aa5874

The FACT that we have Extant Codices and Apologetic sources of antiquity that made claims about a character called Jesus the Messiah, Universal Savior, God the Creator, who was sacrificed by crucifixion under Pilate in the reign of Tiberius and that it was argued that Jesus did LIVE in the 1st century and ABOLISHED the Laws of the Jews then it would be EXPECTED that Jews of antiquity would have written about such a Significant character.

After all the Jews FOught Against the Romans EXPECTING a Messiah at around 70 CE based on Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

The Pauline writer supposedly went ALL over the Roman Empire and preached about a Messiah called Jesus for at LEAST 17 -23 years.

It MUST be expected that there would be OPPOSITION or Arguments Against Paul and his Jesus during the time he preached.

There were ARGUMENTS and OPPOSITION to Marcion WHILE Marcion was ALIVE in "First Apology" by Justin.

We see arguments and opposition to the Jesus story in the 2nd century.

Arguments and Opposition to the Jesus story BEGAN when the Jesus story became known.

There were NO arguments and OPPOSITION to the Pauline Jesus and Paul in the 1st century because there was NO Jesus and No Paul.

mountainman

It is actually a claim formulated by others, against prior claims by the hegemonic tradition of the "Early Church".



Again, it is actually a claim formulated by others, against prior claims by the hegemonic tradition of the "Early Church".

These are claims - both FOR and AGAINST the historicity of 1st century "Christian Origins" - which have been discussed here before in some detail and depth. They are neither new, or original in this post.

mountainman

Appearances can sometimes be deceiving.

There may be at least two different characteristic levels of becoming known, given the context of the evidence and the ROman Empire of antiquity.

The first level is becoming known within a small perhaps reclusive underground network which we associate with the "Early Christians". The second level is becoming known within the large political arena of the entire Roman Empire, and this we associate with the emergence of Nicaean Christians.

J-D

I don't see that it makes any difference whether you were the first to make those claims or not. Even if you didn't originate those claims, you have repeated them, and you have pointed to no justification for them, your own or anybody else's.

J-D

No, it wouldn't. You're wrong.

mountainman

If you are unaware of the history of these claims - both FOR and AGAINST - and the sources of evidence justifying these claims, then it sounds like you have some homework to do. Rather than complaining publically that I have cited claims without their historical justification, if you truly are unaware of these historical justifications, then you should spend some time researching the history of the appearance of the two sets of claims.

J-D

You're not my teacher; you don't get to set me homework.

If you don't want to back up the things you say, you don't have to, but I see no reason why I shouldn't point that out. I don't believe you can back up the things you say, and your rhetorical posturing just makes me more sure.

aa5874

Your statement also applies to Eusebius and the Roman Church.

mountainman

While some of your questions are cogent, many of your questions in this thread (and others) verge towards an infinite regression. For example the issue of the "1st Century Sources" has been discussed quite frequently in this forum before, and I have not noticed you pointing anything out in these earlier exchanges.

Two diametrically opposed positions should have become quite evident to most readers and/or contributors. We may call them positions FOR and AGAINST the claims of historical evidence for the existence of "Christian Origins" in the first century.

The position FOR often uses as evidence the canonical gospels and other items which have been discussed ad nauseum. The position AGAINST often uses as evidence, the NEGATIVE evidence of the omission of mentions (for example in the two thread I referred to above) and other arguments which mitigate the apperance of the canonical gospels (etc) to the 2nd century.

Apart from repeating the above, all I might add at this stage is that both positions are characterized by the hypotheses that both parties FOR and AGAINST the claim associate with the common set of evidence items. Hence the central role of hypotheses at the foundation of various historical theories of Christian Origins.

mountainman

Yes it does, but it is not restricted to these entities. We have a very peculiar situation. We have two sets of "Ecclesiastical Histories".

The first was authored by a source known as "Eusebius" between 312 and 324 CE for the history of the Christian Church, the authorship and transmission of the canonical NT books from the 1st century to the year 324 CE, immediately prior to the all important Council of Nicaea.

The second set of "Ecclesiastical Histories" consist of three such histories authored by three sources in the early 5th century -

001 Socrates 303 to 439
002 Sozomenus 303 to 421
003 Theodoretus 303 to 428

Both sets of "Ecclesiastical Histories" are regarded as biased, written by the victorious orthodox heresiologists. Both sets of "Ecclesiastical Histories" are therefore best regarded with a great deal of reservation.

Finally it should be pointed out very clearly that our knowledge of the all-important events surrounding the rise of the monotheistic Christian State Religious cult and church at Nicaea, and its history from that pivotal year through the next twelve years under the rule of Bullneck is almost equivalent to a "Black Hole" of evidence, as is the following 15 years through to c.352 when the history of Ammianus commences.

Our knowledge therefore of what happened from the year 324/325 CE when Constantine became the supreme military commander of the entire Roman Empire is being drawn from sources in the 5th century, almost a hundred years (many generations) after the epoch of Nicaea in 324/325 CE.

All this counsels tremendous caution with these heresiological sources. The quip that appearances can be deceiving is emminently applicable to all these "Ecclesiatical History" sources, because the heresiologists were the victors in the struggles over the heretics, and we have only their word for what actually happened.

Have a nice day aa5874