J-D

Who are 'they'? What specifically do you mean by 'the lies of Christianity'? How do you think 'they' have been blinded and deceived? And do you have any grounds for this assertion?

J-D

This observation about your 'detractors' (whoever you intend that description to apply to) is a digression which adds no support to your case.But as with the rest of your case, you have given no grounds to accept that which you maintain.

spin

Sheshbazzar has advertised himself as a believer in a modern confabulation based on brief allusions in christian literature of something he calls "the J[ewish] sect of The Nazarene faith". This group has constructed a religion of its own loosely based on dribs of comments in the church fathers and drabs from Epiphanius. As one can see, he has little understanding of what evidence is, given that he is endlessly making bitter faith statements against mainstream christianity rather than coughing up sources to make him credible. Egging on mountainman is a substitute for anything more constructive to do.


spin

J-D

If there ever was such a person as Moses, women may have visited his grave. But the stories about Moses in the Jewish Scriptures do not include stories about women visiting his grave. In fact, the Jewish Scriptures include an explicit statement that Moses was buried in an unknown location (Deuteronomy Chapter 34, verse 6). Although the same is not said of Joshua, the Jewish Scriptures include no stories about people (men, women, or children) visiting Joshua's grave. They also include no stories mentioning Joshua and crucifixion, and no stories mentioning Joshua and Joseph of Arimathea. Any story which mentions crucifixion, Joseph of Arimathea, and women visiting a grave does not correspond to any stories about Joshua in the Jewish Scriptures (or any stories in the Jewish Scriptures at all).

J-D

I have no idea what you mean by 'comparanda', or why you think the point you are making about them (whatever they are) is relevant.

avi

At the time the poll was first presented, I reluctantly voted "YES", after reading Ben's EXCELLENT travail, and rereading, several times, spin's explanations, i.e. Joseph of Arimathea, IE, stavros, Salome appearing on the 14 line fragment of papyrus. Now, having understood that Dura was home to Nazarenes (Thanks Sheshbazzar) and Mandaeans (Thanks Spin), I no longer wish to affirm support for the notion that the archaeological evidence discredits, i.e. repudiates, (n.b. NOT falsifies) Pete's theory that Constantine invented Christianity, as we know it, today. I still believe that some proto-christian sects existed prior to Eusebius, but the main substance, I now believe, until new evidence appears, of Christianity, was formulated, and written on orders of Constantine. I am sure that every effort was expended to destroy 100% of the old documents, and to modify all the existing docs to ensure conformance to the triune monster. Thanks Pete, for opening my eyes. Please change my vote to NO.

J-D

Fragmentary though the evidence may be, it's more evidence than you have for your theory.

And the fragmentary nature of the evidence is absolutely standard for ancient history. If it were impossible to draw conclusions from fragmentary evidence, it would be impossible to study ancient history at all.

mountainman

Dear Spin,

That is not all that is required. You also need to understand that the theory is prepared specifically for the field of ancient history, and it will be tested and either refuted or supported by evidence which is admissable to that field (ie: of ancient history). Therefore IMO it is also incumbant upon any who wish to evaluate the thesis to have some knowledge of the field of ancient history for the period in question, not just the literature, but the monumental evidence (see Part (2): The "Field Traditions" below):

The "Evidential Bearing Fields" of Ancient History

Part (1): The "Literature Traditions"

* the speakers - authors (particularly "historians") and their estimable historicity.
* the words - ancient texts: their literature, its philology, and its translations.
* the documents - physical written source - original texts (codexes, papyrii, papyrii fragments)
* the historians - comments and analyses of the above by past and present ancient historians.


Part (2): The "Field Traditions"

* architecture, buildings, monuments
* inscriptions in stone and metal and mosaic - the epigraphic habit
* sarcophagi, burial relics, funerary ornaments
* coins (gold, silver and others)
* art, paintings and graffitti
* sculpture, reliefs, frescoes, ornamental works
* archeological relics and other citations


Part (3): The "Analysis Support Traditions & newer technologies"

* paleographic assessment of original texts, papyrii and papyrii fragments
* radio carbon dating citations
* collective and collaborative databases: epigraphic, numismatic, etc.


It appears to me that there are a number of respondents who have confused the field of ancient history with the field of philosophical theology, and I wish to clearly repeat this is not a thesis in theology, etc. It is a thesis in the field of ancient history, and readers of the thesis need to understand this.


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear J-D,

Thanks for the sensible response on this question.

Firstly, your reliance upon the presence of the word "crucifixion" in the text is conjectural since the word does not appear in the text. Please have a look at Ben's page.

Secondly, all we can say is that we do not have any stories like the diatesseron fragment extant. This does not rule out the possibility that the stories existed, but were destroyed in the enormous literature destruction campaign by the christian supremacists of the later fourth and early fifth centuries. So, the argument that we dont have any stories about Joshua's grave being visted by women needs to be tempered by the fact that we do not have in our possession all texts and all stories from that epoch.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear J-D,

When I used the term comparanda with respect to a specific bit of evidence I mean all those other bits of evidence available from the field which are very similar, or comparable to, the bit of evidence being discussed. What the poll should have said about the frescoes (for example - the same can be applied to both the "Diatessaron Fragment" and the "Presumed Baptismal Font".) is this.

We have here three frescoes at this house-church which exhibit clear comparitive similarities to sets of frescoes which have already been determined to be christian from the cities of Rome and Alexandria, for example, because such house-churches have been found in other places.

It needs to be stated that the reason that other comparable evidence is not cited in support of the assertion that we are dealing with christian frescoes is because we have no other comparable frescoes - anywhere - even from the cities of Rome and Alexandria, where is has been presumed (according to other threads here right now) that we have has christian occupancy from the first century. If we have three centuries of christian frescoing why is it that the Dura fresco has not one comparable fresco anywhere else in the empire?


Best wishes,


Pete