centerpin fan
Senior Member
One thing I have learned from reading this forum is that there is no mischief that will not be attributed to Constantine and Eusebius.
Welcome Guest!
Codex Sinaiticus
- Thread starter bullethead
- Start date
One thing I have learned from reading this forum is that there is no mischief that will not be attributed to Constantine and Eusebius.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
No sense pointing fingers where they don't belong. If they were on trial they would sweating profusely.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
If you would could you please make a post/start a thread about Constatine's and Eusebius's roles in the early church?
Could you provide how they came to choose one God as the official god of worship and how long that process took? What Gods were considered? What guidelines were given etc etc??
My understanding is that it was a lengthy process.
centerpin fan
Senior Member
I'm not much of a thread starter. I'll leave it to someone else.
Who said they did?
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
I appreciate your involvement so far but you are schooled in the necessary things that you want to know and only seem to want to talk about your understanding of it.
There are many things written about the early church outside of the circle that you are familiar with. There is no need to discuss "Who said they did" if you are not familiar with the other side of things.
Thanks for what you have included so far.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
I thought maybe you would share what you knew of the two.
Edward Gibbon
Dr. Robert L. Wilken
Paul L. Maier
Encyclopedia Biblica
just to get a few out there for you to research.
centerpin fan
Senior Member
... but are they Looney Tunes conspiracy theorists? I ask because much of what I read in this forum regarding Constantine and Eusebius would make a good screenplay for an Oliver Stone film.
centerpin fan
Senior Member
Constantine was a Roman emperor who converted to Christianity. He founded Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) and made it the capital of the eastern Roman empire. He was marginally interested in theology but, as a politician, was very interested in a stable empire. Therefore, he convened the Council of Nicea to debate the teachings of Arius. Constantine was close to Eusebius, a bishop with Arian leanings.
Gibbon is the only one I've ever heard of. (I read Decline and Fall ..., but it's been awhile.) Tell me exactly what he said.
centerpin fan
Senior Member
The basic idea promoted here and on many of the linked websites is that Christianity was "X" before Nicea, and it was "Y" after Nicea. Constantine and his evil toady Eusebius plotted together to remake Christianity into a new religion.
That is an alternate view of history which I believe is false.
1gr8bldr
Senior Member
I agree, the majority did believe Jesus was God at this time, only the Arians believed Jesus to be lesser than God. That was snuffed out for a time period. But not a major change being that both sides believed he was God... in this local. Many writings were lost due to the banning of opposing writings. Burnt, gone forever. No way to see the opposing argument except through what the winner of "orthodox" wrote about his opposition, mostly misrepresenting them to make them look bad. Major loss but still not a dividing line of Christianity before and after nicea. The trinity as we know it today was not even on the table at this time. Beginnings were close at hand being that Eusibius had 17 times before wrote "in my name" but after nicea, he wrote the three part baptism formula. I believe it was anthasius, something like that whom faught and won orthodox for trinitarianism in about 425. In my opinion, this is a better example of Christianity was this before and then this after
WaltL1
Senior Member
That's just not accurate.
The basic idea promoted here, based on the available information, is that "Christianity" was "X", "Y" and "Z".
The council decided "we are going with "Z" and used political and physical power to remove "X" and "Y" from the game.
"Z" may have been the most believed at the time but it was ensured it would stay that way.
How many examples do you want of what was most believed turning into the least believed when it was allowed to run its course?
How do you stop that from happening?
Make it really dangerous to choose "X" and "Y".
THAT is what is promoted here because THAT is what the available historical information tells us.
This -
Is what you have always maintained regardless of how many times "we" have explained the above.
In all of our conversations on this subject, you have never shown the above available historical information to be false or inaccurate.
Where I/we do agree is -
Because I/we don't believe, based on historical information, that the council came up with anything "new", they just determined "Z" was the choice you would make under the threat of serious discomfort.
Instead of looney tunes and mischief and evil toady comments, SHOW us, using historical information, that the above is wrong or inaccurate or just made up.
As 1gr8blder said -
Seems to support the understanding that "we" have.
Last edited:
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
I would guess to you anyone that gives responsibility to those two guys in any way that goes against mainstream Christian beliefs, even through sound research, on the beginnings of the early Church would get labeled a Looney Tune.
Although if we are talking epic screenplays Zombies rising from the dead are all the rage now.
Last edited:
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
You should read up on them a little more. There is more information out there.
Edward Gibbon, speaking of Eusebius wrote:
"The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related what might rebound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries" (Gibbon, Rome, vol. ii., Philadelphia, 1876).
Gibbon also wrote:
"It must be confessed that the ministers of the Catholic Church imitated the profane model which they were impatient to destroy. The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of Paganism if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. The religion of Constantine achieved in less than a century the final conquest of the Roman empire; but the victors themselves were insensibly subdued by the arts of their vanquished rivals" (Gibbon, Rome, vol. iii. p. 163).
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
I think that is the way you make it portrayed on our end in order to try to water our arguments down some.
History shows there was much more than the 3 or 4 sentences you have written about Constantine and Eusebius and History shows that the earliest of beginnings of the Church and what it made "official" was absolutely done through long negotiations, outright banning of material and definitely the destruction of anything that went against the orders of what story is to be told.
You stick to your notion that these councils were on the up and up but History shows that not to be the case.
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Dr. Robert L. Wilken, first Protestant scholar to be admitted to the staff of Fordham University recently wrote:
"Eusebius wrote a history of Christianity in which there is no real history. Eusebius was the first thoroughly dishonest and unfair historian in ancient times". (The Myth of Christian Beginnings, History's Impact on Belief, Chapter III: The Bishop's Maiden: History Without History, p73, p57)
"Eusebius wrote a history of Christianity in which there is no real history. Eusebius was the first thoroughly dishonest and unfair historian in ancient times". (The Myth of Christian Beginnings, History's Impact on Belief, Chapter III: The Bishop's Maiden: History Without History, p73, p57)
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Another scholar, Joseph Wheless charged that Eusebius was one of the most prolific forgers and liars of his age in the church, and a great romancer; in his hair-raising histories of the holy Martyrs, he assures us "that on some occasions the bodies of the martyrs who had been devoured by wild beasts, upon the beasts being strangled, were found alive in their stomachs, even after having been fully digested"! (FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion, 1930; quoted Gibbon, History, Ch. 37; Lardner, iv, p. 91; Diegesis, p. 272)
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Paul L. Maier (1999) wrote:
“They cannot deny their crime: the copies are in their own handwriting, they did not receive the Scriptures in this condition from their teachers, and they cannot produce originals from which they made their copies. Some have even found it unnecessary to emend the text but have simply rejected the Law and the Prophets, using a wicked, godless teaching to plunge into the lowest depths of destruction. They have not been afraid to corrupt divine Scriptures, they have rescinded the rule of ancient faith, they have not known Christ, they ignore Scripture but search for a logic to support their atheism. If anyone challenges them with a passage from Scripture, they examine it to see if it can be turned into a common syllogism. Abandoning the holy Scripture of God, they study "geometry" [earth measurement], for they are from the earth and speak of the earth and do not know the One who comes from above.” (Eusebius: The Church History, from Book 5 section 28)
“They cannot deny their crime: the copies are in their own handwriting, they did not receive the Scriptures in this condition from their teachers, and they cannot produce originals from which they made their copies. Some have even found it unnecessary to emend the text but have simply rejected the Law and the Prophets, using a wicked, godless teaching to plunge into the lowest depths of destruction. They have not been afraid to corrupt divine Scriptures, they have rescinded the rule of ancient faith, they have not known Christ, they ignore Scripture but search for a logic to support their atheism. If anyone challenges them with a passage from Scripture, they examine it to see if it can be turned into a common syllogism. Abandoning the holy Scripture of God, they study "geometry" [earth measurement], for they are from the earth and speak of the earth and do not know the One who comes from above.” (Eusebius: The Church History, from Book 5 section 28)
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Paul Maier again:
“Many manuscripts are available because their disciples zealously made copies of their "corrected" ― though really corrupted ― texts. This sinful impudence can hardly have been unknown to the copyists, who either do not believe the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit and are unbelievers or deem themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit and are possessed.”
“Many manuscripts are available because their disciples zealously made copies of their "corrected" ― though really corrupted ― texts. This sinful impudence can hardly have been unknown to the copyists, who either do not believe the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit and are unbelievers or deem themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit and are possessed.”
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
St. Irenaeus wrote:
"It is not possible that the gospels be either more or fewer than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principle winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world and the pillar and ground of the Church is the gospel, it is fitting that we should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side" (Catholic Encyclopedia vol. VI, pg. 659).
As for the writings of Paul, the Encyclopedia Biblica states categorically:
"With respect to the Canonical Pauline Epistles, none of them are by Paul. They are all, without distinction, pseudographia (false writings). The group (ten epistles) bears obvious marks of a certain unity, of having originated in one circle, at one time, in one environment, but not of unity of authorship" (Encyclopedia Biblica III pg. 3625-26).
"It is not possible that the gospels be either more or fewer than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principle winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world and the pillar and ground of the Church is the gospel, it is fitting that we should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side" (Catholic Encyclopedia vol. VI, pg. 659).
As for the writings of Paul, the Encyclopedia Biblica states categorically:
"With respect to the Canonical Pauline Epistles, none of them are by Paul. They are all, without distinction, pseudographia (false writings). The group (ten epistles) bears obvious marks of a certain unity, of having originated in one circle, at one time, in one environment, but not of unity of authorship" (Encyclopedia Biblica III pg. 3625-26).
bullethead
Of the hard cast variety
Is it pure coincidence that our earliest known copies of the Gospels date back to around the 4th century which is about the same time all these other texts were destroyed?
We praise the virtually unchanged state of all future copies off of these 4th century ones, but nobody can produce any earlier originals to compare them with.
We praise the virtually unchanged state of all future copies off of these 4th century ones, but nobody can produce any earlier originals to compare them with.
