Amaleq13

It is not an "attack" to ask for the basis of the asserted expectation and I agree that simply asserting it does not constitute "making a case" for it. Do you intend to do so or are you just going to keep shifting the burden?

You've already been shown the evidence that suggests the expectation is not reasonable and apparently had nothing to refute it as you did not offer anything. Any chance you intend to follow your own advice and actually make an effort to support your expectations?

Ben C Smith

I know the following datum will not change a closed mind, but, for the benefit of the lurkers, To Autolycus 2.22.2 reads:

Οθεν διδασκουσιν ημας αι αγιαι γραφαι και παντες οι πνευματοφοροι, εξ ων Ιωαννης λεγει· Εν αρχη ην ο λογος, και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον, δεικνυς οτι εν πρωτοις μονος ην ο θεος και εν αυτω ο λογος. επειτα λεγει· Και θεος ην ο λογος· παντα δι αυτου εγενετο, και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδεν.

Whence the holy writings and all those borne by the spirit teach us, from among whom John says: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, showing that at first God was alone and the word was in him. Then he says: The word was God; all things came to be through him; and apart from him nothing came to be.

Refer to John 1.1.

Ben.

spamandham

It would be helpful if I knew which of my specific claims you are referring to.

On the other hand, when someone claims that Christianity was "a small persecuted sect" (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...48#post5256448) and so it isn't reasonable to expect hard evidence of it to remain, that is a claim of fact and not opinion, and they do have a burden to demonstrate that Christianity was indeed a small persecuted sect over the entire time period, and geographical region for which the claim is relevant., which includes the entire old world from the 1st through the 3rd centuries.

For example, early 3rd century Christian artifacts from Alexandria would undermine mountainmain's proposal. Is there evidence that Christianity was small and persecuted there in the period prior to Decius?

Amaleq13

The expectation of "hard archaeological evidence". The claim about which this entire tangent is focused.

And what sort of evidence do you imagine might establish that Christianity was a relatively small and persecuted religious sect?

aa5874

May I refer you to Euebius who in "Church History" claimed there were more than one person named John. And, actually the author of gJohn has not been confirmed to be a person named John, an alleged disciple of the unknown Jesus.

"Church History" 3.39.5-6
Now if there were more than one person named John and it is not known who wrote John 1.1, then the questions still remain, When was John 1.1 written and by whom?

It may have been written by Beelzebub, sometime between 90-120 CE.

And, in any event, Athenagoras appear not to be aware of or believe in a physical Jesus, he believed in the Logos, a philosophical son of God.

spamandham

There's been a lot of discussion on this, and I have no intention of trying to substantiate a vague recollection of what I said. Cite the post you are referring to.

How should I know? It's your claim, you figure out how to support it.

(fyi, you can have your smiley back )

Ben C Smith

None of this is relevant to your comment that Theophilus does not mention John.

Ben.

aa5874

Of course it is relevant. You must show that Theophilus mentioned the John, the supposed disciple of Jesus, of gJohn 1.1.

The "Word" of gJohn became flesh and dwelt among us, John 1.14, there is no indication that the "Word" of the John of Theophilus was anything other than philosophical.

And it is erroneous to think that only one person named John existed upto Theophilus who could have called used the "Word" in reference to God.

Ben C Smith

I do not have to show anything about a disciple named John. You did not say that Theophilus fails to mention a disciple named John. You said that he failed to mention John. Period. Were you even aware of 2.22.2 when you wrote that?

Ben.

aa5874

Who wrote John 1.1 and when? Why do you claim Theophilus referrred to gJohn 1.1, when you don't know who wrote gJohn 1.1 and when gJohn 1.1 was written?

It is obvious you just simply cannot show that John in Theophilus refer to John 1.1.