TedM

It might be interesting to put together a list of what must be true if the Eusebian Postulate put forth by Pete Brown aka mountainman is true. I'm interested in those that fall into the "wildly unlikely" category.

ted

Jeffrey Gibson

Expert knowledge of, and ability to reproduce, the script hand of scribes who lived 2 centuries before Nicea and who wrote in a several different languages and in different localities.

No doubt Pete will claim that Eusebian scribes had access to archives that contained ancient documents in which one could find examples of such scribal hands. But this presupposes not only that there were such archives, but that the documents that were within them were originals, let alone that the Eusebian scribes would have been adept at dating documents by paleography -- something that Pete says is an unreliable way of determining the age of MSS.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Such as any library in Rome c.312 CE and any library in the empire from 324 CE. The Boss made a strong bid for all Roman scribal activity. Most opposition understandably stood off. The technology and the archives belonged to the Pontifex Maximus. The one with the big barbarian army pitched all around the Seven Hills of Rome.

That's right.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

MarkA

I do support paleographic analysis but not as a sole determinant of age. It must be supported by any other evidence if possible. For example, the Gospel Of Judas was dated to 400 by paleography yet the other tests all supported an earlier date. Ink analysis and multi spectral analysis both came up with 3 rd or 4 th century and C14 had a spread of between 220 and 340.

Could you please supply the evidence where paleographic analysis has been proved correct by other means. This should give support to the contention that it is a reliable method.

mountainman

If the Eusebian fiction postulate is valid then the following must be true:

1) The Prenicene Epoch was christian-free
The ancient history for the period of the first centuries before Nicaea is entirely pagan, without the faintest glimmer of anything "christian". We should be able to state that there do not appear to be any unambiguous archaeological citations to the existence of christianity before 312 CE, and this statement is capable of being argued.

2) The "COUNCIL of Nicaea" was a historical bounday event
Military supremacy was used to enforce belief in a pseudo-history.
The words of Arius and the Arian controversy rage for a century.

3) COMMON KNOWLEDGE of the NT as FICTION was POPULAR THEN
See every list of anathemas from the church councils of the fourth century and you will find attestation to the fact that there existed public (pagan) opinion that supported the words of Arius. FICTION was still being recognised as a heretical form of belief when Nestorius wrote "The Bazaar of Heraclitus", following the three books of Julian "Against the Galilaeans".

4) NT APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE is anti-canon polemic/sedition/parody
The postulate also allows us to consider that the entire NT apocryphal literature was generated from 324 onwards as pagan sedition against the initiatives of the warlord Constantine. The C14 citations available today support this implication.

5) Explanation of what are otherwise called "CONTROVERSIES".
The Arian controversy: The words of Arius: were all about the fiction.
The Origenist controversy: due to Eusebian forgery of Origen's NT contributions to the heritage of world literature.
The Nestorian Controversy: Nestorius is simply reporting what is going on in the empire around him. People seemed to believe, from ancient authority (in the mid-fifth century), that the NT was fiction. Cyril did not want this to be mentioned. He had just successfully silenced Julian. He silenced Nestorius and had his writings consigned to the fire.

6) Explanation of heresies and "anathemas"
The christian VICTORS attempt to bury deeply the evidence that the pagan opposition of Arius in the fourth century were convinced of FICTION. The invent euphemisms such as docetic to christianise the sedition against the Constantine emperor cult. Endless heresies are generated to divide and conquer all remnant disbelief in the NT histiorical authenticity. These heresies are invariably RETROJECTED into earlier centuries by the forger Eusebius, using fictitious authors such as Justin and Tertullian to demonstrate things like docetic belief existed before Constantine, and was therefore not new. Julian described Eusebius as wretched. He describes the NT as a fabrication and a fiction. Censorship is to be expected by the church, seeing their tax-exempt massive business took a dramatic downturn after Julian writes his accounts. The victorious christian bishops doctor the evidence over the next 1600 years.

7) The FRAUD and FABRICATION continues
One final implication is "as the tree, so the fruit". There is no legitimacy whatsoever in the christian literature. As such, its environment has always engendered more fraud and fiction. How many pious forgeries have occurred between the era of Jerome, Augustine and Cyril until today? And yes, we need to add up all these ossary boxes a la Oded Golam, all the bits of the cross, all the bones of the maryrys, etc, etc, etc. This is the qualiture and the genre of the "christian evidence" surviving ---- FRAUD.

8) Persecution and INTOLERANCE
Flowing outward from its place of inception in the court of the Roman emperor the emperor-cult which knew itself as christianity filled up all the places of power ... became domicile in all the Boss's basilicas, etc. The pagans were prohibited the use of the ancient temples. The new basilicas were commissioned to take up the business. Tax exempt business. It was a power structure which perpetuated itself by persecution and intolerance of anything other than its own myopic and inauthentic beliefs. The fourth century tells the story of the church's rise to supreme power.


There are probably other logical implications of the postulate being true, but that should provide a starting point.

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Toto

You misunderstand this thread. It is asking for improbable things that must be true, not another of your recitations of aspects of your theory.

There are three threads on the first page of the forum dealing with the Pete Brown hypothesis, plus at least one more started by Pete. This is at least two too many.

Is there a reason not to chose this thread?

TedM

Close it.

Sheshbazzar

Hey Pete! Looks like this means that no one was able to actually produce any of those "wildly unlikely" things, so they are now deciding to just abandon the project.