PhilosopherJay

Here from Live Science is the scientific evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a mid-late Second century myth that we all have been waiting for.

According to the article, the earliest Christian inscription is Valentinian.
This is the earliest Christian inscription, the only one that can safely be placed in the First or Second Centuries:

In Chrestianity/Christiany, we are dealing with late First Century neo-Platonic mystery Religions that were reinterpreted into Jewish History in the Mid-Late Second Century.

The fact that no inscription or writing of the New Testament and proto-orthodox Christianity can be safely dated to the Second Century and this Valentian inscription can provides scientific evidence for this view.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

andrewcriddle

This interesting inscription has been discussed by scholars before. See for example spiritual seed by Einar Thomassen.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Einar Thomassen is really irrelevant with respect to ACTUAL written inscriptions with the name Jesus Christ.

There are ZERO INSCRIPTIONS with the name JESUS CHRIST in the 1st century BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

The Jesus of the NT had ZERO influence, NEGATIVE or POSITIVE, on Jewish writers like Philo and Josephus.

The Jesus of the NT was EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT based on the Pauline writings.

Jesus Christ was deemed the END of the LAW.

The Pauline Jesus made Jewish LAW for REMISSION of Sins obsolete.

Not one Jewish writer recorded this AWESOME Jewish character supposedly preached by Paul, a Pharisee, all over the Roman Empire.

The theory that Jesus Christ was a second century Myth fable CANNOT be contradicted by any EXTANT evidence at all.

The theory that Jesus was a 2nd century Myth fable is COMPLETELY compatible with EXTANT history.

PhilosopherJay

Hi andrewcriddle,

Thanks, good stuff.

What is new is the certainty with which we can place the inscription in the First or Second century.

Perhaps the greatest problem we have in understanding the early Christian movement is the uncertainty of so much of the materials' dating. Most of the dating we encounter depends on Eusebius. Even when we're told that the overwhelming consensus of scholars date material to such and such a time period, it is usually based on them ultimately trusting that Eusebius knew what he was talking about.

A reconstruction of early Christian History independent of Eusebius is what is really desperately needed.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Dave31

That's what Acharya S has been saying from the beginning, in her first book. She got loads of grief over it but, in the years since as time goes on it looks like she was correct. Prior to the second century, there is no clear evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we have them.

aa5874

Actually there is NO problem at at with dating the Jesus cult and story to the 2nd century because that is EXACTLY what ACTUAL evidence suggests.

We have ZERO ACTUAL evidence from the Jesus cult and story from the 1st century and BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

ALL the EXTANT ACTUAL EVIDENCE for the Jesus story are found AFTER the Fall of the Temple so there can be NO problem DATING the Jesus cult and story AFTER the Fall of the Temple and in the 2nd century based on ACTUAL EXTANT evidence.

It is EXTREMELY problematic to date the Jesus cult and story to the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple WITHOUT any actual extant evidence.

In effect, the EXTANT AVAILABLE EVIDENCE ONLY ALLOW the theory that the Jesus cult and story were NOT 1st century or before the Fall of the Temple.

Our problems are caused when people here REJECT actual extant evidence from the 2nd century and SPECULATE about the 1st century.

The 1st century has ZERO EXTANT EVIDENCE for the Jesus cult and story.

LOOK at the EXTANT ACTUAL EVIDENCE not where people want the evidence to be.

It must be NOTED the "Valentinian Inscription" does NOT mention JESUS CHRIST.

Toto

Googlebooks UK wouldn't let me see this page.

For Americans, this link might work:

The spiritual seed: the church of the "Valentinians" By Einar Thomassen p. 350

Search for via latina marble inscription valentinians

stephan huller

I don't see why the inscription is specifically Valentinian. “Bridal chamber” is an Aramaism

Horatio Parker

Couldn't a 2nd century Gnostic inscription be either consistent or inconsistent with Eusebius?

Am I missing something?

stephan huller

For some reason I can't edit my posts using my smart phone. The whole study of early Christianity suffers from having too many people who haven't a fucking clue what goes on in Jewish life. Referencing a “bridal chamber” is no proof of gnosticism. It just makes it likely the source was closely linked with Judaism and Jewish life. If you go to a traditional Jewish wedding the guests are called B'nai Huppah, "children of the Bridal Chamber.” They also have a banquet. The allegory is central to Christianity because Christianity is rooted in Judaism. What's the matter with white people? How did they get authority to make sense of early Christianity? They and they alone are the reason no progress is ever made in putting all the pieces together

This inscription proves nothing about early Christianity other than it was rooted in Jewish customs and terminology