Doug Shaver

It's more like he was created by some of the people who read the gospels.

bacht

Maybe another case is similar, the rise of rock and roll: originally just a few guys with electric guitars playing fast blues, then it expanded into British Invasion, psychedelic, progressive, punk, New Wave, techno, metal, grunge - and now it's everywhere, including all kinds of advertising. It's overwhelmed the previous jazz and band styles.

Subversive at first, it's now completely mainstream

Juststeve

Yes but there were guys with guitars, real guys not imaginary guys.

Steve

bacht

Well, there was the mythic guitarist Johnny B Goode, maybe in a hundred years he'll have his own cult...

Chaucer

Citation, please.

Chaucer

mountainman

Graydon Snyder's "Ante pacem: archaeological evidence of church life before Constantine".


MY FOOT


This specific interpretation of the evidence was inspired by the great faith
in which which the fathers of modern christian archaeology esteemed
their patron VERY INFLUENTIAL PAPAL MENTORS. Its bullshit.

"The real founders of the science of early Christian archaeology
came in the 19th century: Giuseppe Marchi (1795 - 1860) and
Giovanni de Rossi (1822 - 1894) .... it was de Rossi who published
the first great mass of data.... Between 1857 and 1861 he published
the first volume of Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae.

Pope Pius IX moved beyond collecting by appointing in 1852 a commission
(Commissione de archaelogia sacra) that would be responsible for
all early Christian remains."

---- Opening pages, Graydon Snyder's "Ante pacem: archaeological evidence of church life before Constantine".

The lists of inscriptions and "EVIDENCE" is nauseating in its presumptions.
Yet, decade after decade these curiousities are paraded around by educated academics
in the defence of archaeological evidence of the HJ before the WAR --- NOT THE PEACE for Christ's sake - of Constantine.

This whole class of evidence is as bullshit as that class of evidence "found" by Constantine's mother Helena.

aa5874

One must not confuse "Christianity" with "NT Jesus believers". "Early Christianity" and the start of the Jesus stories are really two separate issues.

It was the Roman Church writers who put forward the FALSE notion that NT Jesus believers were the FIRST to be called christians and that all other Christian cults were derived from or deviated from the teachings found in the NT.

It was the Roman Church writers who put forward the FALSE notion that their Jesus stories were the FIRST written texts for Christians.

It was the Roman Church writers who presented FALSE and ERRONEOUS information about Christians cults and their origin.

But, in presenting their bogus "history" of Christian cults, the Roman Church writers INADVERTENTLY left enough information in their OWN writings to counter and EXPOSE their ERRORS.

From the writings of the Roman Church, it can CLEARLY be discerned that there were MULTITUDES of Christian cults with a MULTIPLICITY of doctrines even within the same cult and that the Jesus cult was simply one of the many Christians cults that was still not fully developed and was still quite small up to the middle of the 2nd century.

It would appear that Christians cults carried the name of the leader or origin of the cult.

Now, there were Christian cults named after Valentinius, Basilide, Cerinthus, Marcus, Marcion, and a host of leaders but one cannot find a Christian cult named after Jesus.

The Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles are essentially propaganda from the Roman Church giving the FALSE notion that the Jesus cult was an extremely large dominant cult and was KNOWN throughout All the Roman Empire long BEFORE the Fall of the Temple when in fact the Jesus cult was virtually unknown up to the middle of the 2nd century.

mountainman

Only if one assumes that the Chief 4th Century Propagandist and Historical Researcher of the Orthodox Christian Cult Party [REGISTERED INCORPORATED AND TRADING IN GOLD and MILITARY PROTECTION RACKETEERING with effect from Nicaea 325 CE], the Great Christian Heresiologist Eusebius, is fairly representing -- neither lying nor being hopelessly credulous -- his vile antiChristian Gnostic heretical opponents. I doubt that very much.

It is more reasonable to think that he simply retrojected the controversy of the contemporary intellectual Greek academic assailants of his sponsor's Orthodox Christian Jesus Cult into his 300 year fairy story. The key evidence to my mind is the analysis of the "Acts of Pilate", a seditious antichristian text read in schools, in a grass roots resistance to the Official imported [army] Jesus Cult.

So what's news on the fringe of the caribbean?

aa5874

But, there was a Jesus believer named Justin Martyr who did not HELP Eusebius with the "History of the Church". This writer, Justin Martyr, appears to be FAR MORE credible than Eusebius and was NOT controlled by or influenced by the Emperors of Rome.

Justin Martyr mentioned Christians cults like the Marcians, Valentinians, Basilidians, Saturnilians, Marcion with the Marcionites, those of Simon Magus and Menander, Empedocles and other names but did NOT mention a single word about writers of gospels called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, nor did he mention any thing about Acts of the Apostles and the author, nor any writer called Paul who wrote letters and preached all over the Roman Empire, neither any Epistles written by John, Peter, Jude and James.

In the middle of the 2nd century, Justin Martyr did NOT even make REFERENCE to other Christian writings from the 1st or 2nd century or claimed that he heard of Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Papias, a bishop of Rome named the apostle Peter, the name of his own bishop, or any bishop anywhere.

And UNLIKE Irenaeus, Justin Martyr did NOT write that he knew those who SAW and HEARD the Apostles.

Justin Martyr wrote virtually NOTHING about the "history of the Church". All he wrote was that the apostles and those who followed Jesus wrote the "Memoirs of the Apostles" and John wrote "Revelation'.

So from the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius or around 30 CE to c 150 CE, Justin Martyr could NOT find the BARE FOOTSTEPS of those BEFORE him.

There was 120 years of NO history of the Church based on Justin.

Justin Martyr is a WITNESS for Marcion and a corroborative source for the so-called Heretics but NOT for the "History of the Church".

Perhaps, Eusebius ONLY had the writings of Justin Martyr when he wrote these words at the start of the "history of the Church"

"Church History" 1.1.4 The bare footsteps of those before Eusebius cannot be found in the ACCOUNTS transmitted in the times which Justin Martyr lived and wrote.

Chili

I like the phrase: "You senseless Galatians, who bewitched you" suggesting that witchcraft was alive and well aready then . . . so calling 'law abiding Christians' witches that would make the job of the inquisitor very easy.