Chris Weimer

Did you bother to read what he said? The Greeks called the Romans Romaioi, not Romanoi.

J-D

Least of all you yourself.

mountainman

I am talking about the use of the word "pagani"
in inscriptions and payri of antiquity. Get that
through your head please.

The term appears in the fourth century.
It appears with christian inscriptions.

Sequoia

Tertullianus : Liber de corona militis 11 (208-211)

Sequoia

http://perso.orange.fr/gira.cadouarn..._evangiles.htm

Chris Weimer

Sequoia - he doesn't "believe" in palaeography.

mountainman

On the contrary, I "believe" that the forgery
and fabrication of the new testament was on
lavish public display at Nicaea, and that the
Hadrian script, and other ancient scipts were
used to "naturally enhance the image of age".

The paleographers provide a date based on
the script. My "belief" is that the second
and third century scripts were forged in
the fourth century.

Is that so difficult to understand?
I have no problems with paleography,
other that, in this instance (of NT writings)
were are actually dealing in forgeries and
in imperially inspired and sponsored
fabrications on a massive scale.

Legions of texts and authors.

J-D

Pete, we know what you believe. It is not hard to understand what you believe. You have made it abundantly clear. That's not the problem.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...95#post4790895

Chris Weimer

Now it all makes sense. He doesn't "believe" in a pre-Nicene Christianity, thus he distorts the facts to fit his worldview...much like...fundy Christians! Is there anyone here who would like to defend Pete from this?

:wave:

mountainman

You give me just one good archaeological citation
supporting this conjecture, and I will think about it.

Certainly, the prevailing (unexamined) postulate is
that we have christianity extant before the rise of
Constantine. All I am doing is questioning this
postulate. Eusebius, and all the christian literature
"wills us to believe" in the historicity of Pre-Nicene
christianity. But what else?

None of you self-professed academics have noted
or acknowledged that I have researched and listed
a total of over 60 citations to the epigraphy and
the papyri which have been cited in recent journals
as "accepted evidence for Pre-Nicene Christianity".

I showed how each of these citations was not
unambiguously christian. See this review.

I have lined up 60 citations which people in this
forum perhaps should have cited back at me as
evidence normally discussed as being "Pre-Nicene".

Is there any wrong with the logic here, for example?


The Prosenes Inscription is often cited by authors
in a number of related fields as "christian".

Here is my analysis:

A funerary inscription in Rome from the Severan period, to Prosenes, and a servant of emperor, is claimed to be christian. This inscription is said to be "less securely identified as Christian" for reasons which you are about to perceive:
The grave of Marcus Aurelius Prosenes--set up by several
of his own freedpersons (liberti)--reveals that this
imperial freedman had moved his way through the hierarchy
of imperial service, even holding several procuratorships
(senior positions of considerable influence) under Commodus.

Though nothing in the original inscription
suggests Christian identity,
one freedman named Ampelius
later inscribed on the stone
the fact that Prosenes was

"welcomed before God"
(receptus ad deum) on March 3, 217,
an expression which may best
be explained in terms of Christianity.

(ICUR VI 17246; cf. Mazzoleni 1999: 153).


[Editor: The phrase: "welcomed before God",
clearly, need not have been articulated by a christian mind.
Further, the phrase was added by a later hand.]

ETC for the rest of the 60 citations that I could
find, as per my review above.

I find it difficult to believe that you people cannot
see the data. It makes sense that I
AM TESTING THE (UNEXAMINED) POSTULATE
OF PRE-NICENE CHRISTIANITY
by looking for evidence.

<edit>
Deal with the at least 60 citations
which I have reviewed (linked above).

Or better yet, present to me or any other
objective person in this forum some citation
which shows us unambiguously that there
were christian present before Constantine
invented the new and strange imperial cult.

Otherwise, unfortunately, the theory may
in fact be true, and the way that Christianity
was historically put together. Who can say?

Only those who have the command of unambiguous
evidence. Who are those people?
And what is that evidence?