Chili

Well of course and that only took somebody with the courage to write about it, who of course had the insight to write about it to muster that courage.

And you know what? (and this may come as a surprise to Pete), it is easy to convince the king to get behind you if you know te rest of the story for the simple reason that truth will stand on its own and so will prevail in the end.

Now of course, things could have been different, but if we have become and still are the leadng edge of civilisation what reason do we have to complain about it? = all is good thet ends well.

Toto

As a historical rock??

Paul must have been having one if those vision things when he wrote this.

Steven Carr

I did wonder why historicists do not like quoting where Paul puts his Jesus in a definite historical context here on Earth. I suppose the idea of Jesus being a rock is a little strange.

But it can't be denied that the rock was here on Earth in Paul's mind, not in some 'sub-lunar realm'

lpetrich

Or someone like L. Ron Hubbard, who had once stated that there is money to be made by founding a religion.

I agree. Don't they have any better arguments?

BTW, EarlDoherty, I like the redesign of your site.

I will concede that the primary burden of proof is on Jesus mythicists. But if a Jesus mythicist is willing to accept that burden, then a similar burden falls on Jesus historicists in response.

Fortunately for Earl Doherty, he has been very willing to accept that burden. I can't say the same for some Jesus mythers here, however.

Let's let whoever has committed no sin here throw the first stone. A lot of Xian apologetics is more rhetoric than substantive argument.

Chili

Nono, Toto, my friend , Paul was gnostic and knew that 'passing through the sea' to get to he promised land is the wrong thing to do and if that is how you are baptized into Moses it is wrong to be baptized into Moses for whom the fog also remained for 40 years instead of 40 days . . . after which a thousand days will reveal our thousand year reign along Rev. 12 (which is not the argument here but I present it as the only solution to their problem).

Manna is bread from heaven all right but if is second hand to you "from the rock that accompanied them" instead of first hand from heaven it will be like second hand oats to a horse and that will not sustain either.

So instead, Jesus thought us to walk on top of the water so that the fog will end when we get to the other side and thus arrive without the concept sin wherein they were torn between heaven and earth and therefore wandered and scattered to peddle their oats.

I actually think that Paul foreshadowed Billy Graham but he is not part of the argument either.

Chili

Freedom from the law is freedon from sin . . . wherefore then it is wrong to have Moses lead us into the promised land. Please read Gal. 5:1-4 on this where the punch line is in 4,"any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from Gods favor!"

mountainman

Why I believe that Jesus was invented by Constantine

I feel the same way about Eusebius and Constantine and the origins of the new testament.

On the basis of all the available evidence I currently believe that 4th century wholesale invention is the better historical explanation for Jesus and Christianity. However I am willing to alter this belief on the basis of arguments relating to the available ancient historical evidence. I have expressed this as long ago as 2007 in an abstract:

Extract from Abstract

If you can demonstrate that all the evidence can be far better accounted for by a theory y (ie: Constantine invented christianity 312-324 CE) other than historicity (theory x), then it is reasonable to believe y and, consequently, to disbelieve x. This is the "Argument to the Best Explanation."

[1] Adapted from Did Jesus Exist? - Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity (2002) by Richard Carrier

If someone asks me "Do I believe in this (my) theory" I must respond "YES" - and that it reasonable for me to do so on the basis of the all the available evidence but with a disclaimer. The disclaimer is that I do not present my belief as infallible. I am willing to alter my current belief on the basis of further evidence or a better explanation of the available evidence.

I have provided a great deal of evidence and reasoning as to why I believe that the fabrication of the Christian New Testament is a fiction of Constantine and Eusebius, and in the first place is the evidence itself. The ancient historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, the New Testament Canon or "Christians" [NT Canon Followers] before the appearance of Constantine c.312 CE contains not one sure, positive and unambiguous citation.

It is more reasonable for me to believe that a supreme military fascist Roman (barbarian!) emperor invented a Jewish Superman in order to force the disbandonment of the ancient Greek conceptions of religion from the Roman empire with the result that the fascist emperor was "now in charge of religion" as a political expedient to unite an empire of disparate Greek-based beliefs which did not serve him as did his army.

I believe that Jesus was invented by Constantine to mock the Greeks and to rob them of their heritage and civilisation.

Toto

But when you were presented with the evidence from Dura Europa, you found some insubstantial reason to reject it.

Your theory can't explain the differences in the four canonical gospels.

You resort to the strained and unliterary idea that the gnostic gospels were later parodies of Christianity.

It seems much more likely to everyone else that Constantine took an existing religion and adapted it to his purposes, rather than inventing an entire new religion based on Judaism. I have never seen you support the superiority of your origins story over the idea that Constantine took the religions that he found and used or misused them.

spin

Just as the primary burden is on the Jesus historicists to demonstrate a historical Jesus rather than shifting the burden or non-evidential arguments like embarrassment. Anyone who claims a substantive position has that burden.


spin

mountainman

Spin's Poll on the Dura evidence suggests I was not exactly alone in thinking that the Dura evidence is ambiguous and not certain. The results indicate no substantive position. Nobody has yet openly acknowledged that this Dura "house-church" is the third and least of the classifications of early christian architecture.

The major structures - Christian Churches - alluded to by Eusebius have never been found.
The secondary structures - Christian Church-Houses - alluded to by Eusebius have never been found.
And of the tertiary structures - One suspected "Christian" "House-Church" has been identified from Dura.

This is far from substantial and conclusive evidence.

It is simply a matter of being objective and asking the question what books were available to Constantine c.312 CE when he became Pontifex Maximus at Rome. Ignoring the new testament what books did Constantine know about? At the top of the list in Rome c.312 CE Constantine found the books of Porphyry, one of the twelve disciples of the Greek philosopher and holy man Plotinus, who himself followed an apostolic lineage back to Ammonias Saccas. The highly renown author, and philosopher Plotinus wrote books about the Holy Trinity of the Greeks, and in fact the philosophy of Plotinus according to Betrram Russel commences with this Holy Trinity of CHRESTOS (The Good or the ALL), the SPIRIT and the SOUL.

We can work down all the literary resources available to Constantine at that time and they are numerous. Another critical Greek work was Philostratus' "Life of Apollonius of Tyana", not to mention the literature of Apollonius which was probably being preserved at the temples of Asclepius in Aegae, which Constantine utterly destroyed.

The Greek Hebrew Bible (ie: the Septuaguint or LXX) and Origen’s Hexapla would have been available to Constantine, as would other books about Greek Philosophical Schools. Books of history authored by recent Roman and Greek historians took second place to books of 1st century Jewish history authored by the Jewish historian Josephus.

Perhaps already translated to the written greek language, Constantine found the Persian writings of Mani and his followers - the Manichaeans. These authors had recently been severely persecuted for their religious beliefs. They were religious martyrs and heretics.

Whether, already translated to the written greek language, Constantine found Buddhist literature in Rome is a question not to be trivially answered. Finally, Constantine found the books of the Sybilline oracles. One’s which had indicated the power of prophecy since the beginning of Roman history. In them Constantine and his agents found Jesus. [RLF: See Constantine’s Oration at Antioch]