yummyfur

But don't we have the Venerable Bede, who is not using Zosimus as source. We have Orosius, while his history isn't too great, but we can probably expect a little more accuarcy for the period from 385-420, when he actually lived. We also have Gildas who would be a British contemporary of Zosimus as well as Constantius of Lyon.Also we have Prosper of Aquitaine, not a great historian, but we can probably hope the accuarcy of the period 420-460 is ok, as he is writing about things he knows instead of compiling. Finally we have Claudius Claudianus poetry who give us info for 395-404, when he lived and wrote. Since these people have no known shared agenda about British history(and some conflicting agendas), when we compare back and forth we can probably make some good judgements, figuring out what is more or less likely, and what is completely made up or hyperbole.

mountainman

I am thinking of the view from the top, Ben.

Firstly I'd like to assuage novelty. The following scholars regard the
literature as entirely questionable:

1) Whelas' "Forgery In Christianity":
http://www.infidels.org/library/hist..._christianity/

2) Bernard's "Apollonius of Tyana the Nazarene"
http://www.mountainman.com.au/Apollo...e_Nazarene.htm

3) Edwin Johnson's "Antiqua Mater" and "Pauline Epistles Revisisted"

Note that Johnson advocates a missing x hundred year chronology,
while Whelas simply charges the early texts as "pious forgeries".
Bernard states the fiction was implemented to calumnify Apollonius
at the Council of Nicaea, but does not charge Eusebius or Constantine
explictly with the act. But they all regard the literature as a "fiction",
and without any acceptable and appropriate authenticity.

4) Emperor Julian's "Against the Galilaeans" in 362 CE:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene...Galilaeans.htm


Secondly, I put forward the observation that the mainstream scholarship
"uniformly regard that literature as largely authentic" is because they have
accepted by their teachers and their precedents, that the inference that
there were christians on the planet before the fourth century Eusebius
took a quill into his hands, is true.

Nobody with the above few exceptions (there may be more) has actually
questioned the truth (or the consistency) of the inference. Eusebius's
work thus becomes a theory of history written in the 4th in respect of
the first 3 centuries. It may not be correct.

The inverse of the inference, is that there were no christians on the planet
until the fourth century. Surprisingly, one finds that the inverse of the
inference appears to have evidence of existence in history, if one is
able to suspend mainstream paradigms are view the Arian controversy
as a controversy against the implementation of Constantine's new and
strange religion.

In short Ben, it is a change from the mainstream paradigm,
in which "the fabrication of the Galilaeans is viewed as a fiction".

Migration of manuscripts out of the Roman empire into the Arabian
empire was enhanced by their selective destruction in the former
under the christian regimes commencing from Nicaea.

The perversion of the literature appears to have only happened
under the "absolute power which corrupts absolutely" of Constantine
on the scale here being discussed, as far as I can determine.

I do not expect that the theory be accepted in the first instance,
only that it be lined up for consideration along with the rest of the
theories, or opinions of men, concerning the history of antiquity.

My bet is that Julian was a very very learned man, far ahead of
the scholars of note, even unto this day, and will be found to
be on the money with his conviction.

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

darstec

I could ease your mind on that one.

And naturally they would be any with a later date because they do not coincide with your theological tenets.

Malachi151

That site is pretty good. Notice, however, that the first two works listed are only theoretical wroks, they don't actually exist.

Notice also that the Gospels of the Bible aren't written until long after many other Christians writings. The first Christian writing that we have record of are those of Paul, and Paul plainly states that he never saw Jesus, nor did he learn anything about Jesus from people, he learned eveyrthing he knew about Jesus "from revelation".... :banghead:

Notice that the gospels are written well after the works of Paul, and indeed seem to actually be based ON the works of Paul, as well as other known sources, such as Philo and Greek works. There is a very well laid out teory that Mark (the first gospel) was based on the Epics of Homer:

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

Also, I certianly do NOT beleive that there was a historical Jesus, and I make part of that case on my website here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...jesus_myth.htm

mountainman

It's reassuring to know that the creator of that site has a healthy
sense of humor.

And do you not think it is the scientific approach to countenance
in the full spectrum of all possibilities relating to the theory of the
history of antiquity, such hypotheses which reject the mainstream
biblical studies' inference, drawn from the fourth century texts of
Eusebius, that "the tribe of christians" was not only existent in
the flesh, but in the patristic literature, prior to the 4th century.

If we assume Julian's Against the Galilaeans made it out of the
soon-to-be-book-burning-inferno of the birth of 4th century christian
Roman empire and into the Arabian, perhaps Julian's original words
will miraculously become available to mankind, via an Islamic ms.

Oh Cyril, what were those other matters
which you did not choose to refute and calumnify
because of their inate and timeless power
to contaminate the minds of christians?



Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene...Galilaeans.htm

"The fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men
composed by wickedness"

-- Supreme (and Learned) Emperor Julian (c.362 CE)

Ben C Smith

I appreciate this information.

I want to congratulate you on formulating a view of Christian origins that I agree with virtually 0%.

I have gone back and read a few of your posts, and have glanced briefly at your site, and am pleased that you seem (so far as I have read so far) to be polite and well-mannered with those who disagree with you. That is always appreciated.

Good luck with your pursuits, and I thank God you were not born in the days when such theories might get you hung. Long live intellectual freedom.

Ben.

mountainman

Naturally I would be interested in understanding how our disagreement
is resolvable, and welcome any discourse toward this.


Thanks Ben.

The steep hill you mentioned earlier might be a lonely place at the moment.
However I have a vision that this hill is simply a part of the natural
landscape that has yet remained hidden and unexplored.

I am happy to understand that you perceive no malice in my works
and words, because I see the journey of life as one shared by all living
creatures, each with their own unique perspective on the "light of life".

My website is inter-disciplinary and is sub-entitled
Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
and was assembled largely in the mid-90s for
the purpose of research into the Deep and Meaningful FAQ
by an old Australian surfie before he catches his last wave.

My thesis here is that Julian ought to be given credence by scholarship
in an analysis of why for god's sake the most learned man on the
planet at the time, and the supreme ruler of the entire Roman
empire, would, when his short life was measured in moons, spend
the time writing why he was convinced that ...

Uttering certain unutterable things in times past would have
certainly "filled the highways with galloping bishops". That is
why the analyses of people like Sir Isaac Newton, with regard
the the specific and exact dimensionality of the Arian controversy
are important, for scholarship in future years to define in an
acceptable and appropriate scientific manner.


Thanks again for your dialogue Ben.
I too appreciate the resources available
at your own website. Best wishes,



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

gilly54

Thanks to Tomboy Mom who pointed me to the sticky, and all who have posted in that thread and provided links. (I'm embarrassed I came 'late to the meeting" regarding Peter Kirby's Early Christian Writings site)

Regarding the OP, it will be interesting to see what extra-Biblical references proving Jesus existed are trotted out in that court case accepted to be heard by the European Court of Human Rights brought by an Italian atheist, Mr. Cascioli.

Berthold

Just an educated guess: Possibly yes. The holy fathers who brought this up lived way before the "Oriental Schism".

Wads4

If we are talking about the same thing, it was an ossuary,-and it is fake.