Bede

I'm bored of this now. What was interesting is that Mountainman couldn't just call my ridiculous theory ridiculous because his own ridiculous theory is in exactly the same boat.

If anyone one took my posts remotely seriously, go and stand in the corner and hang your head in shame.

MM, you are back on the ignore list where you belong.

Best wishes

Bede

Gamera

Hmm, great rhetoric, but no response to the issue of Julian's deepseated agenda that colored everything he and his followers did and wrote. Nothing he says can be taken as seriously reflecting any historical truth. The man was a bag of nervous agendas just trying to get at Christianity. The fact that Pete accepts Julian's tendentious writings as gospel truth says a lot about his credibility.

aa5874

It appears to me that the Reformation and Protestantism, during the 14th and 15th century, with the intervention of King Henry VIII, although for marital reasons, initially, have some simlarities to Constantine with respect to the introduction of new theological doctrine.

It is seen as with Protestantism, the existing doctrine of the Roman Catholic is reviewed and interpreted differently although the main theological theme remains, Jesus the Saviour. Later, we have King James authorising the new version of the Bible, all this is done using existing documents, producing a Bible which although similar to the Vulgate has differences.

Constantine and Eusebius, in my opinion, would have been in possesion of documents of an existing religion which just had to be 'tuned' to their fancy. It may be that the tuning was a bit 'coarse' at times, but it's a bit difficult to think that Constantine would write a brand new 'theological song', especially if the one existing appear to be believable.

mountainman

Bede forgets that my rejection of paleographic evidence is
objectively based upon the known failure of paleographic
assessment to detect forgery, and the fact that our thesis
considers that forgery was very much alive in the fourth
century under Constantine. For example, we have our very
first citation of the TF in Josephus, in the fourth century,
and we give this as an example of fourth century forgery.

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_071.htm



Pete Brown

mountainman

Our thesis is that Constantine was the prime mover of the fourth
century, in terms of years (306-337). After him Constantius II
(337-361) continued the structure set in place by Constantine.

Julian ruled briefly (361-363), and then the deapseated agendas
of the new and strange ROman religious order were again enacted
in accordance with Vlasis Rassias:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_060.htm


The fact that mainstream BC&H accepts Eusebius' tenditious theological
romance as history says alot for the credibility of mainstream BC&H. The
fact that mainstream BC&H accept as a true and given, the Eusebian
derived inference that there were in fact "christians" in the pre-Nicaean
epoch before Constantine's agendas arose, says alot about the foundation
of BC&H, especially where no clear and direct archeological evidence may
be cited to substantiate the truth of the inference.




Pete Brown

mountainman

We are in no uncertain terms informed by Eusebius and Constantine
that they were very much in possession of documents of an existing
religious order (that they called "christianity").

We may then make the inference that these source documents existed
and on the basis of this inference, that this religious order called by
Constantine and Eusebius "christianity" also existed.

However, I make no such inference.

Essentially, we are testing this inference for historical integrity.
The inference that "christianity" existed in the pre-Nicaean is
not supported by archeological and/or scientific evidence, but
only by literary evidence supplied by Eusebius and Constantine
in the fourth century.

Julian tells us that the fiction was a work of wicked men, and
that the fable was a monstrous tale. Scholars have perceived
that the package has very little internal integrity, and the next
step is to gauge its external integrity as a package actually
created out of the whole cloth by Constantine in order to rule
his new empire by new social and administrative structures,
delivered and unwrapped and thrust down the throat of the
fourth century, as described schematically here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_010.htm




Pete Brown

Gamera

Again a nonresponse regarding Julian's agenda. No reputable historian would take Eusebius' texts as historiography without an agenda, because most historians, in light of postmodern thought, acknowledge that all historiography has an agenda. There is no such thing as pure nonpolitical history.

And yet Pete is convinced that Julian is the sole exception. And he can't tell us why.

DaBuster

Nice comeback, mountainman –- a little ad hominem baiting of the forum membership is always a convincing tactic. Your attempts to hijack this forum to disseminate your goofy conspiracy theory involving Eusebius and Constantine is sometimes worth a few laughs, but really, maybe you should defer your attacks on the collective credibility of us “mainstream” types until after you’ve subject your inspired, astounding, and truly ground-breaking insights to peer review.

mountainman

On the contrary, it is my intention to make available to discussion and
general review, inclusive of the "mainstream types", an alternative theory
of the history of antiquity (0-325CE) which is consistent with objective
assessment of known archeological and scientific evidence.

I have no doubt others will eventually take the hypothesis of fiction to
the peer reviewed publications, but at present the "search for the
historical and/or mythical Jesus" is a classified unyielding dichotomy
of opinion, unprepared to objectively assess the third possibility that the
source literature of the new and strange ROman religious order, as
it appeared in the 4th century under Constantine, was fabricated out
of the whole cloth in that century, by "wicked men, a monstrous tale".

And by the way, I am glad you have a sense of humor, because all I am
doing is trying myself to find fault with the hypothesis. From the very
beginning it has been argued as being falsifiable, as being able to make
predictions. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong via
an archeological and/or scientific citation, but as yet none have resulted
in a critical refutation of the hypothesis.

I do not necessarily believe in the hypothesis myself, but since it has
occurred to me to stress test this random solution to the problem of
the historical integrity of our mainstream theories for the history of
antiquity, and it has not immediately been objectively refuted, I am
humoring myself in its continued consideration.

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

darstec

How many of those so-called paleographers do not have a vested interest in Christianity? The very fact of that vested interest gains them access to the original material. Other than those who learned and later shugged off the brainwashing, being a Christian scholar encompasses their mindset. So they are apt to buck the status quo, why exactly?

Exactly how many expert paleographers are we speaking of, and where did they get their training? Is any of it in contemorary document examination. Are any called as expert witnesses for contemporary cases to court, or is "ancient writing" using different methodology (spiritual revelation perhaps) not recognized by modern scientific paradigms?

Outside of a very few radiocarbon testing samples (absolutely none from the first or second century CE) what other collaborating evidence backs up these paleographers?

It is all part of that same fragile house of cards that wants to date the NT to the first century with evidence ranking slim to none.