FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-14-2006, 06:31 AM   #21
post tenebras lux
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Republic and Canton of Geneva
Posts: 5,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yummyfur
Sure there is stuff that dates the founding of Constantinople, but how does that prove that the Council of Nicaea took place? or that Constantine was involved and approved of Christianity?
I thought it possible that the latter (signs that Constantine was supportive of christianity) could have been indicated.
Quote:
Also Julian's Against Galileans are preserved in Cyril Of Alexandria writings, who wrote about them in the early 5th century. But to be honest I don't think I even need to claim these were faked at Jerome's insistance to Cyril, because I don't think Julian mentions the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius or Constantine's approval of Christianity in his text's anywhere.
Was wishing to check oldest copy of the surviving parts of Julian's work. If it's Cyril, then it's Cyril. Thanks.
post tenebras lux is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 07:42 AM   #22
yummyfur
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by post tenebras lux
I thought it possible that the latter (signs that Constantine was supportive of christianity) could have been indicated.
How? maybe if he had called it Christopolis or Jesusopolis instead of Nova Roma, one could make such an argument, but how does the expansion of Byzantium into a capitol, show Constantine's approval and involvement in Christianity. There is no archeological evidence that either building, later designated as churches, were built before Justinian, manuscripts of texts that attest otherwise and claim such buildings were destroyed are Jerome fictions not supported by any archeological evidence. Even of their existance under Justinian, I don't think we have any concrete evidence that these buildings were for Christain worship at that time, but the worship of the goddess Minerva(wisdom) and goddess Pax(peace) both very important to the cult of empire. Finally, allowing Christianity, is quite different from approving and involvement in Christianity
yummyfur is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 05:30 PM   #23
Gamera
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman
The error bounds provide 220-340 CE.
Nicaea (325 CE) is inside these bounds.



Pete Brown
And how do you deal with P52 again, the Gospel of John fragment, reliably dated to the first half of the second century, which mentions both Jesus and Pilate? Did someone from the Nicean counsel time travel?

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/johnpap.html
Gamera is offline  
Old 06-14-2006, 06:46 PM   #24
S.C.Carlson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera
And how do you deal with P52 again, the Gospel of John fragment, reliably dated to the first half of the second century, which mentions both Jesus and Pilate? Did someone from the Nicean counsel time travel?
I hope the answer isn't that Eusebius forged it so that the handwriting would appear to be second century.

Stephen
S.C.Carlson is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 12:57 AM   #25
mountainman
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bishop
This is because the "pseudo-Hadrian" understands every one of a hundred subtle changes to make to his script in order to make his forgery undetectable?

You can write a million theories that are "undisprovable". Yours is "There was no Christianity prior to Constantine." It's not disprovable by hard physical evidence...
Carbon date a NT manuscript or fragment to the pre-Nicaean epoch.
Such hard physical evidence will disprove the theory.
The theory is definitely falsifiable.

Quote:
In the absence of hard physical evidence, it makes sense to accept textual evidence and not to dismiss entirely one of the principal tools used to fill in the hard evidence gap. The textual evidence suggests that there was a Christianity in the first three centuries CE, and the historical evidence suggests that Constantine used it as a tool to consolidate power and unify the Empire.

Constantine's adoption of Christianity as the Empire's official religion ("Christianity - the official religion of the Roman Empire!") is what has provided us with the evidence in the form of the earliest and most complete books of any kind that stand as historically useful texts on paper/parchment. The concept that these are not only the earliest surviving texts but also the oldest texts there ever were is simply not tenable.

Time will tell.
Best wishes,



Pete Brown
mountainman is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 01:22 AM   #26
mountainman
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yummyfur
Well I guess you are just going to ignore the Catacombs of Callixtus.
You said yourself "they are starting to do AMS C 14 analysis
on parts of these catacombs", so when you get a result date that
relates definitely to christianity pre-Nicaea, then let me know.

All else is inference and herersay

Quote:
Sure the Council of Nicaea possibly falls in the range, though only the last 15 years of a 120 year range. And you still have to account for the fact that it is both a Coptic translation and a copy of that translation, which take time, money and motivation to occur. Your hypothesis gives no support for these happening to some fake heretical text that was written to merely back up a brief mention in a fake Irenaeus, especially when it has to be done in a mere 15 years. Also to say something actually dates from the very last possible date of it's C14 standard error is improbable, so really you have less time than 15 years if you want something without a piss poor probability.
We would also have to ask the question how long papyrus
can be stored, and then hauled out for use. And whether
the carbon dating process reveals the date the papyrus
was taken from the land of the living papyrus. Does anyone
know how long papyrus was stored for use in antiquity.

Are there any extant writings describing the process of keeping
papyrus dry and at the right temperature so as to preserve its
shelf-life? What is the shelf-life, in a good ancient environment,
for papyrus?


Quote:
Besides the Council of Nicaea is a fiction, there is nothing that can date it it to 325, .... (trim)
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/

Article 052 ... Nicaean Council (via Life of the Blessed Emperor), by Eusebius
Article 053 ... Nicaean Council, by Philostorgius (Arian, fragments via Photius)
Article 054 ... Nicaean Council, by Rufinius of Aqueila
Article 055 ... Nicaean Council, by Socrates Scholasticus
Article 056 ... Nicaean Council, by Hermias Sozomen
Article 057 ... Nicaean Council, by Theodoret of Cyrus

Article 059a... Nicaean Council, by Hesychius of Jerusalem (lost?)
Article 059b... Nicaean Council, by Timeotheus of Betrytus (lost?)
Article 059c... Nicaean Council, by Sabinas of Heraclea (lost?)
Article 059d... Nicaean Council, by Philippes Sidetes (Philip of Side) (lost?)




Pete Brown
mountainman is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 01:45 AM   #27
mountainman
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera
And how do you deal with P52 again, the Gospel of John fragment, reliably dated to the first half of the second century, which mentions both Jesus and Pilate? Did someone from the Nicean counsel time travel?

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/johnpap.html

The dating of P52 is not via carbon dating but paleography.
Thus reliability can be improved considerably ...

See all that real-estate on the image of P52? Carbon date it.
Our prediction is that P52 will yield a post Nicaean C14 date.


Pete Brown
mountainman is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 01:56 AM   #28
mountainman
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson
I hope the answer isn't that Eusebius forged it so that the handwriting would appear to be second century.
The Nicaean Council lasted four months, and the creed which resulted
(exclusing the Arian disclaimer) relates to the NT literature. We can be
reasonably certain that Eusebius would have completed HE and PG, and
had also packaged the new and old testament together with his canon
tables. All this we would expect to be on display at Nicaea, so that the
attendees and Arius could avail themselves of such scholarship.

Attendees would be expecting to see some ancient documentary
evidence of the textual transmission and evolution of the NT, and
I dont think Constantine/Eusebius would have disappointed them.


Pete Brown
mountainman is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 02:03 AM   #29
mountainman
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
You have a problem if you can't get a link from Yale. You can search google for "house church dura europos" and look for university links.
OK I have that page now, but no information relating to this
"secure terminus ad quem 256" in respect of either the house
church or the fragment. I have examined many university
links in regard to the above issue.

Do you have a specific citation?


Pete Brown
mountainman is offline  
Old 06-15-2006, 02:40 AM   #30
rlogan
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 9,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman
Such hard physical evidence will disprove the theory.
The theory is definitely falsifiable.
In kindness, I see your position as a tautology, not a theory.

By definition the post-Nicean canon of Christianity did not exist until post-Nicea.

I tried on another thread you started to get an answer to what definition of "Christianity" you were using, and did not receive an answer. Could I ask you to please answer that again? Is this a zero tolerance policy for any Christian precursors whatsoever so long as they do not meet precisely the post-Nicean canon?

The Nag Hammadi finds have, for example, third century texts. As long as you define gnostic texts as non-christian, then you have this tautological approach that merely excludes pre-Nicean material via arbitrary definition.
rlogan is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:24 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.