mountainman

Tabling

See the opening post with the sarcophagus depiction of "Jesus being baptized with John the Baptist". I see no reason on earth that this should be claimed as in fact a depiction of either Jesus (as a child) or the elder as John. On the basis of this assessment - to which others here have appeared to agree - there is zero "christian evidence" whatsoever in this "evidence tendered in the book by Graydon Snyder.

In other words, the existence of a number of children, or doves descending, cannot be accepted as unambiguously evidence of anything Christian --- or specifically "the baptism of Jesus". The evidence has been --- as you yourself appear to say --- misidentified.

The references to characters in the Hebrew Bible are just as problematic (eg: the almost universal appearance of the "Good Shepherd" and the "Orante"). As I mentioned above, the reclining "Jonah" might be the reclining "Hercules" who was worshipped by a number of emperors. The motifs are just as likely therefore to be simply Graeco-Roman, and nothing to do with Judaism or the Hebrew Bible. In either case, they are defintely not overtly christian.

I would not be discussing --- or raising for discussion, or tabling --- the hypothesis that Constantine invented Christianity if it could be demonstrated to me that we have any unambiguous evidence by which this hypothesis can be refuted. I am defending the hypothesis on the basis that, until demonstrated to be impossible via the evidence, it stands an equal, if not a good chance of representing the ancient historical truth of exactly what happened in the 4th century, and the very very late beginning of "Christian Origins".

The closest thing to a "silver bullet" for the refutation of the hypothesis is the little house-church, previously on the prairie at Dura-Europos, now almost a century shipped back to Yale Divinity College as a "suspected christian dwelling" on the basis of "art works".

Graydon Snyder's "Ante pacem" allocates a fairly central role to the discussion of this evidence, but it is not critically convincing as evidence of "Christians". We have been through this. The poll was split.

The fact of the matter remains that according to all the available evidence it cannot be ruled outside the bounds of ancient historical possibility that an extremely powerful and despotic "Lord God Caesar" decided to sponsor his own tax-exempt religious cult in the fourth century.

Objectively considering and discussing the hypothesis.

If we allow ourselves to objectively consider and examine this hypothesis, then it follows that there are at least two implications for discussion....

(1) the Arian controversy may be hypothetically examined as a massively turbulent social/religious/political reaction to the authenticity and historicity of Constantine's presumed historical Jesus, and

(2) the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" are the corresponding literary reaction from the Graeco-Roman populace upon whom this monstrous tales of a dead Jewish God-King were thrust as the Pontifex Maximus's "Holy Writ". This literature may thus hypothetically be simply an "unauthorised" literary reaction to the state canon by those present in the Eastern Roman empire for a decade or more after the Council of Nicaea.

The evidence is paramount, and should be allowed to guide our hypotheses and related discussion. Obviously this involves and implies the EVALUATION of evidence, and as we can see, it is clear that many citations in Ante pacem are being utterly misidentified as "christian".

Open minds are an asset here.

Toto

I agree that particular scene is a stretch as the baptism, since Jesus was not baptised as a child, and I don't know the logic behind that identification. But you have 6 instances of baptism listed, and other scenes related to the gospel story. You have to dismiss these with the strange comment that the Bible was not popularized until after Constantine.


That's not how things work. Not every hypothesis that cannot be absolutely ruled out has an equal probability of being true.

If you want to promote your hypothesis, you have to show that it makes sense of other data. You have to explain why Constantine would have invented this strange religion. Emperors were known to deify themselves, or their lovers, not Jewish peasants. You have to explain why Constantine had Eusebius forge four different gospel stories that contradict each other at times.

Dura-Europas was not a prairie. It was a Roman outpost that was preserved in a pre-Constantine state. The poll was overwhelmingly against your hypothesis.

This also makes no sense. Arius was a Christian and more of a follower of a historical Jesus than Constantine. You persist in your misunderstanding of Arius' writing.

Quote:

(2) the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" are the corresponding literary reaction from the Graeco-Roman populace upon whom this monstrous tales of a dead Jewish God-King were thrust as the Pontifex Maximus's "Holy Writ". This literature may thus hypothetically be simply an "unauthorised" literary reaction to the state canon by those present in the Eastern Roman empire for a decade or more after the Council of Nicaea.

This is just your ad hoc explanation for evidence that does not fit your thesis.

Don't let your brains fall out.

Doug Shaver

You mean, like the unambiguous evidence you have by which you have refuted the hypothesis that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter?

spamandham

In fairness, Pete's premise is not totally ad hoc. And while I don't find it convincing, he has done a good job of explaining the rationale behind it.

mountainman

But your assumption is not correct. The avenue for dismissal is exactly the same principle
by which the previously discussed scene has been -- in all reasonableness -- dismissed.
Namely, that in all cases cited by Snyder, there has been a mis-identification.
You yourself acknowledge the misidentification in the above scene.
There is no logic behind the identification at all - it is a misidentification.

To summarise the evidence presented (in Ante pacem) and categorised as scenes relating to the baptism of Jesus,
and to all other elements associated with the gospel stories represent an "artistic licence"
which cannot be justified.




Yes, this is understandable, and particularly applies to hypotheses which are unfalsifiable.
And of course all falsifiable hypotheses may not have an equal chance of being true.
However the entire purpose of any hypothesis is to determine the truth.
We start by admiting that we do not know the truth, and we make hypotheses.
Subsequently these hypotheses are "stress-tested" and "given a run" in order
to determine their intrinsic explanatory power over the entire domain of the available evidence.

There is really no way to know in advance which hypothesis should be "given a run"
for the simple reason that we have just admitted that we dont know what the truth is.
Basically the procedure represents an objective practice of trial and error.
And there is thus no way to reasonably preclude any hypothesis from a trial run,
unless the hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

But as we all know, the hypothesis that Constantine commissioned Christianity is emminently falsifiable
and unless it can be refuted by the evidence (and my argument is that it cannot be categorically precluded)
then it should be given an objective run -- examination, contemplation and review -- in an attempt
for it to explain the field of evidence which is before us..




Of course, and that is why I have made mentioned of the two datasets
(1) the Arian controversy, and
(2) the origin of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc"

Both of these things can be very reasonably and efficiently explained on a political basis
thay they were both a massive reaction to Constantine's Canonical Christianity.

We have no writings direct from Arius of Alexandria to assist us determining if he was Christian
as is asserted by the orthodox Christian controlled historians of that epoch. His writings were
ordered to be burnt, the death penalty applied to their preservation, and his name and his very
memory were the subject of Constantinian "Damnatio memoriae".
Arius was an enemy of the fascist state. Why?
My answer is that he resisted Constantine's Jesus.

Likewise, the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" resisted the Constantinian "Canonical Gospels and Acts".
It all happened possibly between the years of 324 and 336 CE.
The "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" downplayed the authority of the New New Testament.
Constantine did not like that but what could he do about it?
Search and destroy missions .... And of course ......
The Index Librorum Prohibitorum --- the List of Prohibited Books (which has been in VATICAN operation between 325 and 2010)

I have done this in other posts. To summarise, I conjecture that Constantine found himself
controlling the western empire with a burning ambition to control the entire empire alone.
He already controlled the army (by means of paying them gold in the tradition of the Caesars)
and he already controlled the civilians (by means of taxing them in gold).

The one last remaining segment of the Graeco-Roman population c.324 CE that he did not have
any control over was the Graeco-Roman priesthoods and the milieu of Graeco-Roman religions
which were dominant -- particularly in the East and at Alexandria.

As Pontifex Maximus he did have some measure of authority over the religious segment.
They all reported to him as the leader of all religions in the empire, and he was free
to select whatever religion he preferred and to sponsor that religion as all the emperors
before him had done. However he did not do this - he did the opposite.

He utterly destroyed the authority of the Graeco-Roman priesthoods and he enforced with his
army a decreed prohibition of the traditional (religious) practices of the Graeco-Roman
temples and shrines, and he utterly tore down the largest and most ancient and most highly
revered temples. No other emperor before him had taken such a hard line. All emperors
before Constantine had sponsored and conributed towards the Graeco-Roman religious traditions.

What Constantine did was to either find or fabricate a non Graeco-Roman religious cult
and to sponsor this as was his right as Pontifex Maximus. By making this choice, he was
officially making redundant all the traditional Graeco-Roman religions. His strange religion
was founded on a purportedly Jewish historical incarnation of a god, and by making this
religion his one prefered supreme religion, this left him free to dispose of all other
religions in the empire, to take their land and temples and shrines, to destroy their
literature, to pillage their gold and silver and treasure and valuable art and scupture
works. History discloses that Constantine ordered his army to do these things.

Constantine expressly invented a non Graeco-Roman religion in order to get rid of the traditional
Graeco-Roman religions which had been around for centuries. He then appointed his own
high-level priesthood -- the Christian bishops --- in brand new architecture --- the
Christian basilicas or churches, which did not exist before he arrived.

In this manner his new religion brought him more GOLD and more ABSOLUTE POWER.
He ripped everyone off for his own personal gain.
And his followers protected their interests (power and gold) by the sword.
The State Catholic christian church in the 4th century was headed by thugs with armies.
It was a power play that had nothing to do with ethics.
The history of the 4th and 5th centuries was written by people sponsored by these people.
And my point is that this history of that epoch is twisted.
It was twisted in an attempt to enforce the authenticity of the historical jesus
and in an attempt to harmonise and down-play the negative reception that the new religion
actually had on the empire and populace from its inception in 324 CE.


Emperors were known to have fallen prey to ABSOLUTE POWER (See Suetonius).
They did exactly what they pleased within no limits, but Constantine went
further than his predeccesors. He destroyed the Graeco-Roman traditions
by the implementation of the Christian state religion. By the end of the
4th century, the Christian religion had just about got rid of all the
ancient temples, and all the other non-christian beliefs.

Constantine deified a Jewish peasant in order to get rid of the Graeco-Roman
priesthood which were deifying Greek sages, Greek philosophers, Greek legends,
Greek traditions and the Greek divinities of Zeus and his son Apollo and his son
the healing god Asclepius.

Constantine's fascist actions were an ANTI-HELLENISTIC REVOLUTION.
In modern terms it may be expedient to see Constantine as a "gangster".
He had no regard for the Graeco-Roman heritage.

Constantine as a "barbarian".

Constantine may in fact be better described as a barbarian.
He replaced the Praetorian Guard with a close-knit bunch of
Barbarian Chieftains who surrounded him on all occassions.
These people had been POUNDED by the Greaco-Romans for centuries.
They were not impressed with the Graeco-Roman heritage or civilisation.
They saw it as "enemy territory" ripe for the pickings.
And they came in with Bullneck and took what they wanted.
The gold in Briton staked their bid for Rome.
The gold in Rome staked their bid for the JACKPOT - the gold in the East.
They got rid of the traditional religions - they were kings of the dog heap.
They were fascist merceneries in the employ of a warlord Constantine.
They were the first "Christian soldiers".


The TETRARCHY (leadership of four people) was strong in Constantine's day.
It had been established by Diocletian and inherited by Constantine along
with something resembling a "Domeday Book" which listed who in each of the
Dioceses were the greatest landholders and merchants, etc, in order to
try and get a handle on and maximise and plan the imperial taxation.

Any detective will tell you that the statements made by 4 independent eye
witnesses to an event will not be the same. We may reasonably expect there
to be a scattered variation in testimony, including contradictions. He was
not about to duplicate one account four times - this would seem far less
plausible that 4 accounts which substantially agreed in many of the details.
The Eusebian canon tables are included some of the earliest Greek codices.
These things specifically analyse the 4 different accounts and contradictions
by presenting the things agreed upon by all the 4, by 3, by 2 apostles and
lastly those things only present in one gospel. All this was planned, because
it is expected that 4 witnesses cannot possibly agree, even the day after
an event, let alone a year or a decade or a century or three after an event.

mountainman

This analogy to Russell's Teapot is actually in my favor.

We were brought up, you and I and the rest of us here,
with the belief that there is a teapot orbiting Jupiter.
Russell's Teapot is Christianity before Constantine.

All I have done is to strenuously and consistently argue
that we do not in fact have any evidence for its existence.

What you believe is up to you.

What I believe is that, with the use of technology and science,
if were able to survey and scan the domain of the hypothetical
orbit of this teapot then there will emerge a pattern in the evidence
which either supports or precludes the hypothesis of the teapot.

I have therefore studied and researched as much ancient historical
data as I can review for the epoch between the 1st and the 5th centuries.

My findings at present indicate that the teapot does not exist.
My findings --- I am the first to admit it --- are hypothetical.

I do not pretend to know the truth about celestial teapots or
the fourth century fascist warlord who first published "OUR BIBLES.

I am not taking an authoritarian stance on my position.
I am happy to ask questions, and to examine and discuss the evidence.
I may be more inclined to question the basis of our traditional beliefs than most.

But my motto is, and has always been, to
"Follow the evidence wheresoever it may lead".

So far as I have followed it --- all roads appear to lead to Rome
and the fateful year of 312 CE.

ThermalCry

Anyone else wonder what the deal with the dragon on the sarcophagus is? Is that meant to be part of the chariot to the left? When have dragons ever been on chariots? I'm having trouble making any sense of the meaning of the sarcophagus to be honest. To me it looks like a 'stages of life' motif, just out of order ... with the man in his (apparent) physical prime enduring the most distress. It has some vague traces of Christian motifs, but they are certainly not exclusive to the Christian tradition. Any more info on that artifact?

Doug Shaver

Your argument, however strenuous and consistent, does not make it so that no evidence exists. The evidence exists. Your argument is not really about its existence. Your argument is about how we should interpret it.

I do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, but I do not say, and never have said, that there is no evidence for his existence. I disagree with the consensus as to how that evidence ought to be interpreted because I think it is outweighed by the evidence against his existence.

mountainman

In the first post is a photograph of Plate 13 from a standard "early christian evidence" publication accepted by most scholars and academics on the planet as being somewhat of an authority on the issue of "early christian evidence". It shows a scene rendered on a sarcophagus located in Sta. Maria Antiqua, Rome, as is is summarily described by the author Graydon Snyder as being

"Likely the oldest example of Early Christian plastic art",

The scene is rendered on a physical archaeological artefact - it is exists and it is being interpretted as Early Christian. This is one instance among many instances and my argument is -- as you say -- about questioning this interpetation --- namely: that is it Early Christian.

I do not think it is Early Christian.
I think it is probably Graeco-Roman - ie: non christian.
But the problem is that all citations are in this class.
None of the Early Christian evidence presented in "Ante Pacem" is compelling.


But have you looked at the evidence being presented in the literature, such as "Ante Pacem" which I am here in this thread critically reviewing in detail?

You will note that the first post in this thread depicts a picture which these scholars and academics are interpreting as including "the child Jesus being baptised by the older John the Baptist". This interpretation imo is unfounded and invalid.

In this one instance the end result is that it cannot contribute to the question of evidence in relation to the issue of "Early christianity". Generalising all the instances cited in "Ante Pacem", we have no evidence that can be unambiguously interpetted as "Early Christian". The greatest item of evidence is represented by the common academic assessment of the Dura-Europa "House-Church" (now at Yale). This has been duscussed.

The issue addressed in this thread is more general that the evidence for the existence of Jesus because it is addressing the existence of the christian church before Constantine.

Doug Shaver

If you say that, and also say that no evidence exists, you contradict yourself.