mountainman

Hey Chris,

The integrity of an alternative history of antiquity
in which "the tribe of christians" is a fourth century
fiction is quite consistent with carbon dating results,
archeological science, and the karma of christianity.
(The real 4th century tree and the fruits of this 4th
century tree since that time).

All "evidence" that I have seen presented on this
discussion board to the contrary is inferential heresay
which has been based on the fourth century literary
theory of history written by Eusebius under Constantine.

What of your (1st, 2nd & 3rd century) "evidence" is not?

This literature is fiction. A theological romantic fable.
This opinion is not new, being first expressed by the
emperor Julian in the year 362 CE, within 40 years
after the time of the implementation of said fiction
by the management of Constantine in the Council
of Nicaea.

I would rather consider the words of Julian to be accurate,
than the sponsored calumnifying drivel of the "wretched Eusebius"
who singlehandedly, by himself and his literary profiles, and set of
interpolated Roman authors, provides consideration of much heresay
and much repeated calumny, which is not evidence whatsover, to
make the inference that christianity existed (at all) prior to the
fourth century.


Pete Brown

jeffevnz

andrew - Thanks for the help. Interesting discussion.

mountainman

YES. According to the hypothesis that Eusebius wrote fiction
anything with the trade mark "tribe of christian" influence in the
literature of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries is to be treated,
for the exercise of objective analysis, as Eusebian.

What is gnosticism but the extant writings of the (neo-) tribe
of Pythagoraeans (inclusive of (neo-) platonism) expressed
again by a christian scribe? The "tribe of gnostics" is a
Eusebian literary invention, so as to identify the "true tribe"
from the "pagan tribe". The gnostic tribe was then calumnified
by Eusebius, leaving alone and untainted the "tribe of christians".

Anything christian prior to the fourth century is inconsistent
with the hypothesis upon which the theory relies, of course.
But AFAIK, none of the above texts are scientifically evidenced
as having been written before the time of Eusebius.

Carbon dating I accept as science, but paleographic dating
I do not accept herein as science, because of our postulate
involving the "wretched" use of fiction. I have said more
elsewhere on the Hadrian script at the Council of Nicaea.

You need to understand that Eusebius wrote what he did under the
auspices of the supreme imperial Constantine. He was a sponsored
writer. He may have been one of many Constantine contracted or
otherwise tricked or coerced into fabricating the end result of what
has, since 325 CE, been inferred to be the "fabrication of the
Galilaeans".

Our hypothesis is that Eusebius wrote fiction
under sponsorship of an intelligent mafia dictator.

Our response to this argument is to point out that it
is only by inference that we accept authors mentioning
"the tribe of christians" in antiquity. As I understand it,
Eusebius penned his "history" at some particularly shameful
hours of the fourth century, claiming at the time to have
assembled scanty records of the past x hundred years,
by which he was in today's terminology write a theory
of history for the preceeding 300 years.

1) The raw textual materials were already in excellent state
in the Caesarea library after the efforts of Origen and his
hexapla. The OT was ripe for another testament which was
new and strange, and a literary invention out of whole cloth.
It was a gold mine for learned scribes under Constantine.

2) Constantine did not want to share his newly grabbed empire
(east and west) with the old customs. He did not want to
share things with Lucinius in the east. He did not want to
share things with the Hellenic traditions, his wife or his son.
So he removed them. He took their treasures because he
justified the existence of a new and strange religion, and
implemented it at Nicaea. Tribute went to the new god, and
the treasures of the old gods were looted in the time of
Constantine, and in succeeding generations.


NO, NO. Eusebius (and others perhaps) were sponsored to write this
mass of literature by the supreme mafia man Constantine. History tells
us all very very clearly who sold the package at the Nicaean Council.

Constantine called the council on account of the words of Arius.
Constantine summoned attendees. You can read an assemblage
of what record we have of the preceedings of said Council and
they will all agree that Constantine ran the show, and singlehandedly
the THRICE-BLESSED EMPEROR brought harmony and peace, and
wonderful lasting concord upon the gathered disparate brethren.
He made sure to get their pledge and signatory before they left,
full with food and wine and presents and women(??). Arius of
course was banished.

IMO he may well have been, but we must not forget he was writing
for the entertainment of his supreme thrice blessed emperor.
Have you read the Life of Secundus the Philosopher?

Textual reconstruction theories have a working postulate
or premise that the original texts were not a seething mass
of chaotic fourth century imperially inspired fiction.

Our hypothesis mandates that the assumptions embedded
in the Mainstream Theory are inappropriate to certain realities.


Eusebius may not have been free to write precisely what he liked.
We feel that it is likely that the supreme emperor Constantine had
considerable involvement in the plot, and its revisions. In fact, he
could have sponsored many authors for his own purposes and then
ordered Eusebius to "harmonise" them as best he could, and within
a finite timeframe focussed on the ambition of taking the eastern
Roman empire for his own. (312 to 324 CE).

Julians's opening phrase reads:

"It is, I think, expedient
to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which
I was convinced
that the fabrication
of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men
composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth."


Firstly, it is clear that the Galilaeans and the "wicked men"
were not the same party, or else Julian would have said so.
They are separate parties, separate in time and space.

We do not learn too much more about who these wicked men
were, except that he certainly refers to Eusebius as "wretched":

"The wretched Eusebius will have it
that poems in hexameters are to be found even among them,
and sets up a claim that the study of logic exists among the Hebrews,
since he has heard among the Hellenes the word they use for logic."


Cyril of Alexandria says that:

he omitted invectives against Christ
and such matter as might contaminate
the minds of Christians.


So my response to your question will for the present time
be restricted in quoting our dear Cyril, god bless his cotton sox.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene...Galilaeans.htm

S.C.Carlson

Yet Origen could not have been a Christian under your scenario?

Stephen

pharoah

He refers to Eusebius as "wretched". So what? You seem to be offering that as proof that he believed Eusebius fabricated the canon. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let's examine some quotes from this work that you have conveniently missed. All quotes are from Roger Pearse's fine web site. Thanks Roger for the excellent resource.

These quotes should be sufficient to show that Julius accepted the past existence of Jesus and Paul at face value. Nowhere does he hint that Eusebius recently fabricated them out of nothing. He explicitly says that Jesus "has been known by name for but little more than three hundred years". The 300 years is really the killer part. Even if you could somehow show that he believed Jesus and Paul to be fictions, he at the very least believed them to be 300-year old fictions.

mountainman

Let's set this issue straight. In this forum I offer Julian's Against
the Galilaeans as proof of one single thing alone. Namely that he
was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction
of men composed by wickedness..

Julian presents the rest of his treatise after a header statement.
The header statement is that we are not dealing with myth or
history in regard to the NT literature. We are dealing with fiction.
Moreover we are dealing with a fiction which was deliberately
assembled by (two or more) wicked men.

I use Julian only to support the notion that consideration of a
fiction postulate needs to be countenanced by scholars.

I disagree completely. His heading statement explicitly states fiction.
Moreover, he prepares his further quotes (which you note) after this
heading statement, and after his preparation, as it were, for a court
of law.


Julian did not just [b]believe that the FATG was a fiction.
Julian was convinced that the FATG was a fiction.

We have only one book of three surviving from Julians actual writings.
We thus have two thirds of his ideas missing. More importantly, his
words surviving are those of the calumnifying christian bishop Cyril,
who admitted in writing that he had suppressed other matters
which would CONTAMINATE the minds of christians.

I agree that the 300 years is the killer part. You and the rest of
the world it seems are happy to infer from the mass of literature
labelled Eusebius that there were christians on the planet prior to
the fourth century.

You have no real scientific evidence for this inference of the 300
years in respect of which Eusebius, in the fourth century under
Constantine, assembled from scanty records of the past 300 years,
his theory of history of those 300 years. Eusebius was
writing in the same century as Julian.

The New Testament is the new and strange fabrication of the Galilaeans.
Its recent appearance among men in the time of Constantine is (DELETED).
The New Testament is a fiction of men.
This is Julian's message IMO.

What remains of Julian's original words do not allow one to point the
finger at the "wretched Eusebius" and COnstantine, I agree. However
I am convinced that if, by some miracle of the one true god, that the
original work of the emperor Julian should ever turn up in fragments,
these "invectives of Julian against christ, and other matters that would
contaminate the minds of christians" would be related to forgery and
the interpolation of Roman and Jewish historians by you know who.




Pete Brown

Chris Weimer

Pharoah - If I could translate mountainman for you, "You're correct, Pharoah, I have no evidence at all. But I still believe." I think that accurately sums up mountainman's position.

mountainman

Is this your idea of having evidence of preNicaean christianity here:
http://neonostalgia.com/forum/index.php?topic=85.0

If so, the idea of having evidence is pure inference on your part.
I believe that we are dealing not with facts and evidence of facts,
but possibilities related to the integrity of the history of antiquity.

Do you have anything else constructive to add to the process of
refutation of what is possible, and what is not possible? Or is your
position "one who knows the facts"?


Pete Brown



Pete Brown

mountainman

That is unfortunately correct. Origen was a great philosopher and
scholar and well respected for his works, but I think they were then
massively expanded by fourth century scribes, for the explicit
purpose of the interpolation of events and philosophies related
to "the tribe of christians".

Kind of like Josephus, but on a far grander scale, seeing as though
the very source library for the works of Origen was the Caesarea
library at which Eusebius was ensconsed -- the raw materials were
local.



Pete Brown

post tenebras lux

Hi Chris, if you're still in the mood for translating what people's posts mean, could you help me with mine?

In response to Malachi151 asking: 'Most importantly, how do you explain away the Roman accounts of Nero blaming the buring of Rome on the Christians if there were no Christians at the time????' I asked 'Well, first: what evidence do you have that there actually was a such a fire under Nero or that he blamed the christians?'.

You kindly responded to me with 'I call Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio to the stand, please.', which, to me at least, implied that you thought that the writings of these men was evidence that there actually was such a fire, etc. But did you present evidence Chris, or do you just believe as well? After all, it is rather insultingly circular to present the text of 'roman accounts' as evidence to support, uh, the text of the self-same 'roman accounts'. :huh:How can post-Constantine 'copies' of these authors be considered evidence that the fire and the persecution actually happened, rather than merely being a tall story fabricated by later christians, which was then later inserted into the works of these authors? :huh:

I've tried searching for archaeological maps showing the extent of the 'Great Fire' of 64AD to see if they back up the statements in your references that there actually was a great fire under Nero, but I haven't been able to find one.

What archaeological evidence do we have for said fire? Was there actually a great fire in Rome under Nero at all? Did it burn down the parts of Rome Nero would have wanted cleared but was unable to clear legally?