Duvduv

I reject that scenario entirely for the reasons I have described repeatedly to your chagrin, not the least of which is simply the fact that the rabbinic sources found in the Talmud and midrash record nothing of the first or second century scenarios for the emergence of Christianity as accepted by the secular and Christian traditions. As far as the continuity of rabbinic Judaism from prior to the first century, this is an entire separate issue.

Chili

Take a look at this Toto:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melencolia_I

I wrote and essay on this once, and here is more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involutional_melancholia

Toto

Please if you are going to continue here be more specific.

What "scenario" exactly do you reject?

Why exactly do you think that the Rabbinic tradition should have recorded anything about the emergence of Christianity, especially since much of that tradition cannot be dated as early as the second century.

Are you still claiming that Christianity arose out of Rabbinic Judaism?

stephan huller

Hee hee hee hee ... I could never have known the --------- theories that get blown around here.

mountainman

You've got to be joking!! The Pliny reference was suddenly "found" in the 15th century and then just as suddenly "lost". There is no manuscript to discuss. How solid an argument is this about antiquity? Where is the 15th century manuscript? Oh dear, it's lost, but that doesn't really matter does it, because we know otherwise ...

While that may appear to be the case, there were in the 4th century a great many books which were forged under the name of Lucian. This is just what one would suspect from a forgery mill.

It's not a church.

It's not yet a church-house.

It is the Yale "house-church" on the Persian border.

And by itself, the sole exemplar of the earlier christian archaeology of this kind, it must remain ambiguous to the skeptical assessment.



From the beginning I have followed the evidence. Yet you appear to be happy enough with those who otherwise "believe there is evidence" to call me a crackpot and worse derogatory statements, because I am deliberately antithetical to the dogma that the church pre-existed the "Ante Pacem" of Bullneck.

Many people here appear to want to add "Paul" and the "Pauline Letters" to this set of evidence, and they are happy to live with the certainty that Paul proves the case of the early church.

Duvduv

I honestly don't know why you are offering me back handed ultimatums.
What do you mean "if you are going to continue here"?!
I have already said repeatedly that if Christianity had emerged in the first or second century in Judea the Talmudic and midrashic literature would hsve said SOMETHING about it, and it does not. Something. Just like it speaks about Samaritans or sects in general.

Duvduv

Can you please refer us to a list of kosher theories and the kashruth certification for each theory to put us all at ease?

tanya

Thanks for this reply Toto. About the "church at Dura Europos"....
a. it is a residence, adjacent to a Jewish synagogue--> that was constructed on top of another temple of some kind, before the Romans conquered the town .....
b. The Jews, in my opinion, used this house for Jewish religious scholars, or visitors. It has a bath, not uncommon among the Jews, then and now. They are a clean people.

The "evidence" that this was used as a Christian worship locale is based, I believe on two bits of evidence: the paintings, and the recovery of a 3 inch piece of papyrus. The paintings may have been done before the invasions in mid third century, but they also could have been accomplished in mid 4th century, when Emperor Julian traveled down the Euphrates with 30000 troops to attack the capital of mesopotamia, near the town of Baghdad. I think they stopped at Dura Europos for several days/week, to catch their breath, resupply (it is not easy to invade, and the Romans encountered a scorched earth policy, feeding an army is non-trivial. In that setting, can one imagine NOT excavating the ruins, if only to gain shelter from the arrrows raining down on Julian's troops from the enemy on the East bank? How do we know that the city was filled in with dirt by the Persians, and not by Julian's own troops, as they headed downriver to attack the outskirts of Baghdad, in mid 4th century?

It appeared.

1) could have been left there at the time of the third century invasion;
2) could have been left there at the time of Julian's troops arrival, mid 4th Century;
3) could have been left there by one of the workmen.

How would a workman "find" such a document?
Who was pope then, Toto? Wasn't it Pius someone or other, the guy who commended Mussolini?

We sit in our chairs, reading stuff, drinking KoolAid, and sucking lollipops. Those guys were fanatics. They were outraged by the "desecration" of all religions by the Communists. Death was too good for the communists, they ought to have been burned alive, then drawn and quartered for good measure.

How difficult would it have been to obtain a blank 3 inch square of papyrus from the Vatican library, and place (an otherwise wholly unique) handwritten text, looking for all the world, like an ancient bit of Tatian's Diatessaron? This was the sixth season, right? How many years had the Vatican been planning to introduce this little fragment into one of the baskets of earth? Note please, that papyrus is found on the top of the basket of earth, not buried within it, i.e. to make sure someone finds it....

Clark Hopkins explains that without that bit of papyrus, the interpretation of the "house-church" changes.....He also explains his frustration on finding lots of buried papyrus, 100% of which disintegrates on attempting to read it. Uniquely, this bit of papyrus, failed to be affected by the elements, during 1600 years.....

So, I argue that the evidence is tainted. The "house-church" was a house, not a church, and it was a house used by Jews, not Christians. At the very end, when the enemy outside the city walls was constructing ramparts, and digging tunnels, and the folks inside were saying their prayers, a couple of them slopped some paint on the walls, and jotted some graffiti. Nothing to lose, at that point.

Toto

To imagine that Roman troops would have dug up a mound of dirt to plant evidence that would only disprove a theory that became an issue in the 20th century -

That boggles the mind.

And the interpretation of the frescoes does not depend on the scrap of papyrus. The scenes are typically Christian and not identifiably Jewish

It is less bizarre to think that the Catholic Church might have planted a forged piece of manuscript - but why the Didache instead of a canonical text??

I cannot take this as a serious argument.

Sheshbazzar

I think I'll use the old Bible method of establishing witness credibility.

When archaeologists can dig up two more of these Christian 'house church's' clearly dateable to before 250 CE, I'll begin to believe the Dura Europos find.

If the NT, and Christian church Fathers tell the truth about the spread and size of Christianity there ought to be hundreds of such early Christian edifices to be found.

Something just doesn't smell right about this Dura Europos 'house church' claim. What has been found is way too much, and yet not enough.

What would have been far more impressive, would have been the finding of half a dozen widely scattered archaeological sites, each with a few identifiably Christian motifs. Not just one that contained damned near everything except the head of John the Baptist and The Cross That Walked.