aa5874

And just what do you think the first three centuries means?

mountainman

That the 318 attendees at Nicaea were "pre-existing christian bishops" is an assertion found in the record of the christian historians. Do we need to immediately accept this as fact? Can we question this belief? Yes, we can. See my articles on The Council of Antioch and The Council of Nicaea. These councils were not religious but in fact military supremacist councils established by Constantine to make secure the government (and taxation) of the very rich eastern Roman empire following his military securement of the zone. In fact the Nicaean assemble also cooincided with hsi 30 year long service party: 30 years at the top of the scap-heap of imperial mafia thugs (with big armies).



Everone must obviously understand it was an explosion in numbers but the question of "How long was the fuse" has not been carefully enough articulated without preconceived notions. Constantine was the Pontifex Maximus in a legitimate fashion, since he was the military ruler of Rome. He had commanded the Roman army of the western empire to a victory over the commander of the Roman army of the eastern empire (Lucinius) and Constantine had won. He owned eveything from the year 324 CE. Constantine first published the christian bible as an integral whole (with the exception of the Shepherd of Hermas) which was later removed.

We need to ask the legitimate question did Constantine fabricate the new testament in advance of his military supremacy during the years 312 to 324 CE, at which time contemporary scholarship informs us that Eusebius of Caesarea was intensely occupied with the writing and the rewriting of the very first assemblage of genuine "christian history".

Finally, we need to ask was Constantine a fraud?
See Robin Lane Fox's opinion that here was a fraud twice over.


Old addage.
Buyer beware.
Best wishes


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

The period between what according to the Western calendar that I'm assuming you recon time by was the year 1 CE and Dec. 31st 300 CE -- a period which includes a sub period in which Justin was and remained dead for roughly 140 years and was therefore incapable of actually saying anything about anything that happened within it.

What do you think "the first 3 centuries" means?

Jeffrey

aa5874

Now, name a human being that can live from 1 CE to Dec. 31st 300 CE.

Jeffrey Gibson

http://tzone.the-croc.com/sounds/tzone2.wav

Jeffrey

spamandham

There are modern claims to that effect, but nothing to support it in the ancient evidence that I'm aware of.

As far as I know, no. That seems to be a myth as best I can tell.

aa5874

In book 1 of Against Celsus, written late 2nd or early 3rd century, Origen wrote that Christians were meeting in secret in admission to a claim by Celsus. Based on Origen, it is not a myth. Christians were being tyrranized so they had to hide to worship up to the 3rd century.

spamandham

According to Origen, he said that Celsus said that Christians were engaged in secret associations - and made the context clear he was referring to deception about laws that related to images and polytheism.

He said nothing about Christians hiding out in catacombs, or elsewhere, which was the context of my reply.

They may have worshiped in secret, if we believe Origen has accurately reflected Celsus' claim, but that isn't the same as living in hiding.

aa5874

I never claimed Christians were hiding in catacombs.

Origen simply claimed Christians were "tyrannized", so for that reason they met in secret.

Amaleq13

I wonder what the Roman view was of membership in secret associations?