jgibson000

6 centuries??? When do you date the completion of the translation of the entirety of the Hebrew Bible into Greek?

JG

mountainman

1st - ??? - Domitian (emp:081-096) "Persecution debated"

Thanks for your persistence and attention to detail.

The reason that I wrote that stub for further research concerning
the claims of "christian persecution" during the rule of the above
emperor, was the citation I found to Smallwood in this regard on
this page

And while we're at it, are we then in agreement that we have
indeed no histories written in the rule of Constantine other than
the texts written by the hand of authors commonly recognised
as "ecclesiastical historians"? (Of course we are here setting
aside the scriptores of the Historia Augusta on account of the
present "uncertainty" regarding its dating to the reign of C.)

J-D

The Hebrew Bible and Greek Septuagint are not covered by the statement. The statement alleges the fabrication of 'all records of or references to Christianity allegedly dating from before the age of Constantine'. The Hebrew Bible and the Greek Septuagint are not alleged to contain records of or references to the historical existence of Christianity, and so are not covered by the allegation of fabrication. In other words, if you properly understand what we are talking about, your saving clause is unnecessary. But so far we seem to be basically understanding each other.By all means. The next step is this.

You appear to be asserting that your answer to the question 'How did Christianity originate?' is a better answer than the one offered by rival alternative hypotheses.

Do you agree so far?

jgibson000

Which shows again not only the wholesale inadequacy of your research (you rely on Wikkipedia???), but how you refuse to consult anything except what you find on the internet, how you are absolutely unable to distinguish what is good and what is bad internet source material, how you never question the accuracy of the "citations" you bring forth to support your view, especially if these "citations" cohere with and support what you want to believe , and how you never check the source of your "sources" and your second hand "citations" to see whether your sources have got it right (which in the case of Smallwood, it doesn't. In the article referred to but curiously not named, let alone quoted -- "Domitian's Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism" -- Smallwood says no such thing as your "source" says she does).

And yet you still expect people to view you as well-informed and an authority on the subjects you write about and to take what you say seriously.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

JG

mountainman

Not with this. I have been prepared to classify the theory space
of all theories relevant to the fields at a web page entitled:

An Alternate Theory of the History of Christianity:
Chapter 6: Theories of the History Christianity involving Fraud & Fiction

This article is prefaced with a discussion of HJ and MJ theories.
At no time do I assert rivalry or superiority.
I have listed my theory as the last on the list.

I have gone in quest of refutation by comparing my theory
to citations in the fields of ancient history, archeology,
and all available scientific sources. My claim has never
been one of superiority, but of falsifiability in the standard
scientific sense.

Over.

mountainman

I expect all my students to have a list of stubs for further research.
I have never yet found a single book or a single person who carried
with them the ends of all the threads of ancient history. I expect
people to examine the evidence independently and impartially.

J-D

In that case, I can only repeat what I said earlier on this thread:

My judgement, for whatever it may be worth, is that you have never given any grounds to justify the conclusion that your account is a more likely explanation than the alternatives. So I regard it as a provocative but unsubstantiated speculation. I’m not opposed to discussing it, but when you won’t attempt to justify the views that you are putting forward it cripples discussion at the outset. We know what you think: the question is, why do you think what you think? Even if it is a possibility (which I’m not now disputing), what makes you think it is more than a mere possibility?

mountainman

The fact that there is at the present time no critical and
refuting citation from ancient history and/or archeological
science for the unambiguous existence of anything "christian"
external to the "christian document tradition" before 312 CE.

3DJay

But, Eusebius of Caesarea was a supporter of Arius. By the end of Constantine's reign, the Arians had managed to have many Trinitarians banished. Constantine is said to have been baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, another Arian.

Why would Eusebius of Caesarea both follow Constantine's orders and support Arianism?


Peace

jgibson000

What specific criteria do you use to determine that something like Pliny's correspondence or Celsus or Fronto or any other piece of literary evidence for the existence of Christianity that is accepted by critical historians as coming from the 2nd century CE is not to be accepted?

What specific criteria do you use to determine that archaeological evidence is ambiguous?

JG