mountainman

There is absolutely no historical evidence for the inference
that there was a "tribe of christians" in the literature, and
on the planet, before Eusebius took up his pen and from
scanty records of the past, circa 312-324CE, fabricated
what is now held to be the mainstream theory of history,
with respect to this "tribe of christians" for the preceeding
three centuries.



Pete
www.mountainman.com.au

Chris Weimer

What do you do with the manuscripts written before Eusebius, e.g. 0189 or 0220? If everything was written by Eusebius, why are there so many contradictions? What about the stylistic differences which contradict the notion of a single author? What about Pliny? Tacitus? Josephus (read Jerome)?

Moreover, what evidence do you have, besides an out-of-context quote from Julian, where pharoah has already shown you that the notion that Eusebius wrote everything is clearly false and misleading on your part? How do you deal with the overwhelming counter-evidence? How do you deal with your obvious bias that you just want to get rid of Christianity, who cares about the truth?

This is a position you hold on faith - this no better, perhaps even worse, than the fundy Christians who hold inerrant positions, or the lunatic crackpots like Thiede or Thiering.

Do you know Latin, Greek, or Hebrew? Do you know anything about those languages? Have you read the primary source material? You sure don't act like it.

darstec

What was written before Eusebius? Please do not base your answer upon paleography the pseudoscience.

mountainman

Fragments found on rubbish tip dated by the grande arte of paleography
to be consistent with the fable penned by Eusebius in the fourth century
perhaps one day will be returned to where they were found.

Constantine inspired the fabrication in order to short-change the empire.
Who is going to argue with the boss? Eusebius probably had the unenviable
task of harmonising a number of sponsored writers.

Perversions of the literature, imperially condoned in the fourth century
during the three decades that Constantine was associated with the
Roman empire. Interpolations into the patristic literature, the sole
purpose of which, to provide weight of consideration to the inference
that "the tribe of christians" ante-dated the quill of Eusebius.

Jerome will be remembered for his "The world groaned to find itself
Arian", but added nothing to Eusebius. At least seven Ecclesiastical
Historians took up the pen in relation to the history of the Arian
controversy, leading up to Nicaea and then beyond. None added
to Eusebius.

Julian's quote substantiates the claim that he professedly
was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

There is so little counter evidence that I have composed a list
of exceptional evidence presented against the theory. If you
have some evidence not covered, I'd be happy to examine it:

INDEX of Exceptions:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_070.htm

Why did Ralph Waldo Emerson write:
"We must get rid of the Christ,
we must get rid of that Christ."
Can you explain this to me?

Carbon dating results are consistent with my position, that
"the tribe of christians" is a fourth century invention, but the
same results are not consistent with other inerrant positions.

Do you know what the word inference means?


Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

Chris Weimer

Kind of funny - some people made the same remark when dealing with the Dead Sea Scrolls - until carbon dating verified the palaeography. Do you have a degree in palaeography? Can you show how it is a pseudo-science? If you are not qualified to give an opinion on this matter, then you, sir, are propagating pseudo-science.

For all practical purposes, palaeography has been regularly verified by carbon dating. Unless you make the creationist claim that c.d. is also pseudo-science?

Chris Weimer

Conjecture.

Conjecture.

Conjecture.

You've got to be kidding me. Do you even have the slightest clue what Jerome said about Josephus? Anything? Did you even read this, or are you just parroting some insipid claim, probably first uttered by some illiterate who himself probably heard if by some manipulating, biased deceiver. You're not making this up, are you?

Can you find a manuscript written before Eusebius which contains this quote? If not, how do we not know that someone didn't make it up?

Who cares about Emerson? This just confirms that you have this anti-Christian bias and thus whatever you say is on par with fundamentalists opinion.

Merely saying that c.d. is consistent with your position does not prove it. Show some evidence.

I take it you know none of the languages I mentioned. Come back when you can at least read Greek.

Toto

The only place that exact quote appears on the internet is on Acharya S's page. Others quote only "We must get rid of that Christ" which implies to me a particular interpretation of the Christ principle. Emerson was not looking for the Historical Jesus, or trying to disprove him.

Perhaps this will help (or perhaps not):

gstafleu

What is all this about a "tribe of Christians?" My impression, both from this forum and various readings, is that Christianity started as a bunch of movements (Jewish Christianity, Pauline Christianity, Gnostics...), not as a single "tribe." But that doesn't mean that Eusebius wrote the whole NT from scratch, just that it is a political compilation of documents.

GakuseiDon

Why did Eusebius use "tribe of Christians" once, in Josephus? Why didn't he add it to all the other materials you are claiming he wrote? And what do you think he meant by using "tribe of Christians"?

darstec

That is patently incorrect. There was another thread on this forum discussing the very matter. The results comparing paleography with carbon-dating were linked to that thread and were widely off the mark. The closer they got to the first century CE, the larger the error.

What has occurred since then is that some writings from various periods a few around the fourth century BCE and a few around the third century BCE were discovered in sealed tombs, the contents of which were carbon-dated. Then the writing style was compared to what paleographers used, and their data was corrected. However nothing of the sort was done for the first or second centuries CE. First and second century CE paleography is guesswork primarily established by proclamation. Can you point me to ANY first or second century CE writing that has been carbon-dated? I think not since you ignored that part of my original post.

To be honest, no I don't. Do you know of anyone that does? Can you point to any university that offers a "degree in palaeography"? However I am familiar with document examination, forensic handwriting examination, and handwriting analysis (not what you think) and have been in a few Florida courts as an expert witness. I was also paid an advance by Holt, Rhinehart and Winston publishers to write a book on the subject so I think I may know more than you on the topic. But perhaps not, in which case you will tell me which manuscripts or fragments of the first and second centuries CE have been carbon-dated and corrolate to within 50 years of their assigned paleographic results.

I am certainly more qualified than you are, unless you have one of those proverbial "degrees in paleography." Can you point to any manuscripts of the first and century CE which have been both dated by paleography and that agrees with the carbon-dating?

I don't think any has been done. It has been done far earlier and far later and the results were rather wide of the mark. At least the only comparison study that seems to be available shows that. Perhaps you know of some others than the one that was linked to in an earlier thread on the same subject.

That is an out and out fabrication. I do not think a 200 year range is verification. Can you point to these studies? I know of one and that didn't go well for the paleographers.