avi

I am very impressed by all the Australians on this forum.

pete: wonderful rejoinder. Great photo!!!

avi

Doug Shaver

A vacuous observation. "X is X" is a true statement no matter what is substituted for X.

arnoldo

Robert Price has a good review of this book.

Doug Shaver

You're not the only one who says so, but you somehow manage to reach conclusions from the evidence that no one else does.

From this observation, a few possible inferences come to mind. Among them:

1. Of all the people who say "I strive to steer by the evidence and the evidence alone," you're the only one who sincerely means it.

2. Everybody who says it is sincere, but you just happen to be smarter than all the rest.

3. It is possible for reasonable people who are just as sincere and just as smart as you are to believe you are mistaken.

avi

Here's a few names:

Plato
Aristotle
The entire Jewish and non-Jewish world, 2300 years ago...
Heck, we can include all the Chinese, the Persians, the ancient Egyptians, even the architects responsible for designing stonehenge, and throw in all the Mayans and Incas too.

One guy, and only one guy, looking at the same data as everyone else, drew an entirely different conclusion. Aristarchus observed precisely the same data as everyone else, including the most brilliant minds of that era: Plato and Aristotle.

Every single one of the many millions of observers were wrong.

Only Aristarchus got it right.

The fact that only one person offers a unique interpretation of the same old data, doesn't render that person's assessment invalid.

avi

mountainman

G'day there Song of Erra,

Your questions are not easy to answer.
There is much depth to them.
I will attempt to sketch a response ...


It makes sense in a "fuzzy" way. My best answer to your question would be to put forward for discussion a diagram which attempts to depict the issues related to the problems that everyone has faced in attempting to sketch a history which has been deliberately concealed from researchers as a result of this said "conspiracy".

I can depict "convert machinations" as "twists" in the historical record, undertaken at critical junctures and nexes of a supreme (often military related) power.


The Twisted Histories of the Fourth Century

The diagram suggests that we are viewing a "fabricated or severely twisted history" [yellow] as "actual history" [light green] by means of several "twists", and "joins" to the fabricated accounts [yellow], at two critical junctures 325 CE and at a century or so afterwards. Both of these twisted historical accounts were prepared by orthodox Christian "heresiologists". That is, those who worked their way into becoming experts in the field of what was then considered to be "Christian Heresy", often associated also as being not agreeing with the legal majesty of the Emperor's opinion.

Also depicted as "sources" below the [green] hypothetical "actual history" are Ammianus, the "Historia Augusta" and the "Codex Theodosianus".





The First "Twist" T1 was done at Nicaea, completed in Constantine & Eusebius 325 CE

The first of which T1 was undertaken at Nicaea, by presenting Eusebius's "History of the Church" (and possibly also the "Historia Augusta" - history of the Emperors) as "popular history". This caused a massive (social, religious, historical) controversy which today we call the Arian Controversy, related to far more than theological "nuances". It involved political "damnatio memoriae" of key figures in the controversy, such as Arius. The twist 1 was accomplished by means of military action against the social order, particularly in the prohibition of the traditional use of the pagan temples, which had been customarily sponsored by Roman Emperors ever since JC bribed his way into the role of "Pontifex Maximus" BCE.

The Second "Twist", harmonizing Nicaea, was completed in Cyril and others to c.425 CE

The second twist T2 was undertaken by the eventual victors - "orthodox heresiological continuators" - in order to "harmonize" and "legitimitize" the utterly contraversial reception the state religion of "Christianity" had received, particularly by the academic Greek populace and philosophers and priesthoods of Alexandria. It was undertaken later when Christianity had become the supreme ruling religion in the empire, and its chief final engineer was Cyril of Alexandria, nephew of Uncle Theophilus. Others of course contributed, a generation after Nicaea and times moved on with the christians in power. Jerome asserts Pachomius to be a "Christian". The history of the desert movement of pagans fleeing the Christian cities is this christianized by the pen of Jerome. Athanasius authors the fictitious "Life of Anthony", etc. Hagiography takes off and the bones of "saints" are shipped around the empire's basilicas for kudos and tourism.

The idea is that we are dealing with something like a few major "spliced tapes", that have been twisted and rejoined in order to lead us around in circles forever, like ants on a moebius strip. Eusebius describes it as a "lonely and untrodden path". Jerome describes it by commenting "the world groaned to find itself [not Christian but] Arian". Pachomius saw a vision 324 CE and headed for the hills. I am suggesting the vision that Pachomius saw was the fall of Alexandria to Constantine.




In the above diagram I have attempted to present something that went on in two successive "twists", both of which were attended by the perpetrators having an absolute control and power over the preservation and recording of history at that specific epoch in time.


I understand that. I referred to "future evidence" because I welcome it into the equation. Mainstrean is dealing with an old equation for the historical truth, which has stood for centuries, but which has seen recently much evidence being presented for inclusion. Examples include the Nag Hammadi Codices, the gJudas, C14 dating technology, multi-spectral imaging technology, etc, etc.

stephan huller

Another silly argument put forward by the great mountainman. Why even spend the time developing these implausible flow charts. Instead why don't you give an explanation for the inscription of Abercius (or at least something except citing an authority who contradicts your stupid theory).

So now we have to believe that (a) the Dura Europos church has wrongly been identified as a church (for what reason we have no explanation from Pete) (b) Mani's writings have been falsified to reflect a manipulated claim to be the (heretical) apostle and paraclete of Jesus (for what reason we have no explanation from Pete) (c) the Megiddo Church has been wrongly identified as a Christian church from the third century (by an evil Jewish conspiracy wanting to cash in on tourist money) (d) the Abercius inscription has been wrongly identified as a Christian inscription by contemporary scholarship (e) various papyri which reference Christians or Chrestians are not what they seem (no other plausible explanation is given) (f) all the documents which claim to be written by first, second and third century Christians was falsified by a fourth century Imperial conspiracy.

How could all these things possibly be true at the same time? This is so absurd no one can possibly believe this not even Pete

Transient

For god's sake man - give it a rest - defend your own theory and let this mountainman stuff die down.
You keep on and on and on like you are some nut case on a crusade.

Doug Shaver

I neither said nor implied anything to the contrary.

Toto

I am locking this thread for review