Toto

Legion - please note that various posters here have had these discussions with aa5874 and mountainman in times past. Both are set in their respective positions and unlikely to either change or attract a following.

mountainman

The reviewer compared the idea to that of Kircher and Hardouin, despite the fact that I openly discussed C14 evidence that would refute these ideas.



The idea AFAIK is new, and has been reported as such.

I have read articles that involve C14 dating this catacomb, and made notes here. The article I read, if I recall correctly, extroplates later C14 dates at the front of the crypt to older dates further back in the crypt. The paper above is more recent, I will read it. I am interested in what is being dated and how it is determined to be "Christian". There is no doubt there are pagan bones under the Vatican.

This entire business with the Vatican evidence also must acknowledge the involvement of the "pioneering Papal archaeologist" de Rossi. This professional was inventive. Finally, the ancient historical record shows that Damasius renovated the catacombs in the later 4th century. Therefore, what was there before Damasius conducted his major renovations to display the Bones of St Peter and the host of Holy Relics (arising out of the later 4th century relic trade) is anyone's guess.

Do you like Spera assume there are genuine Christian Saints and Martyrs in the Vatican Catacombs, who date before Damasius or Constantine?



Well I too have spent many years looking for citations to hard physical evidence that would corroborate the one and only history of pre-Nicaean christianity that we have received from the source known as the "New Testament Canonical Books" and the source called "Eusebius". So far I have not found any such unambiguous corroborative evidence item.

It is generally admitted by other investigators that any such evidence is "scarce". When this scarce index of citations is examined one by one the integrity of each evaporates into an ambiguity. The state of the evidence prior to the "Peace of Constantine" has thus been reviewed quite thoroughly. I have actively seeked the refutation of the hypothesis (of no unambiguous evidence) by examining each item, one by one.

I have not put the epigraphic evidence aside, but have spend considerable time reading and analysing it. You will see a link to a review of Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia: Review of Elsa Gibson's data.


English translations of most ancient texts (exceptions being Codex Theodosianus and Epiphanius - available at great cost) exist now on the net, which was not the case a decade or so ago. I have accepted that the English translations of the sources are bone fide translations by experts, and have consulted multiple translations in necessary cases for clarification. This also applies for English translations of the inscriptions and the papyrii etc.

I do not consider it mandatory that I read and write Greek, Syriac, Coptic, or Manichaean, or even Hebrew, Latin or Aramaic. I consider it to be quite reasonable to accept the already published English translations as a starting point for investigation.


You will note that the primary idea of three new ideas being addressed, is that the non canonical NT corpus of literature is a post Nicaean phenomenom. The Constantinian fabrication of the canonical material has been relegated to idea 3, to be approached only after idea one has been seen as worthy of attention.


Such as what evidence specifically?



I will not accept that palaeographically attested "accepted dates" cannot be challenged. This reliance on handwriting experts is fraught with all sorts of disclaimers. The Hadrian script was most likely highly identifiable in antiquity, and if anyone was going to publish an ancient manuscript, such as Constantine, then an old script may well have been chosen for purposes of a false antiquity. A classic modern example of this is "Desiderata" which was printed in an Olde Engish font, and advertised as being found in a church three centuries before the 20th century, when it was authored by an American poet c.1930.



I am not sure you understand the argument at the historyhuntersinternational blog, or that you understand that there are a number of theories, all of which are provisional, about the emergence and almost universal use of the Greek nomina sacra.

The argument involves examination of the use of "Christ" and "Chrest" in the sources, and this examination is found at here at the historyhuntersinternational site. If you have a look at the earliest extant manuscripts which show the full name of Christ or Chrest instead of the nominal sacra "C", you will find many examples of "Jesus Chrestos".

Therefore the question of the meaning of the nomina sacra C, as representative of either "Christ" or "Chrest" is not necessarily an open and closed case. Jesus may have been put forward at Nicaea as the "Good God", which was an attibute that the Platonist theologicans also used to describe the supreme "One" of Plotinus.



This is not the case. The case is that I am questioning a very fundamental hypothesis which everyone till now has assumed to be true. That hypothesis is that there were in fact Christians, as declared by Eusebius and everyone following him, before Nicaea. I do not think that this hypothesis is true, and I have patiently indexed the evidence by which the hypothesis appears to be supported. I do not find that this evidence is sufficient to support the hypothesis.


Most of my research has been turned to examine the history of the 4th century for evidence that the appearance of the christians was a sudden, unexpected, quite revolutionary and contraversial event. I start with the controversy over the words of Arius of Alexandria, appended to the earliest Nicaean Creed "Oath", and move forward, including the opinion of the Emperor Julian (preserved only in the refutation of the despotic Doctor Cyril of Alexandria), that "the fabrication of the Christians was a fiction of men composed by wickedness", etc.

LegionOnomaMoi

Noted. Thanks. That about wraps it up for me on this thread then.

aa5874

What nonsense!!!!

People here have had discussions with Doherty and he seems unlikely to either change or to attract a following.

People here have had discussions with Toto and it seems unlikely that Toto will either change or attract a following.

It is mind boggling how illogical people here can become simply because they do not agree with others.

What following did Galileo have when he was put under house arrest by the Church of Rome???

For the UMPTEENTH time, I am presenting the WRITTEN statements of antiquity that have SURVIVED in the Numerous Codices and it is claimed:

1. Jesus was the Son of a Ghost [Matt. 1.18-20],

2. Jesus WALKED on water [Mark 6.48-49]

3. Jesus Transfigured [Mark 9.2]

4. Jesus was the Holy Thing of Ghost. [Luke 1.26-35]

5. Jesus was God the Creator. [John 1]

6. Jesus was resurrected. [John 20]

7. Jesus ascended in a cloud. [Acts 1.9]

8. The Pauline Jesus was NON-human. [Galatians 1]

9. The Pauline gospel was from a non-human being.[Galatians 1]

10. Paul claimed he was VISITED by the resurrected Jesus. [1 Cor.15]

Jesus of the NT was a MYTH character based on the EVIDENCE that has Survived.

mountainman

For some who believe it to be so, it is sufficiently certain.




Make sure to take your dogma with you.





The evidence being appealed to is direct from the 19th century Vatican sponsored discoveres.

Why are people so gullible?

aa5874

What!!!!! History does NOT require trained professionals.

You must know that at one time there were NO trained professionals.

History is simple a RECORD of past events.

Again, History is NOT the IMAGINATION of trained professionals.

We have ZERO records of Jesus of the NT except as a Mythological character.

EVIDENCE of the past has NOTHING whatsoever to do with trained professionals.

Even an ILLITERATE person can present EVIDENCE of the past.

The very disciples of Jesus supposedly were illiterate but preached about the supposed past events, the history, of their Jesus.

Based on the authors of the NT, the history of Jesus is that he was the son of a Ghost, God the Creator, that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

outhouse

Your ignorance is noted


Pilate may have had nothing to do with the crucifiction.

Of course the bible is not relaible


But neither are many other text used in creating history not debated at all.



Please dont ask silly useless questions when you can use a modern feature called google to answer your questions regarding Historicity and Historians and modern Scholarships.


You dont have the education to discredit them with any credibility and your arguements are weak

aa5874

So, you are Obsolete. You can't answer any questions about your Jesus.

What a load of BS. It is NOT mere education that makes an argument strong it is the EVIDENCE from antiquity.

Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.26-35, Mark 6.48-49, John 1, Acts 1.9, Galatians 1 and and 1 Cor 15. have DESTROYED your claim that your Jesus was a figure of history.

From the earliest story in gMark anfd gMatthew, Jesus was a PHANTOM that appeared to be human but Walked on water.

Jesus was an apparition.

Matthew 14:25 KJV.

Doug Shaver

If you don't care to justify your suggestion - too bad.

maryhelena

icardfacepalm: