mountainman

Dear All,

While most "Biblical Historians" think it is unfair to reserve suspicions against Eusebius, certain "Ancient Historians" such as Robert Grant appear to lay such cards on the table. In an essay entitled Early Alexandrian Christianity, Robert M. Grant mentions Eusbeius over 30 times and has nothing nice to say about him on every ocassion.

Highlights include .....

Eusebius developed a life of St. Origen.
Eusebius obscures facts
Eusebius gets important dates wrong
Eusebius' picture of Origen is basically incredible.
Eusebius' chronology for Origen's youth is wrong
Eusebius finds it difficult to correlate his legends about Origen with his legendary bishop list.

The opening paragraph of the essay is as follows:


The "Christianisation" of Origen is refered to here by Grant, when he makes the claim that "Eusebius was using, and further developing, a life of St. Origen". Here is the complete context:


Therefore, it would seem that the "Christianisation" of Origen by Eusbeius is nowhere near as far-fetched as it may appear on the surface of things. I should not need to remind too many people how central the texts and testimonies of Origen are to the story of the transmission of the NT and the LXX from antiquity and into the clutching hands of Eusbius.


Did Eusebius "Christianize" Ammonias Saccas the Platonist?
Did Eusebius "Christianize" Anatolius the Platonist?
Did Eusebius "Christianize" Origen the Platonist?

On the latter question, Robert M Grant might not disagree.



Best wishes,



Pete

Toto

To be clear, Grant does not describe the Christianisation of Origen. That is your idea, which has no support in what Grant writes. Grant only refers to turning Origen into a nicer, more orthodox Christian.

It is quite far fetched. Everyone, including Christians, puts a spin on history. This cannot be used as evidence for an arbitrary historical creation that coincidentally supports your own idiosyncratic reconstruction of history.

There are clearly some historical figures who were appropriated by Christians - Seneca, a few emperors, George Washington - but there is a pattern to this. These are figures of independent political or social importance. Origen was only important as a church figure.

mountainman

The criminal activity engaged upon by Eusebius is probably more appropriately termed identity theft
and it was not arbitary, as I have claimed in this issue, since there is evidence of a systematic process.

Unless you think that its possible that in the 3rd century there were

* Ammonias the Christian and Ammonias the Platonist, and

* Origen the Christian and Origen the Platonist, and

* Anatolius the Christian Bishop of Laodicea and Anatolius of Alexandria the Platonist

then the evidence clearly seems to demonstrate that these three
figures of the Apostolic lineage of the Platonists were the victims
of identity theft and subsequent Eusebian identity fraud.

We have discussed identity theft here before.
There are three similar examples - not one.
How else do you even begin to explain the coincidence?
Same names, same DOB's, same lineages, etc, etc.

A trinity of Christian Identity Frauds masquerade in the Apostolic Lineage of the Academy of Plato.
They carried with them very important documents. The classicists are sure their Platonists existed.
We even have some Anatolian mathematical treatises.

start with Ammonias - the father of neoplatonism.
then deal with the two origens
and then the two anatolii.

They look like "doubles" to me.
Do they look like "doubles" to anyone else?
If they do, then there must be suspicion of Identity Fraud

mountainman

The case that Ammonius (the christian) and Origen (christian)
are identity frauds that have been sourced from the real
historical Ammonius and Origen of the Apostolic Lineage of Plato

Interested readers please check WIKI.
Four identities supposedly existed and
require disambiguation. Can u believe it?


A very important "church figure" nevertheless the evidence
strongly suggests this "church figure" is an identity fraud.


The Christian Origen represents perhaps the single most important "Early Christian" source on a number of issues, perhaps the two primary ones being for the extensive commentaries he purportedly authored on the canonical books of the new testament, and for the Greek translation of the LXX - the Hebrew Bible - eventually used by Eusebius in the Constantine Bible, and witnessed in the most ancient Greek codices.

We therefore should not need to stress the critical nature of the charges. Eusebius and the entire Christian lineage, which from this perspective, at least in part, looks exactly like a systematic identify theft of the entire Platonic lineage, have a great deal of "Official Dogma" associated with this "Origen".

"The most important fact in the history of Christian Doctrine
was that the father of Christian Theology, Origen,
was a Platonic philosopher at the school of Alexandria.

He built into Christian Doctrine the whole
cosmic drama of the soul, which he took from Plato."



Harvard Theological Review (1959);
cited by Bernard Simon (2004),
The Essence of the Gnostics, p.111

But in his essay, Robert Grant reminds us that Eusebius has essentially "developed a life of St. Origen", . "obscures facts", "gets important dates wrong", "his picture of Origen is basically incredible", "his chronology for Origen's youth is wrong" and most significantly that "Eusebius finds it difficult to correlate his legends about Origen with his legendary bishop list.". These charges are of course serious, but they do not as yet include charges that Eusebius has forged additional books in the name of the Platonic Origen.

The books of the Platonic lineage via Plotinus had already received imperial sponsorship in the 3rd century, so it would appear that Eusebius selected a lesser known student of Ammonius, Origen the Platonist, in whose name he forged additional books, all distinctive in their treatment of the books of the new testament. Eusebius's forgery of these additional books in the name of Origen provides an almost perfect explanation to all aspects of a major controversy over the status of Origen's books in the later 4th and subsequent centuries, known as the Origenist Controversy.

But then again, the reality of the situation was that the lineage of the philosophers of high esteem was of great use to Eusebius, writing in the age of a newly acquired political freedom. Arnaldo Momigliaono mentions this explicitly in the following:

"One kind of account in pagan historiography Pagan historiography could help Eusebius considerably. That was the history of philosophical schools - such as we find in Diogenes Laertius. The idea of succession was equally important in philosophical schools and and in Eusebius' notion of Christianity. The bishops were the diadochoi of the Apostles, just as the scholarchai were the diadochoi of Plato, Zeno, and Epicurus. Like any philosophical school, Christianity had its orthodoxy and its deviationists. Historians of philosophy in Greece used antiquarian methods and quoted documents much more frequently and thoroughly than their colleagues, the political historians. To both Eusebius and Diogenes Laertius - Direct original evidence was essential to establish the rightful claims of orthodoxy against external persecutors and internal dissidents. Here again we can be certain that Jewish influences were not without importance for Eusebius. The idea of scholarly succession is fundamental to rabbinic thought, which had developed in its turn under the impact of Greek theory."

[Arnaldo Momigliano: Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D. ]

The identity fraud known as Ammonius the Christian, and the identity fraud known as Origen the Christian were stolen - systematically misappropriated - from the lineage of the 3rd century Platonist theologians, and fraudulently inserted into an obviously fabricated lineage of the 3rd century Christian theologians. This cannot be regarded as either coincidental or harmless, and there is more evidence.

mountainman

Dear All,

I have summarised my research on these matters of multiple duplicate identities floating around in the 3rd century.
I find Eusebius to be clearly guilty of the criminal offences of identity theft and subsequent identity fraud.
The only thing I might say in his defence is that, in my mind, his imperial sponsor probably gave him no choice.
Eusebius's identity fraud needs to be exposed for the criminal offence it is.

There has been monumental detective work put in on the recent Golb case, where an alleged perpetrator is being tried on the charges of 'identity theft and identity fraud' relating to one or more scholars.

I am open to be demonstrated to be in error with these assessments.
But if I am not in error then Eusebius is guilty of criminal activity.


Best wishes,


Pete


A Pageant of Christian Identity Frauds masquerade in the Academy of Plato

ABSTRACT

Evidence is presented to substantiate the presence of at least a trinity of Christian Identity Frauds masquerading in the Academy of Plato during the 3rd century. (1,2,3) From the 4th century mention is resurrected of Porphyry's Christian Identity Fraud and the likelihood is explored that the Christian Presbyter Arius of Alexandria, is just another Identity Fraud in a pattern of similar evidence. (4,5) The events of the Council of Nicaea are reconstructed in such a manner as to narrate from the profane perspective, the heresy, the exile and the "damnatio memoriae" of Arius of Alexandria, a non christian theologian/philosopher associated with the Alexandrian academy of Plato c.324 CE. (6,7)

(0) Introduction - The Nondual God of Plato, Plato's Canon and its Apostolic Lineage
(1) The Two Ammonii - Ammonius Saccas the Platonist and Ammonius the Christian
(2) The Two Origen's - Origen the Platonist and Origen the Christian.
(3) The Two Anatolii - Anatolius of Alexandria the Platonist and Anatolius the Christian Bishop
(4) The Two Porphyrii - Porphyry the Platonist and Porphyry the Christian author
(5) The Two Arii - Arius of Alexandria the Platonist and Arius the Christian Presbyter.
(6) Reconstructing a Profane History of Nicaea - The Gods in the books of Plato and Constantine
(7) Identity Frauds, conclusions and recommendations - Condemnation of pious forgery.
(8) Reference: the Apostolic Lineage of the Academy of Plato - a chronological tabulation

Identity Fraud: - A criminal activity involving the use of a stolen or misappropriated identity. The process usually involves either stolen or forged identity documents used to obtain goods or services by deception.