Toto

Your thread was not banned. It was just moved to a more appropriate forum, and it is still open.

Doug Shaver

You're changing the subject. I was responding to a comment about bias, not about forgery.
It's also really beside the point. If we have numerous sources, evidence against one is not evidence against any of the others.

mountainman

But we already should be well aware that nearly all so-called "Christians" (including the so-called Apostles) before Nicaea, and every single Christian source in the 4th century (and most after) are HERESIOLOGICAL - a manifest bias towards the canonical orthodoxy. The question is how many of these orthodox heresiologists involved themselves in the fabrication of pseudo-historical narratives via pious forgery. The answer appears to be that many of the sources are historically untrustworthy.

The Nicaean Christians appear to have risen to the top by continually forging material which, due to their political protection by the imperial Roman State army, their detractors had little, if any chance, of either contravening or even questioning. We are lead to believe that the Christians rose to the top at Nicaea as described by the Ecclesiastical Histories written a CENTURY after Nicaea. Why do you think this is? Perhaps they could not agree which history (or pseudo-history) to use ....




IF WE HAVE Numerous sources outside of Eusebius what are they?

* the christian-like murals of the Dura-Europos-Yale "house church"
* the palaeographical attestations concerning otherwise undatable papyri fragments
* the Queen of Christian inscriptions - the inscription of Abercius
* the James Ossuary or the Shroud of Turin?
* the reference in Tacitus and/or Pliny and/or Suetonius and/or Marcus Aurelius?
* the references in Josephus?
* the church fathers mentioned by Eusebius?
* the NT canonical literature and/or the NT non-canonical literature
* feel free to extend this list.




Every item of evidence CLAIMED outside of "Eusebius" is logically questionable on an item by item basis, independently. There are many items I could have placed on this list - perhaps thousands of pious forgeries tendered in support of the "Christian Hegemon" between the 4th and the 21st century, that are now no more than curious relics. We may ignore these omitted truckload of fabications and forgeries and just ask for the exceedingly minute remnant of CLAIMED EVIDENCE still in circulation and held to be positive, at least by some. It is not illogical to ask for an extendible list of evidence by which such CLAIMS have been made.

Duvduv

Very interesting posting, Mountainman. Indeed the writers did not deny they were heresiologists at all, and we should take everything they say with a huge grain of salt.

Doug Shaver

I am well aware of your presuppositions. I am not obliged to treat them as facts.

I do agree that they were biased. I made that perfectly clear.

No, that is not the question to which I was responding.

It obviously appears so to you. The firmness of your personal convictions proves nothing.

You know the answer to that question damned well. You just disagree with it.

We've been through this before. I'm not taking your bait to go through it again.

Right. Gibbon said it. You believe it. That settles it.

mountainman

The claim that the so-called early christian orthodoxy may be characterized as heresiological sources is represented in the literary evidence. Eusebius is a master heresiologist, and he commands the sources of the battle between the orthodox canon-following heresiologists and the vile gnostic heretics in the pre-Nicaean epoch. After Nicaea the voices of the orthodox canon-following heresiologists are raised against these vile gnostic heretics in the historical record, until the heresies were physically stamped out. The texts of the 4th century orthodox canon-following heresiologists and now the Nag Hammadi codices and texts of some of the vile gnostic heretics are openly available to be read.

There are invectives running between the two parties. The evidence indicates that the orthodox canon-following heresiologists were prone to the dispensation of censorship, anathematization, political exile, death, execution, burning, destruction, etc, etc, etc. Moreover the evidence also indicates that the orthodox canon-following heresiologists were prone to fabricating their own historical narratives. They rewrote the history of the conflict - according to Bart Ehrman.

Why dont you prepare a list of all the orthodox canon-following christian sources from the year DOT to 325 CE, and then from 325 to the year 444 CE and then against each one a little check-box entitled "Was this source heresiological"?.

Verily verily I say unto you it will be easier to list the exceptions.



Isn't it a miracle that we can sometimes agree?



It is nevertheless a valid question. I happen to see it as a rather critical question in the whole story of "Christian Origins" and especially with regard to the OP of "How the "Christians" rose to the top. The Christians that rose to the top were people who can be categorized - quite clearly and unambiguously - as orthodox canon-following heresiologists.

"We must not see the fact of usurpation;
law was once introduced without reason, and has become reasonable.
We must make it regarded as authoritative, eternal, and conceal its origin,
if we do not wish that it should soon come to an end."

~ Blaise Pascal, "Pensees"

The thesis of Charles Freeman is focussed on the year 381 CE, may be summarised in his own words as follows:


My personal convictions have nothing to do with Freeman's thesis about the year of 381 CE, about the Council of Constantinople, about the Roman Emperor Theodosius and about how the church later represented imperial legislation as "chuch council decisions".




It now seems that your presupposition is to avoid the direct discussion of the evidence items themselves. Such a list is an embarrassment to those who feel compelled to argue that we have certain items of unambiguous evidence OUTSIDE of the source called IN-EUSEBIUS-WE-TRUST. The list of negative items and forgeries, monstrously large each century between the 4th and the 21st can be ignored (for the moment). The list of positive evidence is very very very very very very very very very very very very small (have I already listed it? We can cross out the Shroud ... ) and constituted of items each of which brings in various degrees of ambiguity. By all means, avoid the direct mention of the evidence.





Happy New Year BTW - to one and all.



Wrong. Arnaldo Momigliano follows Gibbon. I believe it is settled that Momigliano was one of the foremost ancient historians of the 20th century. Both historians use irony in service of their narrative. If we were to ask Momigliano to post on the OP, I think that he would say that the Christians rose to the top by means of a MIRACLE.



It should be noted that the three decade rule of Constantine was very instrumental in this MIRACLE .

Duvduv

Mountainman, the implications of this is that the idea that the "orthodox" won their way "into favor" with the empire's intellectual elite because of Christianity's devotion to charity, humility, etc., but rather that Nicene Christianity was in essence the imperial choice from above of a syncretic ideology combining elements of "the best" that was of antiquity, i.e. from Jewish monotheism, Roman paganism and platonic philosophy designed for dissemination via the heresiologist/apologist/historian industry at their service.
Does this also imply that the actual NT texts were invented throughout the 4th century in the imperial corridors of the same industry or that they existed in the hands of existing sects?

mountainman

WE MUST NOT FORGET THE NON-CANONICAL BOOKS
OF THE VILE GNOSTIC HERETICS.

If we are really interested in the historical truth of so-called "Early Christian Origins" we will examine with an equally dispassionate earnestness the two sides of the one coin - the politics of the authorship of the books of the canon and that of the non canonical books. These are the two sides of one and the same "Christian phenomenom". We inherited the HEADS of the canonical books, and the TAILS have been buried for 1600 years. The Vatican has been flipping a coin in the air and recording the result for over 1600 years. The result is not a random walk, but an endless succession of HEADS. The orthodox heresiological canon-followers must always win the toss. There is obviously a great bias at work here. The Vatican is quite rich. The game goes on ....


HEADS: the Canonical New Testament corpus

Let's leave the question of the century of authorship open for the moment.


TAILS: the Non Canonical New Testament corpus

My research can be summarised as follows:


Evidence of 4th century authorship: 51 %
No early witnesses ...............: 25 %
No text available to examine .....: 8 %
Eusebius is earliest witness .....: 5 %
-----
Sub Total: 89 % 4th century

Eusebius presents early witnesses.: 11 % (suspicious)

aa5874

But, the fraud called "Church History" was carried out by and Authorised by the Church of Rome.

It is the Crime scene that MUST be re-examined.

It is IMPERATIVE that we EXPOSE those who DECEIVED the Human Race into believing a Myth Fable.

It is the NT Canon that is part of the fraud--NOT the Non-Canonised books.

It was a MASSIVE hoax that Peter in the Canonized Gospels was a Bishop of Rome and that is how "Christianity rose to the top".

Duvduv

Mountainman, thank you for addressing my question, but unfortunately I was always lousy in the field of math and statistics. I presume the answer to my question is in the data you offer, but I cannot understand it.