Originally Posted by Toto

The Trinity is still a contentious doctrine among Christians. It was only a key to Constantine's new religion because he forced it as a compromise.

Originally Posted by gstafleu

The biggest flaw IMHO is that it represents "big bang" thinking: ...

Originally Posted by avi

In my opinion, Pete's theory is not about Constantine, but about the new testament. That theory, if I understand correctly, is that the Roman Emperor assigned to his trusted associate, Eusebius, the task of creating a new religion with a new testament, de novo. Since this new religion was to serve as the State Religion, all other religions were accordingly purged. As a necessary consequence, many original documents and monuments from preceding centuries, many, many of which conflicted with the Roman trinitarian exposition, were accordingly destroyed.

My objection to this theory has nothing to do with evidence, hence it is an illustration of superstitious thinking:

I imagine, without evidence, that Lord Constantine, having waged war across half the globe, for more than a decade, engaging in battle with his army from Germany to Persia, was a relatively brilliant man, a militarist, a murderer, and an authoritarian commander supreme.

The new testament, as I have read it, is NOT the work of such a person, or his surrogate. Constantine, in my opinion, would not have constructed such a tome with so many errors, so many contradictions, and so many ambiguities, and with a non-Roman Jew as the hero of the story.

This statement is facile, and in my opinion, now that I have read Clark Hopkins' book, incorrect.

I intend to revisit this thread in January, when I will have more time to conduct a proper review, comprehensively, from a to z, but here's the conclusion in the interim. We have badly misrepresented his book on this forum. In no way do I now accept as valid, the notion that this is a "Christian" church at Dura Europos, if by "Christian" one equates the Roman Trinitarian version of the gentile sect that split from either Judaism itself, or the Nazarene flavor.

Nor do I accept the notion that Dura Europos had been undiscovered for nearly 2000 years, based on what Clark Hopkins himself, wrote. As for the parchment from the rubbish heap, found nearby, again, the book is enlightening!!!!

Originally Posted by Didymus

WHAT is Mountainman's theory?

No single sentence answers, please. I'm aware of the broad outlines - he thinks Christianity was invented by Constantine/Eusebius and that the NT and all the patristic writings were forged by Euse - the most prolific writer in all antiquity if he's right! I suppose I could go through Pete's posts and find more, but is there a single place where Pete has put it all together?

It's damn hard to refute something that consists of a fragment here and a fragment there.

Ddms

Originally Posted by gstafleu

the correct analogy to Pete's theory is Intelligent Design. He feels that Christianity could not have evolved, so it must have been created.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Same here avi, am looking forward to your review.
Its disturbing that people who should know better, unhesitantly fully buy into the conventional "christian" explanation for everything they see.
My opinion is that the Gentile chrestia cults did not split off from, derive from, nor originate with the Nazarene faith. Rather, tracing the Gentile chrestian/christian theology and its tropes back into antiquity reveals a "flypaper" religion, one whose ideas and doctrines, derived from a wide variety of ancient sources, entirely adapted and syncretized, had been fomenting and fermenting for hundreds of years, a few ideas added in during the first 3 centuries CE were culled from the Jewish Sect of The Nazarenes.
This is why there were so many chrestianities/christianities. In the first century these chrestos cults found in the obscure Jewish personage of "Paul" a convenient sock-puppet talking-head, through whom they were able to further foment their religious ideas.
All that Constantine and his church did was eliminate all of the competing fringe chreistians and force the acceptance of a single "orthodox" christian canon and interpretation- over a LOT of dead bodies.
The Nazarenes had nothing to do with the founding, or the promotion of this Gentile flypaper religion.