mountainman

BTW it is only fair that you make clear your position on the chronology of Christian origins. Is it a 1 or a 2 or a 3? For the record ....



I think we may assume you don't support a 4, even though you are able to list the basic minimum of evidence upon which my present position hinges, namely, with inserted numbering:



I am not going to argue in support of my position on these three issues.


But the following is a misrepresentation of my position ...


My view is that Constantine commissioned Eusebius, not the other way around.



My view is that the pagan generation was consequently straightaway fraught with the heresy that the substance of their god(s) (i.e. the god of Plato, the god Asclepius, Hercules, Hermes, Diana, Apollo, etc, etc) was not the same substance as Jesus - the god of Constantine.

The opposition to Constantine argued that Jesus was only similar to the substance of the old traditional gods. The opposition was overruled.

Jesus was to be regarded as having the same substance as the old god(s).

mountainman

I would point out two different scenarios and then ask which is the more likely scenario - all other things being equal.

The first scenario is that a person capable of writing Greek in Dura Europos was in possession c.250 CE of the text which was - a century hence - to be used by the editor(s) of Vaticanus.

The second scenario is that a person in Julian's army capable of writing Greek after Nicaea, had read and copied (and harmonised) one of the Constantine Bibles (of which Vaticanus is conjectured to be one), and had taken this with him on the march of the Julian's army to Persia.

Which is more likely?

mountainman

These are both good points to be considered.

The silence is deafening.

spin

I didn't indicate that your view is that Eusebius made it up off his own bat, so you can't seriously charge me with misrepresenting you.

But it's probably best that I don't encourage your folly any further.

mountainman

??? And if you're sitting on the fence with chronology just say so.

aa5874

Based on the present existing evidence from antiquity the Jesus cult of Christians most likely or probably started in the 2nd century between c 115 CE and c 135 CE.

1. The Dead Sea Scrolls[Jewish writings] have been dated by paleography and C 14 up to the 1st century and there is NO mention whatsoever or awareness of Jesus of Nazareth or a Jesus cult and their teachings.

2. The writings of Philo [a Jew] up to c 50 CE do not mention or show any awareness of Jesus of Nazareth or a Jesus cult and their teachings.

3. The writings of Josephus [a Jew] up to c 100 CE do NOT mention Jesus of Nazareth or a Jesus cult and their writings. Josephus claimed the Jews expected a Messianic ruler c 70 CE but he NEVER did come.

4. Tacitus a Roman writer up to c 115 CE did NOT mention a Messianic Jewish ruler called Jesus or that Jesus was the predicted Messianic ruler of the Jews but instead claimed Vespasian was the predicted Messianic ruler in Hebrew Scripture.

5. Suetonius a Roman writer up to c 115 CE did NOT mention a Messianic Jewish ruler called Jesus or that Jesus was the predicted Messianic ruler of the Jews but instead claimed Vespasian was the predicted Messianic ruler in Hebrew Scripture.

6. Cassius Dio a Roman writer up to c 235 CE claimed Vesapasian healed the Blind by spitting in the eyes and healed the lame with a touch and did NOT mention Jesus or a Jesus cult during the time of Vespasian.

7. The mention of a crucified man worshiped by Christians by a Non-Apologetic source is by Lucian of Samosata around the mid 2nd century.

8. Writings to the Emperors of Rome explaining the teachings of the Jesus cult of Christians, the origin of their cult, and their Gods are from the 2nd century by Aristides, Justin Martyr and Melito.

9. ALL NT manuscripts that have been found are dated to the 2nd century of later.

10.Celsus, a Greek writer, was Impacted by the Jesus story and cult late in the 2nd century.

11. None of the disciples of Jesus have been corroborated by non-Apologetic sources to have lived in the 1st century.

12. None of the family of Jesus have been corroborated by non-apologetic writers to have lived in the 1st century.

13. The genealogy of Mary, the supposed mother of Jesus, is unknown in the 1st century and was NOT even declared in the Canon.

14. The arguments and controversies among the Jesus cult about the nature of Jesus are found in the 2nd century or later.

15. Apologetic sources in the 2nd century developed the Theology of the Jesus cult without the Pauline writings by using the story of Jesus and Hebrew Scripture.

Tommy

I get the impression that the NT sources were written in a late first century apocalyptic-messianic climate and transposed their content back to known figures from earlier times: Herod the Great, Tiberius, Caiphus, Antipas etc.

jakejonesiv

I can agree with that. Maybe a bit earlier with Cerinthus.

Clivedurdle

There is a Roman Villa at Brading Isle of Wight that dates to about 250. One of the floor mosaics has the signs of the four apostles in the corners, but the central motif is a classic Roman scene.

It is very easy to read stuff in that is not there, especially as biblical archaeology has a renowned history pf proving their assumptions.

Might that not be a very badly drawn picture of someone escaping from a ship fire in shallow water?

And i thought the prison at Megiddo was the earlist xian site, but that talks of the god jesus christ!

outhouse

True

But more towards 50CE with Paul.


And anyone who claims different had better do a bang up job trying to prove Paul a later account, because so far, no one has with any credibility.



[side note its Caiaphas]