"Colonial Histories", "Christian History" and Revisionism

[Leucius Charinus]

I would like to discuss the comparison between the received "Christian History" of the 4th century to the received "Colonial Histories" (dated until the early 20th century) for places like North America and Australia. These "Colonial Histories" were often "chest-beating" propaganda. The history of the vanquished was unmentioned, and the vanquished were left underfoot, in the wake of "Colonial Progress". In recent times however, historical revisionism has been at work.


The Propaganda of "Colonial Histories":

Until recent times, the received "Colonial Histories" of a number of continents and other localities was written from the perspective of the "Great Advances of the Colonialisation Process". They were concerned with the exploration of the new lands, the conquest of the "natives" and the advancement of the colony. The indigenous peoples of the Americas and the Australian continents were not really mentioned, except briefly, to describe how they were "conquered". These histories normally represented completely "watered-down" accounts of the atrocities performed by the aggressors on the indigenous people. These histories were written from the perspective of the "Colony", and in a modern sense, are seen to be similar to "propaganda" by the victors over the vanquished.



The Revisionist "Colonial Histories" of Recent Times:

In more recent times, historians have begun to present a far more balanced account, in which the indigenous people had some sort of voice, however feeble, and in which the "conquest" is also capable of being described from the perspective of the indigenous people, as being a war waged against them.

See for example: The Australian frontier wars ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars

• The Australian frontier wars were a series of conflicts that were fought between Indigenous Australians and European settlers that spanned a total of 146 years. The first fighting took place several months after 26 January 1788 and the last clashes occurred as late as 1934.

and for example: The American Indian Wars ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars

• American Indian Wars is the name used in the United States to describe the multiple conflicts between American settlers or the federal government and the native peoples of North America from the time of earliest colonial settlement until approximately 1890.

GENOCIDE

In contrast to the older "Colonial Histories" (current for much of the 20th century) these new histories of the wars conducted against the indigenous people will allow the term "genocide" to be brought into the discussion. Essentially there has been a movement in recent decades (at least) to subject the earlier "Colonial Histories" to historical revisionism in order to fairly portray the history of the conflict between the "Colonists" and the indigenous people.


Christian Political History of the 4th and subsequent centuries:

It should be pretty obvious to everyone that the received Christian political history, which started with the rise of Constantine, is a type of "Colonial History" as described above, which presented the official story "propaganda" at every opportunity, and almost completely disregarded the history of the indigenous people - the pagans. In fact when the Christians suddenly appear in the political history of the Roman Empire, the dominant source of information used today becomes the Christian Ecclesiastical writers of the 4th and subsequent centuries. Very few pagan histories survive, and those which do are late.

Of course this matters very little to the students of the Christian Colonialisation of the empire, because after all, especially in Biblical Colleges and Theological Institutes, these people and their teachers are primarily concerned with the history of "THEIR PEOPLE" - the Christian regime, and the "Church Organisation.

The point in this OP is to highlight the similarity between prior "Colonial Histories" of modern history, and the "Christian Political History" of ancient history. The only way that these modern "Colonial Histories" have survived is via process of historical revisionism, in which the vanquished people are fairly represented along with the aggressive colonialists.



The parallel need for a "Revisionist History" for the Political history of the 4th century

It seems quite logical and necessary that a revisionist history of the 4th and subsequent centuries is also now required on the same basis, in order that the pagan version of the "Great Christian Revolution of the 4th century" may be put forward in an objective manner. What is currently portrayed as 4th century history is often just propaganda from the victors. What really happened in the conflict between the imperial forces of the "Christian Revolution" and the indigenous pagans?

Well for a start, just like the "Colonialists" above, the Christian "colonialism" was characterised by Christian intolerance and Christian persecution.
For an alternative pagan view, start by having a look through:
Vlasis Rassias, Demolish Them! Published in Greek, Athens 1994
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_060.htm


I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this issue.


Be well,



LC

[Leucius Charinus]

Australian frontier wars - HISTORIOGRAPHY - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian ... oriography

• The existence of armed resistance to white settlement was generally not acknowledged by historians until the 1970s. In 1968 anthropologist W.E.H. Stanner wrote that historians' failure to include Indigenous Australians in histories of Australia or acknowledge widespread frontier conflict constituted a 'great Australian silence'. Works which discussed the conflicts began to appear during the 1970s and 1980s, and the first history of the Australian frontier told from an Indigenous perspective, Henry Reynolds' The Other Side of the Frontier, was published in 1982.[46]

American Indian wars - HISTORIOGRAPHY - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_I ... oriography

• In American history books, the Indian Wars have often been treated as a relatively minor part of the military history of the United States and were long treated from the point of view of Americans. After 1970 younger historians took the Indian point of view in their writings about the wars, dealing more harshly with the U.S. government's failures and emphasizing the impact of the wars on native peoples and their cultures. An influential book in popular history was Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (1970). In academic history, Francis Jennings's The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest (New York: Norton, 1975) was notable for strong attacks on the Puritans and rejection of traditional portrayal of the wars between the indigenous peoples and colonists

The following is a paraphrase of the both the Australian and American Indian Wars ....


Christian vs Pagan wars (4th-12th century) - HISTORIOGRAPHY - http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_060.htm

• The existence of armed and literary resistance to the formation of the Christian State is generally not acknowledged by historians. We have received an extremely idealised history of the rise of the One True Christian State in the Roman Empire of the 4th and subsequent centuries. In Christian history books, the Pagan Wars have often been treated as a relatively minor part of the military history of the Christian State and were long treated from the point of view of Christians. Some historians took the Pagan point of view in their writings about the wars, dealing more harshly with the Imperial Christian State's failures and emphasizing the impact of the wars on native (pagan) peoples and their cultures. Vlasis Rassias, in Demolish Them! published in Greek, Athens 1994, provided one of the first modern collections of the evidence (4th-6th century) for the systematic persecution and intolerance conducted by the Christian State on the Helenes/Pagans from its inauguration under the Emperor Constantine.

Historical revisionism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism

• In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. Though the word revisionism is sometimes used in a negative way, constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history.
  
  Scholarly process
  
  Pulitzer Prize winning historian James McPherson, writing for the American Historical Association, described the importance of revisionism:
  
  
  • The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes. Supreme Court decisions often reflect a "revisionist" interpretation of history as well as of the Constitution.[1]
    
  Those historians who work within the existing establishment and who have a body of existing work from which they claim authority, often have the most to gain by maintaining the status quo. This can be called an accepted paradigm, which in some circles or societies takes the form of a denunciative stance towards revisionism of any kind. However, the historian and philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, pointed out that in contrast to the sciences, in which there tends to be (except in times of paradigm shift) a single reigning paradigm, the social sciences are characterized by a "tradition of claims, counterclaims, and debates over fundamentals

Comments?


Be well,




LC

[Leucius Charinus]

I have a similar story with my grandfather in northern Minnesota. He was highly respected by the local tribe yet he was a Luthern and was not seduced into embracing the red mans sick death cult religious mythology. Does he have your respect as well?.

You really wish to stake a claim that the native religion practiced by the red man had a sick death cult religious mythology? :wtf:

This is the type of misinformation by which the colonial historical narratives (for the US and Australia) are characterised. In the "Colonial Histories" the incoming colonialists armed to the teeth with Bibles are able to brutally dominate, subdue and colonise the "savages" The savages are portrayed as people who are in a depraved condition, whereas the revisionist histories demonstrate that it was largely the colonialists who were in a depraved human condition. The revisionist histories of the wars between the colonial governments and the native peoples are focussed not on any moral (usually Bible-thumping) polemic, but on the military oppression of the colonialists, and the resultant wars with the native people.


The Christian history of its "colonialisation of the Roman Empire" basically requires historical revisionism in more or less exactly the same manner as the modern epoch "Colonial Histories". There was in effect a war declared on the pagans (the last of the persecutors) by Constantine, and that war was in full swing until at least the rule of Theodosius when c.381 CE, he legislated:

• 
  'We authorise followers of this law to assume the title of orthodox Christians; but as for the others since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious names of heretics.' - Emperor Theodosius.

Where is the story of the history of the epoch 325 - 353 CE (Ammianus Book 14) from the pagan perspective?

Was Constantine a Christian? We don't know. But we do know he provided military and political support for the Christian cult as soon as he knew he was the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. Setting aside his theological intents, for all political and military intents, Constantine the Great [Fascist] was a Christian and was not seduced into embracing the Pagan's sick death cult religious mythology..


LC

[Sheshbazzar]

History is rife with Christian conducted and orchestrated atrocities and crimes against humanity carried out in the name of their imaginary zombie god.
A readily accessible listing of the known decrees, prohibitions, and measures that have been enacted down through the ages by 'Christian' cult leaders and governments against native peoples and/or those practitioners of opposing religions or philosophies would be invaluable in the uncovering and recognizing what duress, terror, and inhumane injustice has been wrought in the name of the christers imaginary death cult zombie god.

How many millions have suffered under the inhumane christer pogroms of starvation, beatings, persecutions, extortions, imprisonments, and executions for Church invented religious 'crimes', and all of the Church's bloody and protracted wars against 'infidels' to assert Christian supremacy.
IMV we will never be able to deal with the present insanity of Islam until and unless we confront, address, and with the utmost of impartiality revise the distortions of history that have been foisted off on us through the biased rose colored glasses of Christian historians.
The 'victory' of their Christian 'conquests' must be exposed for the evil against humanity that it most certainly was.
Strip that whoring Babylonian slut religion of her royal robes, and all the gold, silver, and jewels of her ill gotten gains.
That good and ethical men may come to recognize, that there is nothing more shameful in this entire world, than for a person to self identify as being an adherent of this bloodthirsty and evil religious cult.
Of course they will say; 'That's all in the past. If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in such evils'. Thus they witness against themselves, that they are the inheritors and continuators of generations of Christer liars, thieves, and murderers.

[Leucius Charinus]

The closest account that I am familiar with at the moment - to a much required revisionist history of the 4th century - is the following book. You will immediately perceive it is about the year 381 CE. The year in which it became illegal to exist as a pagan.

• 2008: AD 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Christian State - Charles Freeman
  
  Description:
  
  'We authorise followers of this law to assume the title of orthodox Christians; but as for the others since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious names of heretics.' - Emperor Theodosius. In AD 381, Theodosius, emperor of the eastern Roman empire, issued a decree in which all his subjects were required to subscribe to a belief in the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This edict defined Christian orthodoxy and brought to an end a lively and wide-ranging debate about the nature of the Godhead; all other interpretations were now declared heretical.
  Moreover, for the first time in a thousand years of Greco-Roman civilization free thought was unambiguously suppressed. Not since the attempt of the pharaoh Akhenaten to impose his god Aten on his Egyptian subjects in the fourteenth century BC had there been such a widesweeping programme of religious coercion.Yet surprisingly this political revolution, intended to bring inner cohesion to an empire under threat from the outside, has been airbrushed from the historical record. Instead, it has been claimed that the Christian Church had reached a consensus on the Trinity which was promulgated at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. In this groundbreaking new book, acclaimed historian Charles Freeman shows that the council was in fact a shambolic affair, which only took place after Theodosius' decree had become law. In short, the Church was acquiescing in the overwhelming power of the emperor. Freeman argues that Theodosius' edict and the subsequent suppression of paganism not only brought an end to the diversity of religious and philosophical beliefs throughout the empire but created numerous theological problems for the Church, which have remained unsolved. The year AD 381, Freeman concludes, marked 'a turning point which time forgot'.

The concluding statement ....

• p.204
  
  Concluding statement ....
  
  "What is certain is that, in the west,
  the historical reality, that the Nicene Trinity
  was imposed from above on the church,
  by an emperor, disappeared from the record.
  
  A harmonised version of what happened at the Council of Constantinople,
  highlighting a consensus for which there is little historical evidence,
  concealed the enforcement of the Nicene Trinity through the medium of
  imperial legislation.
  
  The aim of this book has been to reveal what has been concealed.
  
  Arguably the year AD 381 deserves to be seen as one of the most
  important moments in the history of European thought."
  
  
  [My fomat]

This is the beginning of a revisionist history of the 4th century. The first step only.

Sooner or later a revisionist history for the period from Nicaea through to 381 CE will be required.

This revisionist history will be a story from the pagan viewpoint of the persecution and intolerance of the Imperial Christian State commencing from the rise of the supreme military commander Bullneck. No one openly dared to challenge Constantine's new doctrines while he lived. He was "stiff-necked". He was a dictator.

• p.92
  
  CH 6: How Roman Emperors became Gods
  
  
  "Gertud Bing, the director the Warburg Institute ... happened
  to be in Rome with with Warburg, the founder and patron saint
  of the Warburg institute, on that day, February 11, 1929, on
  which Mussolini and the Pope proclaimed the reconciliation
  between Italy and the Catholic Church ... There were in Rome
  tremendous popular demonstrations, whether orchestrated from
  above or below. Mussolini became overnight the "man of providence",
  and in such an inconvenient position he remained for many years.
  
  .... some of the most original work on the Roman imperial cult
  was done around the years 1929-1934 in the ambiguous atmosphere
  of the revival of emperor worship in which it was difficult to
  separate the adulation from political emotion, and political
  emotion from religious or superstitious excitement.
  
  
  
  p.120
  
  "Religious Opposition" to the Roman Empire.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  p.136
  
  
  Emphasizes "the very remarkable attitude of those Christians who,
  though persecuted by the Roman Empire, defended the notion that
  the Roman Empire had been providentially created to foster and
  support the Christian message."
  
  
  
  p.137
  
  "What is perhaps most remarkable in Roman paganism is that
  there was no basic objection to conversion: all that was
  required was acceptance of the consequences of one's own
  conversion. This is really what Constantine, not a very
  sophisticated mind, understood better than everyone else.
  He converted. The problem of Christian opposition to the
  Empire was solved by one stroke. Or almost."
  
  
  
  
  On Pagans, Jews and Christians: Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

LC

[Clive]

I wonder if it would help if we continually discussed christianities and the languages they used. Greek, Latin, Syriac and Coptic come to mind immediately. Was heresy actually a translation problem?

[Leucius Charinus]

I wonder if it would help if we continually discussed christianities and the languages they used. Greek, Latin, Syriac and Coptic come to mind immediately.

The timeline as I see is as follows:

(1) The canonical books of the NT were authored in the Greek language in some century (1st, 2nd or later) and transmitted to Eusebius and Constantine.

(2) Constantine widely publishes the NT Bible in Greek as the holy writ of a centralised monotheistic state religion to unify his Empire.

(3) I reject the accepted notion that the non canonical books were authored early. Rather the non canonical books were authored in Greek after (2) as a direct literary reaction to the appearance and the agenda of the Constantine Bible. The authorship dates are focussed on the post Nicaean epoch between 325 and 348 CE. These unauthorised books (featuring Jesus and the Apostles etc) met with a hostile reception - Constantine burnt them and had the authors and preservers executed as dissidents whom he views as guilty of treason against his own Imperial Majesty. Very few Greek fragments remain.

(4) Between 325 and 348 CE these non canonical texts were translated into Coptic and Syriac in order to make one last ditch effort to preserve the massive Greek literary output. The Coptic translations and codices were prepared in Upper Egypt in monastic communities while the Syriac texts were also prepared in monastic communities in Syria. The Coptic translations seem to have been manufactured by the Pachomian monastic community. However as the orthodoxy started sending its agents into these remote communities, the task became far too dangerous. When Pachomius died c.348 CE, the decision was made then, or perhaps shortly after, to get rid of the books. They were "too hot". They were wrapped in leather bindings and buried in earthen jars. (See the Nag Hammadi codices).

(5) The Latin branch of Christianity was basically commissioned by Pope Damasus who stated the "PETER WAS HERE" business and tourist trade in Rome. Damasus commenced the trading of holy relics (which was perhaps started by Helena) and the bones of saints and martyrs. Damasus renovated a number of the Roman catacombs for the tourist business. His protégé Jerome made the first authoritative Latin translation of the Bible (Vulgate) and business never really looked backwards from that time. (We need not deal with the King of England and his own KJV Bible version).

(6) This brings us down to the epoch around 381 CE when Theodosius decreed that pagans were heretics and that the official line was to be the Nicaean Creed and that the greatest of all Christian authorities descended from the 318 Fathers of Nicaea. (See the above post).

Was heresy actually a translation problem?

Everything that was not canonical was heresy. The canonical books were preserved in the Imperial Scriptoria of the Christian Emperors, while the non canonical books (See above) were preserved as best they could be by the grass roots opposition to this Constantinian inspired agenda.

Sourced from The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, recent translation.

• The First Seven Heresies in the Index of Eighty
  
  In his introductory prelude, in speaking of the "sects" or "heresies" Epiphanius notes:
  "For it was about these four sects ("heresies") that the apostle clearly said in reproof,
  "In Christ Jesus there is neither Barbarian, Scythian, Hellene nor Jew, but a new creation" [5] Col 3:11
  
  Heresy 1 of 80 - Against Barbarism
  Heresy 2 of 80 - Against Scythianism
  Heresy 3 of 80 - Against Hellenism
  Heresy 4 of 80 - Against Judaism
  Heresy 5 of 80 - Against Stoics
  Heresy 6 of 80 - Against Platonists
  Heresy 7 of 80 - Against Pythagoreans

The above represents a basic sketch of a revisionist political history of the 4th century as I see it at the moment.

The present history we have, written by the 5th century post-Theodosius heresiologists is analogous to the earlier "Colonial Histories" for Australia and the US. These Colonial Histories are dealt with in the OP, and are essentially chest-beating colonial propaganda that buries the very real conflict, controversy and resistance from the indigenous peoples. In the analogy being proposed the pagans are the indigenous people, and their voice is silent in the received history. The proposed revisionist history above attempts to sketch a political history of the reception of the Bible in the Roman Empire from the perspective of the [pagan] heretics.




LC

[Leucius Charinus]

History is rife with Christian conducted and orchestrated atrocities and crimes against humanity carried out in the name of their imaginary zombie god.
A readily accessible listing of the known decrees, prohibitions, and measures that have been enacted down through the ages by 'Christian' cult leaders and governments against native peoples and/or those practitioners of opposing religions or philosophies would be invaluable in the uncovering and recognizing what duress, terror, and inhumane injustice has been wrought in the name of the christers imaginary death cult zombie god.

I agree that such a list is probably required. I will have a look around and report back.

How many millions have suffered under the inhumane christer pogroms of starvation, beatings, persecutions, extortions, imprisonments, and executions for Church invented religious 'crimes', and all of the Church's bloody and protracted wars against 'infidels' to assert Christian supremacy.

Briefly I see three discrete phases:

1) Heresy Laws - 4th to 17th century
2) Blasphemy Laws - 17th to 19th century
3) Modern Epoch - 19th/20th/21st centuries


(1) HERESY LAWS:

These commenced with the council of Nicaea 325 CE. Execution (via immediate beheading) was decreed for any one caught preserving prohibited books. This dovetails perfectly with the idea that the forerunner to the Vatican's INDEX LIBRORUM PROHIBITORUM was created by Eusbeius in the 4th century.

• Did the Index Librorum Prohibitorum commence in the fourth century?:
  http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/L ... itorum.htm
  
  Most sources maintain that the "List of Forbidden Books" were published by the Papacy from the fifteenth century, however there are a number of documentary sources which themselves suggest that Constantine and Eusebius already had a catalogue of books which were "forbidden under punishment of death". We find out in the next century that some of these books had been authored by the son of the devil. These needed special treatment by the orthodoxy.

Also that a transitionary form of the INDEX LIBRORUM PROHIBITORUM is to be identified with The Decretum Gelasianum:

• 491 CE: Censorship Masterlist - The Decretum Gelasianum
  http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/D ... sianum.htm
  
  The Decretum Gelasianum is a listing of the canonical texts of the new testament and a list of the apocrypha, which is substantial in it length, and attracts the wrath of the late fifth century Papal Council. It is usually acknowledged that some of these works may have been listed a century earlier, by Pope Dasius. This is a far more expansive list than that recorded by Eusebius. It makes explicit reference, for example, to .... all the books which Leucius the disciple of the devil made (This refers to a series of about 5 of the non canonical texts). This of course also represents a Hit-List of officially heretical books, and as such is recognised as a forerunner of the Vatican's Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Vatican Banned and Prohibited Books) which operated continuously from the sixteenth (following the invention of the printing press) to the twentieth centuries. In the mid twentieth century, the index of banned books had included over four thousand six hundred books, one of which was Edward Gibbon's monumental work, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The precedent for the preparation of a Hit-List for Censorship (destruction by fire, etc) of heretical books (and authors) commenced with Constantine in the year 325 CE. The Decretum Gelasianum thus represents a pre-Gutenburg proto-type of the Librorum Prohibitorum, and additionally, an extension of the political hit-lists of Constantine.

The heresy laws were operated and enforced by the utterly corrupt church organisation from the 4th century until at least the 17th century. During this sickening saga of Orwellian Rule many inquisitions by the church are attested. It's all pretty sick black horrible history, but its necessary to expose this for a number of reasons. The massively corrupt church organisation which operated these heresy laws was also responsible for the preservation of the "Church Manuscripts" from antiquity. How many of these are simply pious forgeries may never be able to be determined. The exposure of the massive Pseudo-Isidore church forgery mill of 9th century France is a good model with which to start. These guys just forged whatever manuscripts they thought they might need in service of the legitimacy of being in power and executing people hand over foot - anyone who got in their way.


(2) BLASPHEMY LAWS:

The corrupt church organisation had massive and insidious power and they effective "outsourced" the heresy laws into the legal systems of the Christian nations and their states, where they became the laws of Blasphemy. There have been a few thread on these. Will have to gather it together.

These operated from perhaps the 17th century until the 19th century. Nations and states, puppets of the church organisation, conducted these until recent times.

IMV we will never be able to deal with the present insanity of Islam until and unless we confront, address, and with the utmost of impartiality revise the distortions of history that have been foisted off on us through the biased rose colored glasses of Christian historians.

Correct. The Islamic states are still 300 years behind the Christian states, and are still operating these Draconian Orwellian laws.

But the point is that - not too many centuries ago - the Christian States were doing this stuff and worse

The lessons of history need to be put into perspective.

The Christian Glasses need to be taken off.




(3)THE MODERN EPOCH OF FREE SPEECH and CRITICAL THINKING

Here we are in the modern epoch. The church organisations which rely on the NT Bible are sitting on a time bomb of revisionist history. The layman does not know this history even though he might well suspect the church was utterly corrupt. The tenured academic does not want to really look too hard at the big picture of the monotheistic Christian State Revolution under Constantine, and its history down to the present day, for various reasons:

The primary reason IMO is that the Transcendental Epoch of Christian Origins - 1st and 2nd centuries is where the dollars are. Big theses keep dropping. IN_EUSEBIUS_WE_TRUST and onwards marches the legions of scholars down the long and lonely path. Everyone is therefore really critically interested in the ancient history of the 1st two or three centuries. The Christian Revolution under Constantine is too late and everything after that, and before the present generation is just not all that important to the Biblical Scholar.

The Biblical Scholars write books claiming that the notion of the non-historical Jesus is a modern invention of the 18th century. They say "Search the records for the mention of anyone subscribing to a fictional Jesus Story since the 1st century of the common era". The search returns no literary results. WOW. I wonder why?

The 'victory' of their Christian 'conquests' must be exposed for the evil against humanity that it most certainly was.
Strip that whoring Babylonian slut religion of her royal robes, and all the gold, silver, and jewels of her ill gotten gains.

In the modern epoch the church organisation has become respectable. In the middle ages there was only one awarded degree in the educational system above that of the Doctor of Philosophy. And that was the Doctor of Theology.

Nowdays they are equal, and the Scientific revolution has opened up thousands of new fields for doctorates.

That good and ethical men may come to recognize, that there is nothing more shameful in this entire world, than for a person to self identify as being an adherent of this bloodthirsty and evil religious cult.

Of course they will say; 'That's all in the past. If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in such evils'. Thus they witness against themselves, that they are the inheritors and continuators of generations of Christer liars, thieves, and murderers.

The way forward is unchartered. I am not sure where it will lead.

The following analogy occurs to me. The historiography of Christian History is like a semi-trailer. It has a prime mover and it has its trailer (or trailers in the case of a road train).

At the present time everyone is interested in the prime mover and nobody is looking at the baggage trains with all their corruptions, forgeries and deceits. The prime mover is the Ante Nicene Period, and especially the VERY FIRST CENTURY. Eusebius's momentous Church History leads us (in typical IMO "Historia Augustan Style") all the way to the doors of the Nicaean Council, and this is the basic blueprint of the Prime Mover apart from the canonical NT Books themselves. The saga of the Pre Nicene Fathers of the church organisation.

The trailers being moved are the 4th, 5th, 6th .... 18th centuries of the official business of the church organisation. It is sketched above. The political history of the church organisation. YADDA YADDA.

In this rig there is a lynch pin sitting between the prime mover and the baggage. And that is Arius of Alexandria and the Nicean Council. This is when the Christian History becomes political. The underground movement becomes visible. The Bible is widely and lavishly published for the edification of the Greeks (Gentiles). The political history of Christianity starts with the so-called Councils of Antioch and Nicaea.

The Bible was politically received with a massive controversy.

The church organisations calls this the "Arian Controversy".

What was the Arian controversy? Who the fuck was this heretic Arius?

And why was Constantine so mad with him?

With the answering of these questions the revisionist political history of the 4th century might commence.



LC