Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-23-2006, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sorompio

Hi, mountainman. About your thesis, check independent work from professor Fernando Conde Torrens. I opened a thread some time ago about the subject:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...hlight=catalan

Thanks for this reference, I'd expect his work to have several good reasons why he thinks the way he does, and it will interesting to obtain a translation of his literature.

The idea that christianity was implemented by Constantine c.312 obviously appears to be strange and new. This is because we have been conditioned to believe in the theory of history of christianity which was first written by Eusebius of Caesarea. However, one must understand it is only a theory of history, and there may be a theory of the history of christianity which has far more historical integrity than the Eusebian account.

IMO the strongest evidence in favour of the phenomenom of christianity being initiated under the reign of Constantine, are the list of the logical implications of the Eusebian fiction postulate. These were outlined in my original post, and the argument summarised.

Noone has yet commented on this logic.
Any takers?

Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes

mountainman · 03-23-2006, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The Christian Church (as distinct from the fragment) at Dura-Europus almost certainly dates from before 256.

The house is question is presumed to be a christian church by analysis of the the art work depicted in the alleged baptistry. However we again see "The Shepherd" and not "The Christian". The argument that the house in question is not a christian church perhaps as yet has not been made.

I will be certainly compiling a list of historical evidence which appears to be inconsistent with a theory of Constantinian implemented christianity, and I will certainly be referencing Dura Europa as an item.

Quote:

The reference in the cited article to seems unlikely to imply 4th century occupation of Dura. It may simply refer to the period of continued military activity until shortly after the capture of Valerian in 260.

An occupation is certainly not required.

All that is required is an isolated desert community and/or individual(s) to have used the house, and/or the wall as a storage place in any of the following centuries. That the town remained totally unoccupied, a permanent ghost town immediately after the departure of the Persian detachment, and for thousands of years, is an unwarranted assumption that has been made by someone, dont you think?

Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

andrewcriddle · 03-23-2006, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

By what process is the stone inscription dated, and what date has been ascribed by this process? Thanks for the info, but I do not have access to this work.

Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

The inscription has year 327 written on it.

Phrygia used the Sullan era in this period with year 1 being 85/4 BCE.
Hence year 327 is 242/3 CE.

Andrew Criddle

Ted Hoffman · 03-24-2006, 08:53 AM

Hi Mountainman,
I have been distracted by other things. Your hypothesis is interesting and I am yet to examine it. Welcome to IIDB. You are in the best company for the kind of work you are doing.
Jacob

gstafleu · 03-24-2006, 09:45 AM

Would Tacitus count as evidence for Christians around 115? Apparently in his Annals he describes how Nero blamed the Christians for the fire of Rome. Or is that passage seen as an interpolation? I'm a historical lay person, mind you, but I remember that Tacitus is often mentioned as one of the first to mention Christians.

Julian · 03-24-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Would Tacitus count as evidence for Christians around 115? Apparently in his Annals he describes how Nero blamed the Christians for the fire of Rome. Or is that passage seen as an interpolation? I'm a historical lay person, mind you, but I remember that Tacitus is often mentioned as one of the first to mention Christians.

The physical manuscript is quite late, it wouldn't help us in this particular context.

Julian

Chris Weimer · 03-24-2006, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Would Tacitus count as evidence for Christians around 115? Apparently in his Annals he describes how Nero blamed the Christians for the fire of Rome. Or is that passage seen as an interpolation? I'm a historical lay person, mind you, but I remember that Tacitus is often mentioned as one of the first to mention Christians.

Tacitus actually uses Chrestian, not Christian, though he connects it with Christ. It is still uncertain, and some have argued for tampering with that passage. I'm currently working on a theory of it, but even I am largely clueless. Check up on "mini synoptic" in the forum for more information.

mountainman · 03-26-2006, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Hi Mountainman,
I have been distracted by other things. Your hypothesis is interesting and I am yet to examine it. Welcome to IIDB. You are in the best company for the kind of work you are doing.
Jacob

Good day Ted,

As elsewhere mentioned in this thread above, you started a thread in 2002 entitled "Would Eusebius have fabricated an organized church history to please Constantine?".
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=96373

Here, in summarising you ask:

Quote:

Would you agree that there is a prima facie case that Eusebius employed unscrupulous means like interpolating documents and forging unknown sources while allegedly 'writing' (not creating) a history of the Church so as to present a pleasant, harmonious and organized history of the Church?

If you disagree, why? If you do agree, why?

What do you think lends strong support to the idea that Eusebius edited history, made insertions from unavailable sources and generally resorted to underhand tactics to achieve this agenda that he shared with his 'lord' Constantine?

My response to the first question is yes. In fact, even if I am in doubt as to the integrity of the historian Eusebius, I should be entitled to consider what may be termed "the Eusebian fiction postulate".

In of the microcosms Eusebius either interpolated Josephus or he didnt. In the macrocosm considered under the postulate Eusebius wrote voluminous fiction, amidst which was the Josephus interpolation.

We therefore need to list the extent of the literature by which the postulate is clearly defined, and this is at two levels. The first is the author, and the second the list of works of literature. Beneath is a list of the first level of enquiry, by author, which incorporates other sources and Vorkosigan's list posted in the above thread in 2002.

Secondly, and as a consequence of the postulate, there are its logical implications. These implications I believe are entirely reasonable:

Implications of the Eusebian fiction postulate are listed above.

Essentially, I view the Arian controversy as an uprising in the east against Constantine's christianity and propaganda spreading from the western empire in the period 312-324.

Eusebius was generating old literature, for example in the Hadrian script to testify to its antiquity. (Hence the fragments in Alexandian rubbish dumps, not yet carbon dated).

The scape goat was a man called Arius who said:
"There was time He was not".

Others variously also said the following:

"before he was born he was not",
"he was made out of nothing existing",

Our postulate considers that these men, clever in disputation, chose to say these things against the implementation of a fictitious series of literatures by Constantine. COnstantine in the meantime was looking east.

When he took Alexandria and the east and the entirety of the Roman empire becames his supremely alone, he hasted to act immediately upon the issue of certain words spoken by Arius, the straw man.

When Constantine summoned the attendees to Nicea and wined and dined them for 4 months (surrounded by his barbarian mercanery troops) these attendees were the patrician-level landholders (IMO). At that time he had a newly acquired empire, and needed to implement structure for revenue, tax, administration and power which flowed back to his designs.

That Constantine as a supreme commander of the entire Roman empire in 325 was concerned at all about some esoteric issue of theological controversy which was being talked about by "common people in the market place" is very unlikely.

The Nicean Council was called by Constantine for the explicit purpose, not of divining the correct day of easter, but -- it is clear --- to move against this controversy of Arius. Now that he was supreme, Constantine could move against any opposition in the empire, and so he arranged the Council of Nicea.

It is important to let the evidence of the council proceedings, and there are several, be assessed from the perspective of the implications of the Eusebian fiction postulate. It is important to note Constantine does not force or coerce (initially) anyone openly, but wants people to examine the literature and discuss things philosophically.

The requirement was that the attendees signing his Nicean creed, as a voluntary submission to the will of Constantine, who himself - at arms length - supported this new Roman (not Greek, etc) religion, new church, this new scripture, this new god, and a new fictitious history which was being presented as a theory of history for the last 300 years.

Anyway, this is some of the outline, with the list of authors below. These authors are not all the work of Eusbius, and will be shortly classified into a number of categories, the largest probably being christian bishops.

What is really needed for this project is a database.
Perhaps in the future...

Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes

============================
Authors of Literature in Antiquity

Just a final note about this list below. These are people who have
written anything in the period surrounding antiquity 0 to 325, or
for those listed at the end, may be relevant for other reasons.

The list is incomplete. Suggestions for inclusions will be gladly accepted over time.

The entry for Apollonius of Tyana (author) is important because part of my thesis about the history of christianity relates to this historical figure, but is however, not directly dependent upon it. Perhaps a sub-thesis.

Essentially Constantine effected a DELETE and and ADD in history.
These were somehow related to one another, as suggested by BERNARD whose work (and others about Apollonius) is indexed here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/apollonius_of_tyana.htm

The books and letters written by, the biographies written about, and effectively the memory of Apollonius of Tyana was DELETED by Constantine, and in place the new testaments, new biographies and a new memory introduced into the empire.

Finally, in regard to Apollonius, another open question which may be asked is simply this. Eusbius admits that Hierocles is the first person to make the comparison between Apollonius and Jesus -- that it had in fact NOT been made in history before that time (Constantine). Why would it not have?

Why would this comparison not have been made in the period from 100 to 300, two hundred years of philosophical literature? The Eusebian fiction postulate provides a consistent answer to this question: the comparison was not made until Constantine invented the new Roman god and Roman religion and Roman church.

Authors of Literature in Antiquity

Author

Philo-Judaeus
Seneca (the Elder)
Apollonius of Tyana
Jesus of Nazareth
Jude
Pontius Pilate
Barnabas
Pliny the Elder
Flavius Josephus
Ignatius of Antioch
Cornelius Tacitus
Thallus
Polycarp
Pliny the Younger
Seutonius
Papias
Publius Aelius Traianus Hadrianus
Quadratus
Phlegon
Aristo of Pela
Agrippa Castor

Justin Martyr
Aquila of Sinope (of Pontus)
Hermas
Valentinius
Clement of Rome
Aristides the Philosopher
Hegesippus
Marcion of Sinope
Melito of Sardis
Basilides
Theophilus
Tatian
Irenaeus of Lyons
Lucian of Samosata
Marcus Aurelius
Polycrates of Ephesus
Dionysius (of Alexandria) the Great
Dionysius of Corinth
Pinytus of Crete
Saint Apollonius
Mathetes
Rhodo
Serapion of Antioch
Athenagoras
Bardesanes
Clement of Alexandria
Julius Africanus
Tertullian
Minucius Felix
Dio Cassius
Hippolytus
Flavius Philostratus
Caius
Apollonius ??
Alexander (of Cappadocia, then Jerusalem)
Origen
Apollinaris Claudius
Diognetus

Cornelius (of Rome)
Novatian
Plotinus
Dionysius of Rome
Mani the Prophet
Cyprian of Carthage
Gregory Thaumaturgus
Gallenius
Malchion
Commodianus
Porphyry
Victorinus
Iamblichus of Chalcis
Hermias
Peter of Alexandria
Pamphilus
Methodius
Victorinus of Petau
Malchion (of Antioch)
Anatolius of Laodicea in Syria
Phileas of Thmuis
Galerius
Sabinus
Arnobius
Alexander of Alexandria
Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea
Constantine I
Hierocles
Aphrahat/Aphraates
Lactantius
Athanasius
Alexander of Lycopolis
Author Unknown
Miltiades (Pope 311-314)
Maximin of Trier
Donatus Magnus

Hilary of Poitiers
Ephraim the Syrian
Cyril of Jerusalem
Gregory of Nyssa
Gregory Nazianzen
Eunomius of Cyzicus
Basil the Great
Apollinaris (the Younger)
Ambrose
Jerome
Rufinus
John Chrysostom
Augustine of Hippo
John Cassian
Sulpitius Severus
Philostorgius
Sozomen
Socrates Scholasticus
Vincent of Lérins
Theodoret
Leo the Great, Pope
Moses of Chorene
Gennadius of Marseilles
Zosimus
Mar Jacob
Venantius
Gregory the Great, Pope
Muhammad the Prophet
John of Damascus
Archelaus
Theodotus
Khalid (son of Umayyad Caliph Yazid II
Jabir ibn Hayyan
Photius

OTHER WORKS
Liturgies
Councils
Apocrypha
Miscellaneous

Clivedurdle · 03-27-2006, 10:52 AM

Is it obvious that Constantine was giving preference to xianity? He looks like a classic eclectic, who used Christ as a war god. His preferences were Sol Invictus and Apollo.

Quote:

In 312 C.E. Constantine was preparing to battle Maxentius for control of the western portion of the Roman Empire. There are two different versions of the story regarding Constantine on the eve of the battle. One comes from Eusebius, his official biographer who wrote:

…before Constantine went into battle he considered what power to honor and rely on for protection. He contemplated weather to choose multiple deities or to fight in the name of the single, God Almighty. In this account, the leader chose to pursue God and prayed for his assistance. At broad daylight he claimed to witness a magnificent and radiant figure of a cross above the sun. Above the sign was the inscription In hoc signo vinces "by this sign conquer". The next morning he had his army paint their shields and carry this "sign" that he had seen early into battle. He was confident that Christ would deliver him. This sign was made using the Greek letters chi "X" and rho "P" as an abbreviation for Christos, meaning Christ. In 312, Constantine met his opponent in battle at Red Rocks, nine miles north of Rome, surrounded by large hills and the Tiber River. Constantine's force sent Maxentius and his army fleeing to the single Milvian Bridge across the Tiber River where Maxentius drowned. (Laing 192).

Another version of the story has this same image appearing to Constantine in a dream, and whether the tale actually ever happened has been disputed by scholars for centuries. No matter the actual reality of the vision, the ensuing results are certainly true: Constantine embraced the god of the Christians, essentially legalizing Christianity, and an underground persecuted mystery cult that was in grave danger of dying out, suddenly found itself at the pinnacle of the greatest nation on earth. The contribution of Constantine was enormous, and with his assistance, the drama was set upon the stage that continues to play until the present day. With Roman assistance Christianity began the battle to wipe out the old pagan gods, in the process overlaying much of earlier pre-Christian tradition, incorporating pagan ideas and religious holidays into its own structure, and ensuring that the sun would become the glorious figure of Christ. Ironically, Constantine being a pragmatic Roman, interpreted Christ as a war god, not the "prince of peace," and he apparently never truly understood the mysteries of Christianity, retaining his right to worship the pagan gods, especially the sun. He never took baptism until shortly before his death.

Charles Freeman questions whether or not Constantine's famous adoption of Christianity was a spiritual conversion or simply a matter of political expediency, because the suggesting evidence is that Constantine viewed the God of Christianity as being very similar to the old pagan gods, like Apollo, and this latter god was one that Constantine paid particular homage to.

Indeed, the triumphal arch of Constantine, built in 315 by the senate of Rome after his "conversion," contains reliefs of Jupiter, Mars and Hercules, and Constantine apparently associated his victory at the Milvian Bridge with the power of the sun, but no Christian symbol can be found on the structure and there is no reference to Christ; however, there are images and homage paid to Mithras, another sun god whose birthday is December 25th (Emperor's State of Grace).

Another example of the influence of this official sun worship on Christianity is:

Constantine's law of…321 [C.E] uniting Christians and pagans in the observance of the "venerable day of the sun" It is to be noted that this official solar worship, the final form of paganism in the empire…, was not the traditional Roman-Greek religion of Jupiter, Apollo, Venus, and the other Olympian deities. It was a product of the mingling Hellenistic-Oriental elements, exemplified in Aurelian's establishment of Eastern Sun worship at Rome as the official religion of the empire, and in his new temple enshrining Syrian statutes statues of Bel and the sun…. Thus at last Bel, the god of Babylon, came into the official imperial temple of Rome, the center of the imperial religion. It was this late Roman-Oriental worship of one supreme god, symbolized by the sun and absorbing lesser divinities as subordinates or manifestations of the universal deity, that competed with young Christianity. This was the Roman religion that went down in defeat but infiltrated and colored the victorious church with its own elements, some of which can be seen to this day. (Cramer 4)

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/ar..._invictus.html

Maybe Eusebius is politicking with Constantine, making Christ out to be the one true god in contrast to the eclectecism shown by Constantine's arch!

Did Constantine use a sect for his political ends but by doing that unleashed the Pandora's box of Xianity on the world - by accident?

mountainman · 03-28-2006, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Is it obvious that Constantine was giving preference to xianity? He looks like a classic eclectic, who used Christ as a war god. His preferences were Sol Invictus and Apollo.

I think there is an argument to consider that there are two distinct phases in the actions of Constantine: those in the years leading up to his becoming supreme emperor, and those in the years as a supreme emperor of the empire.

In the first phase, I agree that his outward historic preferences might be viewed on the monument of the Triumphal column - and included nothing christian. The Edict of Milan might be seen as an exception. During this phase Constantine is controlling the western empire.

However in the second phase he is now supreme. While he might appear eclectic he was primarily a Roman emperor with a brand new large empire to tax and control. As such, the words of Boadicea (60 CE) may also summarise the nature of Constantine:

Quote:

"I implore thine aid for freedom,
for victory over enemies infamous
for the wantonness of the wrongs they inflict,
for their perversion of justice,
for their contempt of religion,
for their insatiable greed;
a people that revel in unmanly pleasures,
whose affections are more to be dreaded
and abhorred than their enmity.

--- Bunduica/Voadicia/Bonducca/Boudica/Boudicea/Boadicea (60 CE)
--- Dion Cassius, Xiphilinus Except

So while we may describe Constantine as eclectic we must also remember he was in a long line of professional Roman rulers, who for the last 400 years had subjugated various parts of the empire, under imperial conquest.

Quote:

Maybe Eusebius is politicking with Constantine, making Christ out to be the one true god in contrast to the eclectecism shown by Constantine's arch!

The one true god was pushed through at Nicea so that there could be a wider prifit margin, seeing the traditional pantheon of religions were to be by-passed. Constantine also wasted no time in sacking the assets and treasures of the older religions, traditions, temples, shrines, etc since he now represented a truly new and Roman religion.

I think that Eusebius is politicking with Constantine in his "Life of the Blessed Emperor", after Constantine's death, making Constantine resemble the ancient prophets uniting the long lost tribe of christians.

Quote:

Did Constantine use a sect for his political ends but by doing that unleashed the Pandora's box of Xianity on the world - by accident?

Good question !

A further question, which this thread pursues, is whether this sect was in fact fabricated by a massive literature creation project by Eusebius under direct sponsorship from Constantine, out of the whole cloth.

The implication of a Eusebian fiction postulate is that the only christians at Nicea were those Constantine cultivated in Rome (312-324) and brought with him to the council. The rest of the attendees were landholders of the newly acquired empire, summoned to meet their new supreme Augusta.

They were destined to become christians under the patronage of Constantine providing they signed the Nicean creed, its Arian Disclaimer and its 22 sub-creeds. Of course, they could have refused to sign ...

Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-24-2006, 08:53 AM	#24
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Hi Mountainman, I have been distracted by other things. Your hypothesis is interesting and I am yet to examine it. Welcome to IIDB. You are in the best company for the kind of work you are doing. Jacob

03-24-2006, 09:45 AM	#25
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	Would Tacitus count as evidence for Christians around 115? Apparently in his Annals he describes how Nero blamed the Christians for the fire of Rome. Or is that passage seen as an interpolation? I'm a historical lay person, mind you, but I remember that Tacitus is often mentioned as one of the first to mention Christians.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.