spin

You are asked to vote on whether you think that mountainman's theory about Constantine inventing christianity through the efforts of Eusebius has been falsified, on at least two counts by finds from Dura Europos, which was excavated in the 1930s by prominent archaeologists of the era mainly from Yale.

Dura was a city which existed on the edge of the Roman empire bordering on Parthia. It was under threat from attack and to defend it better the inhabitants filled in all the area near its weakest wall so as to strengthen it against being mined between 254 and 257CE. Under the fill, which closed the environment so that nothing could change until the are was excavated, some important things were found and it is some of these that impact on mountainman's theory of an 4th century invention of christianity.

First, under the fill a house was preserved which contained a christian church. There was a room with a baptismal font and a number of christian frescoes. The ones I know about are the good shepherd, the two Marys going to the tomb on Sunday morning, the healing of the paralytic and Jesus and Peter walking on water. This church existed prior to the destruction of Dura Europos in 257CE.

Second, under the fill about two blocks from the house church a piece of a gospel document was discovered, thought at one time to be a fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron in Greek. This christian document is securely dated to prior to 257CE by the tons of fill above it.

To your mind, are these two finds sufficient evidence to falsify mountainman's theory about a Eusebian creation of christianity?

(This is not a place to debate the issue, but to decide on it. I ask that mountainman restrain from debating on the subject. He has been aware of the information for years. I see no reason to say any more on the issue, trusting that you have enough to decide.)


spin

Transient

I would need to see Mountainman's response to these claims before I would vote - it would be irresponsible to do otherwise.
Start another thread and ask for his comments/rebuttal.
Then I will weigh the 2 options fairly.
Thanks.

spin

Read from here in this thread. You might also try his page here.

Ben C Smith

Yes, the Dura-Europos excavations falsify his theory.

For those interested in what spin is talking about with regard to the discovered textual fragment, the text of Dura fragment 0212 is available on my site.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Slam dunk.

Game over.

No Robots

And so the Sanhedrin passes its judgment, careful all the while to stay silent on its own questionable scholarship.

Ben C Smith

Pardonnez-moi?

Ben.

No Robots

Present company excluded, of course.

Chili

How about both are rigth, as I keep thinking of there being two different Gospels preached and that Rome buried Dura hoping to get rid of them once and for all.

Sheshbazzar

My persuasion is that the Constantinian form of "Christianity" drew heavily upon urban myth type stories and "sayings" collections, editing, reworking and reconfiguring these old documents as necessary to provide a set of more or less cohesive story-lines, these finally sequentially organized so as to be easily read and memorised, thus "standardizing" a diverse assortment of old texts, and creating an "orthodox" cannon, one which could be resorted to to settle any and all religious controversies and disputes.
Of course as PONTIFIX MAXIMUS, his interpretations were the final word and definition of what was to be accepted as being "orthodox" and what was to be rejected as being "heretical".
So I agree with mountainman that Constantine and Eusebius did "invent" the religion of Christianity as it is now recognised, with the caveat that they did NOT start from scratch with a blank piece of parchment, but freely adapted previous ideas and compositions into their new theology and its distinctive and definitive texts.
As a sceptic, I think that some are much too quick in the drawing of unwarranted conclusions regarding the Dura Europos finds.
For example there is a jump to the conclusion that the excavated structure is (was) a "church" a term which automatically associates with latter "christian" practice.
Are the words "church" or "christan" actually found to be engraved anywhere on the structure?
"The Good Shepherd" was a well known pre-christian motif, how is one to establish with any certainty that this particular "Good Shepherd" was originally intended to be a representation of a certain obscure Jewish Rabbi?
I see a fresco of two women in proximity to a tomb, however I cannot discern any name-tags that identify them as being "two Mary's".
It appears to me that this unwarranted yet precise "identification" is being caged from an uncritical assumption of the validity of the fully developed "christian" mythos.
Could it not just as well be the "two Sarah's" or "two Beulah's"? Or the simple FACT that we do not KNOW what name or names the original artist(s) may have assigned to these two women.
It is only an unsupportable christian influenced assumption that causes these figures to be designated as being the now well known "two Mary's".
Same with the "identification" of "Jesus and Peter", there is nothing in the actual frescoes that make any such identification. Perhaps the original story really pertained to "John and Jacob" until Constantine & Co. got around to ripping it off and rewriting it so as to include the names of their favorite characters.
Finding some Greek religious writings in proximity does not constitute "proof" of the buildings usages by any particular religious sect, the area , apparently a hotbed of religion, might have been literally awash in religious writings as various cults vied for adherents. It remains quite possible that other than a few similar artistic motifs, the religion practiced at the site had no actual connections to christianity, and if fully known, might even have been utterly opposed to that faction which terrorised, plundered and murdered its way to the establishing of its "christian" supremacy.