Originally Posted by Duvduv

But isn't it true that if they all had all the gospels available they all would have seen the same statements in GJohn that claimed the clear deification of the Christ, especially "I and the father are One." So if they had that text, then how did Paul of Samosata and Arius develop a different idea, or did they not accept GJohn?

Originally Posted by Duvduv

In any event, the other sources did not unequivocally make this an element of belief in the Christ, including the epistles. So when someone was accused of "Heresy" what were they heretical against?

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I presume then that Romans 9:5, Colossians 2:9 and Titus 2:13 were post-Nicean interpolations.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The stronger emphasis on the language in GJohn re "the Word" becoming flesh seems to outweigh any considerations from other sources by the time the Creed emerged. Was there a particular partiality for GJohn or at least his ideas, compared to anyone else?

Originally Posted by Duvduv

And when I refer to "heresy" was heresy against GJohn?
How else could there be a determination of heresy since there was no real central coercive authority before 325 which would be the object of a heresy.

Originally Posted by Maklelan

John was viewed as the most spiritual and most mature of the gospels. Obviously, it was the one most saturated with Greek literary and philosophical conventions. It provided a quite clear bridge between Christianity and Platonism, which made the latter's appropriation that much easier. Because it spoke in spiritual and philosophical terms, it fit more conveniently in with patristic rhetoric that asserted Christianity operated on a spiritual plane over and against the corporeal and legalistic plane on which Judaism operated.

The idea of heresy arose out of the Christian sectarianism of the second century. As different churches and groups grew in prominence and came in contact with other churches and groups, the holders of majority ideologies ganged up on holders of minority ideologies. Minority ideologies that were particularly resilient required more concerted efforts, and this is where we get texts like Irenaeus' Against Heresies.

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Of course a letter attributed to Arius referred to the orthodox as heretics in a letter to Eusebius.

Originally Posted by Maklelan

Of course it does. Anyone who disagrees with you is obviously hopelessly biased. Are you not aware of Drews' Nazi leanings?

I couldn't care less if someone doesn't believe jesus appeared in the flesh, or explores the notion that Jesus wasn't an historical figure. If someone belligerently tries to argue that Jesus was demonstrably not an historical figure, and that Christianity is based on fourth century Roman propaganda, then they're simply deluded. I've been around the block enough to know those theories simply don't wash. I think I've already shown numerous times over that your "exploration" is severely hindered by your lack of skills and resources and by your profound ignorance of the primary and secondary sources.

I understand that that's his intention, but he certainly doesn't succeed.

And I'm sure you've thoughtfully weighed the evidence for and against the authenticity of the manuscript, rather than just presupposed it is spurious because it fits your dogmatism.

Then you need better sources.

He also died before anyone thinks Christians made it into Egypt. You don't have the foggiest idea what kind of argument you're making.

And that overall claim is phenomenally ignorant and dogmatic.

I'm not ignoring them, I'm just aware of what they're based on, am not particularly convinced by them, and prefer to go with the academic consensus. How many times do I need to respond to the same amateur and naive arguments before I can just move past them? 5? 10?

Well, as with most texts like this, we have fragments of the texts preserved in earlier writers. When we uncover a later manuscript that aligns closely with the preserved portions from those earlier texts, we can be sure we have at least a moderately faithful manuscript. Tertullian, for instance, quotes repeatedly from Pliny, and there are only limited variants between his quotes and the Π manuscript. I already pointed out that Symeon's quotation of Abercius' epitaph comes from the tenth century, but it is almost identical to the actual inscription, discovered much later.

Did I say it mentions "Christians"? You have quite a big problem with avoiding actually addressing arguments when they complicate your dogmatism.

What do De Rossi's putative biases have to do with the analysis of the text since then?

As I've shown, they repeatedly refer to Jesus as the "Anointed One," or "Christ."

That's a ludicrous conclusion. The messiah motif dates to centuries before Christ, and that motif is fully incorporated into the earliest Christian texts. As I've shown, Sinaiticus unquestionably refers to Jesus as the Christ.

I'm not referring to a fish appearing wit an anchor, I'm referring to a fish appearing with a virgin, appearing with bread and wine, appearing with a reference to baptism, appearing with the "good shepherd." You can't find a single non-Christian text that conflates all these Christian motifs in a non-Christian context.

I already showed that Snyder disagrees with you regarding Abercius. Do you mean you want me to quote him? You can't look it up?

Absolutely, and that is facility with the languages and a willingness to actually read the texts.

I've already pointed them out to you.

This is just an evasion.

What is that supposed to prove?

You're being dishonest. You've already flatly ignored numerous pieces of evidence.

Originally Posted by mountainman

This discussion is focussed on the claims made within the article at historyhuntersinternation entitled The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity. Perhaps this should be split from a discussion about the original Nicaean creed?

So far the evidence items introduced against this claim are these:

* Tacitus (15th century ms)
* Pliny (15th century ms)
* P.Oxy. 3035
* The Shepherd of Hermas
* Oxyrhynchus papyri dated via palaeography to before the 4th century
* the inscription of Abercius

Originally Posted by mountainman

However the following response appears ominously riddled with ad hominem comments,

Originally Posted by mountainman

so much in fact, that it occurs to me that we may be dealing with Tim O'Neil. In order to confirm this suspicion all I need is to see is Maklelan defend the notion that the testimonium flavianum is genuine.

Originally Posted by mountainman

I will return to this thread and re-examine these counter claims against the evidence listed above at a later date, and to defend the notion that none of the above evidence items are in fact any form of sure "proof" that the original claim made in the source article The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity is in fact quite sound.

Originally Posted by mountainman

The bias admitted to, and manifestly demonstrated in the following reponse appears to be the bias of an anti-mythicist, for whom the purpose of conflating Arthur Drews as a Nazi is an important but misguided goal of rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Maklelan

..... Mythicism is not an academic position that is supported by anything. It's a punchline in scholarship conducted both by believers and non-believers. It is perpetuated by amateurs on the internet, not by scholars who actually participate in the academy. You can call that a bias if you wish, but I base it off of years of actually investigating the claims of mythicism, not uninformed dogmatism. Those claims are simply baseless, as I've shown your silly little "Chrestos" theory to be. Rather than try to defend your claims, you're trying to impugn my integrity and you're running away. Does anyone need a more clear indicator that you simply don't know what you're talking about?

Originally Posted by aa5874

What a load of BS. Please refer to the Quest for the historical Jesus.

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Quest for the historical Jesus was INITIATED without any input from so-called Mythicist.

The Quest for the Historical is a REJECTION of the NT Jesus.

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Quest for the Historical Jesus SIGNIFIES that people are looking for a Jesus that is Missing.

Originally Posted by aa5874

HJers know that Myth Jesus, the Jesus of Faith, is in the Bible.

The HJ argument is AGAINST the NT.

Where and when will HJ of Nazareth be found?

In the NICENE creed??

Originally Posted by Maklelan

I have actually shown quite the opposite, but the fact that you ignored the numerous articles I cited and my discussion, only to insist that it means the opposite of what it actually means is noted. I'm beginning to think I'm wasting my time trying to get you guys to acknowledge real evidence.