Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-25-2012, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arnaldo Momigliano

On 28 October 312 the Christians suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves victorious (2). The victory was a miracle — though opinions differed as to the nature of the sign vouchsafed to Constantine. The winners became conscious of their victory in a mood of resentment and vengeance. A voice shrill with implacable hatred announced to the world the victory of the Milvian Bridge: Lactantius’ De mortibus persecutorum (3).

If there were NO Christians before the 4th then how did they suddenly and expectedly become victorius in 312 CE??

[irony]

It was a miracle

[/irony]

WHAT MIRACLE??? CHRISTIANS APPEARED FROM NOWHERE AND THEN BECAME VICTORIUS WITHOUT HAVING TO FIGHT A BATTLE???

There was NO Miracle.

Momigliano continues ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arnaldo Momigliano

The revolution of the fourth century,
carrying with it a new historiography
will not be understood if we underrate
the determination, almost the fierceness,
with which the Christians
appreciated and exploited
"the miracle"
that had transformed Constantine
into a supporter, a protector,
and later a legislator
of the Christian church.

mountainman · 12-25-2012, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Of course, one way out of it would be to allege that the church simply did not exist before Constantine, wouldn't it. Off-the-wall, but worth a try, in the right circumstances.

Such a hypothesis I have argued here is supported by a critical investigation of the evidence for the existence of some form of Christian church worship before Constantine rolled into Nicaea. But as you have pointed out, there is no other researcher in academia prepared to investigate my findings in this matter.

sotto voce · 12-25-2012, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Of course, one way out of it would be to allege that the church simply did not exist before Constantine, wouldn't it. Off-the-wall, but worth a try, in the right circumstances.

Such a hypothesis I have argued here is supported by a critical investigation of the evidence for the existence of some form of Christian church worship before Constantine rolled into Nicaea.

That's a new development. So Constantine did not invent Christianity de novo?

Quote:

But as you have pointed out, there is no other researcher in academia prepared to investigate my findings in this matter.

I'm sure it's not for lack of desire. Some would give their eye teeth for that hypothesis to be shown valid.

mountainman · 12-25-2012, 09:14 PM

The Chi-Rho symbol was also used by pagan Greek scribes to mark, in the margin, a particularly valuable or relevant passage; the combined letters Chi and Rho standing for chrēston, meaning "good."[2] Some coins of Ptolemy III Euergetes (r. 246–222 BC) were marked with a Chi-Rho.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_Rho

There appears to be little if any evidence to differentiate between the hypotheses that the earliest Christians knew themselves as Chrestians or Christians. There is ample attestation to the use of Chrestian archaeology, such as the use of the Chi-Rho by pagans.

Hence the possibility that the first Chrestians thought of themselves as "The Good Guys" and of their spiritual leader, the historical? jesus as "Jesus the Good". SOmetime later the victorious chrestians wanted to distance themselves from Jesus the Good, and used the Jesus the Annointed (Christos) option since it was less hackneyed.

Happy Saturnalia

:wave:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If the Chi-Rho belief in Yesoos [altered from Yesooas] did not originally have a nativity element, then it is not surprising that the first Nicaean Creed makes no mention of Mary until it got added subsequently in the gospels intended to be a parody relating to Yeshu Pandera but accepted as authentic.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which is in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the living and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Considering that the first Nicaean Creed says nothing about parentage of the Christ it makes me wonder in light of Mountainman's comments whether the nativity story was actually not originally part of the belief system but intended to lampoon the religion by evoking the idea of illegitimacy from the Jewish tradition of Yeshu but was adopted into two gospels without realizing the original intent. Otherwisewhy specifically would a Mary and Joseph be chosen, especially since the parentage and date of execution were the only elements that were similar between the stories of Yeshu and Jesus .

mountainman · 12-25-2012, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In this line of enquiry explicit references to the earliest Greek NT codices such as Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Sinaticus need to be made, because these things represent the ancient historical evidence that needs to be explained. Many commentators make the comment that these earliest Greek codices are either exemplars of Constantine's Bible, or are copies thereof. They are generally not dated earlier that the mid 4th century.
...
...
There is little if any evidence outside of Eusebius for the appearance of any heretical books. The entire collection of new testament non canonical texts have manuscripts in Syriac, Coptic, Latin and even Manichaean, but not earlier than the 4th century.

Hi Pete, you may be correct, but, I think accuracy requires acknowledgement of three ancient manuscripts which may date from third century: P45, P46, and P47.

Some have claimed a second century date for P52.

Yes the palaeographical dating estimates based on the handwriting scripts evidenced on papyri fragments largely from the ancient rubbish dumps about the city of Oxyrynchus which experienced a massive population explosion in the mid 4th century.

Quote:

The point is, we have no solid evidence for the existence of Christianity, prior to 4th century, but, that clarity cannot translate into assurance that there existed prior to that point in time, no nascent movement, similar to what we call today, Christianity.

This is reasonable. The hypothesis and its antithesis both have room to move. We cannot therefore say categorically which may be true, but we can gauge the explanatory power of both hypotheses separately and with an open mind.

Quote:

Yes, the Dura Europos crude paintings and graffito, on the "house church" adjacent to the Jewish Synagogue, and mysteriously surviving, buried papyrus fragment of Tatian's "DiaTessaron", located proximate to the site of excavation of the synagogue, may well have an explanation other than a third century existence, but, we cannot dismiss the data as spurious, simply because it appears so flimsy, and of such mediocre provenance.

That's correct. The data sits there as a possible reference to the existence of something Christian out on the Persian border at Dura-Europos. It can be listed with the palaeographical dating of papyri above.

Quote:

There appear to be too many clues pointing to a genuine Christian tradition, in existence before Constantine, to accept the notion that Eusebius created the "apostolic fathers'" many texts.

There may appear to be too many possible items of possible positive evidence purporting to unambiguously identify an early Christian presence. However the negative evidence against this is the extreme scantiness of such evidence and its ambiguous nature. Somewhere else I mentioned that it would be reasonable to have by now found a shrine to Jesus, or at least something labelled "JS", or a figurine, or trinket. Hundreds of pagan deities are represented in the archaeology but the Christian cult has no positive exhibits. I see this as negative evidence against the existence hypothesis.

Happy Saturnalia

:wave:

mountainman · 12-25-2012, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Romans HIJACKED the Religion of the Jesus cult of Christians and re-wrote their history.

The New Testament authors HIJACKED the Greek LXX (not the Hebrew) and rewrote their new and strange Greek history of the "JS" character.

Happy Saturnalia

:wave:

aa5874 · 12-25-2012, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Romans HIJACKED the Religion of the Jesus cult of Christians and re-wrote their history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The New Testament authors HIJACKED the Greek LXX (not the Hebrew) and rewrote their new and strange Greek history of the "JS" character.

Happy Saturnalia

:wave:

And that was done in the 2nd-3rd century based on ACTUAL RECOVERED DATED NT manuscripts.

Surely, you must understand that I cannot reject actual recovered dated manuscripts from the 2nd-3rd century just to accept what you IMAGINE.

Christians BELIEVE the Jesus story originated in the 1st century based on Faith and it appears that you are now following their mode. You believe the Jesus story and cult originated in the 4th century based on an Article of Faith.

Duvduv · 12-26-2012, 12:40 AM

Mountainman, the suggestion I made above was that the original Nicene Creed did not mention a nativity because the Mary Joseph element had not yet been introduced, and that the Mary-Joseph element was meant as a lampoon from the Jewish Yeshu tradition that wasn't known by the Romans and was accepted. Since the parentage issue was the main similarity between the Talmud Yeshu and Jesus it would have been a sore thumb for the Christians had the Yeshu story been known and intended by the emerging church.
And thus in the Dialogue with Trypho the distinction between the two storylines was not mentioned as a debating point against the Jewish claim about the bastard son.

mountainman · 12-26-2012, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Considering that the first Nicaean Creed says nothing about parentage of the Christ ....

I don't think that this is necessarily true. I will explain why not. The earliest versions of the Nicaean Creed preserves the words of Arius as a disclaimer of what the Nicaean enclave would NOT accept about the parentage of Jesus, namely:

There was time when He was not.
Before He was born He was not.
He was made out of nothing existing.
He is/was from another subsistence/substance.
He is subject to alteration or change

Thus we must presume that although the earliest Nicaean Creeds say nothing positive about the parentage of Jesus / Chrest / Christ they do say something in the negative sense.

There was not a time when He was not.
Before He was born He was never not.
He was not made out of nothing existing.
He is not/was not from another subsistence/substance.
He is not subject to alteration or change.

These comments are formed by taking the negative for each of Arius's 5 sophisms about Jesus.

The parentage of Jesus may therefore be inferred in the negative sense.

Is this a reasonable or unreasonable comment?

aa5874 · 12-26-2012, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Mountainman, the suggestion I made above was that the original Nicene Creed did not mention a nativity because the Mary Joseph element had not yet been introduced, and that the Mary-Joseph element was meant as a lampoon from the Jewish Yeshu tradition that wasn't known by the Romans and was accepted. Since the parentage issue was the main similarity between the Talmud Yeshu and Jesus it would have been a sore thumb for the Christians had the Yeshu story been known and intended by the emerging church.
And thus in the Dialogue with Trypho the distinction between the two storylines was not mentioned as a debating point against the Jewish claim about the bastard son.

Your suggestion is not logical. The same source, Eusebius, that mentioned the Nicene Creed also mentioned the Nativity of Jesus by Mary-Joseph.

Church History 2.1

Quote:

This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,” as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

Church History 6.17

Quote:

But the heresy of the Ebionites, as it is called, asserts that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary, considering him a mere man, and insists strongly on keeping the law in a Jewish manner, as we have seen already in this history. Commentaries of Symmachus are still extant in which he appears to support this heresy by attacking the Gospel of Matthew.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-26-2012, 12:40 AM	#468
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Mountainman, the suggestion I made above was that the original Nicene Creed did not mention a nativity because the Mary Joseph element had not yet been introduced, and that the Mary-Joseph element was meant as a lampoon from the Jewish Yeshu tradition that wasn't known by the Romans and was accepted. Since the parentage issue was the main similarity between the Talmud Yeshu and Jesus it would have been a sore thumb for the Christians had the Yeshu story been known and intended by the emerging church. And thus in the Dialogue with Trypho the distinction between the two storylines was not mentioned as a debating point against the Jewish claim about the bastard son.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.