J-D

One of the apparent implications of this theory is that the doctrines of the Arian church of the fifth and sixth centuries, which were denounced as heretical by the contemporary Nicene church, were fabrications of the founders of that same Nicene church and had nothing to do with the actual views of the original Arius.

I don't find that plausible.

avi

What about the James Ossuary?

I will acknowledge that this evidence is shaky--no archaeological record, no bones for DNA, not really relevant to the important question of discovery of physical evidence pointing to Christianity, prior to Constantine.

mountainman

Dear avi,

The James Ossary is a simple fraud, as was Constantine's new testament. The problem is when money and power get involved, the simple matter that things are fraudulent is of little consequence. Thus the Greek academic, logicians, philosophers, priests, ascetics and the enture civilian population in the time of Constantine (and then his sons thru to 360 CE) were pushing an uphill battle to insist that the fabrication of the Galilaeans was a fiction of Constantine.


They had no power. They had no basilicas. They no longer had any temples. They could not longer practice their trade. The fourth century public hospital system in the form of the network of temples of the healing god Asclepius, (for which ample archaeological citations exist for the period 500 BCE to 500 CE), was shut down by order of Constantine.

We have not one single skerrick of evidence supporting Eusebius' assertion in the the existence of Constantine's new and strange Roman religion before Constantine. The James ossary is a fraud, and if we were to assemble all the known frauds perpetrated in the name of christian origins, we would have mountains of evidence on the table -- all of it fraudulent, starting with the Testimonium Flavianum, the adulteration of Origen and the collection of fraudulent epistles of Paul and a number of other prenicene fathers of the imaginary church. I have assembled an index of all known evidence covered here in discussions on IIDB and elsewhere. It is called Early Christian "Epigraphic Habit". To my knowledge this collection is fairly comprehensive and is characterised by the startling fact that not one of the indexed scores of epigraphic, papyri, etc citations represents an unambiguous citation. Many infer that, if the word god appears inscribed by a hand upon a stone, then the god in question must have been the christian god. This is clearly myopic and deluded in its hypothetical base since we are well aware there were many gods who attracted the scribblings and incription of a human hand. Chronology is the key to this.

Are we therefore not entitled to ask the simple question: "Did Constantine actually invent christianity", since we do not in fact appear to have any evidence in front of us (other that tables of fraud) to tell us otherwise)? The words of Arius, and the words of Julian, and those of Nestorius (via the Syriac, not via Cyril) support the answer YES. He did. We have no earlier physical evidence that the epoch of Constantine. And we have a huge social controversy which led to the dark ages. I wonder what it was about?

The Historical Jesus was made out of nothing existing. Why all the tax exemptions to the imperial christians in the very same edecades that land taxed tripled in living memory?. IMO the historical jesus is an imperial political invention of the fourth century Constantinian regime, and the fact that it was actually a fiction was covered over and censored by the supremely victorious christians who burned the library of Alexandria to the ground, led by the illustrious "Seal of the Fathers", the known murderer of the female philosopher Hypatia, and the refuter of heresies, our dear christian, and champion of all known forms of early christological philosophies, Cyril.



Best wishes,



Pete

avi

How about this reference?

spin

He knew about it two years ago, when his response was a bit of handwaving. Denial is his only response. It is a fruitless task trying to deal rationally with mountainman, so you might think of saving time and leaving him to his folly.

He also went into denial about the house church which existed prior to the final destruction of Dura-Europos, circa 257CE. This was a place with such christian frescoes as the healing of the paralytic ("take up your bed and walk"):



and Jesus and Peter walking on water:



as well as the good shepherd and the two Marys going to the tomb.

Dura also yielded a fragment of a diatessaron, buried in the same siegeworks that buried the house church. Dura was destroyed by Parthians long before Eusebius and mountainman will attribute it all, including the baptismal font, to some hitherto unknown religion. I suggest you don't bother trying to reach him. He's somewhere up a creek without a paddle.


spin

mountainman

Dear Avi,

If you carefully read the academic commentary associated with the chronological dating for the Meggido prison complex, you will see that it is divided and that certain parties are arguing for the mid-fourth century. So this citation appears to be premature.


Dear Spin,

Did you read the rest of the tourist brochure?

Nice touch ups done at Yale in the intervening period of years since we last discussed this issue. Dont you understand your own folly spin? There is no house-church at Dura. It was shipped back for the benefit of the tourist industry. What a joke of a citation. Do you happen to have another?

Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

Where can one read that? It's not in the article avi linked to.Your meaning is not clear to me. Are you suggesting that the frescoes which spin posted images of are fakes? If so, who are you accusing of the fakery and what is the basis for the accusation? Or, if you are not suggesting fakery, what are you suggesting?

mountainman

Dear J-D,

I am suggesting that we follow the evidence wheresoever that may lead us, and I am suggesting that we keep our minds open. I dont have a reference to the Megiddo archaeological reports with me, but if you search google you'll see that there are a number of competing chronologies being offered for this archaeological site.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Spin,

Have you ever heard of the Roman empire's Heaing God Asclepius for whom the field of archeology is literally awash with genuine citations for the thousand year period 500 BCE to 500 CE --- thousands and thousands of genuine archeological citations --- votive offerings, inscriptions, temples, sanctuaries, statues and representation on the imperial coinage of most of the Roman emperors from the first century through to the second century through to the third century and though to Constantine. Constanine discontinued the practices of the Greek academics bigtime. He withdrew Asclepius from the coinage and some think he featured christianity. He utterly destroyed some of the most highly revered major temples and had their chief priest executed. He publically burnt the literature of the contemporary greek chief academics such as Porphyry (who preserves Euclid et al). Asclepius represented to the common people of the Roman empire, the civilians and soldiers etc, essentially the public hospital system of antiquity -- and Constantine shut it down.

The take up your bed and walk and the healing of the paralytic is real with Asclepius and in the words of Momigliano transcendental in christianity in the period between 12 CE and 312 CE. An invented duo of christian saints were substituted for stories and legends until the Renaissance, at which time Asclepius resumed occupancy of the symbol of the medical profession, where he stands (in the large, statistically) today on medical emblems.



Where do we happen to find shrines to Asclepius?


The above is a listing of some of the known shrines to Asclepius.
Where are the christian shrines other than the one at Yale?
What does Eusebius tell us about Asclepius?


Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

My mind is open. When I first became aware of your views, I had no preconceived opinion about them. The evidence I have gathered since includes repeated evasions on your part. What conclusion do you think that evidence should lead me to?