Jeffrey Gibson

As is known by anyone who has read my rejoinders to Pete Browns posts regarding Eusebius, acesticism, Asclepius, therapeutae, Julian, Arius, etc., there are

(1) a host of claims that Pete has made but has has run away from substantiating with primary evidence when asked to do so,

(2) any number of questions about his theses or the "evidence" he has produced in support of it that he has ignored and or/refused to answer, and

(3) numerous times when he has tried to shift the burden of proof.

I have my own list of these. But I'd like to be sure it's complete.

So I ask any and all here to post what you see as the instances in which Pete has done the things listed above. I'm particularly interested to know what forum members see as the particular questions Pete has avoided answering and the means by which he has done so.

Any takers?

Jeffrey

Toto

I am not about to make an academic study of Pete Brown or spend time this weekend searching the archives, but the things that stick in my mind are his dismissal of the Dura Europa archeological evidence of a Christian church before 300 CE (I think he has to claim that there was a possibility that some vandals broke into the site and faked some evidence); and at one point I found an internet reference to some amulets that could be clearly dated before Constantine that had references to Jesus Christ. Pete said that was interesting, but went on.

Otherwise, Pete is just trying to reinterpret the evidence. In a way, it was useful to take his claim as a hypothesis and look for evidence to refute it, but the time has long passed when he should have revised the hypothesis to take account of the evidence that has been produced.

mit

I think that Pete has an interesting theory, but there seems to be enough evidence that there some kind of Christian movement prior to Eusebius. I wouldn't think any less of Pete if he moved on and discussed on how much of Christianity was invented by Eusebius.

spin

About as interesting as the theory that Joseph of Arimathea went off to Britain. I showed ages ago that he didn't understand Julian, as Julian accepted the existence of both Jesus and Paul. He simply can't grasp what Julian refers to as fiction. I pointed him to Dura Europas with its nice time capsule church of circa 260 CE. He tried to shoot the scholars as being christian and therefore not worth considering, knowing nothing about the scholars other than that they were financially supported by Yale Divinity. He ignores the christian frescoes and obfuscates about the inscriptions at Dura. He's in total denial over the Greek palaeography of the gospel fragments found in Egypt. All he's left with is some unfalsifiable gibberish about Eusebius orchestrating the construction of scores of heresies while trying to get a nascent religion off the ground. Makes any sense to you? Didn't think so.


spin

Doug Shaver

It would be interesting if he could produce any evidence at all to support it. Until he does that, it's about as interesting as Russell's celestial teapot.

spin

Let's see who can supply a better analogy for the interest in mountainman's theory...


spin

eheffa

I appreciate the idea that Peter is trying to make sense of an alternative explanation for the existence of the Orthodox history of the Church. It would appear that the hypothesis fails on the strength of existent artifacts & evidence for a circa 260 CE church with orthodox type artifacts & writings.


I have yet to read a coherent theory or Hypothesis (outside the standard Christian version ) that would outline the the timeline of the creation of what we now recognize as the "orthodox" Christian religion.

Does anyone here have a viable alternative hypothesis as to when Orthodox Christianity was invented? ( Reiteration not necessary if good references or links can do the job.)

Pre-Eusebius, maybe second century?

(No good evidence for first century.)

What data do we have?

Any nutshell versions welcomed...

-evan

On second thought, This may derail the thread & perhaps is an inappropriate comment / question. If so please ignore....I could always ask this question as a separate thread.

mountainman

Who can grasp Julian's real convictions when his original writings are not extant and we are reconstructing him via the hostile polemic in an extant work CONTRA JULIAN of the murdering tax-exempt bishop Cyril, nephew of the mafia thug bishop Theophilus. But even without Julian's source writings, spin knows exactly what the emperor was trying to say.


I supplied a list of questions to Ben and Andrew last time they brought up Dura. Do you have any answers to these questions?

I prefer C14 dating since it is, after all, the 21st century. But who let the physicists into BC&H? This must have shocked alot of people. And then the coptic scholars. What next?

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

mountainman

Asclepius and his priest (Coneybeare)

mountainman

Its about as interesting as the hypothetical question: Is the pearl merchant Lithargoel Jesus in NHC 6.1?



Best wishes,



Pete Brown