Originally Posted by spin

Stop being full of [hot air], Sheshbazzar. When you make definitive statements you are supposed to have evidence to back them up, not look like the emperor in his new clothes.

spin

Originally Posted by spamandham

Although contrived, one can imagine a scenario wherein a pre-existing story (perhaps a play, a novel, a symbolic history, or even a story from an earlier religion) was later incorporated into religious beliefs. Were that the case, then the existence of that story at an earlier time does not indicate the existence of the later religion based, at least in part, upon it.

For example, Psalm 22 is part of the Christian story. If all knowledge of Judaism had been lost to the ravages of time, and we found a scrap of Psalm 22 from the OT, we might presume that Christianity was much much older than we had thought. But we would be wrong (I think?).

I guess if you considered Judaism = Christianity, then it would be fair to say Christianity existed when Psalm 22 was penned (in this example), but surely no-one here considers them the same religion?

This is the sense in which I don't think the Dura evidence disproves mountainman's idea.

Originally Posted by spin

Why don't you make comments that are base don evidence for a change?? To get to saying meaningful things you have to cut out the non-meaningful ones.

Still no evidence for the beliefs of the "Sect of the Nazarenes", Sheshbazzar. What might be handy is if you cited some ancient source about their beliefs instead of making more generalizations.


spin

Originally Posted by Toto

If Pete were willing to reframe his theory as Eusebius and Constantine "dramatically changed and reshaped" Christianity, instead of "inventing" Christianity, it would not be that controversial. In fact, I think that most people would actually agree with that.

But he clings to the statement that Eusebius forged everything, although now he seems willing to concede that there were previous exemplars of Christian documents, but they were from some other religion.

If Pete were willing to call that other religion Christianity, the whole controversy would be solved.

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

This may be entirely a definitional dabate - when is xianity xianity?

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I assume we are agreed we do have xianity post Constantine?

But what do we have before?

Good shepherd - warning - isn't that Apollo?
Fish Jesi of various types
A motif of walking in water - hmm.

I wrote how a mosaic on the Isle of Wight was said to be xian because it had the four evangelists signs in the corners, but the centre was a classic Roman tale. Is that really xian?

I think pre Constantine we should be talking about proto xianities, various mergings and mixing of beliefs of various strength of assertion - we may be looking at fossils that became xianity, but not necesarily xianity.

Originally Posted by mountainman

Dear J-D,

The year 324/325 CE in the eastern academic greek speaking Roman (TAXABLE) empire.

Originally Posted by mountainman

I present that year on planet Earth as a boundary event in ancient history: characterised by the massive destruction of the extant (then) ancient traditional civilisation via Constantine's military supremacy.

Originally Posted by mountainman

(For a precedent have a long hard look at what Ardashir did to the ancient and well educated Parthian civilisation almost exactly one century earlier.)

Best wishes,


Pete

Originally Posted by spamandham

Although contrived, one can imagine a scenario wherein a pre-existing story (perhaps a play, a novel, a symbolic history, or even a story from an earlier religion) was later incorporated into religious beliefs. Were that the case, then the existence of that story at an earlier time does not indicate the existence of the later religion based, at least in part, upon it.

Originally Posted by spamandham

For example, Psalm 22 is part of the Christian story. If all knowledge of Judaism had been lost to the ravages of time, and we found a scrap of Psalm 22 from the OT, we might presume that Christianity was much much older than we had thought. But we would be wrong (I think?).

I guess if you considered Judaism = Christianity, then it would be fair to say Christianity existed when Psalm 22 was penned (in this example), but surely no-one here considers them the same religion?

This is the sense in which I don't think the Dura evidence disproves mountainman's idea.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Epiphanius

"But these sectarians... did not call themselves Christians--but "Nazarenes," ... However they are simply complete Jews. They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do... They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion - except for their belief in Messiah, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that God is one, and that his son is Jesus the Christ. They are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the entire Law, the Prophets, and the... Writings... are read in Hebrew, as they surely are by the Jews. They are different from the Jews, and different from Christians, only in the following. They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Christ; but since they are still fettered by the Law - circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest - they are not in accord with Christians.... they are nothing but Jews.... They have the Good News according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written. (Epiphanius; Panarion 29)

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Lets analyse what I wrote above
"IF Dura was a Nazarene synagogue...."
This is "a definitive statement"????? NOT! it is a question of a consideration of one potential possibility. not an absolute, barring any other possibilities.
Evidence to back up the possibility? on what basis should I need provide any greater evidence than that which you employ in asserting (without any ifs, ands or buts) that the site IS a "Christian" "church" that the women are the "two Mary's" that it is "Jesus and Peter" walking on water.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

What is your evidence for your unsceptical and adamant assertion?

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The self-same pictures that I am looking at and seeing the possibility of it being the work of a Jewish Messianic sect?
Seems to me all evidence, from the Jews, from The Christians, and from simple logic, admits that The sect of The Nazarenes, and their Messianic beliefs DID precede any form of Christianity. The tropes first belonged to a sect of the JEWISH religion.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Are you now going to attempt a claim that "Christianity" preceded the development of Jewish Messianism?

Originally Posted by spin

Most ancient despots tended to have inconvenient people killed. That is not the issue the comment you were citing was dealing with. It was the claim:

Constantine had these original Christians hunted down and slaughtered to impose his will upon the people.

I have seen no evidence to support that claim. Have you? Comments about how naughty Constantine was generally are irrelevant to that issue. You need to get specific.

This sort of comment is going to be a helpful guide for you when you have to make clear objective critical analyses. The importance of BC&H is the effort to understand exactly what the biblical texts say and imply. We make the separation between modern exponents' ideas and those of the text. Modern commentators' ideas are irrelevant to the understanding of what the texts themselves hold and how the texts evolved.

Half-baked theories not based on any hard evidence whatsoever, but which are strenuously flaunted at every opportunity, are a hindrance to this forum. This is an infidel forum and we supposedly analyze our topics in a spirit of freethought. If you want to go away from here with a meaningful understanding of the bible and where it came from, you need that spirit of freethought.

History is full of horrid acts: just think of the colonizers of your country who totally destroyed the cultures of the original inhabitants when they stole the land and raped and killed them. You still live there... on the ashes of the hopes and lives of those people.

We need to understand what happened, how and why. The topic of this forum is bible criticism and history. That's what we should be doing.

Originally Posted by VC

Destruction of the Temple of Aesculapius at Aegae. -

FOR since a wide-spread error of these pretenders to wisdom concerned the demon worshiped in Cilicia, whom thousands regarded with reverence as the possessor of saving and healing power, who sometimes appeared to those who passed the night in his temple, sometimes restored the diseased to health, though on the contrary he was a destroyer of souls, who drew his easily deluded worshipers from the true Saviour to involve them in impious error, the emperor, consistently with his practice, and desire to advance the worship of him who is at once a jealous God and the true Saviour, gave directions that this temple also should be razed to the ground. In prompt obedience to this command, a band of soldiers laid this building, the admiration of noble philosophers, prostrate in the dust, together with its unseen inmate, neither demon nor god, but rather a deceiver of souls, who had seduced mankind for so long a time through various ages. And thus he who had promised to others deliverance from misfortune and distress, could find no means for his own security, any more than when, as is told in myth, he was scorched by the lightning's stroke. (2) Our emperor's pious deeds, however, had in them nothing fabulous or feigned; but by virtue of the manifested power of his Saviour, this temple as well as others was so utterly overthrown, that not a vestige of the former follies was left behind.

Originally Posted by VC

How the Gentiles abandoned Idol Worship, and turned to the Knowledge of God.

HENCE it was that, of those who had been the slaves of superstition, when they saw with their own eyes the exposure of their delusion, and beheld the actual ruin of the temples and images in every place, some applied themselves to the saving doctrine of Christ; while others, though they declined to take this step, yet reprobated the folly which they had received from their fathers, and laughed to scorn what they had so long been accustomed to regard as gods. Indeed, what other feelings could possess their minds, when they witnessed the thorough uncleanness concealed beneath the fair exterior of the objects of their worship? Beneath this were found either the bones of dead men or dry skulls, fraudulently adorned by the arts of magicians, (1) or filthy rags full of abominable impurity, or a bundle of hay or stubble. On seeing all these things heaped together within their lifeless images, they denounced their fathers' extreme folly and their own, especially when neither in the secret recesses of the temples nor in the statues themselves could any inmate be found; neither demon, nor utterer of oracles, neither god nor prophet, as they had heretofore supposed: nay, not even a dim and shadowy phantom could be seen. Accordingly, every gloomy cavern, every hidden recess, afforded easy access to the emperor's emissaries: the inaccessible and secret chambers, the innermost shrines of the temples, were trampled by the soldiers' feet; and thus the mental blindness which had prevailed for so many ages over the gentile world became clearly apparent to the eyes of all.

Originally Posted by VC

How he destroyed the Temple of Venus at Heliopolis, and built the First Church in that City.

SUCH actions as I have described may well be reckoned among the emperor's noblest achievements, as also the wise arrangements which he made respecting each particular province. We may instance the Phoenician city Heliopolis, in which those who dignify licentious pleasure with a distinguishing title of honor, had permitted their wives and daughters to commit shameless fornication. But now a new statute, breathing the very spirit of modesty, proceeded from the emperor, which peremptorily forbade the continuance of former practices. And besides this he sent them also written exhortations, as though he had been especially ordained by God for this end, that he might instruct all men in the principles of chastity. Hence, he disdained not to communicate by letter even with these persons, urging them to seek diligently the knowledge of God. At the same time he followed up his words by corresponding deeds, and erected even in this city a church of great size and magnificence: so that an event unheard of before in any age, now for the first time came to pass, namely, that a city which had hitherto been wholly given up to superstition now obtained the privilege of a church of God, with presbyters and deacons, and its people were placed under the presiding care of a bishop consecrated to the service of the supreme God. And further, the emperor, being anxious that here also as many as possible might be won to the truth, bestowed abundant provision for the necessities of the poor, desiring even thus to invite them to seek the doctrines of salvation, as though he were almost adopting the words of him who said, "Whether in pretense, or in truth, let Christ be preached." (1)

Originally Posted by J-D

The 'Creed of Ulfilas', as recorded by Auxentius, is post-Eusebian evidence for the doctrines of the post-Constantinian Arian church, and is fundamentally incompatible with Pete's version.

Quote: What's the difference between Christian and non-Christian? The year 324/325 CE in the eastern academic greek speaking Roman (TAXABLE) empire.