Originally Posted by jeffevnz

No, I'm not assuming it. I'm proposing that it's a harmony based on evidence, the very textual evidence you cited in your post. If you don't accept that evidence, that's one thing, but that doesn't mean my argument presupposes its conclusion. I'm concluding that the Gospels existed before the Dura fragment was written, based on the textual evidence that it is a harmony of the Gospels.

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear Jeffrey and Toto,

Thankyou respectively for the correction and the english translation of the source. We must become cognisant that this lineage of authors, who are known collectively as both the neoplatonists and the neopythagoraeans in the period nornally reserved for the (imo ficitious) narrative of christian origins (ie: 000 to Nicaea) and who were cut off by Constantine.

Up until the time of Constantine, these sages, then, came to Delphi and dedicated to Apollo the celebrated maxims, “Know thyself,” and “Nothing in excess.” At the time of Constantine this lineage and practice and all temples services were abruptly terminated, and the literature of the academic author Porphyryr edicted for destruction (burning) and any civilians caught concealing this literature were to be beheaded.

What does it all mean?

Best wishes,



Pete

Originally Posted by mountainman

With respect to the field of ancient history, as an academic discipline of man, the point is that it is emminently possible that the new testament canonical stories themselves, did not exist before Constantine, but were fabricated from source documents (which may have been more sophisticated) avaliable to Constantine in Rome and elsewhwere, in detail and in Greek, and with themes similar to that used in the Gospels, such as literature concerning the central place of the ancient Logos of Heraclitus for example.

Originally Posted by J-D

Ancient history as an academic discipline, like other branches of history and other academic disciplines, proceeds by looking for the explanation that fits best with the evidence. 'Eminently possible' falls a long way short of 'fits best with the evidence'.

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear J-D,

I myself have made the same complaint to the production manager. But what can we do about these inconveniences? Socrates was not available at such short notice on IIDB.

Best wishes


Pete

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear J-D,

Thankyou, I did. I want to explore the possibility that Arius of Alexandria and the (pseudonymous?) author Leucius Charinus were the same historical person, since it occurs to me that this is a corollary to the thesis. To restate this another way, Arius of Alexandria needs to be evaluated as the rightful claimant to the title "the Father of the New Testament Apochrypha" (which may be perceived as burlesques, parodies and satires ---- sedition against ---- the fourth century Constantinian Canon).


Best wishes


Pete

Originally Posted by J-D

Sorry, I misunderstood you. When you said that the words of Arius were a 'legal disclaimer clause', I thought you meant that they represented an attempt on the part of Arius to disclaim something. It is now apparent that what you meant was that they represented a view which the Council of Nicaea was 'disclaiming' (I think 'rejecting', 'denouncing', and 'anathematising' would all be better choices of word, but not much hinges on this). Of course the Council of Nicaea disclaimed/rejected/denounced the views of Arius.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Perhaps your living room in -today's- New South Wales is a "private place".
But it is doubtful that 3rd century Roman officials would have considered the living rooms of residences in Dura Europos private, particularly if any rumor came to their ears of such house serving as a place of christian meeting and worship. (and it likely would have, given the garish decor)
With a Imperial ruling in place barring the practice of christianity, the doors would have been smashed in and trodden under the sandals of Roman soldiers, "Christian" icons and murals would have been destroyed, and likely the entire residence burned or leveled to the ground, the owner and any one else identified as participating in the crime against the Imperium, punished and/or executed in compliance with Roman Law.
Again, to me, the very survival of the Dura Europos site points to it having been known to the Roman authorities, and having been accepted by those authorities as being non-christian.
A contemporary Jewish synagogue found in the same vicinity evidences the presence of an active Jewish diaspora congregation.
It is my theory, that the so-called (mis-identified) "house-church" was, and was considered by Roman government officials to be a Jewish Synagogue, a "Beit Knesset" of The Jewish Sect of The Nazarenes, and thus not found to be in any violation of Roman Law.
I posit that the colorful murals were intended to attract Dispora Jews to a new and vibrant form of Judaism, one whose Saints and Heroes were "up to date" and reflective of contemporary Jewish concerns, rather than just the thousand year old ones that were repetitiously and monotonously eulogised in that "old-time" synagogue just down the street.
Gentiles, Strangers would also be welcomed, and accepted as full and equal members, IF they converted, and were circumcised, as Peter, James and the other Jerusalem Apostles taught and did.

The half-baked, still semi-pagan Gentile "CHRESTians" / "Christians" were still hiding out and engaged in their continual "doctoring" up (under the pseudonym of "Paul") of their composite Pagan/Jewish no-law theology.

Of course being a JEWISH Nazarene home synagogue, a "Beit Knesset", there would be no "big pink cross" in that living room, as these Jews would want nothing to do with such "christian" items and idols, which a display of would most certainly endanger their protected "Jewish" status with the Roman authorities.

Originally Posted by spamandham

Agreed. I've certainly not said anything to the contrary here. The OP is whether or not Pete's position has been falsified. The evidence submitted does not render his case so improbable as to consider it falsified, IMHO.

Everyone here arguing that this evidence has falsified his hypothesis, already considered his hypothesis falsified. Those arguing it has not falsified his hypothesis, are the same people who allowed for it in the first place. In other words, of those posting here, the evidence from Dura has not made a significant change of position, and I consider most of the regulars here capable of changing their mind when the evidence demands.