Amaleq13

Neither actually "supports" it in the sense of suggesting it to be the more likely explanation. They are simply consistent with the notion.

The first is also consistent with the notion that the Talmud authors didn't consider Christianity worth addressing and we've already seen (though some apparently prefer to continue to believe otherwise) that there doesn't appear to be any legitimate basis for an expectation of "archaeological citations" prior to Constantine.

Amaleq13

Did they leave any "hard archaeological evidence" behind?

mountainman

Well we happen to know that in the case of "christianity" the ruler of the epoch, Constantine managed to convince himself that he'd had a religious experience. Once he had that expience the empire was not the same any more, and he actively legislated for, supported and protected the "christian church". Arnaldo Momigliano describes this series of events, in his sober Jewish voice, as A MIRACLE.

I am inclined to agree with him. All it took was Constantine. The question is whether there was anything of christianity extant before his assuming the role of Pontifex Maximus 312 CE, and his subsequent rise to supremacy.

COnstantine's propaganda asserts a "christian history". But is this simply a pseudo-history wrought by imperial forgery? The Historia Augusta was probably written under Constantine. The epoch of Constantine is a black hole of ancient history, because all the lights of pagan historians have been extinguished, and we are looking at things via the mono-beam illumination of the imperial-cult of christian "biblical historians".

His armies invaded the eastern empire and were victorious. He asserts Christianity at Nicaea, and an Arian controversy rages in a political sense for a century or more before it is contained by the "orthodoxy". He sought unification under the sword and achieved it by the sword. When Eusebius describes "the wall of swords" at Nicaea he was not joking. He was on the victorious side. Those who wrote the history we read. Think about it Toto.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson

You've misread Momigliano.

Jeffrey

mountainman

We may be reasonably confident that the council of Nicaea happened in an historical sense. Our reports of the nature of this "Council" however are preserved by the descendants of the Constantininan christian victors.

I consider the "Council" of Nicaea to be a political and military supremacy summit meeting. COnstantine summoned each of the attendees to the meeting by letter. They walked through a wall of drawn swords.

Why was the Council called according to the "ecclesiastical cult historians"? A number of them say on account of the words of Arius. What were these words of Arius, the Alexandrian pagan priest and logician?

There is no doubt that what was to become the intolerant and persecutory top-down-emperor-cult of the fourth and fifth and all subsequent centuries was there and then born, and came into existence, at this military supremacist council of Nicaea 325 CE.

COnstantine asserts there were christian "bishops" in attendance, but if you read his letter, he mentions there are "from the west" - ie: he had cultivated a few bishops in the period 312-324 CE in his imperial court. The rest of the eastern attendees were pagans - the large landholders, the heads of the civil and the religious groups, the influentials --- Constantine had used intilligence to gather this information on who was who in the eastern empire. And he summoned them all -- none of whom were "christian".

But those who signed on the dotted line against the words of Arius, and who supported Constantine's agenda, would become tax-exempt Bishops of the new and strange religion of the CHRESTIANS (the good religion) over-night, and they would be empowered by the Boss.

I dont think we will find any archaeological evidence of christianity before the Council of Nicaea, unless it is primitive developmental phase in Rome from 312 CE.



Have a look at the Origenist controversy of the fourth and fifth centuries. If you are going to rely upon this author Origen, have a look at the turbulence surrounding the trajectory of his written works across the boundary event in ancient history called Nicaea.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

spamandham

I haven't seen any kind of decent case made that such an expectation is unreasonable, so it's no wonder that some prefer to believe otherwise.

Jeffrey Gibson

The what???

May we have the text of this letter, please? I really want to see what portion of it stands as "evidence", and justifies your claim, that all of the eastern attendees of the Council of Nicea were pagans.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Define "decent", please.

Jeffrey

mountainman

In a brief ABSTRACT I have outlined what I consider to be a statement of the position of Ahistoricity.

Consequently the argument is both (1) and (2) above.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

spamandham

The first definition here.