mountainman

Thanks for this reduction in your own words, which essentially
I agree with completely, apart from one small alteration, that
there was a period of time (312-324 CE) immediately prior to
the Council of Nicaea, and from the time Constantine took the
city of Rome (and thus the western Roman Empire) for himself.

During this time, our current crop of acedemic ancient historians
tell us, the Eusebian Ecclesiatica Historia was most likely
written, and of couse we have Constantine making other related
edicts, such as "The Edict of Milan" for propaganda purposes.

Christianity was first cultured in Rome (IMO) during this lead-in
period to Constantine's supremacy, and therefore I'd slightly
adjust this super-critical archeological date, back from 325 CE
to perhaps 312 CE. But all alse stands, many thanks for that.

Often such is the case with people who are too close to their
subject matter, at certain times of their research.

This is a difficult question, but IMO the answer is directly related
to finding a solution (in a theory of history) which offers maximal
degree of (historical) integrity. The simplest explanation, with a
least number of postulates, to give rise to an explanation as to
why we think the way we do about the "first 300 years".

The historical theory in which Constantine thus invents "christianity"
as you have outlined above, can be generated with an exceedingly
small number of postulates, in fact one .... Eusebius wrote fiction.

All else and all the above follows from this one hypothesis.

I have outlined my reasons for selecting this hypothesis
as a basis for historical enquiry at this page.

Roger Pearse

There is a simple answer: this guy made it all up in a fit of temper in a usenet forum a year or two back (I have the post in which he acknowledges this somewhere).

He's been elaborating it since, but getting no customers. Sadly for him even the dumbest and most vitriolic atheists know better than to run with this one.

Pardon me if this sounds rather discourteous. But I really can't stand people who deliberately set out to poison the well of human knowledge with things that even they know are not true, and are made up for selfish purposes out of malice.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle

Couple of things.

I thought it was agreed Constantine, if he was actually interested in theology, subscribed to Arian beliefs. I place the major disputes about begotten etc as much later - in the 380's.

Gore Vidal's comment that Constantine enjoyed watching theological squabbles as a type of sport is very apposite!

He may have imperialised a sect for his own purposes, but I want to see more evidence of that - what if he only gave all religions equal freedom and this one a bit more favour because of his vision - but is that xian propaganda converting to Jesus his actual worship of Apollo?

Once xianity was given freedom, as a classic fascist set of beliefs, it then proceeded to state it was the way the truth and the life, and gain control of the empire - the old gods didn't have a chance because like atheism there are no unifying principles.

Julian was a last attempt to regain control but was doomed as already being too late - the balance of power was such that he was assassinated by his personal arms bearer - a xian.


I really do not see Constantine as a lead plotter - was not Eusebius Arian?

Seriously, look to Ambrose.

Clivedurdle

I would strongly dispute that!

And who says the xian view of history has any more validity than mountainman's?

There is a clear disconnect in the history of xianity in the fourth century that is definitely worth a full discussion - it probably is the true birth of xianity, when some pre existing minor sects went global, like naziism in 1933.

I see the debate as being between brand new in the fourth century or such a huge makeover it might as well be brand new - the story of the two ships and which is the real one is to the point.

mountainman

"[Constantine] was a mocker rather than a flatterer.
From this he was called after Trachala in the folktale,
for ten years a most excellent man, [ Ed: the decade 306-315]

for the following second ten a brigand, [ Ed: the decade 316-325]
for the last, on account of his unrestrained prodigality,
a ward irresponsible for his own actions." [ Ed: the period 326-337]

--- Sextus Aurelius Victor


It is notable how Ammianus passes up the opportunity
to mention this, but then I entirely agree with Arnaldo
Momigliano's assessment of Ammianus Marcellinus.

There is no doubt that Abrose may be implicated after the event.
Possibly others, for example, the good bishop Cyril, who openly admits
that he was compelled to censor the Emperor Julian's (Bull-Burner) work
"Against the Galilaeans".

There are definitely "after-the-event-cleanup operations",
but one should not confuse such with the momentous
historical chaotic "boundary event" known in the past as
the First Eccumenical Christian Council of Nicaea 325 CE.

Without anything but an agenda for historical enquiry, we
are objectively entitled to view this "Council Meeting" as
being possibly a kind of "Military Supremacy Party" mixed
with "Bullneck's Long Service Party", and a few others.

Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica written 312-324 CE
is quite literally just a preface to the Council of Nicaea.
It needs to be tested out to see if it has the inherent
integrity problems that one would expect with a pseudo-
history. This implies finding scientific and/or archeological
citations for the existence of "the tribe of christians"
in the prenicene epoch.

Presently I am examining citations in Elsa Gibson's "The
<< Christians for Christians >> Inscriptions of Phrygia.
I am going through the motions of objective scholarship
because I understand many subscribers to this discussion
board would demand this.

J-D

On what grounds? If the facts are as Roger states, then possibly 'malice' is a little strong, but 'mischief' is certainly justified. If the allegation that mountainman is deliberately fabricating can be substantiated (and Roger claims to have direct evidence), then surely further discussion becomes redundant? I notice that mountainman has not repudiated the charge.

mountainman

Have you ever visited the alt.surfing discussion board J-D?
Perhaps its time you and Roger expanded your horizons.
Why dont you start with the thread in which Roger made
his first post into the alt.surfing newsgroup:

http://groups.google.com.au/group/al...339d7b7?hl=en&

Enjoy the waves of contention!
And keep paddling into them

J-D

No.I find your evasiveness in the face of Roger's allegation suspicious.

mountainman

That's your problem not mine. In providing the usenet thread
to which Roger will undoubtedly appeal in his allegation I am
content to discharge any necessity of enjoining in calumny
over the classification of ascii on the public news groups.

J-D

It's not a problem at all. Neither is your adoption in this post of havering as a technique for evading the issue. You do it, I note it. No problem.