Originally Posted by Duvduv

Supposedly in the year 324 the Bishop of Alexandria wrote to Alexander of Constantinople mentioning elements that are not even found in the Creeds, i.e. the name of Paul several times quoting from unnamed epistles (that had surely acquired their obvious names by 324 if they have been written 150 years earlier) and the word "gospel" (unnamed but apparently from GMark) a SINGLE TIME, whereas the word "gospels" is used generically in the plural one time.

Interestingly enough, letters supposedly written by Arius, one to Alexander of Alexandria and one to Constantine in the same decade of the 320s make no mention at all of any of this, not citations from Paul, not from gospel(s) at all, merely a mystical/philosophical understanding of the Christ, as is the "Catholic Epistle" from Alexander of Alexandria, who mentions Paul ("having learned these things from the Savior") only once or twice and the gospels not at all.

Now, the question is WHY as late as 320s and thereafter were the important 4-directional gospels of Irenaeus supposedly in the mid 2nd century of so little importance? And Paul earns FIVE (unidentified) citations compared to only ONE direct citation from the "gospels". Why unnamed and yet more citations than from the sacred gospel stories? "Paul" is called "blessed" here with no similar attribution to Peter or any other disciple.

Why NOT A SINGLE historical reference to the earthly life of Jesus EVEN in this text supposedly from 324, whereby "the gospel" is directly described referring to Paul's statement warning his followers not to accept any gospel but his.

Almost 200 YEARS after Justin and Ireneaeus, and almost 300 HUNDRED YEARS after Jesus himself and Paul supposedly lived!

Looks like things were STILL in real flux and contradictory, EVEN in the mid 4th century, still trying to determine where the (unnamed) gospel(s) and (unnamed) epistles fit into the ideology of the religion. Indeed, even if they believed in a historical Jesus, that fact, and all the events of his life, are of no importance whatsoever to these people. It is VERY CLEAR that there was a trend as late as the 4th century where a historical Jesus was not the important issue, only the celestial risen Jesus was of importance, until certain little historical elements were forced into the ideology, i.e. Mary, Pilate, Judas from a difference direction, a different camp.

So WHO were the camp emphasizing the historical Jesus, and who were the camp uninterested in the historical Jesus before the two merged together by the end of the 4th century EVEN if the texts were late productions??

Originally Posted by mountainman

In addition to the CREEDS as evidence of what may have been discussed or agreed by the participants, a study of the ANATHEMAS listed by successive monotheistic state church councils represents evidence of what the ADVERSE public opinion was at that time.

The two chief anathemas c.351 CE were against the two opinions:

01: The Son is sprung from things non-existent,
or from another substance and not from God,
and that there was a time or age
when He was not.

02: The Father and the Son are two Gods.

What was going on with this "plain and simple religion of the Christians" in the mid 4th century under Constantius (the mass execution man)? Ammianus thought it was being OBSCURED by a dotard's (Constantius's) superstition. Another list reveals that c.353 Hilary of Poitiers violently denounced people who held that Mary had not remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth, and maintained that Jesus’ brothers were Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage.

Where was Hilary getting his information from? Constantine c.325 CE thought that Mary was visited by Noah's dove.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Here again is the original Nicean Creed from 325 with not one single hint of anything from any gospel or epistle except the vague "was made flesh, and became man".Nothing of where he lived, when he lived *("under Pilate - 1st century), who his parents were, how he was born, how he died (crucifixion), anything he taught, NOTHING.

IS IT WORTH SUGGESTING THAT IN FACT THE NICEAN CONFERENCE OF 325 DID NOT YET HAVE (OR DID NOT CONSIDER LEGITIMATE) ANY EPISTLES OR GOSPELS AND THEREFORE RELIED ON ITS THEOLOGY FROM ELSEWHERE?!

Originally Posted by Maklelan

No, it's not. The Nicene Creed in all its iterations is addressing a christological controversy. It is simple boundary maintenance, and it is concerned with brevity, not comprehensiveness. There's no need to explicitly cite New Testament texts. As the original Creed circulated and the christological controversies continued to refine themselves and incorporate additional concerns, more and more details were added.

Originally Posted by Maklelan

It would have to be a pretty darn good forgery to fool more experienced paleographers. In addition to the incredible skill that would be required to make the style not appear forced, it would also be phenomenally difficult to replicate the visible effects of two millennia of aging and avoid the visible effects of writing today on a 2000 year old piece of papyrus or leather...

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Well, part of the basics would have only required mention of the words virgin and crucified along with died and risen again. Not much there! What changed in 15 years?

Originally Posted by aa5874

People involved in forgery have INCREDIBLE skills.

Originally Posted by Maklelan

A common assumption, but a forger who can bring together knowledge of how to manipulate the material aspect of a forgery as well the paleographic/orthographic aspect is phenomenally rare. Irrespective, the question is not how to recognize a forgery, but how to date a text based on paleography. For a forger to fool a paleographer into thinking a text comes from the first century CE (on purely paleographic grounds) they have to actually reproduce with a high degree of accuracy the paleography of actual first century CE texts. This is irrelevant when it comes to the value of paleography when dealing with texts from this time period, though, since scribes back then were not aware of all the details of paleographic analysis and couldn't accurately reproduce a hand from centuries prior. This is why paleo-Hebrew is in a separate category from Old Hebrew. It's an archaizing script that attempts to render contemporary texts in archaic-looking script, but it still contains numerous attributes of the contemporary script.

Originally Posted by Maklelan

.....The various books of the New Testament (and many others) are well represented in literature all over the Roman Empire and well before Nicea.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your post appears to be BS.

It is not credible that a forger cannot fool a paleographer.