Amaleq13

I suppose that is true if you intend to continue to offer what seem to me unreasonable expectations of the evidence without offering specific support for those expectations.

Until you offer a good reason to expect evidence of secretive activity to survive, it is foolish to ignore what seems to me an obvious problem with this argument from silence.

You are simply wrong here.

From around the end of the 2nd century:
"And let our seals be either a dove, or a fish, or a ship scudding before the wind, or a musical lyre, which Polycrates used, or a ship's anchor, which Seleucus got engraved as a device; and if there be one fishing, he will remember the apostle, and the children drawn out of the water." (Clement, Paedagogus, III, xi)

To my knowledge, this is the earliest reference to such activity.

I agree but one must have reasonable expectations about the discovery of such evidence and it does not appear reasonable to me to conclude that the absence or paucity of "hard archaeological evidence" prior to Constantine is meaningful.

Doug Shaver

Actually, it has some evidence. It is your assertion that the evidence is all forged that has no evidence going for it.

I don't accept Jesus' historicity because I believe that the evidence against it outweighs the evidence for it, but I don't deny that there is evidence for both sides.

spamandham

He's known for establishing Roman Catholicism, well known for persecuting 'heretical' sects during his time.

To say Christianity was a 'small persecuted sect' prior to Constantine implies that it remained small for the entire ~200 year period from Pliny/Tacitus until the 4th century, and was also persecuted everywhere during that period.

Is that what you are claiming?

Toto

I was starting to think I had imagined this, but here it is:

Late Antique, Early Christian and Jewish gems: 3rd and 4th centuries - inscriptions

Pagan symbols transformed into Christian symbols

At this point, I would like to rescue the forum from this continual discussion of Pete's proposition, which no one believes in except for Pete.

It is radical enough to say that Christianity originated in the second century, as a reaction to the Jewish War or the Bar Kochba rebellion. It would be even more radical to date it to the mid-third century, when there is clear archeological evidence of a Christian church (Dura Europa) and Christian artifacts.

But trying to date Christianity to a 4th century invention by Eusebius under Constantine's direction is a proposition that has been tried and found wanting. It can't even be described as a theory - there is no theory of why the forgeries were written in the form that they were written, just a bald assertion that anything that does not fit must have been forged. There are lots of forged documents floating around, but they can usually be identified as fitting someone's interest, while not all of the early references to Christianity fit into anyone's interest.

It makes much more sense, based on what we know of how religions develop and evolve, to see Christianity as a religious movement drawing its doctrine and practices from a variety of sources, which was adopted and changed by the actions of Constantine. After all, you don't usually find Mafia thugs or warriors who have the sort of intellectual sophistication to even think about inventing a new religion, complete with heresies.

andrewcriddle

This account http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/A...#P6089_1353518 is generally thought authentic.

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

Tertullian born 160 CE
Justin purportedly executed 165

If scholars consider this account authentic in the sense that it represents reality, I have to question on what basis they do so. It sounds like hero fiction to me. 7 (symbolic) heros face horrific punishment for their faith, and not one shows even the slightest sign of fear. It includes a detailed back and forth exchange that Tertullian was obviously not in position to record, and ends with a dubious body snatching that serves the purpose of relieving the anxiety of the reader regarding the final disposition of their heros (much like what was done with Jesus).

Sheshbazzar

Authentic? One can't help but wonder how anyone could even read such a obviously and blatantly propagandistically contrived word-for-word accounting of this literary fabrication of a trial, while totally suspending any assessment as to that accounts credibility, and still maintain a straight face while presenting it as having any valid claim to authenticity.

Amaleq13

He is also known for bringing an end to the persecution of Christians.

Once again, no. Why not just read what I actually write instead of wasting time trying to assign extreme straw man positions to me?

It was not until after Constantine that Christianity obtained the social status, money, organization/centralization and ability to create "hard archaeological evidence" and there continues to be no good reason to expect them to done so earlier.

Rather than waste time trying to build a straw man to attack, why not offer something in support of your stated expectations?

spamandham

According to W.J. Durant, in regard to Constantine, "He became the most persistent preacher in his realm, persecuted heretics faithfully, and took God into partnership at every step.", Christ and Caesar: The Story of Civilization (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 664.

The heretics were not pagans, they were other Christians with doctrinal differences to the Roman church.

I didn't assign any strawmen to you, I asked if my understanding of your position was correct, as I don't understand the point of mentioning Pliny/Tacitus, when there's a ~200 year gap between them and Constantine, and you haven't bothered to explain it.

I'm no longer interested in your point.

Amaleq13

Yes, that is what happens when someone has enough power to declare one particular version of a belief as "orthodoxy". The others become "heretics".

Why do you think this is relevant? Prior to becoming the "preacher" described, he declared the "orthodox" version of Christianity to be legal. That means it wasn't legal before, right? Still not legal.

Then it is just a coincidence that every one of your "misunderstandings" involved attributing a ridiculously extreme position to me? If you say so.

No, you just haven't been paying attention.

Illegal under Pliny.

Illegal under Constantine.

Any good reason to suspect that anything changed about that status in between? I've never heard one so I would be interested.

My point is that you are unable to justify your expectation of "hard archaeological evidence" of Christianity prior to Constantine. It is a weak argument from silence.