Toto

To the extent that Ehrman accepts the existence of a historical Jesus who had followers in the first century, But the devil is in the details.

Toto

Stop trying to hijack this thread. No one thinks that Eusebius was completely honest, but you have yet to provide some credible theory for Eusebius inventing the entire Christian religion, along with it's inconsistencies and absurdities.

Toto

It is quite unlikely. But who thinks that the association of Constantine with Christianity is false? Only people who don't like what the church has become, and look around for some historical villain to blame.

mountainman

The first hypothesis is that Eusebius lived during a massive war between the West and the East Empire, and the second hypothesis is that War is a Racket (or via: amazon.co.uk). The third hypothesis is that he was commissioned by the new emperor with gold solidi. What's so incredible about that?

People have been inventing monotheistic religions hand over fist for millenia, and still do. What's your problem? The evidence tells us that there were at least a few wars which produced, as part of the racket of war, a centralized empire-wide monotheistic religious cult based upon the canonisation of a "Holy Writ" by the supreme military commanders:

(#) MONOTHEISM / WARLORD / EMPIRE / HOLY WRIT

(0) Egptian /
(1) Judaism / Moses & Joshua / Judean / Hebrew Bible
(2) Zoroastrianism / Ardashir / Sassanid Persia / Avesta
(3) Christianity / Constantine / Roman / Christian Bible <<<===== Nicaea
(4) Islam / Muhammad / Arabian / Quran

Duvduv

Well, if the big story involving Constantine becoming "Christian" on his death bed is a myth, then it is possible that the Empire didn't become officially really "Christian" until the END of the 4th century at the earliest. On the other hand, if the original Nicaean Creed lacked elements such as mention of a virgin birth and Mary which Justin Martyr supposedly wrote about in the second century, then what happened? Is it more than possible that those elements in "Justin Martyr" were NOT written in the 2nd century at all, and in fact the canonical gospels did NOT exist in written form in the 2nd century at all.....then Mr. Irenaeus and Mr. Tertullian are NOT who they are presented to be.....

Ergo, there was no "Christianity" resembling anything we are familiar with in the second or even third centuries at all!

And what about the major changes in the Creed between 325 and 381? ......What happened in those 50 years?

Duvduv

And it leaves the Nag Hammadi writings later than thought, also from the 3rd or 4th century as a variant on the theme of the original Judeo-Platonic (I kind of like that term) Logos Salvation ideology that for some reason went into many different directions. But again, what happened to the Orthodox and their environment between 325 and 381? Was it when they became firmly attached to their belief that the Jesus figure was truly the promised Messiah of the Jewish scriptures that they were fond of?? Is that the REAL environment in which the Dispute with Trypho took place, or even Contra Celsum?

mountainman

My answer to this question is that the empire was struggling with what it meant to be Christian, and that in the end, according to Augustine, "the world groaned to find itself Arian"


There is no political history written for the 4th century, and IMHO the closest thing to it is Charles Freeman's AD 381, which focusses on the endgame in 381.

In those 50 years thousands fled the cities for the refuge of the desert. The history of those 50 years has been purposefully obliterated by the victors. See Freeman's thesis:


However the quote that prefaces his conclusion is also remarkable:

sotto voce

In a half decent world, approval of the RCC would be like approval of the Holocaust in this one.

Sheshbazzar

The universal employment of nomina sacra argues quite strongly against an early christianity comprised of assorted societies and associations of believers in a divine being with assorted oral traditions and practices scattered from Alexandria to Rome to Turkey. This practice argues strongly for a centralized point of origin and dissemination with relatively tight influence and control.
Scattered and feuding sects and associations of believers scattered over various and far flung regions, differing languages, and social backgrounds can hardly have been expected to all have decided to forgo all usage of proper names and titles for an identical system of nomina sacra coding.

Combine this with the virtual lack of any non-apologetic contemporary corroboration, lack of those archaeological evidences and remnants that would exist if this religion was as early, and anywhere near as widespread, and as influential as christian 'history' alleges it to have been.

IF christianity evolved over time, it must have been a relatively short time, certainly not three centuries.


Basically the popular orthodox christian origins story is as totally lacking in historical and archaeological support, and credibility, as The Flood or the Exodus.

Duvduv

Is there anything that can pick through whatever hints may exist about the 3rd and 4th centuries? I am interested in the contrast between the doctrines of the two Creeds of 325 and 381. Something significant in terms of power, belief and organization must have been going on in a relative brief 50 year period.

There are major ideological developments that occurred. Especially regarding anchoring the Christ in the time of Pilate, ensuring that he was the son of the virgin Mary specifically, that he was crucified, suffered and rose *again*......interestingly note that there is no EXPLICIT mention that he *DIED*........just that nasty little word *again* (meaning a second rising/resurrection). According to 1 Corinthians 15.

But the English in 1 Corinthians 15 says *HE WAS RAISED* as opposed to *ROSE AGAIN*. Meaning SOMEONE resurrected him, as opposed to the idea that he was resurrected by himself. Maybe that itself reflects a theological dispute about the essence of the Son regarding the apparent insertion into 1 Corinthians 15.

The second version firmly places him as the fulfillment of the Scripture as *coincidentally* corresponding
to 1 Corinthians 15:3 (One has to wonder why the Church finds this expression in only ONE epistle when it is so fuindamental). Plus of course the importance of the Holy Ghost, baptism, resurrection and the World to Come (called in Hebrew Olam Habah) showing a firm attachment specifically to Jewish Rabbinic ideas.

It would seem that between 325 and 381 there emerged a HUGE NEED to portray the state religion as fulfilling the requirements of the Messiah according to Jewish RABBINIC tradition, the same PHARISEE tradition so unloved in the gospels.