stephan huller

But now you're confusing things with logic.

I'm just saying that having developed the same argument with regards to Mani our colleagues couldn't so much an explanation for Ephrem's mention of Mani but walked away self-satisfied anyway.

You and I know that the unholy tetrad of Marcion, Bardesanes and Mani in Ephrem's writings overturns their ridiculous theories but for some reason it isn't explicit enough for them.

The difficulty I guess is that the argument requires the ability to think on the part of its hearers ...

stephan huller

My last comments were for spin. Now avi

Why fixate on Eusebius (the first edition of Eusebius's work dated to 280 CE certainly did not mention Mani)? The question as always is Ephrem's repeated references to the unholy trinity (Marcion, Bardasenes, Mani). Any reference to these figures from Osrhoene and regions outside of Roman control from before and right up to the Nicene period disprove the whole nonsensical theory.

My example of Methodius is equally persuasive (unmentioned in Eusebius because of his anti-Origenist position). There is almost no end to the proofs but similarly no seeming end to the incredulity of Pete's associates.

stephan huller

avi

There is no evidence for the use of the title Paraclete as a religious title outside the Judeo-Christian tradition. You don't understand this because you have difficulties understanding almost anything to do with the tradition. You want to support your pet theories so badly you don't want to listen to the evidence

spin

I don't think it's incredulity, more like pure perverseness.


spin

avi

And which pet theory would that be, I wonder?

Here is an illustration of a pet theory, but it is not my pet theory:

"as always" ???
"any reference" ???
"from before and right up to the Nicene period" ???

Osrhoene??? Mani??? He was a Persian, living in Baghdad, who traveled to India and Afghanistan. The Romans conquered Osrhoene, but Mani lived under Persian control, in modern day Iraq, not Turkey/Syria.

Are you getting enough sleep, stephan?

This forum exists to exchange ideas, and challenge prevailing assumptions.

I interpret your message as suggesting a relative lack of awareness of the life of Ephrem of Syria, who regarded Mani as a Christian, well after Nicea, and well after Eusebius.

Here is a pair of equally inane comments, by one who should know better:
"fore-runner to Mani"? Oh, really?

Perhaps spin perversely possesses some documentary evidence to support the myth that Mani was a christian? One hopes he will not dredge up the tired out Mani Cologne Codex, or the equally infamous Arabic/Muslim version of his life....

Ya think?

Hmmm....

Seems that we have been reading different accounts....

Here's what I have read about Ephrem:
avi

stephan huller

No avi.

I believe you are aware of the name 'Ephrem the Syrian.' What I don't believe is that you understand or want to understand that Ephrem's witness of Bardesanes and Mani disproves the crackpot theory you espouse (a) because he wrote in Syriac and (b) because he acknowledges as Chrsitian people who lived long before Nicaea. For some reason you aren't capable of seeing how this disproves the fourth century conspiracy.

The fact that he defended Nicene orthodoxy is irrelevant because he accepted other pre-Nicene realities in Osrhoene such as (i) orthodox Christians being identified as 'Palutians' (ii) the influence of pre-Nicene traditions outside of orthodoxy (the aforementioned followers of Marcion, Bardesanes and Mani) and more.

You keep framing the situation as simply a reflection of what Eusebius knew. But Eusebius's template in the Ecclesiastical Histories is only part of the story. The reality of life in Osrhoene contradicts all of Pete's assumptions.

For God's sake just learn to read something without having blinders on ...

avi

blinders on ?
me?

I don't think so.

This thread was begun by Transient, who noted, (in my view, correctly) that the idea for a post-Constantine de novo creation of Christianity, while not insurmountable, (as Pete has explained, quite satisfactorily,) does not explain the innumerable contradictions. As Transient explained in the OP, Eusebius should have done a better job, if this were a brand new enterprise.

Instead, the situation appears to me, to conform to what aa5874 has asserted:

So, with regard to your claim, above, that someone is wearing blinders, I suggest that you examine the image in front of you, as you gaze into the mirror.

With regard to the "crackpot theory" which you claim I espouse, perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a quote of mine, in support of this allegation. I certainly am unaware of having espoused any theories, whatsoever.
I have many opinions, but few, if any, theories.

avi

mountainman

Hey avi (and others),

I wish to say I am sorry for the way and the manner in which stephan and spin and others have blindly conflated you as being rank and file subscribers to this "crackpot theory" that Bullneck invented some bullshit in the 4th century. I dont know how many times I have seen these accusations being made even after repeated disclaimers from yourself (and others like Sheshbazzar). I cannot explain this behaviour other that to comment that you are being subject to an ill-informed authoritarian opinion.

I have seen no evidence that stephan even understands either the hypothesis or the theory from its most primitive logical perspective since he continues to continually "react" to the hypothesis itself. At least spin understands the logic of the hypothesis, but seeks refuge in the assertion that the hypothesis is refuted by the authority and unquestionable ancient historical authenticity of the early 20th century Yale Divinity publications concerning the artistic appreciation of murals, previously domicile at Dura Europos.

The Mani thread and its various splittings was quite illuminating. Also, I am still gathering references to establish the validity of bringing back into the argument the relevance of the multiple C14 dating citations. Spin has attacked the following presentation as being invalid, but I think he is in error, and that the following presentation paints a very valid picture, and one which is worth a thousand words.

The scientific use of C14 analysis is very new to the field of BC&H, and of course it is wise to be cautious. It should also be wise to be cautious about the hypothesis that the NT etc is a 4th century fabrication, since it is within the bounds of what the C14 evidence has to say to us:

stephan huller

I am saddened that you feel spin has greater comprehension of the intricacies of your enlightened theory. I have made it my life's purpose to come to understand the fourth century conspiracy theory.

My advice to you Pete is to stop trying to plug up holes in the theory. Stop trying to come up with some ingenious way to explain away Mani, Bardesanes, Methodius, Marcion, Abercius and the like and concentrate on THREE compelling pieces of evidence which support the idea that Constantine organized such a conspiracy to invent Christianity from scratch. Something better than your usual - Constantine was an asshole. Eusebius was a thug etc.

Spend your time searching for pieces of evidence which actually confirm your hypothesis and then come back to us.

mountainman

Eusebius was the editor-in-chief. He may not have written anything of the NT personally, but rather sub-contracted the task to the many highly professional scribes and slaves which were at the disposal of the "Pontifex Maximus" in Rome c.213 CE.



See above.


The Bible published by Constantine included "The Shepherd of Hermas". Canonization was not successful at Nicaea 325 CE.


The new testament canon was closed c.367 CE if we go by the father of orthodoxy and inventor of christian hagiography Athanasius. Constantine had no control of the process after his death 337 CE, so the plot thickens as to which parties got rid of books like "The Shepherd of Hermas" and added their own selection of material.

There were many followers of Plotinus, the neoplatonic "father" of Porphyry, who regarded their own version of the Logos and the Trinity as primary Greek concepts. The ideas of the trinity only appear after Nicaea -- and these ideas were very Plotinic. That "Porphyrian" Arius of Alexandria is an example.