mountainman

If the question appears to you to be so simple
then why dont you have a go at answering it?
"Did Constantine Invent Christianity"?

mountainman

Historical fiction cannot to be considered a "modern genre"
seeing that representatives of that genre were published
in the fourth century, possibly by our dear friend bullneck.

spin

No.

J-D

Easy. I don't know. Do you?

aa5874

In order for a person to investigate any matter, the credibilty of statements with respect to the matter should be ascertained. So, if someone writes that Jesus the Christ existed as a real person 2000 years ago, then I expect, in order to investigate, that the written reports of his existence to be credible.

The NT is a cannon of books which deal with the so-called real god and human, Jesus the Christ. It has never been established that Jesus was a real god nor a real man, we have to rely on statements whether extra-biblical or from the bible itself.

Now, if a character called Saul/Paul, in Acts, was claimed to be physically blinded by Jesus the Christ, I expect the report to be true, and if not, the NT is in error. And, if it is reported that Saul/Paul was at certain locations in Acts, but in Galations, it is reported that he was not, then credibility becomes an issue.

Then the more we investigate the so-called Pauline epistles, the more the authorship of the epistles becomes vague and forgery and false claims begin to emerge.

There are now major problems, Saul/Paul's historicity cannot be established due to the fictitious nature of Acts, and this position is augmented by the numerous forgeries. Can it be established that the real Saul/Paul is the one in Galations or Timothy, Corinthians or Titus.

I have a dilemma, one of the Pauls stated in Romans 9:1.... I lie not..." . Another Paul, in Galations 1:20, ".... I lie not and yet another Paul, in 1 Timothy 2:7....I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not..."

Now, according to some , all or one of the Paul is lying, i.e, they have falsely identified themselves as Paul, the stories about Jesus, as they pertain to the epistles, are false, by at least one of the Pauls.

I am not of the view that Jesus the Christ is historical, since even persons who should have known him cannot be accounted for and may all be liars.

J-D

The judgement that some of the statements in the Christian Scriptures are not true is not being contested here.

Your larger conclusion that none of the statements in the Christian Scriptures is true remains unsubstantiated speculation.

mens_sana

Klijn, A. F. J., and Reinink, G. J. 1973. Patristic Evidence for Jewish–Christian Sects. (or via: amazon.co.uk) NovTSup 36. Leiden, has a good discussion of early Jewish-Xn sects. And, of course, Bart Ehrman spends a good deal of time on them in his Lost Christianities (or via: amazon.co.uk). The Adoptionists would have included all the Jewish-Xn sects, although that umbrella shaded others as well. (The Klijn and Reinink is an expensive book, partly because it includes excerpted documents in the original languages, and partly because it is Brill, but it can be obtained through InterLibrary Loan.)

mountainman

The year is 2007 CE. Internationally represented discussions exist
in which it is possible to make reference to a web page of data,
perhaps containing pictures of artwork, coins, grafitti, sculpture,
inscriptions, burial relics, trinkets, bones, weapons, clothing,
architecture, inventions, archeological relics, papyrii fragments,
ancient manuscripts, bindings, carbon dating citations, etc, etc.

I will not accept that in this day and age such a vital bit of
evidentiary data can be "hidden away by academics". All I am
asking for is one single objective scientific and/or archeological
citation.

What is there in this book that can highlight a place of pilgrimage
for a 21st century "christian" who wishes to gaze first hand if possible
upon some "evidence" for the existence of Pre-Nicene "christians".
Some inscription? Some sarcophagi? Where is it? I will visit the
university, or museum, or location, just to look at it.

mens_sana

I'm having a hard time following this. There is a difference between the NT canon and the individual books. The canon is a theological construct, theoretically melding diverse witnesses into one voice. The books are individual voices testifying to the understanding of their individual authors. When taken together, the total gives us a picture different from that of the individual authors. That puts a theological barrier between you and the individual authors. It is also a strawman.

Again, you appear ready to throw out all the books attributed to Paul, as well as Acts because of authorship questions on one hand and disagreement between Acts and Galatians (?) on the other. This makes for good clanging rhetoric, but that's about all. Mainstream scholarship accepts a number of Pauline epistles as having been written by Paul, several others as quite debatable (and therefore excluded from studies of 1st level Pauline thought and events), and the Pastorals as genuinely late, written by followers in the Pauline school. And there are places where Acts and the accepted Pauline letters do disagree. In those cases, I would be more inclined to accept Paul's word. This is just critical reading. It's not necessary to toss all of it because part of it has problems — unless what is really being tossed is an evangelical childhood.

mens_sana

Klijn & Reining is rather short on photos, etc., but the unabridged Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (or via: amazon.co.uk) (13 vols, Bollingen, New York) by Erwin R. Goodenough has a huge collection of photo-reproductions that will interest you.