Originally Posted by J-D

No. Because the Jews were already dispersed long before Constantine was born. A good question, which Pete has been asked before: if Constantine had Christianity invented, why would a link to Judaism have been incorporated? Pete has no good answer.

Originally Posted by storytime How much different is todays Christian fundamentalism in thinking to take over Israel via using their scripts? Of disolving Jews into Christianity by means of the Jewish messiah concept? Orthodox Jewish belief is "this is our inheritance, not theirs". The law and the covenants belong to the Jewish people[Israel]. Constantine could not take it legally so he invented a way to steal it?

Originally Posted by avi

Apparently seeking to repudiate (not FALSIFY) my assertion that spin erred in writing "FALSIFIED", with regard to Pete's hypothesis, spin argued:
dictionary
Of the FIVE suggested meanings for the word falsification, numbers 1-4 correspond to the synonym for which it is typically employed by native speakers of English, i.e. deceit, deception, fraud, duplicity, cheating, and the like. Only the fifth, and least common meaning, obsolete for many decades, corresponds to the idea which spin sought to employ: to disprove.

I acknowledge complete ignorance of Karl Popper, and further, utter DISINTEREST in his ideas.
However, if I were interested in examining Popper's supposed contribution to the field of linguistics, I certainly would not offer as reference, WIKIPEDIA. Further, if I were seeking to repudiate (n.b. NOT FALSIFY) criticism of my erstwhile English language skills, I would not choose as reference, someone whose native language was either Yiddish (Juden-Deutsch), oder Schwaebisch.

Spin's claim to be a linguist appears dubious, based upon his defense of misuse of the word falsification, which is ABSOLUTELY not synonymous with repudiation, notwithstanding his own errant notions as well as those of his colleagues at Wikipedia, and his philosopher chum Popper.

Falsification represents the intentional misrepresentation of a body of dogma, or evidence, of any kind, just as I deliberately falsified Pete's hypothesis by invoking Tiberius instead of Constantine. Falsification does NOT represent the REPUDIATION of a hypothesis, theory, or evidence, rather, one FALSIFIES a theory, by MISREPRESENTING that theory, not by disproving the theory.

Here is an illustration, not TOO far off the track of Pete's thesis re: Constantine as CREATOR of Christianity, by exploiting his imperial military power to DESTROY and MODIFY earlier existing documents, dogmas, statues, statutes, and traditions:

Richard A. Posner is an Appellate Court judge for the US Federal Judiciary, operating out of Chicago, Illinois. He is also a faculty member at the University of Chicago Law School. He is, in other words, "an expert". He is also guilty (perhaps NOT intentionally, or at least, I am willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt) of the FALSIFICATION of Copernicus' "discovery" of the travail of Aristarchus of Samos. In other words, Judge Posner, in his 2007 publication praising Copernicus, distorted, FALSIFIED, and misrepresented Copernicus' dependance upon Aristarchus' brilliant repudiation (NOT FALSIFICATION) of Aristotle/Plato's universally accepted notion of geocentrism, by means of experiments and measurements, which he, Aristarchus, PERSONALLY performed. Why would Judge Posner, of Polish ancestry, misrepresent, i.e. FALSIFY, the history of Copernicus, Polish monk extraordinaire, claiming, correctly, that he, Copernicus, encountered Aristarchus' drawings of heliocentrism in 1503, while attending medical school in Padua, Italy, whereupon he, Copernicus had chanced upon the Greek guardians of Aristarchus' precious manuscripts, (copied meticulously for almost 2000 years by Eastern Orthodox Christian monks, until compelled to flee from Constantinople in the late 15th century, to Italy.) So, Judge Posner CORRECTLY identified the FACT that Copernicus indeed discovered Aristarchus' magnificent accomplishment--heliocentrism--but, instead of acknowledging the truth, i.e. that Copernicus plagiarized Aristarchus, Judge Posner instead FALSIFIED the ostensible contribution of Copernicus, claiming concurrent discovery of heliocentrism by both Aristarchus and Copernicus, when, in fact, Copernicus, who himself performed no mathematical investigations, had originally acknowledged Aristarchus' experiments and drawings, in his Latin masterpiece,De revolutionibus orbibum..., ultimately redacting all reference to the Greek genius, Aristarchus, on reflection of the consequences of suggesting that the geocentric model presented in the Bible (purportedly authored by Claudius Ptolemy, in the second century, based upon Ptolemy's own experiments and analysis, derived from the writings of Aristotle/Plato, five hundred years earlier), was false. In those days of Copernicus, writing, or even reading, the wrong words could lead to DEATH. Possession of an English language version of the Bible, led to the deaths of many Englishmen at the hand of that miserable assassin, Thomas More, just ten years before Copernicus published his magnum opus. Copernicus HAD NO CHOICE: he HAD to plagiarize, or face execution (of himself, AND his family) in a VERY painful manner, as a blasphemer, who relied upon the travail of atheists.

With regard to the central issue of whether or not Ptolemy's Document from mid second century verifies or repudiates, (not FALSIFIES) Pete's hypothesis that Constantine invented Christianity, I have no opinion, for Ptolemy's support of geocentrism was doubtless ALSO accepted by the Jews of that era, i.e. Ptolemy's science was widely accepted, and was not uniquely Christian, though, it is by means of Christianity, and most particularly, its most odius manifestation: the Spanish Inquisition, (aka Constantine part deux) that we have come to learn and appreciate this most misguided of "scientific" accomplishments, Ptolemy's repudiation of the great scholar, and chief librarian at Alexandria, (preceding Eratosthenes,) Aristarchus. (I have often wondered if, traversing the dusty vaults of the greatest library of the ancient world, Aristarchus, head of that wonderful library, found someone else's writings, and claimed them as his own....)

Were Ptolemy's ideas incorporated into the revisions of the Septuagint that took place in the second century, or did those changes precede Ptolemy's publication? Did Ptolemy's Geocentric hypothesis first appear in the Vulgate translation? Are his findings the basis of the oft stated Geocentric model found in the Bible, or, is there some other scientist/philosopher (Aristotle himself?) whose writings form the basis for the Old Testament's Geocentric convictions? Is it reasonable to conclude that since no reference to Ptolemy's model is found in the New Testament, then, that absence would tend to support Pete's notion that the whole Christian apparatus was formalized two centuries after Ptolemy, i.e. fourth century....?

Originally Posted by spamandham

...an excellent summary of why I don't find it prudent to rule out any reasonable possibilities in regard to Christian history. While I don't think MM's position is "likely" (aka simplest), it isn't impossible, nor so far fetched as to be dismissed out of hand.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I will try to keep this short simple and to the point.
There were Jewish Messianic believers- they believed in the death and the resurrection of their Saviour, These are exemplified by the Jerusalem Apostles, James, Peter, Andrew, Philip, etc.
They were NOT "christians", likely never even heard of such word, although it has been a "Christian" convention to anachronistically retroject it upon them.

Their followers continued in observance of Jewish Law and custom, in the observance of all Jewish Sabbaths and High Days, in the Mosaic institution of circumcision upon conversion, and in the maintaining of a kosher diet. This they did wherever they went. Never accepting the Christians "replacement" Holy Days.
Reportedly this faction, or Nazarene "sect" of The Jewish religion survived and continued on in their distinctive practices right up into the 13th century, when they were finally absorbed into Orthodox Christianity and/or died out, naturally or unnaturally.

Meanwhile, a new and strikingly different Gentile religion was going its own way. Started by Paul of Tarsus, it took off slowly, but gathered momentum as it was "modified" to suit the desires of a Gentile population, it became known by the moniker "Christian". In the 3rd century it gained political leverage through the patronage of Emperor Constantine.
(who further "modified" and "standardized" it.)

See what I'm saying? Two entirely separate "New Testement" -religions-, One Jewish, and one Gentile, contemporary for 13 centuries, The earlier Jewish one losing clout and finally dwindling into oblivion, While the popular but utterly Gentile "Christian" religion literally took over its immediate "world".

Looking at the History of "New Testement religion" through glasses tinted by Christian indoctrination, there is a great tendency to be blind to the fact that there were many, many generations of Jewish New Testement believers who were avowedly not Christians, and did not live by the customs of "Christianity", accept any of the "Creeds" of Christianity, nor get involved in all of those weird, wonderful, and bloody theological battles that Christianity is so famous for.

So, yes, in a nutshell, I certainly believe that there were Christians before Constantine, heck, there were even "Chrestians" before "Christ" was even born But that doesn't make the term appropriate for the early Jewish Messianic believers, nor for those who walk in "Yahoshua ha'mesheka" today.

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear J-D and others,

A number of greek versions of the Hebrew Bible (perhaps authored via the neopythagoraean student of Ammonius Saccas, not Eusebius' Ammonius, but the other one, named Origen) may have existed in Rome 312 CE. Constantine used this as the something old which he added to his distinctive something new, by binding it to his fabrication now known as the NT canon.

Originally Posted by mountainman

Constantine is described as a brigand.
He was a malevolent despot who liked gold.

Originally Posted by spin

You might find it's excellent, but it is obviously false. The gospel centered building in Dura along with the gospel harmony fragment are crushing. The existence of the gospel faith prior to 257 falsifies the mm position. There is no dismissal out of hand.

"[D]ismissal out of hand" is a mm tactic. You can't use palaeographically dated texts. You can't use the Roman catacombs constructed when christianity was not so appreciated by the authorities. You can't use the complex literary tradition that requires such a conspiracy to invent it the conspiracy's laughable. The Megiddo church? It might be something other than what it appears to be. The references to christians in Lucian and Marcus Aurelius are for no evidential reason treated as fake. This eastern conspiracy must have forged the Latin fathers down to earlier literary stylistic traits. The many heresies weren't real, just figments of the imaginations of Eusebius and his lackeys. Marcion wasn't real: he was a perverse gleam in a lackey's eye. The Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscript traditions didn't develop naturally from the circulation of gospel materials but came off the pens of the Eusebian scribal machine already made, ie not one gospel manuscript tradition was formed but at least two when the texts were written.

Our job is to sift through the evidence, not to avoid it. The mountainman theory has no evidence in its favour. It can't seriously explain the manifestation of christianity. It plays to people who would like it to be true because it makes christianity a simple facade, easy to handle. It won't make your brain hurt trying to understand it.

To someone who knows something about the field, the mm theory is a joke. It's a distraction from learning about BC&H.


spin

Originally Posted by spin

a number of christian frescoes. The ones I know about are the good shepherd, the two Marys going to the tomb on Sunday morning, the healing of the paralytic and Jesus and Peter walking on water.

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear J-D here is the general format. We the 318 undersigned (and Robin Lane-Fox writes that the attendees were coerced to sign by one of Constantine's military chiefs) the the following:
Big disclaimer on the words of Arius by the Oath of Nicaea to which the attendees were coerced to sign in favor of Constantine. The meaning of the phrase "But the holy Catholic and Apostolic church anathematizes those who say things like Arius should be reasonably clear. Constantine had a big stick of authority, and he used it to mock authenticity and the ancient traditions. The first 318 bishops of Constantine did not know which way was up. What could they have done?



Best wishes,



Pete

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear J-D,

Since we are dealing here with evidence in the first instance, and proof at some further and subsiduary step (I am not claiming to be infallible, but perhaps my detractors are appealing to the authority of infallibity), then the evidence itself tells us that the contrary may also apply. And this is all I need to temporarily defend my thesis.

Best wishes,


Pete

Originally Posted by J-D

I want to check that I understand what you are saying and also your earlier remarks, so I'm going to paraphrase. I'm not trying to put words into your mouth or to trap you with a trick question; I'm genuinely trying to confirm that my understanding of what you have been saying is correct.

As I see it, the original central question of this thread was whether Pete's view that there were no Christians and no Christianity before Constantine is correct. spin suggested that there was evidence that proved this false.

As I understand your position, on that original central question, you reject Pete's view that there were no Christians and no Christianity before Constantine and hence (on that point, although not on others) agree with the generally accepted view. However, you disagree with spin's interpretation of the Dura evidence and hence don't agree that that particular piece of evidence falsifies Pete's view. Your interpretation of the Dura evidence fits with your others views on the subject of Christian origins, which are different from Pete's but equally different from generally accepted views.

Have I got it now?