Jeffrey Gibson

The word is "lintel" ("lintern is, as the OED notes, "Obs. exc. dial) and the dictum was inscribed in the προνάος (forecourt) of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, not that of the Academy at Athens (let alone an "academic" academy). On this, see Pausanias 10.24.1

Quote:

ταυ̂τα μὲν δὴ οὕτω γενόμενα ἴστω τις: ἐν δὲ τῳ̂ προνάῳ τῳ̂ ἐν Δελφοι̂ς γεγραμμένα ἐστὶν ὠφελήματα ἀνθρώποις ἐς βίον, ἐγράφη δὲ ὑπὸ ἀνδρω̂ν οὓς γενέσθαι σοφοὺς λέγουσιν ̔́Ελληνες. οὑ̂τοι δὲ ἠ̂σαν ἐκ μὲν ̓Ιωνίας Θαλη̂ς τε Μιλήσιος καὶ �*ριηνεὺς Βίας, Αἰολέων δὲ τω̂ν ἐν Λέσβῳ �*ιττακὸς Μιτυληναι̂ος, ἐκ δὲ Δωριέων τω̂ν ἐν τῃ̂ ̓Ασίᾳ Κλεόβουλος Λίνδιος, καὶ ̓Αθηναι̂ός τε Σόλων καὶ Σπαρτιάτης Χίλων: τὸν δὲ ἕβδομον �*λάτων ὁ ̓Αρίστωνος ἀντὶ �*εριάνδρου του̂ Κυψέλου Μύσωνα κατείλοχε τὸν Χηνέα: κώμη δὲ ἐν τῃ̂ Οἴτῃ τῳ̂ ὄρει ᾠκου̂ντο αἱ Χη̂ναι. οὑ̂τοι οὐ̂ν οἱ ἄνδρες ἀφικόμενοι ἐς Δελφοὺς ἀνέθεσαν τῳ̂ ̓Απόλλωνι τὰ ᾀδόμενα Γνω̂θι σαυτὸν καὶ Μηδὲν ἄγαν.

Jeffrey

spamandham

I highlighted the reason I don't think this disproves Pete's idea.

For the record (again), I don't accept Pete's explanation, but I do find a small amount of merit to it, in that it seems to me that Eusebius really did make a bunch of bullshit up to add a sense of authority and antiquity to the revamped religion. If we accept that, then what else did they do to it? Is the Christianity that emerged from Nicea the same religion that entered it? I don't know.

To me, the better explanation is that Christianity already existed in some form prior to Constantine, and the Dura evidence supports that idea. But I don't think it disproves Pete's hypothesis.

spin

Sorry, I'll remedy that linguistic problem for you now:

They are all there already in the fragment, showing that the gospel that we know as the central literature of christianity was already greatly, if not fully, formed.

That's fine. With the sort of criteria I've seen people display in this thread, they would have difficulty proving or disproving anything.

We see two pieces of glaring evidence that each demolishes such a late start to christianity and we have the most monty-pythonesque contortions to get those eyelids shut so as not to look at it. I am appalled by the refusal to acknowledge the combination of fresco subjects and the baptismal font does not penetrate the skulls of even the slowest here, people who are unable to propose anything at all likely as an alternative to explain the data. (No, no, it's not christian: Jesus didn't autograph it.) I find it difficult to see anyone in their right minds not seeing the diatessaron fragment as incontrovertible evidence in favor of the gospel religion already intact seventy years before Eusebius.

The only reason why this bird is still standing is because it was nailed to the perch.


spin

Toto

English translation here

spamandham

I think you may be confusing denseness with a willingness to maintain an open mind.

Regardless of your or mine assessment of likelihoods, it is possible that something very much like the gospel story existed in some form different from what we call Christianity - perhaps as part of a Jewish messianic cult, perhaps as part of a play...or who knows what.

Toto

Yes, but we were happily discussing all these possibilities before Pete started harping on the idea that all Christian history before the 4th century is a complete forgery.

spin

Some people maintain such open minds that there's nothing in them. You were asked to make logical decisions based on evidence.

It's not a matter of likelihood, the Dura evidence shows it did. If you'd like to invent a Jewish messianic cult surviving after bar Kochba in order to pretend there is some semblance of hope for the mountainman mess, just realize that it has nothing to do with his claims.


spin

storytime

So, why did Christianity succeed? Because Constantine saw the means of dispersing the Jews from their own land through their own religion, and thereby he set about to invent a messianic story connecting it to the OT prophet sayings? An invention of a god-man messiah? That would take some ingenious talent but easily done if a few people close to Constantine had excellent knowledge of the Jewish religion? Why else would he have clung to Jewish scripts?

How much different is todays Christian fundamentalism in thinking to take over Israel via using their scripts? Of disolving Jews into Christianity by means of the Jewish messiah concept?

Orthodox Jewish belief is "this is our inheritance, not theirs". The law and the covenants belong to the Jewish people[Israel]. Constantine could not take it legally so he invented a way to steal it?

Sheshbazzar

Absolutely, they were Jews and a sect of the Jewish religion.
First the term "christian" is definately an anachronism when discussing these early Jewish Messianic Nazarene believers.
More importantly however, is that when these were latter exposed to the antinomian teachings of Pauline "christianity" they utterly rejected this mongrel "christian" religion, choosing rather to retain their identity as a sect of the Jewish religion, and to remain faithful in their observance of The Laws of Moses regarding Sabbaths, foods, clothing, and the many other sundry details of Jewish practice that regulate every day life.

Moreover, rather than turning to "christian church" authorities for interpretations or rulings on such matters, they considered the rulings of Jewish religious authorities, and endeavored to walk lawfully in the ways of Judaism, subject to their own conscience whether any such ruling was worthy of obedience, thus they would obediently consent to Rabbinical rules regarding the details of kashrut (kosher) or Sabbath observances, however would NOT submit to rulings forbidding them to preach or teach of the Messiah, and specifically in his proper and given Hebrew name (not the christians Greek substitute

Thus it is not "simply because they did not call themselves Christians" but rather because they resolutely refused to be so designated.

Yes, so there are, even as there were then, some who attempted to straddle that fence.
So, even as there were Ephraimites who tried to pass themselves off as Gileadites, but their speech certainly betrayed them, because they would not speak the Word of Life aright.
(You really ought to take the time to figure out and understand just exactly what I am referring to here-if you don't, the loss will be yours.)

And today, there are many Messianic believers who adamantly eschew being designated by the word "christian". Of which I myself was one for three decades, and our "Christian" neighbors knew that we were not "Christians", and often stated to us that we were not Christians because of our utterly "Jewish" and "NON-christian" doctrines, beliefs, practices, and lifestyle.

spamandham

This seems needlessly obnoxious.