mountainman

The Arian controversy is still a mainstream mystery.
It stems from the words of Arius which I gave.
It does not have anything to do with "the trinity".
It has everything to do with "the historicity".

The Arian controversy was the controversy which arose
in the roman empire (317 CE) as a direct opposition to the
creation and implementation of a new and strange Roman
religious order, which his propaganda called "christianity".

Arius words are preserved in the Nicean "creed".
Unlike Emperor Julian, Arius could not say to Constantine
"the new testament is a fiction and a fabrication",
especially when he was hauled in by Constantine
to face to despot face-to-face 325 CE.

What could Arius do or say to keep his head attached to
his shoulders? He was purported to be very wise and
clever in disputation. So he said what he said:

* there was a time when he was not (before Constantine)
* before he was born he was not (before Constantine)
* he was made out of nothing existing (he was fabricated, he is a fiction)
* he is from another subsistence or substance (fiction)
* he subject to alteration or change (literary fiction)

This is all we really know of the doctrine of Arius.
But strangely enough, soon afterwards, according to Jerome
"the whole world groaned to find itself Arian".

My explanation for this phrase is that the whole world groaned
to find itself questioning the history of christianity, despite its
endorsement by Constantine. But Constantine, and his successors
had way too much absolute power.

The highways were covered with galloping bishops.
Temples to deities non-christian were plundered.
In some cases basilicas were erected over their remains.

J-D

This is a provocative speculation, but so far you have completely failed to give any reason to suppose it to be true.

And why is it that you are so explicit about your opinion in this post, but so evasive about it in others?

J-D

The fact that the word 'propaganda' can be found defined in a dictionary tells us in general about one possible motivation, but does nothing to tell us what the specific motives are in any given case. You have made your view known, but you have not given us anything to substantiate your speculation.

J-D

You asked, I answered. There is no general algorithm for differentiating true from false.

If I have made some specific assertion about something, and you want to know why I think it is true, please point to it and I will do my best to oblige.

J-D

I asked you to substantiate some assertions which you actually did make. You respond, not by making any attempt to do so, but by challenging me to substantiate claims which I never made. Once again, there is no valid logical argument from the premise (uncontested by me, at least) that some statements in the Scriptures are false to the conclusion that all statements in the Scriptures are false.

J-D

If you were saying only that your hypothesis is as good as any other, that would be one thing. If anybody contested this, it would be fair for you to challenge them to give some reason why they doubt that hypothesis.

But you are not just saying that your hypothesis is as good as any other. You are asserting that it is better than any other, that any other hypothesis is untenable and that yours is the only one that can be supported. When you do this, it is fair for others to challenge you to substantiate your position, something you have so far failed to do.

mountainman

On the contrary hundreds of years of BC&H scholarship
have completely failed to give any reason to suppose the
"historical jesus" to be true. Why is that? Because there
is zero evidence.

There is in fact zero scientific and/or archeological evidence
for the existence of anything "christian" before Constantine.
If you have a citation, lay it on the table. Truth suffers the
pragmatic results of refutation.

mountainman

All I am doing is offering an alternative theory
of the history of antiquity in which the tribe of
christians existed only in a literary pseudo-history
prior to their "adoption" by father Constantine
in the fourth century.

My position is that the emperor Constantine was
a malevolent despot, supreme imperial mafia thug,
eminent christian theologian, and number one of
christian proselytiser, described as "a brigand"
(I read this as a pirate on land) and as "a ward
irresponsible for his own actions", a murderer of
innocents, family members and philosopher/priests,
possessed with boundless ambition, and absolute
power, and dearly remembered by all BC&H pundits
as the first publisher in the history of the world
of the whole and complete (OT+NT bound) bible,
nicknamed "bullneck".

IMO it is always fair to challenge any position.
I put forward the hypothesis of Eusebian Fiction
as an alternative hypothesis, to the "unexamined
hypothesis" of an HJ, or to any form of MJ theory.

I am happy for it to be considered falsifiable, but
at the same time not yet falsified.

aa5874

During the discourse regarding the non-historicity of Jesus, thes are some of points that have covered:

1. There are no credible extra-biblical extant writings of Jesus the Christ in the 1st century.
2. There are no credible extra-biblical extant writings of the multitude of his followers in the 1st century.
3. There are no credible extra-biblical writings of the doctrine or teachings of Jesus the Christ in the 1st century.
4. Jesus the Christ pre-existed before he came to earth, according to the NT.
5. Jesus the Christ, according to the NT, was sent to earth by his unknown father, commonly called God, a mythological figure.
6. The virgin birth of Jesus the Christ is mythological, he is the son of a ghost.
7. The miraculous life of Jesus the Christ on earth is mythological, he raised a dead after 4 days.
8. The resurrection of Jesus the Christ is mythological, he managed to come back to life.
9. The ascension of Jesus the Christ is mythological, he went back to the heavens, an unknown location, to be with his mythological father.
10. The book called Acts is filled with myth, the disciples carry out mythological acts yet they are witnessed by real people.
11. The character called Saul/Paul is converted by the mythological character called Jesus the Christ and proceeds to carry out mythological acts, supposedly witnessed by real people.
12. The character Saul/Paul cannot tell if Jesus the Christ is not a myth.
13. More than one character used the name Paul in the NT, apparent forgeries.
14. In Against Heresies by Irenaeus, there were many mythological versions of Jesus the Christ.

I am still waiting for an HJer to put forward some information or points to support the historicity of Jesus the Christ. So far none, the silence is deafening.

I still maintain that the historicity of Jesus the Christ is baseless, subject to change with valid corroborated information.

spin

You can maintain whatever you like there, fella, but you need to get beyond simply maintaining stuff, if you want to say something meaningful.