mountainman

Elsewhere, Roger Pearse wrote:
1)
Is it a myth that the formalisation of the christian religion
was kicked off at Nicaea, a council assembled under
command of the Roman Emperor Constantine.

2)
Is it a myth that his puppet bishop Eusebius on the inside
had access to - one might say - a considerable archive of
documents from the ancient world.


3)
Is it a myth that quite a reasonable percentage of
biblical scholars, when examining critically the earliest
external reference to Jesus outside of the bible (The
12 volume work of Josephus Flavius) comment that
these references would appear to be interpolations
(ie: someone added the lines to the book, when the
next copy was hand-written for posterity)


4)
Is it a myth that some of these scholars suggest
that the interpolator was Eusebius?


5)
Is it is myth that there exists absolutely no archaelogical
or (Eusebius independent) literature concerning christianity
in antiquity prior to Constantine in the fourth century?




Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

Malachi151

Yes, much of that is myth.

There were definately many references to Jesus before the Council of Nicaea that formalized the Bible.

The books that were canonized during that council had already been largely selected by several people as the core books of the faith.

There are plenty of references to a belief in Jesus the savior, and that he had been put to death as far back as the 90s CE at least.

The religion was certianly not invented out of whole cloth by Constantine.

darstec

Actually we have no evidence of any believe that "Jesus the savior" "had been put to death as far back as the 90s CE." It is perfectly conceivable that "Paul" wrote after 134 CE with the other accounts following. Only one tiny little phrase, one miniscue part of a sentence in all of "Paul's" even suggests a timeline. That could have been interpolation or it could simply be a fabrication by the writer to fix an early date. We are after all taking about a writer who himself claimed to be all things to all men -- a Jew to Jews and a Gentile to Gentile, in other words a liar or con artist.

I agree that Constantine did not invent Christianity out of whole cloth. Eusebius on the other hand used parts of what was available, snipping here, clipping there, pasting in other places. A collage looks like a complete, symetrical piece for a reason.

mountainman

How many of these references were outside of the reach of Eusebius
and the supreme emperor Constantine in the fourth century? So what
if Eusebius actually interpolated Josephus and the whole host of
christian bishops and apologists of the preceeding few centuries?

We learn all this through the literature of Eusebius.

We learn all this through the literature of Eusebius.

What convinces you that this is impossible?




Best wishes,



Pete Brown

mountainman

What reasons would you advance against the hypothesis
that Constantine sponsored Eusebius to write not only
Ecclesiastical History, and In Preparation of the Gospel,
but also the books of the new testament, and all the
christian related calumny tracking patristic literature?



Pete Brown

MikePhil

And id like to know what hypothesis would be advanced to sustain the theory that Constantine sponsored Eusebius on writing the NT ? (im not attacking this theory, just curious about it).

mountainman

There are a number of different approaches to this question,
and at the present time I have only explored a few, but the
main hypothesis is settled around the assessment of the integrity
of the literature generated under the quill of Eusebius of Caesarea,
the literature of otherwise unknown authors of antiquity quoted
by Eusebius, and a string of shameful interpolations relating to the
very historical existence of christians in Roman and Jewish authors.

Yes, we make the hypothesis that Eusebius has in fact interpolated
in full the TF; and in fact that all references to "the tribe of christians"
in the writings of the authors of antiquity, from Josephus to Origen,
are the trade marked perversions of Eusebius, under Constantine.

Access to the imperial Roman archives would have been granted
by Constantine to Eusebius, and not the other way around. There
was only one master, and only two people who needed to keep
the secret of real antiquity of this "new and strange religion".

The hypothesis that Eusebius interpolated Josephus begs an
explanation for the reasons why he did so. He needed historical
priority dates for "the tribe of christians" as far back as possible,
so as to take the heat off Constantine, who would sell the package
at Nicaea (when he became supreme) in good faith, that it was
in fact an ancient God of the Hebrew sages who had appeared
some time ago.

He would use the new and strange religion to bring about the end
of the Hellenic religions of the empire, and to justify their plunder
in his own generation and in the ones that followed.

Perhaps Eusebius was coerced by Constantine, and perhaps this
Pamphilus was actually persecuted by Constantine for refusal to
pervert the writings of Origen (at the Caesaea library) with
references to christianity and "the tribe of christians".

The empire's initial reaction to the implementation of christianity
by Constantine in Rome and the western empire with effect from
312 is recorded in history as "the Arian controversy".

This controversy, according to theological arguments is related
to the issue of the divinity of Jesus, but in fact is not. The Arian
controversy is nothing other than the words of Arius:

"There was time when he was not"
"He was made out of nothing existing".

We are told Arius was a man clever in disputation, and probably
allowed by Constantine to represent the straw-man argument
against the integrity and implementation of christianity.

We are told that the first thing that Constantine does after obtaining
his supremacy of the east and western empire (324CE) is call the
council of Nicaea, on account of these words of Arius.

He summons attendees, purportedly christian bishops, but in reality
the patrician level landholders of the eastern empire, to the council
where he wines them and dines them and gives them presents for
maybe four months. His barbarian troops are milling around the
council, not far from their imperial commander.

The MINUTES of the COUNCIL of Nicaea are varied, but in all
cases it is evident that Constantine is in charge, and bring
harmony to the milling crowd of attendees, O, and of course,
obtaining signatories on his creed, which would be used to
service the next decade of his supreme reign with administrative
and revenue generation and distribution channels.

Only Arius and a handful of particularly brave souls were banished
from the Constantinian consortium, for their dogmatic assertions
which are still today clearly recorded in the disclaimer clause
in the Nicaean creed.

The literature of Eusebius (here I mean both the NT and the associated
history and other manuals) and probably of Josephus the Jew, would
have been available for review and dispute. It was a set up. Some
of it would have been written in the ancient Hadrian script, to show
the attendees that it did have a history.

But, as the truth of history will one day show, in the words of
the supreme Emperor Julian, within 40 years of Nicaea ..

The fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men
composed by wickedness.


I believe there was an add and a delete.
Jesus and the NT was added in the fourth century.
Apollonius and his writings, biographies and memory
were deleted at the same time. This was the ancient
pythagorean hellenic based religion and/or philosophy.

It was categorically calumnified by Eusebius in his
invention of "the tribe of gnostics".

I have attempted to sketch some details here:
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes.

Best wishes,



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

Chris Weimer

Simply put, mountainman, the theory is implausible. Where's the evidence? To my ears, it's no different than fundy garbage going on about how Jesus is the son of god.

For Kraessakess, we have crosses dating to the 1st century with Jesus' name attached to it. See here.

GakuseiDon

That IS an issue in regards to Jesus's divinity. To quote from my review of Doherty: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus..._Part2.htm#1.1
Imagine that a Christian today said that God had a beginning, and you will get a sense of why it was so controversial.

pharoah

I agree that this theory is implausible. How do you explain the gnostic texts such as GJudas, which have been dated back to the 3rd century? Why would Eusebius write 4 gospels which often conflict with each other instead of just one? Why would he write so many passages that either stated or strongly implied that Jesus would return in the 1st century? Why did he script the Paul/James conflict on faith and works without a firm resolution? Why did he put most of the far-reaching theological concepts into the mouth of Paul, a former persecutor of the church, instead of the mouth of Jesus, the Son of God and the founder of the religion, or Peter, the rock of the church? Why did he copy large portions of Jude into 2 Peter? Or large portions of GMark into GMatthew? Why write two birth narratives that can't be reconciled? Why write two geneologies that can't be reconciled? Four irreconcilable Passion narratives?