mountainman

I have one premise, hypothesis, postulate:
namely, that Eusebius tendered fiction.

My thesis explores this postulate.

With respect to this postulate, Julian's attack was
the first "from a position of any real power".

My thesis explores this.
Is that better?

Thanks, and best wishes,


Pete

Doug Shaver

You appeared to offering Julian's attack as evidence for the thesis. But his attack per se is not evidence for the thesis. It proves nothing about whether Eusebius fabricated all of his evidence for the history of Christianity.

It could be evidence, arguably, if it were demonstrated that Julian was indeed the first person to attack Christianity "from a position of any real power". But you have not demonstrated that. You have only assumed it on the basis of its consistency with your thesis. But that makes it circular argument.

mountainman

I am after seeking a perspective by which a great majority
of the evidence appears with the optimum relational integrity
and consistency. Evidence is explored. Proof is reserved for
those who feel they must possess it.

No, I cannot claim to have assumed this.
It is a direct and logical consequence
of my postulate: Eusebian fiction.

If Eusebius tendered fiction on the scale of the
lavishly produced and prepared "Constantine Bible"
in c.331 CE, as is my hypothesis, then as a direct
consequence and implication, the very first person
to attack it (in such an alternative theory of antiquity)
after 331 is Julian in 362.

I dont have to assume this. It is a logical consequence
of my starting postulate; and entirely expected,
as is the appearance of a huge socio-political
controversy that noone understood, or today
understands. Namely, the Arian controversy.

Hitherto, an explanation of the Arian controversy
has been the reserve domain of Biblical Historians
and Doctors of Theology, because our traditional
theories of history could not articulate any sensible
political history of the situation.

Times change.
Best wishes,



Pete