Posted: May 05, 2015 3:45 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote:Zwaarddijk wrote:Ok, so, basically, let's assume the non-historicity of Jesus. What can we learn about early Christianity from this?
Given this assumption we may explore the possibility not only that the first Christian historian Eusebius was the most thoroughly dishonest historian in antiquity, but that his continuators also indulged in forgery the fabrication of pseudo-historical narratives. We may also explore the possibility that the Emperor Constantine was not only aware of the fabrication of the NT but that he may have actually sponsored it.What does it tell us about Christianity's early adherents?
They may not have existed until the 4th century.Was the idea of his historicity an intentional deception, or did they just accidentally fall headlong into believing he had existed?
I'd argue it was an intentional deception.If the former, why, who were the deceivers and what did they hope to achieve, and why by this method?
The deceivers were the incoming military regime headed by Constantine the supreme commander. The Christian revolution was designed to be anti-Hellenistic. The Hellenes were relegated to "gentiles" and subject to conversion. The canonical books of Plato were to be replaced with the canonical books of the "new and strange" Christians. The Christian revolution under Constantine was designed to effect the end of the Greek dominance over religious and philosophical issues in the Roman Empire. Plato was asserted to have received his wisdom from Moses. By this method, by telling a "BIG LIE" over and over again while holding a sharp sword to the necks of dissenters, a supremely powerful military dictator (who had no allegiance to the Greek intellectual traditions) could unite the Roman Empire under a monotheistic banner by military duress.Did they know previous godmen had been likewise fabricated? If so, how was that knowledge available to them?
The public and private libraries of the Roman empire were obviously available to the emperor and his agents. But more to the point, a century before Nicaea, the greatest enemies of the ROmans - the Persians - had regrouped under a centralised monotheistic state. In 222 CE Ardashir, the Persian King of Kings, at the zenith of his supreme military power implemented Zoroastrianism as the centralised monotheistic state religion of the (Sassanid) Persians. Since that time the Persians had exhibited a new vigour, and had dished out some humiliating defeats to the Roman Emperors and armies. They all had marched to the "One True Monotheistic Song", and Constantine wanted his own State monotheism (which was not Greek).
Constantine was legally the "Pontifex Maximus" and was legally entitled to sponsor the god of his choice as had all the Roman Emperors before him. However Constantine fabricated his own god, a "Holy Writ" for that god, and a history of the followers of the non existent god, and then legislated "Religious privileges are reserved for Christians". It is apt to see Constantine as a military dictator who wanted to BIND-TOGETHER the empire. According to Sosomen no one dared to openly challenge the doctrines of Constantine while he lived (specifically between 324 and 337 CE). I wonder why that was.
Emperor Julian c.361 CE expressed all this as follows ...It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.
Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.
Actually, while Constantine was no pussy cat, people tend to forget that it was not Constantine who jackbooted Christianity as the faith of the realm. He simply gave Christianity official status as one of the Empire's legitimate faiths. His official policy with respect to other doctrines/traditions was more pluralist than hegemonic: "Let those, therefore, who still delight in error, be made welcome to the same degree of peace and tranquility which they have who believe. For it may be that this restoration of equal privileges to all will prevail to lead them into the straight path. Let no one molest another, but let every one do as his soul desires.....With regard to those who will hold themselves aloof from us, let them have, if they please, their temples of lies....". (http://latter-rain.com/eccle/constant.htm)
In fact, the jackbooting of Christianity as the only faith of the Empire came with Constantine's successor, Theodosius. Theodosius outlawed all other practices, even in private homes(!), effectively "bull-dozed" all the temples, etc. In fact, in all of human history, not just Roman, Theodosius may even be the first(?) ruler ever to have legislated the draconian policy of one faith for all. I'll have to double-check that, but that may be the case. Yes, feuds and massacres among devotees of different faiths have happened throughout human history, of course, long before Theodosius. But Theodosius may have been the first(?) to pro-actively codify the ascendancy of one specific belief as LAW.
Stein