mountainman

Yes, even in China.

However we have the Manichaeans conflated with "christian heretics" and becoming thus a persecuted sect specifically established by the christian historians of the fourth and the fifth centuries. Eusebius tries to make Mani himself, a "christian", and to try and tell us there were christian bishops in the Persian capital. But his reports are the first we have of this fraudulent assertion. Later in the fourth century, they were embellished by his continuators. Christian bishops were still burning the heretical writings of the Manichaeans before the sturdy doors of major christian Basilicas well into the fifth century.

Why? Because the writings of the Manichaeans did not contain one mention or reference to the new and strange Constantinian god called Jesus. Neither did some of the books of Origen. And so they were consigned to the flames.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Where?


Why does such a man as Momigliano use the word "miracle"?
He knew only too well that the victory, as described by Gibbon,
for example, was certainly no miracle. Constantine was
a great military commander, was very well prepared for
the military exercise, and in fact never lost a battle
in his 30 years at the top. So there was nothing at
all "miraculous" in the military victory.

It is as if Momigliano is saying "hint", "hint".
Almost "wink, wink, say no more ...".

But indeed why?

And as if to highlight this, on the following page (p.80)
of the work, Momigliano makes a second reference to
this "miracle". This only serves to highlight something
about what Momigliano is saying, or not saying. The
expanded context of this quote is as follows:


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson

OK. Leaving aside the question of the appropriateness of the term "appropriate" when you seem to have been using "decent" in the sense "compelling" and "well evidenced", what then in your eyes constitutes an "appropriate" case, and what criteria are you using to determine whether a case being made is or is not "appropriate"?

More importantly, in the context of any particular claims for why there is little archaeological evidence of pre Nicene Christianity, what case for this claim would you be willing to state was "appropriate"?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Is M talking about Constantine's military victory?

Jeffrey

mountainman

My thesis is that Arius was an ascetic "priest or authority" at one of the temples in Alexandria. That noone in the Eastern empire had heard of either "christianity" or its perjoritive anti-term "paganism" before it was touted to them by Constantine at the military "Council" of Antioch in prelude to the military summit meeting of Nicaea. The east was 100% pagan.


May we have the text of this letter, please? I really want to see what portion of it stands as "evidence", and justifies your claim, that all of the eastern attendees of the Council of Nicea were pagans.[/QUOTE]


This is the source I am presently using.

We are told, in fact, that the Constantinian summons was in writing. He was already quite renown as a man involved with literature. History has hitherto not yet revealed just how much involved. Here is the Letter of Constantine. Firstly it should be noted that it mentions no bishops of the east. All the bishops mentioned in the letter, are those who have been cooped up in the western empire with Constantine for the last 10 years, working very hard and probably involved with putting together the fabrication of the galilaeans.

How would you react to receiving this letter from the supreme imperial mafia thug, and war-lord, who had just recently taken over the running of the empire, and thus your local business?

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson

Ummm .. who are the Bishops of Ancyra and of Galatia whom Constantine speaks of? Just what part of the Empire do you think this city and this province were in?

And who specifically is this letter of Constantine addressed to? Have you reproduced the prescript in full?

And when did the the Synod of Ancyra that Constantine refers to take place?

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

That just an attempt to shift the burden. What no one has seen is any credible justification for the expectation.

It appears to be an article of faith. :huh:

ETA: And what was insufficiently "decent" about what has already been explained to you? It is obvious that there is no reason to expect a small, persecuted sect to leave behind "hard archaeological evidence. You questioned why anyone would think early (ie pre-Constantine) Christianity was a relatively small and persecuted sect. You were shown the evidence and offered nothing to refute it. You offered nothing to support your expectation.

Amaleq13

Forgive me if I don't simply take your word for it. Citations, please. And, to avoid wading through irrelevant information, I'm looking for "hard archaeological evidence" left behind from the time during which they were persecuted.

aa5874

But even if the reports of events at the Council are erroneous, there would still be information that there were people called Christians, not necesarily followers of Jesus, before Constantine.

Theophilus of Antioch, writing late in the 2nd century, claimed to be a Christian, yet in his three books to Autolycus, he never mentioned Jesus, Jesus Christ, Matthew, Mark, Luke , John, Peter, Paul, the crucifixion, resurrection or ascension, but he mentioned many of major figures of the OT.

Even Athenagoras of Athens in "A plea for the Christians", written in the 2nd century, called the "Son of God" the Logos, not Jesus or Jesus Christ, and he also never mentioned any of the NT characters, the crucifixion, the resurrection or ascension of Jesus.

Athenagoras of Athens in A plea for the Christians
It would appear that Athenagoras is not aware of or does not believe in the physical Jesus of Eusebius, his Son of God is spiritual or idealogical, but Athenagoras considered himself a Christian long before Constantine.

spamandham

An appropriate case is one that is laid out, as a minimum. Thus far, not even that much has been attempted. All that's been done so far is to attack the idea of an expectation of evidence. That isn't the same as making a case.

If someone wants to make the claim that it isn't reasonable to expect to find hard evidence of Christianity prior to Constantine, that requires the same case as any other claims anyone here makes. It is not the default position.