mountainman

The Leadership of Four People and their reforms, had just saved the Roman Empire. Constantine wanted to immortalise this great leadership of four people, since it had helped him rise to the Supreme Leadership of One.

mountainman

They were authored together.

Q is a conjecture. I might as well say that the Eusebian canon tables appear to uniquely specify 650 distinct sayings and/or events, and that this represents the super Q. But what difference would it make? Eusebius had his sources - "in whom we live and move and take our being" - and they were Greek. The Greek LXX of Origen was obviously inspirational material for the authors of the books of the canonical new testament.


Why did Gandalf the Grey have to go by way of Moriah, and encounter the Balrog and fall into the abyss, only to rise again some time afterwards as Gandalf the White? Why did the elves wear mithrail armour? Why did Bilbo and Frodo Baggins write codices? Have archaeologists found any hobbits?


The position of Nicaea on Jesus was, in one word, CONTRAVERSIAL.
Signatures may have been obtained under duress to represent orthodoxy.
But it is well known that people were advised to pay Constantine lip service
at Nicaea, but later reverted to their prior opinions .....
Arius said that Jesus was made out of nothing existing.


Jesus had Constantine and his "christian army" for that job.


The heresies, including those who disbelieved in the historical existence of Jesus, all appeared at Nicaea, after the NT Canon was presented, and fueled the turbulence of the Arian controversy for centuries. These heresies were retrojected into earlier centuries by means of Eusebius "HE".


Constantine was out of control, and like Nero, was bending the rules to excess. The pagan heretics on the other hand, were reasonable people, just trying to stay alive during this anti-Hellenistic revolution.


Because everyone at Nicaea knew that the Holy Trinity was the subject matter of the philosophical treatise of the 3rd century neoplatonist Plotinus. Everyone also was made aware that Constantine had no regard whatsoever for the Greek philosophers.


Why does Eusebius describe his task like journey down a loney and unrodden path? Obscuration.


So that people might be induced to believe in a Hebrew of Syriac original, and to continue to seek - via this false belief - something earlier than the Greek text of Constantine. So far all the evidence points to a Greek original.

stephan huller

Your answers to these questions are not very convincing. The comparison with Lord of the Rings rings particularly hollow.

I can still remember when older kids in the 1970s would get high, listen to Led Zeppelin and read Tolkein. Nobody would do that with Acts. It would kill the buzz

Acts is a bad read because it is attempting to imitate history. Indeed it is clearly a reaction against a pre-existent Marcionite notion of the life and times of early Christianity which is now lost

If Acts succeeded as a compelling fantasy narrative it would fail to be taken as a historical narrative

As always my issue with your lunacy is that it pre-supposes that it was invented from scratch in the fourth century. It wasn't

andrewcriddle

The Quote is from an old version of wiki/Porphyry_(philosopher) it was removed as in breach of wiki guidelines.

Current version is Modern scholars in fact tend to accept the authenticity of the Philosophy from Oracles although recognising the real possibility that the surviving fragments have been edited by the Christian writers who preserved them.

The positive references to Christ in Philosophy from Oracles seem to indicate that Porphyry regarded Christ as a God-inspired man whose followers dreadfully misunderstood him.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Tolkien labored for 12 years and produced "The Lord of the Rings". Eusebius labored for 12 years and produced "Ecclesiastical History". The comparison is not without its merits in genre studies.

The sources present Constantine as a mocker, not a flatterer, of traditions. The is no historical context in the new testament itself and there did not have to be because it was published as part of a package which included a great deal of Eusebian material - especially the "Canon Tables". It is Eusebius's "history" that attempts to provide an historical context and to authenticate the context of the new testament "story".


The theory that Constantine commissioned a lavish publication of codices designed to become "The Holy Writ" of the Graeco-Roman Empire in the 4th century is implicitly reliant upon the postulate, or the hypothesis, that we have no real evidence for "Jesus" or "the new testament" or even for "the nation of christians" prior to their miraculous victory in the year 312 CE.

This postulate can be falsified by provision of unambiguous evidence that either "Jesus" or "the NT" or "the nation of christians" existed prior to the year 312 CE.

I can completely understand that some people, many people perhaps, do not like the postulate at all, because they have managaed to convince themselves, on the basis of their own perception of received tradition, that it is impossible that the postulate be true. They may not be able to find any evidence to support their "notion" that "something christian existed" prior to the year 312 CE, but they are happy to believe so anyway.

On the other hand I am critically skeptical of christian origins. Centuries and centuries of forgeries and wilfull manipulation of traditions by the churches and their representatives suggest that it is not impossible that christian origins itself involves forgery and the wilfull manipulation of traditions. In fact when you ask questions like .... "Was Constantine honest"? in the context of his major speeches (such as "Oration to the Saints") and long letters extant (such as the Letter to Arius of c.333 CE), the answers suggest he was not. Constantine is aptly described as having the mentality of a "gangster".

mountainman

Both WIKI versions warn that Porphyry has been "tampered with" by the 4th century christians. The 4th century state christians were in the position to preserve or to pervert the Greek literature of that epoch. The evidence is that they perverted it. They "Christianized" it for the glory of the state church.



Yes, underneath we have a text authored by Porphyry. However as they now stand I have no reason to accept them in any other way but "Christianized" forgeries. It does not take much to "Christianize" a treatise, the classic example being exhibited in the Nag Hammadi Codices.

The Sophia of Jesus Christ (NHC 3.4) is "Christianized" from Eugnostos the Blessed (NHC 3.3) via NHC 5.1

This is a purposeful explicit reconstruction of how Christian literature came into existence. As if they were sequentially presenting a geometrical treatise of Euclid, the editors of the NHC present three different versions of the one source text. In the first instance a book called “Eugnostos the Blessed” (Eugnostos means "Right Thinking") is written by scribal hand at NHC 3.3. It is then repeated a second time at NHC 5.1, with one small addition ... "The first aeon, then, is that of Immortal Man. The second aeon is that of Son of Man, who is called 'First Begetter' (and in Codex 5.1; "who is called 'Savior'" is added). Thus, the second version is exactly the same as the first version but with the addition of one phrase – namely "who is called 'Savior'. Finally at NHC 3.4, the tract entitled "The Sophia of Jesus Christ" is a "Christianized" and redacted form of the original Eugnostos the Blessed.

The same positive reference in the works of Josephus does not indicate that Josephus regarded Christ at all - from any perspective - and I suspect that this is precisely how Porphyry regarded Jesus --- that Porphyry, who died before the year 312 CE, leaving his works in Rome, had never once heard of the name Jesus, or the new testament or "the nation of Christians". I suspect however that foremost in Porphyry's mind was the concept of the "Good" or the "CHRESTOS", since this appears to be the over-all and nondual divine oneness which had been articulated by his teacher Plotinus in his treatise about the neoplatonic Holy Trinity.

The Holy Trinity of Plotinus

The following is sources from the History of Western Philosophy -
Bertrand Russell - 1945
p.289

Chapter 30 - PLOTINUS (204-270 CE)

Plotinus (204-270 CE), the founder of Neoplatonism, is the last of the great philosophers of antiquity.


The metaphysics of Plotinus begins with a Holy Trinity:
The One, Spirit and Soul.

(These three are not equal, like the Persons of the Holy Trinity; the One is supreme, Spirit comes next, and Soul last.[2])

THE ONE is somewhat shadowy. It is sometimes called God, sometimes called the Good; it transcends Being.

THE NOUS "SPIRIT" - offspring/reflection of the ONE. includes mind - the intellect.

SOUL - offspring of the Divine Intellect. It is double: there is an inner soul, intent on NOUS, and another, which faces the external.

FWIW Andrew, I think (perhaps a little like Peter Kingsley) that at the foundation of the pagan (neoPlatonic/neoPythagorean) concept of deity there was not a monotheistic deity but rather a nondual deity. This concept of the nondual deity was subverted by the 4th century christian monotheistic regime.

But it was the style of the subversion that needs to be addressed by modern scholarship. How were these, the greatest philosophical insights ever written and collated and published by Porphyry treated by Constantine's Christian Revolution? THEY WERE BURNT BY THE SOLDIERS. Doesn't this fact trouble anyone? Why did Constantine burn the literature of Porphyry and Arius at the same time he was publishing the Constantine Bible?

Toto

Of course it is a bad thing, but it does not support your case at all. Proving that Constantine was a thug does not prove that he masterminded the forgery of early Christian history.

avi

To my simplistic way of thinking, Constantine was first, and foremost, a general. He was a man accustomed to getting his own way, by leadership. In those days, generals led the soldiers, they didn't order them to fight, and then stand in protective cover, 14 rows deep, watching the front line face the spears and swords of the enemy. The general of the army, in those days, WAS the front line.

Constantine proved himself in battle. He expected no less heroic an effort from his minions. I have no evidence, of course, that Constantine ordered Eusebius to forge this or that, to create this or that, to destroy this or that. I simply believe, on faith, that Emperor Constantine, lord of the realm, instructed his subordinates to "make it happen", and they did, in accord with his broad outline. They created ONE uniform religion, from the many, many competing sects of that era.

Constantine, in my view, didn't give a damn about the religion per se. He simply wanted UNITY throughout the empire. What he did not tolerate, and could not accept, was disruption of the grain and meat supply to Rome, due to street clashes in the port cities, caused by doctrinal differences of opinion--differences resultant from the large quantity of imprecise, poorly transcribed, and mutually contradictory texts. He needed unity, and clarity was the key to assuring that unity. Fundamental disagreements, such as the one precipitated by Arius' reiterating Lucian of Antioch's, notion that JC was created by God, and therefore, could not have existed for all eternity, posed a threat to the empire, and accordingly had to be crushed. In my opinion, that was the reaction, not of thug, but of military genius--> for how else should we describe a guy who conquered the whole of the Western world, by military means?

If we substitute a few words from your quote:
"Proving that Eusebius was a forger, does not prove that he masterminded the forgery of all the ancient documents."

Well, again, this is a reasonable sentiment, especially when viewed in the abstract, from OUR perspective. I am not so convinced, however, that it is a reasonable conclusion in assessing the impact of Eusebius on the evolution of Christianity. Means, motive, and opportunity. That is how criminal investigations proceed, is it not? We seek to identify who committed the crime, based upon those three qualifiers. Maybe the crime was perpetrated by someone who was simply deranged, and then, the algorithm fails, but it usually suffices to assist in locating suspects. Sometimes we are mislead, in following that simple minded mantra, and we accuse, erroneously, the wrong person. The logic is not infallible. It is only a guide, nothing more.

Did Eusebius satisfy those three criteria? I believe the answer is obvious. Does that mean then, that he created the entire history of the early church, i.e. all the "patristic" evidence that we have today, bears his touch, passed through his filter, gained his approval? I think the answer is yes and no. Yes, he permitted documents to exist, or permitted their duplication, and some he forged de novo. No, in my opinion, Eusebius was not working with an unpainted wall, when he applied his brushstrokes.

My conclusion then, is that most of what Pete has written is both meritorious, and useful--if only because his theory assists us to remember that much, not all, certainly, but much of our ancient evidence, originates from the era following Nicea. Maybe he has been falsely accused, but by my reckoning, Eusebius' fingerprints are all over the murder weapon. It is not DNA evidence, but it is physical data to accompany the trilogy of means, motive, and opportunity.

avi

aa5874

Now, to show that Eusebius did NOT invent Jesus and the Jesus Cult just read the NICENE creed and any book in the NT Canon.

It would be expected that if Eusebius INVENTED Jesus and his cult that he would have PUT the Nicene Creed in the sayings of his fabricated Jesus or his followers.

No author of any book of the NT Canon show any DIRECT awareness of the NICENE creed of 325 CE.

The Roman Empire covered a VAST region in the 4th century and it was NOT likely that it was one person who alone fabricated the HISTORY of the Church. It MUST have been a TEAM of INVENTORS and FORGERS using ALIASES like "PAUL", Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Papias, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus and others, including the name Eusebius.

It must have been a MASSIVE undertaking to CONVERT from the numerous Greek/Roman myths to a single MYTH and even destroying the Temples of the previous Gods.

"Church History" under the name Eusebius is most likely from and under the authority of the "CHURCH" OF ROME, not the work of a single man.

It is my view that the CHURCH OF ROME simply STOLE the Jesus story, believing it was true, and called it their own.

The Romans at that time probably PLUNDERED and STOLE everything they own, even their GODS in the 4th century.

mountainman

Thanks for these observations avi,

I agree with you wholeheartedly that Constantine was first, and foremost, a general. The surviving histories all attest to his burning ambition. He was good at being a general, and for ten years, according to Aurelius Victor, he was seen as a "Good Man".

312 CE General becomes "Pontifex Maximus"

However we also need to see that Constantine was to become far more than just a general. In 312 he assumed the role of "Pontifex Maximus" after taking the city of Rome with his army. For the next decade, while he edged his way towards the east, he is described by Aurelius Victor as a "brigand". This may relate to his excessive taxation policies or other rackets which he may have operated. Underlying all wars, ancient or modern, there is massive racketeering. Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" provides modern insights to an ancient pattern of facts,

It may relate to his growing interest in his "preferred religious cult" as "Pontifex Maximus". Which cult was Constantine interested in, the people may have wondered. His coins suggest that he increasingly distanced himself from the traditional religious cults which at been sponsored by one, or another Roman Emperor. During this period, Eusebius was perhaps commissioned by Constantine to research the history of "the Historical Jesus".

His ambition as "Pontifex Maximus" was to become the One Ruler of the Unified Empire, and it may be that he believed he needed to find an appropriately "Divine and Holy Writ" and take it to the extant priesthoods and have it duly "canonized" (just as Ardashir had done in Persia).

I also agree that I dont think it really mattered to Constantine what the resultant outward form of the religion was. All that mattered was that all the extant traditional religions and cults were no longer be able to offer "religious privileges" to the people of the empire. The One unified state needed the one true monotheistic religion which believed in the "divine nature" of the messages written in the the Greek language within the high technology of the codex that Constantine was about to "canonize" and publish.

.


324 CE General and "Pontifex Maximus" becomes malevolent despot

The final long decade in Constantine's career is characterized by Aurelius Victor referring to him as "a ward irresponsible for his own actions". He may have been a good general, but for some reason after also being "Pontifex Maximus" for a decade, after finally becoming the supreme military commander of the entire Roman Empire, immediately ordered his army to commence the destruction of ancient and highly revered religious architecture, and to enforce his orders the prohibition of traditional practices in the pagan temples and shrines, etc.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Constantine gradually succumbed to what practically all Roman emperors before him had suffered from - absolute power. The Councils of Antioch and Nicaea are dominated by Constantine, touting the benefits of his new religion, and the political anathemetization people could expect if they did not agree with his religious policies. Examples were made. Close relatives were executed. Constantine had reached the end of his need to fight battles - he had won the "gold jackpot" in the Eastern empire. He recycled the City of Alexander to the City of Constantine. But he never fought much again. He became soft and corrupt. If the first decade was "Good" and the second was "Bad", this last "long" decade from 324 to 337 was "Ugly".





It was not simply a matter of crushing the words of Arius, which themselves,
these five seemingly innoculous sophisms, are at the basis of the entire
centuries long Arian controversies. Constantine invoked political measures
in he form of "damnatio memoriae" to ensure that not only were the words,
and the books written by, and the very name of Arius be obliterated from
the public records, but that the memory of Arius of Alexandria was also to
be removed from rememberance.

Here is the relevant document:


Here Constantine is both general and politician.
There was something he did not like about Arius.

What was it really?


IMO Lucian is a "retrojected stooge" and Arius followed Plotinus and Porphyry. Arius's arguments were novel. It is hypothecized that Arius's disagreements were novel because Constantine's Jesus was novel at Nicaea, and it caused a great disagreement which was later utterly downplayed.




As the supreme commander and "Pontifex Maximus" Constantine's ambitions had turned
to dabbling in the equivalent of "high technology". He was smart enough to use the
best technology available to him. If he played his cards right, one bible would be
worth an entire Roman legion, and if he published the bible in the high technology
of the codex it could last a thousand years or more.

At any rate, although he hastily rushed the new testament canonizaion process through
at Nicaea by the formality of collecting signatures under duress, and published 50 copies
of the Constantine Bible, Constantine's New Testament Canon was not the one which was
eventually "Closed Upon" 40 years later. Nevertheless, the removal of the authority
of the pagan priesthoods and the commissioning of the new network of "Christian Bishops"
who would have more authority that magistrates and judges in the empire, was irreversible.

The christian church perpetuated itself after the death of its sponsor.
There was a lot of bloodshed deciding on who would be popes and bishops.

And a lot more pious forgeries, covering over Constantine's despotism.




I agree with this.


Thanks very much avi for all these comments. See also some very early discussions such as
Would Eusebius have Fabricated an Organized Church History to Please Constantine? by Ted Hoffman. Many of my arguments are not newly considered, they have been discussed with varying success for years, perhaps decades.


The problem that most people have is the postulate. On the basis of the manifest lack of evidence to the contrary I am postulating - perhaps wildly - that Christendom appeared only in the 4th century. The theory that Constantine commissioned Eusebius to oversight what Julian later referred to as "the fabrication of the christians" attempts to make sense of all the known 4th and 5th evidence based on the postulate.

I think that most people appear not accept the postulate - that we have no "evidence" before 312 CE.
I think that most people feel comfortable with the dominance of the belief system that christendom preceeded Constantine.
Because they are comfortable with this paradigm, the postulate is rejected out of hand.
Very few people, I think, genuinely entertain, even for a brief moment, the notion that the postulate may be right
and follow through to the next step of saying.... OK, if christendom was brand new at Nicaea, where are the fireworks?
Didn't anyone make a complaint?
Those sorts of questions.
Index Librorum Prohibitorum



So is the C14 evidence, and I am still making enquiries how the two available C14 citations are best introduced into the argument. Means, motive, and opportunity to "canonized" a fabricated "Holy Writ" is just one of the crimes, in a century or two of many embellishments and cover-ups for the glory of the newly established freedom of chrisendom.

Aftermath considerations

The later 4th and 5th accounts had to get rid of a lot of reports and histories. Many histories were written of that epoch but very few survive, and those that do were authored perhaps a century after Nicaea, when the orthodox victory had been celebrated by their "descendants" for some time. The Vatican has always swooped on manuscript discoveries like the DSS but nowdays the discoveries are bypassing the clutches of the vatican for the first time in perhaps 16 centuries.

In this change I remain hopeful that further evidence will make itself known to the world in order for it to question one of its most basic assumed facts.