stephan huller

But don't you see? If Arius is acknowledged to be a sincere believer then as he presides over the Martyrium of St Mark he inherited a pre-Nicene Christian tradition. I guess my harshness is owing to the fact that I thought you could see that. Once you allow for the idea that Arius was a sincere believer mountainman's theory necessarily falls apart because Arius was already old in the age of Constantine. If you believe he was sincere there can't be a fourth century conspiracy

stephan huller

... there can't be a fourth century conspiracy actively inventing Christianity from scratch. Constantine certainly was reshaping and manipulating Christianity. But the tradition predated his efforts

Transient

:constern01:
hmm for your information mate I don't even think that Mountainman's theory is correct.
I think that much more is attributable to Constantine than is usually admitted and that Mountainman is bringing the balance back a bit.

You are way too emotionally involved with this topic when you start calling <Mountainman our "master".
I mean really - that is way over the top.
I can't see how Avi keeps on being so polite in the face of these bullying tactics.
I think that your theories are a bit over the top too but, hey, they add to the flavor a bit - can't you be as generous with Mountainman?

stephan huller

Oh, now I see it. Sorry that changes everything. :banghead: Now it seems so sensible.

What's the matter with you people? I point you in the direction of a physical building and the incontrovertable evidence that mountainman's theory just doesn't work. If you aren't familiar with the literary evidence from the period, how can you continue to agree with a claim which has no support among those WHO HAVE made themselves familiar with the material? It doesn't make sense.

There is a reason why no serious scholar would associate himself with this nonsense. The evidence can't support the claim that Christianity appeared suddenly at the time of Constantine. It's stupid to suggest something like that because it requires the wholesale rejection of literary traditions from and about the second, third and fourth centuries (i.e. the Passio Petri Sancti).

I find it amusing to refer to the three of you as an academy. I am not suggesting that anyone would be serious enough to devote yourself to something as idiotic as this theory. I think mountainman - as one participant from Germany noted recently - just wants to see how far spreading a lie that Christianity was invented ex nihilo by Constantine to see paradoxically if his implausible invention of this 'invention theory' can also take off in the contemporary age.

It's like a viral experiment to see how many fools he can convince to believe in bullshit IN SPITE OF THE FACTS TO THE CONTRARY in order to demonstrate that fools can indeed be fooled to believe in bullshit IN SPITE OF FACTS TO THE CONTRARY.

Guess what? You're fools who have been convinced to believe in bullshit in spite of all the facts to the contrary. Welcome to the academy of mountainman.

stephan huller

Whatever. This entire discussion is sub-moronic. If someone is going to claim that there wasn't a Church before Constantine and then someone else says 'look here I found a Christian landmark in Alexandria which dates to at least the third century' the guy making the ridiculous claim about the Church being invented in the fourth century better put up or shut up. This isn't a creative writing exercise. We are engaged in a historical discussion forum where someone has tabled a claim akin to saying water is a flammable liquid. Okay then, set your cup of water on fire. Can't do it? Then we must conclude that water is not a flammable liquid.

I could almost tolerate this foolishness until the name Arius began to be invoked. To put it in layman's terms - Arius eventually 'managed' this ancient building which stood from at least third century (I'd argue the building was already standing in the second century). It was devoted to the memory of St. Mark the evangelist who framed the original gospel. If you accept the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore the church is already referenced as early as the end of the second century. If not, it clearly predates the fourth century.

If one of you geniuses can possibly explain how the Martyrium of St. Mark could have already been the center of Alexandrian Christianity BEFORE Constantine was involved in reshaping Christianity then I will leave you to promote your foolishness. I brought up nine points in a previous post which demonstrate why the Alexandrian tradition is much, much older than Nicaea. None of the sages of the academy bothered to address one of my points. Instead you keep recycling all this business about the 'uncertainty' of textual manuscripts. Fine. You think it is plausible that all our second and third century Patristic witnesses could have just been invented out of thin air in the fourth century - fine - now explain the physical evidence associated with a holy shrine intimately associated with Arius of Alexandria. If you can't then take your dysinformation somewhere else.

mountainman

The photos you provided in this thread showed a 20th century structure, and the claims you have made so far about this 'Christian landmark in Alexandria which dates to at least the third century' seemed to apply to some future date.

So seeing you have brought up the well regarded matter of archaeological evidence I would like to ask you to point at some reports and/or photos and/or articles that describe this 'Christian landmark in Alexandria which dates to at least the third century'.

If indeed you have found evidence of "Christianity" before the 4th century, this discovery would have to rate as one of the top discoveries of the century, and the team involved would gain alot of credit for their work. But the Megiddo Prison Dig and other discoveries which have had this claim associated with their work have not produced the expected results that you are now claiming to be privy to.

So where is this archaeological evidence?

stephan huller

Well let's start with the first point - do you accept that Epiphanius's report suggests that Arius was the presbyter of the Martyrium of St. Mark before being declared a heretic? I am sure you have never even heard of any of this so here is Birger Pearson's summary of the evidence:

http://books.google.com/books?id=c8m...0arius&f=false

avi

Not that it is relevant to Jay's important thread, but both oxygen and hydrogen....

So, writing not on topic, but in substitute, as a subversive sub-moron, submit please to this substantially substandard summary.

Jay inquired about the force needed to compel adoption of the canon. The issue then arose about the contribution of "Irenaeus", and some folks took issue with my contention that there exists little reason to identify him as a genuine historical figure. Toto took issue with mountainman's entry into the discussion, and then stephan huller threw gasoline on the fire, by falsely accusing me of denying that Arius, one of my heroes, was a genuine Christian.

Thus far, stephan huller, purported scholar with "peer reviewed" publications, has misrepresented my opinion of Arius, and as Transient has pointed out, several times, grouped both of us, with Pete, improperly, incorrectly, and impolitely. Please acknowledge your error, stephan, since none of the three of us has any association outside this forum, where we are each unique participants, with the same focus, same interest, and same modus as all other forum participants. Our respective positions on the origin of Christianity are neither homogeneous, nor elaborated yet, nor should they serve as focus of Jay's thread.

What should serve as focal point in addressing the question of compulsion of adoption of the Canon is this: How was the canon derived, and how was it elaborated. We know who compelled its enforcement: Constantine.

The evidence that the Canon existed (AH) before Eusebius is flimsy, in my opinion, and easily could have been forged. That process (falsification of text) does not equate, at least in my sub-moronic mentality, with the de novo delivery of Christianity by Constantine's mother, in 305 CE.

avi

mountainman

But the same report from Epiphanius states that Arius had the care of seventy women who were living a life of ascetic seclusion. A far earlier report from Constantine classes Arius alongside Porphyry, and calls Arius a "Porphyrian". Porphyry was certainly no christian, so as far as I am concerned the "church of Arius" is far from being "christian" as is flatly asserted by all the orthodox christian heresiologists. You will have a hard time denying that Arius was not the biggest heretic of the 4th century, and thus is justifiably the subject for the literary assertions of the orthodox heresiologists.

However all of this is beside the point of the archaeology. You either have archaeological evidence to disclose or you do not. At the moment, it appears you are hoping for a future archaeological discovery in Alexandria. Is this correct?

If someone says 'look here I found a Christian landmark in Alexandria which dates to at least the third century' and he can prove this assertion, then I would certainly agree that some other guy making the ridiculous claim about the Church being invented in the fourth century better put up or shut up on the basis of that proof. So where's the archaeological citation and reports and pics?

mountainman

At the council of Antioch Constantine himself personally berated the philosophers:

"Socrates critical questioning ... menace to the state".

"Pythagoras had stolen his teaching from Egypt,

Plato believed there were many gods."

"Plato strived for the unknowable ... wrote about a first and second God."

Plato was a target for Constantine's monotheistic ambition. The academy of Plato went DOWN. The academy of Jesus went UP.