mountainman

Thanks for the information Toto. I came across that Emerson quote
used in Edwin Johnson's "Antiqua Mater" and wondered what Emerson
was on about. I am impressed with other Emerson written literature
concerning nature. EG:
http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcende...uretext.html#1


Pete Brown

mountainman

By this "tribe of christians" I think Eusebius was looking at the
line of descent (canonical, apostlic, etc) of his subject matter.

He used Josephus as an authoritative priority date such that
things relating to this "tribe of christians" might be inferred (by
the Eusebian interpolation of Josephus) to have occurred in
the time of Josephus.

The word "christian" is the trade marked item which he added
to all the other materials (of 100-300CE) to support the notion
that this line of descent of "the tribe of christians" extends
to this very day.

I believe that the mainstream theory related to BC&H asserts
that the inference that there was anything christian on the
planet prior to the writings of Eusebius, is true, and is in
fact based upon the inferred truth of the Eusebian account
as a history.

I question the truth of this inference, by testing the inverse
of the inference, and finding that the inverse of the inference
(ie: there were in fact no christians until the fourth century)
quite consistent with the available historical and scientific
evidence.




Pete Brown

mountainman

We are testing out the hypothesis that in fact the new testament
was written in the fourth century, under the editor-in-chief and
harmoniser (of possibly multiple sponsored writers) Eusebius, the
lot sponsored by Constantine, for the purpose of short-changing
his newly acquired empire.

Mainstream scholarship has accepted as true the inference written
by Eusebius into his works, that he is quoting the "ancient men" of
the past 300 years. We believe that this inference may not be true.



Pete Brown

mountainman

The inference that the subject matter of the fourth century historian
Eusebius was actually historical subject matter is a conjecture shared
by the mainstream thinkers of all ages to date.

The only confirmations going on are in your mind. My thesis has
to do with history, and I am exploring the possibility that in fact
the history of christianity commenced in the fourth century.

On the contrary, I am sensible enough to realise that there is never
any such thing as this "evidential proof". For the present time I am
quite happy to understand that my position is not inconsistent with
what are determined to be historical and scientific possibilities.

I seek other's expert opinions on such matters, and assimilate
their readings, translations and notes. Your stringent egoic
requirement is spurious to issue of the inference in question.

Have a nice day.



Pete Brown

spin

What are these sealed tombs? I know only of the Wadi ed-Daliyeh fragments from the time of Alexander. Are these your fourth c. BCE material?

A few of the Bar-Kochba texts were carbon-dated as controls for the DSS.


spin

judge

A problem here is that the Roman Empire was not the whole world.
The phenomenon existed outside the empire as well.

Aphraht who lived in the Parthian empire, was writing at this time as well. He dates his fifth demonstration he tells us the years from alexander 311 b.c to his time were 648 years meaning he wrote in 337 a.d.

Demonstration 14 is formally dated the month of shebat 655 meaning 344 C.E.

It makes no sense to attribute this kind of influence from Rome inside the Parthian Empire.

So the Constantine theory will have to go.

Note too that despite Catholic aplogetics the belivers in the parthian empire were theologically ecclisiastically as well as geographically seperate from those inside the Roamn Empire, so the conspiracy theories fall down on this point.

mountainman

Not so fast ... the dates you mention above are all post Nicaean.
Information has been known to infiltrate across borders of all empires,
within a few years.

At Nicaea, Constantine offered subscription to the new and strange
religion to anyone wanting to sign the creed in the year 325 CE.
He was offering free food, free gifts, free copies of the literature,
construction of churches, and the generous military protection and
sponsorship that is attendant with a supreme imperial mafia thug.

12 years is plenty of time for Aphraht to have obtained the general
drift of the Constantinian inspired fabrication of the Galilaeans.



Pete Brown

GakuseiDon

Was Eusebius a Galilaean? If not, who was Julian referring to? And why the use of plural?

yummyfur

Why would Eusebius/Constantine create a religion with a fake history of large numbers of fake previous heretical beliefs?

Did he also have all the gnostic gospels written to back up such created heresies?

That's a hell of a lot of writing

spin

I think Ockham is having a day off.