mountainman

Dear Readers,

Giovanni Battista de Rossi (1822-1894) considered the greatest of the 19th century Roman archaeologists. As a loyal member of the Catholic Church, he was asked by Pope Pius IX to publish his works under the Vatican imprint. In 1857 the Vatican press printed his Inscriptiones christianae Urbis Romae. The work contained 1126 inscriptions dating from the year AD 71 to 589[1] His most famous discovery was made in 1849. In a shed belonging to a wineyard, he found a stone with the partial inscription
...NELIUS MARTYR.

The only possible name was Cornelius. Pope Cornelius (251-253) died in exile, and was therefore considered a martyr.

NB: A later edition of Inscriptiones contained a total of 1374 inscriptions. The first four were scrapped as forgeries, meaning that the oldest known Christian inscription in Rome is a memorial to Emperor Caracalla's chamberlain Prosenes, who died in 217.

If the "house-church" at Dura-Europa had even one or two comparable "house-churches" in Rome or in Alxandria, or to stretch things a little, if we could only find one small suspected "church house" in the entire empire which might be perceived as being related to the new testament christians then this Dura-Europos Mobile House-church might have some form of comparanda. But we have nothing. The official architectual body count is as follows:

Prenice christian "house-churches" ........ 1 (suspect at Yale)
Prenice christian "church-houses" ........ zero
Prenice christian "churches" .................. zero
Postnicene basilicas ............................. explosion


An integrated chart examining the various forms of archaeological and documentary evidence form the first four centuries of trhe common era of antiquity is displayed below. If anyone has any questions about this chart, please ask.



The small question mark placed in the box of the third century against architecture actually already presents the consideration of the Dura-Europa "house-church" (now at Yale) as an item to be considered from this century. I ask readers to please try and understand that I am performing this analysis on an entirely objective basis, and trying very hard to allow the evidence, and the evidence alone, to do the talking.



Best wishes,


Pete

spamandham

Pete, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. On the one hand, you argue that Constantine invented Christianity from whole cloth. You also argue that the gnostics came after that as a reaction to Christianity.

Then you argue that the gnostics usages of nomina sacra does *not* refer to Jesus or Christ....remember, this is supposedly a reaction to the boss' Jesus Christ religion, right?

Then you also seem to imply that maybe the Dura evidence has been forged at least in part, by presenting unrelated cases of fraud, and remarking about the vibrant colors of the frescas.

mountainman

Dear S&H,

My argument is that before Constantine we had a collegiate and tolerant network of greek academics priests, ascetic, preservers of Pythagoras and Plato, of Galen, Hippocrates, Euclid and Aristotle, Plotinus, etc - Porphyry. These are the gnostics - the Hellenic civilisation which predated the arrival of Constantine and which did not have christianity (in terms of the NT canon) at all represented.

My argument is that once Constantine destroyed the temples, and the practices associated thereto, the dispossessed academics had nowhere left to continue the preservation of the Hellenic (Pythagorean) knowledge and literature, since it is abundantly evident to me that Constantine was trying to burn it, and to destroy the greeks (ie: the non-christians). It is this class of people that Arius of Alexandria represented. These greek academic starting writing additional narrative to the canonical narratives after the years 324/325 and the council of Nicaea.

These additional gosples and acts were written to be seditious to the authority of the canon, and they were sedition in Constantine's eyes.. They are satirical additional narratives written about the christian apostles by greek academic who, being far from christians, were hostile to the take-over of their civilisation, livelihood and authority in the empire, by the new State ROman religion established by Constantine.

These additional (ie: chronologically afterwards) gospels and acts were thus regarded at that time - in the violence of the fourth century political upheavals of a new religious political power structure -- as heretical, as forbidden, and it was an offence punishable by death - to have posession of them.


At that time, "The Healer" in the literature already had a specific "nomina sacra" which the Hellenic civilisation - the academic preservers -- associated to the Healing God Ascelpius. A name for the new Roman god was selected (by Constanine and Eusebius) - Jesus - which agreed with this nomina sacra abreviation of the name. The scribes preserved the nomina sacra, not the name which was to be associated thereto, asserted since the epoch of Constantine to be Jesus.

I have yet to receive a response about the vibrance of the colors. What am I to presume? You tell me?

Best wishes,



Pete

spin

I think mountainman works under the principle of what he doesn't know won't hurt him: that, I think, is why he seems not to know anything about what he is dealing with.


spin

spamandham

I agree that from my uninformed position, it seems odd. But I'm not an expert on frescas that have been preserved under sand for 2000 years. Perhaps they do remain vibrant?

J-D

Such an explosion would be the naturally expected result if an underground persecuted religion became, instead, an officially supported religion.My question is 'How do you think this chart is relevant to the current discussion?

J-D

Doubt, confusion, and uncertainty are useful to Pete in distracting attention from the complete absence of any reason to think his theory (whatever it is precisely) is true.

mountainman

Dear J-D,

The question in my mind, and at least three hundred and twenty one other minds, is how far underground does a "underground persecuted religion" have to be not to turn up any unambiguous archaeological and/or scientific evidence of its hibernation.

And here is a question for you to answer. Is there any means by which you could devise a method to distinguish between a "underground persecuted religion" which was so far underground that we as yet have found no trace of their hibernation chambers prior to 312 CE, and a "underground persecuted religion" which has been asserted to exist, but which in the truth of ancient historical reality, did not exist until 312 CE.

Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

Not far.

(You've got a lot of questions, don't you? Not so good on answers, though, are you?)I have already given you my reasons for thinking that Christianity originated in the first century. You were not willing to discuss them, nor are you willing to give any reasons for thinking that your theory is true.

mountainman

Dear J-D,

Evidence of the archaeological and scientific variety is required, not "reasons" which by any other name might pass as conjectures. I asked for the evidence by which you have formulated reasons to think that christianity originated in the first century. I am not willing to discuss anything but the evidence. We could be discussing reasons and conjectures till the cows come home: but the evidence is another story, and the one that I am here interested in. I have presented the evidence as I see it, both before Nicaea, at Nicaea, and in the century following the council of Nicaea, and I am attempting to allow the evidence to speak for itself. The christians bishops seem to arrive on the planet at the same time as the bishop of bishops, and the thirteenth christian apostle.

Best wishes,


Pete