spin

First, if you look again, you'll see the reconstruction at Yale with an arched structure on the left with frescoes to the right. Details of those frescoes (see other images) are 1) the scenes of the healing of the paralytic, to their right 2) scenes of walking on the Sea of Galilee with the disciples in the boat and Jesus and Peter in the foreground, and below that 3) the tomb with the women approaching it. The rest of the wall did not survive. In the lunette of the arched structure is an image of the good shepherd and from another wall you'll find a fragment with the Samaritan woman at the well. They are all to be found in that search.

mountainman

According to your own poll on this subject Has mountainman's theory re Constantine's invention of christianity been falsified? the results (YES:34, NO:9, Unknown:16) indicate that the mural/artistic evidence of the Dura Europos is certainly not unassailable. But you don't understand stats do you spin?

The fact remains that not all people agree with the assessment that the Dura-Europa "mural art" represents "unassailable evidence" for the existence of Christians at Dura in the 3rd century. You don't get this do you spin? These other people, who disagree with your own preference in this matter, are obviously not as informed as you are.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

The images are collected on the WIKI page Dura-Europos Church.




Hello Jesus. Cant you see the Good Lord Jesus?





Hello Jesus and Hello Peter. I see you!! You are walking on the water. All is well in Christendom.





Of course the TOMB in which the great action and a host of angels danced. See the tomb of Jesus and the women who found it?

O happy happy happy are we who BELIEVE THIS UNASSAILABLE BULLSHIT.







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto

Pete - what do you understand about statistics? 9 votes, 15% voted that the evidence was not conclusive, and your supporters included these comments:

:banghead:

spin

While I note that such a poll is not necessarily reflective of the evidence and was an attempt to show some reason that may have caused you to rethink your position, you're not looking closely enough at the results. The response of those who took a position gave a resounding response, almost five to one.

This is not a matter of preference though, is it? The evidence is clearly that christian motifs from Dura Europos date from before 257 CE. Unambiguous evidence. Falsification. Then there were two references to christ inscribed in the room where the frescoes were found. Instead of doing what you claimed, ie "I have repeatedly claimed that if unambiguous evidence can be produced to refute the HYPOTHESIS then I would retire from the field of investigation", you dodged and weaved and pretended it doesn't matter. So much for your claim.

Robert Tulip

It is hard to know what to make of such a general comment, except that Stephan makes his emotional hostility to religion very clear. Is Judaism also "dead"? As usual, Stephan deftly avoids specific accusations while making his intent quite clear, as with his earlier "intellectual honesty" remark. Tossing off glib attack phrases like "incoherent" illustrates a deeply arrogant foolishness on Stephan's part. Analysing religion in terms of natural symbolism, the core of Acharya's method, is entirely coherent.

I do not accept that Christianity is "dead". A while back Stephan asked me if I disagreed with Acharya on anything. While I fully agree with her analysis of astrotheology and mythology, I differ somewhat in emphasis in that I see cosmic symbolism and continuity with earlier myth as a basis for Christian revival, re-basing faith in reason. I understand full well that this premise of religious reform prompts a reaching into deep recesses of hysterical abuse in some quarters, but it would be nice if the dialogue here about faith and reason could be a bit more reasonable.

I see that Stephan has a chip on his shoulder regarding philosophical discussion of faith, hence the stream of consciousness he emits in my direction. Poor Stephan, I hope you get better.

My interest in Mountainman's ideas is that like Acharya, he argues that the actual history of Christianity is significantly different from the received stories, whether those of faith or of reason. This is obviously a fraught theme to explore. The even more extreme ideas of Joe Atwell show how it is possible to go over the edge.

But taking the Orwellian idea of imperial narrative control of the past as a guide, it is useful that Mountainman starts from a robust skepticism regarding early claims, just to get away from the conventional acceptance of ludicrous assertions on the authority of faith alone.

We have two extreme null hypotheses - that Jesus founded Christianity and that Constantine did. Examining how both of these rival claims shape up against evidence can help to find a truth somewhere between them.

mountainman

With respect to yourself and Toto (and others) the evidence (as you see it) is as you state however the net result of your poll indicates that, while you may have a majority, you do not have an unambiguous consensus. There are those, including me, who do not accept this mural art as unambiguous evidence of the 3rd century existence of the Jesus Story (Jesus and Peter and Bilbo etc) as claimed.

Had I been alone in this assessment you may have had a case for falsification, but it is clear that I am not alone in my assessment of this case. I suggest that confirmation bias can work two ways, and that the mainstream has accepted this 20th century evidence uncritically. Ditto for the reliance upon palaeographical dating and the source known as Eusebius.

Other explanations for the Dura-Europos discovery have NOT been explored. Why not spin? No need to explore any further because we have the answer already? Additionally, the Dura-Europos-Yale structure is not claimed to be either a Christian church or a Christian church house (none of these structures have ever been found), but a "Christian house-church", and it is the SOLE EXEMPLAR of such a structure in the entire field of Christian archaeology. What sort of special pleading is happening here? Does anyone know how dangerous it can be in relying not on a pattern of similar facts, but on a "sole exemplar" ? We have been dealing with a massive Belief Industry. I think its bullshit all the way down.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful"

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto

There were no coherent arguments in support of your position - just the idea that conceivably, there was some story just like the Christian story, of which we have no other evidence, but it wasn't Christianity so Constantine had to invent another religion that was virtually indistinguishable.

Toto

Dura Europas was a special case where ancient structures were preserved - much like Pompeii, although on a different scale.

The Hellenistic Jewish Synagogue is also unique in the field of Hellenistic archaeology.

I will let everyone here have on last post, and then this thread is over, based on our long standing rule that this subject has been done to death.

MrMacSon

I wish someone would address the issues I made in post #9 on this thread that ....
ie. Constantine & Co may have cemented an evolving idea.