jeffevnz

We could replace 'Jesus' with "Jerry Springer" for all I care. You're missing the point. We have clear dependence between the text of the fragment and that of the four Gospels. Furthermore, we have specific words and phrases that appear only in one of the Gospels; at least one such word or phrase from each of Mark, Luke and John (just realized I didn't pinpoint anything appearing only in Matthew). The likelihood of this being an accident is small. The most obvious explanation is that the Dura fragment represents a harmonization of the Gospels. Harmonization means they already existed by the time the fragment was buried, in 257 AD.

Whether or not they include the name 'Jesus' is almost immaterial. If we found a copy of GMark, except with Jesus replaced with the "Bozo the Clown," I think everyone would agree that it was still, more or less, a Christian document.

spin

Which bit?


spin

andrewcriddle

If the reconstruction of Zebedee at the beginning is correct it would be something found only in Matthew in this context.

Andrew Criddle

Transient

I think that there were lots of dumb religious ideas going around back then, all competing with each other and some of them would not at all resemble our current christianity.
It was a very turbulent period and people were superstitious and would have grabbed hold of anything that offered them stability and hope.
Constantine came along and needed that stability for his empire but knew that as it was it could not help because it was a real mess of ideas.
He did not care what shape the final religion took as long as it sounded ok.
He forced a unity of ideas and created a ridiculous religion out of a mess of smaller religions.
People are fundamentally gullible in that they need hope and stability so its been a winner for governments and church leaders ever since.
However it is utter crap.

I applaud Mountainman for his ability to not engage in insults even when under very intense pressure to do so - he exhibits a much better ability to do so than those so-called christians at tweb.
His site contains a wealth of info that he has gathered together that is useful when investigating that period of time.
As to whether his theory is correct? - sheesh even tho christianity is crap it will never go away, it will continue to be supported by millions all over the world just like other large religions - there is too much money being made from it and it provides something for the weak masses to hang on to.

J-D

It would make no difference. As I've pointed out before, 'Joshua' and 'Jesus' are the same name. That does not, obviously, tell us which particular individual any particular use of that name refers to, but it does tell us that a decoding of it in a particular instance as 'Joshua' is not, by itself, proof that it is not referring to an individual who might also sometimes be referred to as 'Jesus'.

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey and Toto,

Thankyou respectively for the correction and the english translation of the source. We must become cognisant that this lineage of authors, who are known collectively as both the neoplatonists and the neopythagoraeans in the period nornally reserved for the (imo ficitious) narrative of christian origins (ie: 000 to Nicaea) and who were cut off by Constantine.

Up until the time of Constantine, these sages, then, came to Delphi and dedicated to Apollo the celebrated maxims, “Know thyself,” and “Nothing in excess.” At the time of Constantine this lineage and practice and all temples services were abruptly terminated, and the literature of the academic author Porphyryr edicted for destruction (burning) and any civilians caught concealing this literature were to be beheaded.

What does it all mean?

Best wishes,



Pete

mountainman

Dear Spin,

It is just as possible, correct me if you think I may be premature here, that the fragment is also evidence of one of the source texts, another story about another person called Joshua, who lived - well the fragment does not say when its narrative was intended to take place in history - for the fabrication of the gospel religion seventy years later by Eusebius.

It appears to me you have been asked to show that the gospel existed before Eusebius and we have found a fragment of a narrative, of which the full account of that other narrative (about Joshua) was available to Eusebius (in a Roman library, not at Dura-Europos) and which he used in some manner in his fourth century fabrication from older (non-christian) narratives.

Unfortunatley, I could almost agree with the last comment if were not for this nagging suspicion that you are unconsciously putting the cart before the horse. You are making the assumption that the canonical gospels existed before a narrative about Joshua existed, whereas IMO it is far more likely that a pre-existing narratives about Joshua, and Apollonius, and the Heraclitaean Logos, and many Bozo's already existed, in the greek, in the libraries of Rome, perfectly preserved in the greek, perfectly placed to be textually mined and become the raw materials for an imperial scale fabrication of the canonical new testament corpus of literature by the malevolent despot Constantine.

The result of this initiative, coupled with his malevolent and military suppression of the eastern empire and its greek speaking ascetic academics of the temples of Apollo and Asclepius, the prohibition of their ancient business as usual - whatever that was was of no consequence to Constantine, the execution of their head priests (ie: head academics!!!!!!!) --- all this resulted in the generation after the terrible year of 324/325 CE of the corpus of literature known on the planet Earth today as the new testament non canonical (or apochryphal) literature, by this oppressed civilisation. The new testament apochrypha is the burlesque by these greek speaking ascetic academics of the new testament canon. Arius of Alexandria, the focal point in the resistance against the despot Constantine, may be identified with the pseudo-author Leucius, called Leucius Charinus by the Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople in the ninth century. The "Leucian Acts" are as follows:

The Acts of John
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Andrew
The Acts of Thomas

To this list, as being written by Arius of Alexandria, we might also add the Nag Hammadi tractate NHC 6.1 entitled "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles" (TAOPATTA) which I have here and elsewhere argued may be perceived to be a parody, a satire, a burlesque (alongside the spiritual allegory of the Pearl Man, the city of the Pearl, the road to the City of the Pearl, and the Pearl of Great Price) by an ascetic and very clever pagan - written against the fourth century Constantinian "christian ministry ".

To this list, as being written by Arius of Alexandria, we might also add the Nag Hammadi tractate NHC 6.1 entitled "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles" (TAOPATTA) which I have here and elsewhere argued may be perceived to be a parody, a satire, a burlesque (alongside the spiritual allegory of the Pearl Man, the city of the Pearl, the road to the City of the Pearl, and the Pearl of Great Price) by an ascetic and very clever pagan - written against the fourth century Constantinian "christian ministry ".

Will someone (are there any unbiased textual critics in the house) please read "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles" and see whether or not Peter and the Twelve Apostles actually entered the city of the Pearl of Great Price, or did they simply tarry at the gates to the city, asking for food and lodgings, directions from strangers, and in a state of reverie, utter ignorance (they do not recognise Lithargoel) and manifest fear.



Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

Yes, obviously, the words of Arius can be interpreted the way you interpret them 'without too much problem'. But they can also be interpreted in other ways, and it is another interpretation of them which is supported by the record of the Creed of Ulfilas. It is a piece of evidence which counts for an alternative (in fact, the usual) interpretation of Arius's views, and against your interpretation.Yes, you have posted Arius's assertions repeatedly and I have read them. You have also stated your interpretation of them repeatedly and I am well aware of it.No, it is not clear that they are a legal disclaimer clause.On analysis, this means that if we accept your view we will accept your view.

Duh.That at the time of writing it, Constantine was antagonistic to Arius and to Arius's religious views. I don't think that is in dispute. It is logically compatible with the standard interpretation of Arius's views just as much as with your alternative.You want to explore the possibility that Arius and Leucius.

You want to explore the possibility that Arius and Leucius what?

I think you forgot to finish that sentence.Your opinion that it could be so has no value as evidence that it was so.

patcleaver

We do not know that there were any Christian at all in 257.

We know that if there were any Christians at all, that they were outnumbered by pagans possibly 1000:1.

We know that if there were any Christians at all, that they were outnumbered by Jews possibly 100:1.

We know that there were hundreds of pagan sects that we do not know anything about - any one of them could have used all of these images, people and phrases. We know almost nothing about many Jewish sects at the time and any of them could have used these images, people and phrases.

We know that many pagan and Jewish sects used imagery that Christians later adopted. There are lots of examples of Orpheus and Apollo and other pagan gods as "good Sheppard" images. There are lots of examples from pagan religions of mother and child images. Christens liberally adopted many Jewish images in the late 4th century.
see http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/melange.html
see http://altreligion.about.com/library...bl_saviors.htm

Two women visiting a tomb is a common occurrence and likely to find its way into imagery. You have no basis at all to believe that this was not a common theme of some pagan cult or Jewish sect becasue you have not investigated it. Plese proved a non-apologetic source proving that these images are not pagan or Jewish.

Miracles (magic tricks) are common themes of pagan religious art and walking on water is an easy to perform common magic trick for gurus to perform.

MM claims that the "baptismal font" is just a pool which was commonly in courtyards. You have not provided any evidence otherwise.

The document contains phrases that are in the Gospels, but they may have been common phrases of a pagan cult or Jewish sect, and its more likely that the Gospels copied the document (or a document on which it was based) than the document copied the gospels because we know the document existed in 257, but we have no evidence that the gospels existed in 257.

The document was found in 1933 at a dig that was not using modern archeological methods. I have no reason to think that there are records of where it was found or who found it. The reliability of the documents is therefore in dispute.

You claim, but you have no evidence at all, that Jewish Messianism died out after 135.

You are claiming that these images are Christian, but you have no evidence at all that they are different from pagan or Jewish images.

You are claiming that the document is Christian, but you have no evidence at all that some Jewish sect did not associate these images and phrases with someone that they did not believe was a God or even a messiah or prophet.

Because of the large numbers of pagans relative to the small number (or possibly non-existent) Christians, it is much more likely that these are pagan images.

Because of the large numbers of Jews relative to the small number (or possibly non-existent) Christians, it is much more likely that these are Jewish images.

The combination of these images, the pool and the document are much more likely explained by a pagan cult or a Jewish sect than by a Christian group.

You have not presented evidence that would lead an unbiased person to think that there were Christians in Dura-Europos. You are applying your Christian Culture biases to make unsupported conclusions.

Ben C Smith

Indeed, I have always rather thought of spin as a bannerwaver for Christian culture, a right crusader, loyal follower of the Christian herd.

Ben.

:constern02: