mountainman

I would like to know by what method it was dated to c.200 CE.

Further, the image depicts a crucifixion of a man with a horses
head. That the image represents anything christian is presumed
from the image of the crucifixion, but the Romans crucified tens
of thousands of living men of many nations. The inference that
it represents a christian motif is bloated with a will to believe.

Additionally, the reference in the article to references to christianity
by supposed authors of pre-Nicaean antiquity ... such as Orator and
rhetorician, Marcus Cornelius Fronto, tutor of Marcus Aurelius and
later, his correspondent, and Tertullian, and others, I claim to have
been inserted into those authors' literature, fraudulently, in the fourth
century.

Here is the relevant list:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_060.htm



Pete Brown

Alf

In modern times we would put people in institution and take care of them. In older days they considered them posessed by spirits and had knowledge and wisdom about the unseen world - the world of demons and spirits. They were teachers and oracles and people you listened to.

There was one class of sickness people shunned away from and that was leprosy - considering it contageous, they refused to be close to such people and they were generally left to beg on the streets and eat the same kind of food that dogs ate.

For most other illnesses - and in particular mental illnesses - they were generally a blessing to the person inflicted as people perceived them of having access to a world which they themselves could not access.

Alf

Helpmabob

Hi Alf - Not Jesus. He clearly did not mind making contact with the lepers [Matt 8:1-4]. Just one of cogs in the machinery that 'started Chistianity' - based on the divine love and power of Jesus.

Javaman

Well, he created Leprosy, didn't he? I would hope he'd be able to shield himself from its effects. Plus, he knew he wasn't long for the earthly realm, yes? Your preaching in this forum is getting tiresome and just a little bit rude. Nice example you're setting.

Fortuna

Mountainman,

Thank you for the link to your list from "Annihilate Them". One thing I am doing is taking those items and seeing if I can identify a primary source for some of those claims. I've been using Socrates Scholasticus Historia Ecclesia and The Chronicle of John of Nikiu thus far.(Gibbon is a secondary for some of those, but, well, we all know the controversy about that).

As to the Alexandros grafitti, you say ;

I honestly don;t know the answer, but my guess would be, as it was found on the Palatine, it was surmised by patination. That is, by comparing the patina thickness relative to other artefacts and stone found at the same level.

Actually, it it supposed to be a donkey's head. But, more to the point, the inscription reads "Alexandros worships his god". The thinking is that the image is a polemic, jeering at someone named Alexandros who is worshipping someone crucified, and referenced as a god. I know of no other mystery religion of the empire that worshipped a crucified man-god, and unquestionably that is what is being depicted by both the image and the inscription.

I am aware of that. I wish that you had more evidence to support that however, such as an anachronism in the text, or linguistic usage that would not have been typical of the early period (i.e. like the use of the word "pagan"). Otherwise, it just reads like speculation.

But, what I find less plausible is that they concocted works like those of Iraneous and Hippolytus that discuss early heresies. In the case of Iraneous, he talks about a owrk known as the "Testimony of truth", and a work by that same name was uncovered at Nag Hammandi. (See Pagels, "The Gnostic gospels").


Another piece of archeology I should mention are the tombs in the catacombs, that are supposedly Christian and some dated to the third century(the 200s), which would pre-date Constantine. I remember hearing this from our tour guide while touring the catacombs on one of my trips to Rome. I believe these are in the Catacombs of Callistus (but there are several systems of catacombs that have been found in Rome, and I've read in some places that some date to the second century (but I cannot vouch for the accuracy or veracity of those claims, nor those of the Callistus tourguides)


All that aside, I'm not necessarily saying that your hypothesis of Christianity as a late syncretization or even as a Eusebean fiction is necessarily wrong, but I wish that your evidence was stronger that what you give here for example and I would like to see a more detailed criticism of conventional papyrology. The claim with no detail or specific criticism of their methods iis not very convincing to me. It reads like special pleading (at least what I have seen from you, if you have some spcific criticism, post a link).

You seem truly committed to it, so keep working on it. Find those pieces of evidence that make your case. For the pre-nicene texts, Identify anachronisms and liguistic features that support your case.

Fortuna

Solo

While I have very little doubt that the Spirit in the NT would be now commonly referred to sustained excitement associated with various forms of mental health issues, the issues themselves are really complex. First of all, the excitement itself has no known pathogen - the medical issues develop as the subject progresses through an episode and passes from a generally euphoric to a generally depressed (or acutely psychotic) state - and again, the changes that occur in the brain do not necessarily point to pathogenic causes, or are necessarily lasting. I think psychotherapy and religion (if it is healthy minded) have a common ground to build on.

The other very important point is this: most people today - as two thousand years ago - have a very un-enlightened view of mental illness. And they make the common mistake of assuming that mental illness = mental incapacity. Quite the contrary, some forms of mental disorders - and specifically the one I am focusing on - bipolar disorders - often mark very bright individuals, not always, mind you, but often they do and some of the brightest are in fact cyclers who have psychotic periods. The cliche of "mad genius" applies to many bipolars. Kay Redfield Jamison, one of the leading experts on the disorder, and herself a medicated bipolar, lists over two hundred world renowned poets/writers/musicians/painters and sculptors in Appendix B to "Touched with Fire (or via: amazon.co.uk)" (an excellent analysis of the issues of bipolarity). The list would have been considerably longer if she had included other fields of human endeavour.

One of the most important parts of the problem is that bi-polars rarely see themselves as ill (even in remission), quite the contrary, the great majority of them see the "spirit" as integral part of their identity and would not allow themselves to be medicated.


Many folks had the view of them as "demon possessed" and a menace, especially if they, like Jesus (apparently) did not conform socially, and did and say things which would be commonly perceived as blasphemous and sacrilegous. If Jesus was forgiving sins in the name of "his Father", he would have transgressed the limit of tolerance in his society, and if he did - as I believe the NT itself illustrates - introduce "death baptism" through ritual burials of his novices, he would have been considered a nefarious sorcerer and a criminal to be done away with.
On the other hand, many people are attracted by the charisma, brightness, energy, and confidence, that bipolars exhibit in the upper phase of the cycle.

Jiri

mountainman

Hi Fortuna,

I have split out of this thread separate threads concerning the
assessment (or otherwise) of archeological evidence claimed at
establishing christianity in the pre-Nicaean epoch.

This thread "How did it start?" is still served in the following:


FIrstly, these "works", every single one, reference calumny.
These are all simply literary calumnies, purposefully fabricated in
order that the inference that there was a christian religion in the
pre-Nicaean epoch, before Constantine, might be believed.

Note that the carbon dating of the NT related material from
Nag Hammadi is c.350 CE, which is post Nicaean.

I am in the process of re-writing my notes, the old versions of which
are available from here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/index.htm

Externally, I can recommend obtaining a copy of Jay Raskin's book
entitled "The Evolution of Christ's and Christianities"
http://evocc.com/

The first chapter is entitled "Eusebius the Master Forger".
It deals with what Jay has termed "Eusebian tells", or
writer's nuances or quirks in his literature. There have
been a number of posts and threads by Jay and others
here about these "tells of Eusebius". Not only do they
appear throughout the Eusebian literature (HE, PG, CV, etc)
but also (aghast!) in the earlier writers of antiquity, whom
he is quoting, after hundreds of years, from his desk in the
fourth century.

Jay also makes other interesting observations, and subsequent
chapters take issue with other interesting vantage points in
this environment of BC&H.



Thanks for the encouragement.

I believe that (emperor) Julian, who was convinced that the NT
was a fabrication of men composed by wickedness, also actually
knew and wrote down who these wicked men were, and how they
fabricated all this literature, and perverted Josephus, et al, but
I cannot prove this.

I believe that Cyril of Alexander did not pass on this information
when he made his refutation of Julian's polemic against the
Galilaeans, for fear that it would contaminate the minds of
christians.



Pete Brown

AUTHORS of ANTIQUITY:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_029.htm

Atheist_Scathe

Precisely. The basic motifs were there, the elements of the Greatest Story Ever Sold, waiting to be formulated or re-formulated and strung together and embellished in the right manner, and then the djinn was out of the bottle. At least, such is my stance.

aa5874

You should also remember that when the Jesus story was formulated, re-formulated, strung together and embellished, the authors had no idea how long their story would be believed, all they were doing is to try to make their story believeable.

The Jesus story is the worst story ever to be believed, at least that is my stance.

mountainman

Does this stance then permit you to consider, along with Julian,
that the story "is a fiction, composed by wicked men", or are
there other mitigating issues, for this to be considered possible?



Pete Brown