As I have read his posts, (and I have found them almost universally, illuminating!) he is not Mani was not a Christian. I don't think Pete, or anyone else knows whether or not Mani accepted some or all of the fundamental aspects of the particular sect in which he had been raised--a severe sect of followers of John the Baptist, but what has become clear, at least to me, as a result of Pete's intelligent, interesting and provocative thread on Mani, is that Mani was first and foremost a Babylonian influenced primarily by Zoroastrianism and Buddhism, neither of which is accepted as possessing a whit of validity in the eyes of any orthodox christian believer.

avi

stephan huller

avi

When you say things like 'Mani wasn't a Christian' you play into the hands of the orthodox who would also deny that he was a faithful believer. But when you start arguing that all the early testimonies are forgeries and manipulations on the part of Eusebius then they would smile and walk away knowing how crazy you really are.

Getting back to the OP, it still makes no sense why Maximinus would create the Acts of Pilate to combat the Manichaean heresy. The Manichaeans emphasized Jesus's divinity. While they accepted the idea that Pilate would have known about the existence of Jesus they inherited these sources from the Marcionites and other Christians. The Manichaeans would not have been the source about the ministry of Jesus under Pilate nor the stories about his being born a mamzer etc that clearly were intertwined with the whole Acts of Pilate tradition. In short, developing the Acts of Pilate against the Manichaeans would be a completely ineffective tactic on Maximinus's part. It must have been used to combat Christians who believed that Jesus was a historical individual not a divine hypostasis

jakejonesiv

No Sir,

I am not a joker. It is easily within my abilities to read the material in a single evening as you requested and I did so. I also read all of the extant works of Josephus last night, and now I am ready to learn from you! I am seeking from you the knowledge of the CODES discovered by you by which we all will be able to discern where Eusebius and his acommplices contaminated the writings attributed to others.

Please do so without further delay.

Respectfully yours,
Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Dear AA,

Avi understands my request well enough that it is not an argument from silence. I have read all the requested works last night, and I looked up the word "CODE" in the dictionary.

You are the first person in the entire history of the human race that has been able to see so clearly the Codes by which we may discern precisely where Eusebius and his associates contaminated the works attributed to others. That makes you a great GENIUS. :notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:

We bow to your greater intellect on this matter, and require instruction from you on exactly what are the codes. When Einstein discovered the Theory of Relativity, did he tell his contemporaries, Hey I made a great discovery, but I am not going to tell you, you will have to figure it out for yourselves? Indeed he did not! He explained his theory with great precision and numerous examples, and made predicitons, and thus was proven right and correct.

We are going to hold you to the same standard for your self-proclaimed discovery, oh Master of the E. CODES!

Best regards,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

You are a GENIUS.

But, it took me YEARS to READ "Church History" and I still have some more reading to do.

Well, NOWADAYS even people who cook food don't even say what they put in their pot except via some PATENT.

But, it took me YEARS to read "Church History" and you did it LAST NIGHT. You are a GENIUS, oh MASTER READER.

I think you read TOO FAST. That is why you can't see THE CODES, OH MASTER GENIUS READER.

See "Church History" 2.10.

jakejonesiv

Dear AA,

Thank you for your compliments on my reading abilities. That means much to me. But it hardly compares to your discovery of the E. CODES. People had been reading "Church History" for over 1500 years before you discovered the CODES by which we may discern precisely where Eusebius and his associates contaminated the works attributed to others. I have now read Church History 2.10 as requested and I still don't see the E. Codes. I don't have 1500 more years to rediscover what you have found.

I require a careful and precise explanation of the E. Codes from you. With examples! Please do so without further delay! I plan to write a book on the E-CODES (c) and I will mention you in the footnotes. In fact I am going to copyright the phrase E-CODES.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

Now read "Chuch History" 2.11-17.

stephan huller

Wow now I've seen everything here. What's next - AA reveals that he's really a famous Biblical scholar who's been blogging here anonymously all this time?

Iskander

You are doing a runner jus as you did with gurugeorge in”How to judge an argument from silence"