Jeffrey Gibson

You tendered a graphic image of the cover of a book entitled Constantine's Bible, a book which you have not read and which does not give any support to your thesis about Constantine inventing either Christianity or the New Testament or the Bible.

Jeffrey

aa5874

You mean mis-interpretation of Scripture.

I mean that the Isaiah 7.14 was mis-interpreted or mutilated to erroneously claim Jesus had ROOTS in Judaism.

Jeffrey Gibson

As far as I can see, the use of Is. 7:14 in Mt. 1 has nothing to do with claiming anything about Jesus' roots anywhere, let alone in Judaism. It is used to show that in Jesus the God of Israel is with his people.

And I'm still waiting to hear why it is you think you are -- or that we have reason to believe your claims that you are -- an expert in 1st century Judaism.

Jeffrey

mountainman

So what? In the first instance I was not aware that it is either objectionable or even indeed remarkable that someone mut have necessarily read a book in order to be able to mention it in discusion. And in the second instance that fact that the Constantine Bible is the first of its kind! needs to be explained in depth while at the same time accounting for the political prohibition and destruction of pagan practices and temple services which accompanied the glorious and triumphant ascendancy of his cult.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

But you didn't mention the book, let alone in discussion.

I hope you do not think that this is what Dungan asserts in his book.

But as I said, you can always prove us wrong by quoting Dungan's actual words in his book to this effect or posting an e-mail from him in which he confirms that you are correct.

Jeffrey

Dutch_labrat

The Constantine-invented-christianity is old hat. He did a lot of the work but it is beyond doubt at least a large part of the gospels and some christian communities existed before him. Still, for me it is difficult to be sure what exactly happened. I can see some kind of con happened but the details allude me.

Much data was either lost, forged or misinterpreted along the way. Still something may be learned from the way modern religions came to be. For example comparing the origins of mormonism and the islam can be very educational.

It looks like Roman emperors (Connstantine suspect#1) used christianity to create a tool of power over the plebs. How does this compare to scientology for you? This indicates that indeed much of it could have been created or forged. Still we know of the early precursors of christianity.

To me it looks like there were early christian-like religions and the romans picked-and-mixed to create christianity as we know it.

mountainman

Put it this way, he has no other ancient historical citation but the Constantine Bible as the very first time the new testament and the Hebrew Bible were bound together in one codex. Or are you about to cite an exception? Evidence please.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

The thesis that Constantine actually invented a new top-down emperor cult which we today now know by the name of "christianity" (Julian legislated that the cult be called "Galilaeans") is no more than a few years old.

There exists on this planet in this age the myopia that "it is beyond doubt at least a large part of the gospels and some christian communities existed before Constantine". This is a mantra without substantiating monumental evidence and a conjecture which has no support by NT C14 citations.

Dutch_labrat a simple question for you. I am asking you for the evidence by which you believe your assertion about pre-Constantinian christianity to be true. What is this evidence please?

Thanks and best wishes


Pete

Doug Shaver

So, Pete, somebody wrote a book containing a few statements that you can interpret as supporting your thesis.

You have a strange notion of what constitutes evidence.

mountainman

Yes Doug and that somebody was a highly educated young man (whom fate made emperor of Rome and Pontifex Maximus after Constantius and Constantine). Also supporting the thesis are:

1) an explanation of the NT apochryphal texts as pagan polemical reaction to Constantine.
2) an explanation of the words of Arius as historical commentary on the historical Jesus.
3) a consequential explanation of the Arian controversy which raged for a century (over fiction)
4) an explanation for the Origenist controversy.
5) an explantion for the Nestorian controversy.
6) an explanation for the Nag Hammadi codices as pagan polemic (See 1)
7) an explanation for the C14 date of Nag Hammadi NT apochrypha of 348 CE (plus/minus 60 years)
8) I could continue Doug ... but these issues dont appear to be raising discussion here.


There are two sets of evidence as I see it. One set commencing c.324 CE and onwards into the present day. You are referring to this first set. There is the second set of evidence for the pre-nicene epoch. I have elsewhere examined this second set of evidence (Early Christian Epigraphic Habit) and there does not appear to exist any one unambiguous bit of evidence for the HJ prior to Nicaea. This examination is sensitive to carbon dating citations Doug. As far as I can determine those who consider belief in any HJ have a strange notion of what constitutes evidence. We are conceivably being confronted with a very Eusebian Oliver Jesus Twist of chronology.


Best wishes,


Pete