Toto

I didn't say that it was a credible argument. It's just the only one that they have, since they can't find any real witnesses to the Resurrection.

mountainman

Dear Toto,

I agree that there appears to be little humor (if any) in George Orwell's Animal Farm where some animals are more equal than others. Perhaps I am mistaking polemic for humor? The work seems critical of the politics of communism. The non canonical works cast the canonical characters in a critical and obscure light. My argument is that at the time c.325 when Constantine sanctioned the canon as part of the state religion, other tractates were written as polemic in addition and subsequent to the wide distribution of the canon. (eg: Nicaea)

burlesque: (WIKI)

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

That was not the work that I had in mind.

No they don't, except in your imaginative reading.

The pagan Acts of Pilate seems to precede Constantine. The Christian Acts of Pilate appears to be a response, but are more fantasy than polemic.

In any case, you do not have an argument. You have an assertion with no evidence behind it.

mountainman

Dear Toto,

Which is more reasonable? The pagans write polemic against christianity when it was as yet an undergound green movement, or they write polemic at that time Constantine promotes this undergound religion to supreme prominence as the official ROman state religion? Which is more reasonable in the simple chronological sense?

Best wishes,


Pete

Chili

It's funny but they do say that or something like that, and then I keep thinking of how Jesus just "slipped out the crowds" . . ..

Chili

Not sure Johnny and I would not believe them if they did, but I can tell you that every saint in heaven did rise from the dead because that is the only way to get there.

Maybe you should now rephrase your question and ask who has a "list of saints in heaven" and let them tell you about their own resurrection.

Toto

What is unreasonable about the idea that the Christian movement was large enough at the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth century to not only have a church at Dura Europa, but to inspire the Emperor Diocetian to try to outlaw Christians, another emperor to sponsor counter propaganda to their core doctrinal belief, and, finally, Constantine to legalize and sponsor the Christians?

This all makes sense if you accept the idea that religions evolve and are rarely invented from scratch.

Chili

. . . you are so funny johnny, trying to lift all those stones you are standing on.

mountainman

Dear Toto,

You avoided the answering of my question which I believe is a very important question which needs to be addressed. And for the purpose of answering the question I am happy to concede that there might have been some "early christians". But even if there were, dont you see my question is valid?

Let's for the sake of your argument assume a small extant sect stopped Constantine just before the battle of the Milbian Bridge and did a deal with the real boss upstairs, and Constantine (in the words of one historian) "managed to convince himself he had a religious experience".

It is not more reasonable to expect pagan polemic to reach critical points at that epoch when the little known sect is raised to state emminence, rather than during that epoch when it is insignificant? The demographics furnished recently by gstafleu are adequate for the argument -- if we look at the number of pagans in the empire for the period in Q.

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

I would expect pagans to write more in opposition to Christianity when it is gaining influence, but has not yet achieved real power. Once Christianity gains an official status, it becomes more dangerous to oppose it.

Does that answer your question?