Ben C Smith

This particular horse refuses even to buck or whinny. I am beginning to think it is no horse at all, but rather an a**.

Good point about the beer time, though. (Except maybe that I prefer cocktails.)

Ben.

spamandham

I asserted:

{emphasis to point out it is a conditional expectation}

This seems so obvious, that I didn't feel any need to support it. Admittedly, it's based on nothing of substance. If anyone knows of any wide spread cults that existed for hundreds of years and left behind numerous texts but no hard evidence^*, I'd be interested in hearing about them. That would certainly impact my intuition in this case.

So the question then remains. Given the conditional, is it a reasonable expectation? If so, then the task is to resolve the conditional rather than to pick at the expectation.

It seems to me, you've been attempting to resolve the conditional with 'small persecuted sect' type statements. So, surely you can see my interest in support for those claims. ...and yes, I'm aware of the support you've already provided, but that support is not relevant to the entire time period of interest, nor the entire geographic region of interest.

_{* meaning in this context, date-able by non paleographic means}

Amaleq13

Now I wish I had left in my line about wondering if your desire to see the original post was intended to allow you to find some loophole in your wording. I am Nostradamus.

That a religious sect established membership over a relatively wide area really changes nothing since they would not necessarily obtain the organization and financial capacity necessary to establish the sort of lasting evidence under discussion. In addition, it doesn't address the question of motivation. Does a sect that believes itself to exist at the End Times or to be a harbinger of those End Times have the motivation to create lasting evidence of its existence?

You should have given it more thought. Having individual "cells" scattered about really does nothing to make it more likely that they would leave any lasting physical evidence, let alone the large amounts you apparently expect.

While this has become quite clear over the course of many, many posts, you could have saved a lot of wasted time offering this admission from the outset.

The creation of "hard archaeological evidence", and especially large amounts of it, requires motivation, organization, and money. Prior to Constantine, there is really nothing to suggest that Christianity had any of these things so there is no reason to expect them to have created any such evidence. The absence of that evidence is, therefore, entirely meaningless and appeals to its absence are weak arguments from silence. It is a mistake to follow Pete down this blind alley.

aa5874

But, there is a passage in First Apology by Justin Martyr that seems to indicate that the writer is aware of the difference between "ChrIstian" and "ChrEstian".

First Apology 4 And even if there was ambiguity, ChrEstians being called ChrIstians, this would only help to confirm that people were called ChrIstians before Constantine.

In any event, the ambiguity can pose some problems, for example, the followers of ChrEstus can be called ChrEstians and the followers of ChrIstus may be called ChrIstians, even though both ChrEstus and ChrIstus have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus of the NT.

The ambiguity is compounded even further when both ChrEstus and ChrIstus are themselves followers of Christ, or believe they are anointed with the oil of God, where ChrEstians and ChrIstians are now all called Christians.

Now, Tacitus in Annals claimed there was a man named ChrIstus whose followers were Christians and Suetonius claimed there was a man named ChrEstus who also had followers. And even Eusebius make mention of a person called ChrEstus, a bishop of Syracuse, who was likely to be a ChrIstian.

Notwithstanding the ambiguities, the word "Christian" appear to preceed Constantine.

spamandham

How much financial capacity do you suppose is really required to mark a grave with an inscription, or to include hand made religious relics with a corpse? This is going around in circles.

Had anyone asked earlier, I would have answered earlier. Am I supposed to read your mind and know what questions you have and answer them prior to them being asked? :huh:

Wow. That's quite the assertion. I look forward to reading your case for each of these three points.

Amaleq13

Why only focus on the single factor when others have been mentioned (ie motivation)? In addition, you do realize, don't you, that for large amounts of this to have survived, even larger amounts need to have been created?

You were but you prefered to shift the burden and play games.

Why would I assume you would actually start paying attention when it is so clear you haven't been so far?

For the sorts of small indicators you mention above, the latter two are obviously less relevant. The first, however, continues to be a problem for your expectation as does the issue of recognizability I pointed out much earlier in the discussion. We've already read how the symbols Christians used changed over time and that this was part of the tendency of many, if not most, Christians to keep a low profile. We hear the most about the martyrs but they certainly did not comprise the majority of Christians.

spamandham

I'm reporting you for this ad hom, and ending the discussion. As a mod, it's your responsibility to behave at the highest level of civility.

Amaleq13

What discussion? You've got nothing to support your expectations and cannot defend your position.

PS You might want to review both the rules and the definition of ad hominem. You appear to be confused about both.

spamandham

I'll let your co-mods determine whether accusing someone of shifting burdens and playing games rather than addressing the points is an ad hom or not.

Amaleq13

Good. They understand the rules.