mountainman

Many scholars have made an attempt of the number of christians
living in the pre-nicene period, in Rome, in Judea, in Alexandria,
and in other places in between. Various parameters are used in
the estimates of the numbers involved at various stages in this
epoch, such as the number of bishops and their flocks mentioned
thoughout HE.

Many hundred of thousands --- apparently --- of prenicene
christians lived their lives and died, and one would expect
that all of them were not devoured by wild beasts, etc.

Surely one would expect to find a gravestone, or a cemetry
mentioning something related to "christian", with enough of
a likelihood as indicated by the above estimates.

Yet there are none. Why?

The Catholic Church website has this to say about
Early Roman Christian Cemeteries:

Sources of the History of the Catacombs

There is but the faintest hope that any new documents will ever turn up to illustrate the pre-Constantinian period of the ancient cemeteries of Rome. Their place is taken necessarily by late martyrologies, calendars, Acts of the martyrs, writings of popes, historico-liturgical books of the Roman Church, and by old topographies and itineraries come down to us from the Carlovingian epoch.

Who would like to offer a plausible explanation as to reason
we have no archeological evidence of pre-nicene christian
cemetries or gravestones.



Pete

spin

You've simply ignored the Catacombs of Saint Callixtus which I have previously referred you to.

This might whet your appetite.


spin

neilgodfrey

Elsa Gibson's "The 'Christians for Christians' Inscriptions of Phrygia. Greek Texts, Translation and Commentary (or via: amazon.co.uk)" (1978) discusses third century Christian funerary texts. p.4 "The 'Christians for Christians' formula is pre-Constantinian. One inscription is dated to 248/9 A.D. . . . ."


There's also Graydon Snyder's "Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine (or via: amazon.co.uk)" (1985)

As per the title this work illustrates Christian culture (mostly funerary) 180 to 313 c.e. Snyder lists a conservative 62 pre-constantinian mostly funerary/catacomb inscriptions. I especially love the late first/early second century sarcophagi such as that of Sta Maria Antiqua. He even cites a pre-constantinian house-church (at Dura Europos).

Snyder concludes with a discussion of why Christian culture did not differentiate itself until after 180, though his explanation seems a bit circular to me leaving the question hanging: "A.D. 180 was the date at which the Christian subculture was willing to say to the majority culture that it existed and had a right to exist. Because of that courage...." (pp164/5)

mountainman

I do have these Catacombs written down on my exceptions list
with your name against it (sincere thanks again btw) and with the
notations about distinguishing between the citations of archeology
and the citations of the Vatican Tour Guide fraternity, but as yet
have not had the time to do any legwork in that region of the
topography for me to distinguish the differences.

(Thanks for your patience btw in this issue)

Thanks also neil.

I can see that I have some reading to do on the archeology.

It would be better for me to go through each of the citations
relating to the all of the above, and return to this subject.

Why dont I have a few undergraduates at my disposal?

BLATANT ADVERTISEMENT

Ancient and late antiquity history and/or archeological undergraduates
sought for interesting research project and thesis entitled:

Did Constantine create christianity?

APPLY BY POST

Of course, if anyone has sufficient information about any one
specific citation, in a detailed form, by which I, and any other
objective rational and scientific-minded person in this forum,
may clearly see the unmistakable evidence of "christianity" in
the archeological record prior to the rise of Constantine (306 CE)
then I would count it as a personal favor for dumping the entire
data set in some thread here.

You see, my thesis is such that one citation of this nature will
refute it, if the citation is sufficiently "objectively scientific".

For example, I intend to refute the following citations:

1) Anything relating to the Dura Europos christian citations.
2) The "christianity" of the Inscription of Abercius, dated 216 CE

If I am refuted, I can go back to the farm and not worry about any
of this stuff any more. I dont intend to become a christian if I learn
that we have clear scientific and/or archeological evidence of pre-Nicene
christianity.

But at that point I can at least say that I followed an idea though
to its conclusion in a sufficient fashion to have it shown to be wrong.

This may sound a very strange admission, however there is very little
EGO in my persistence and search for the answer to the above question.
Contrary to assertions made against me, I am not doing this out of spite,
or vindictiveness, or any pagan or anti-christian motives. I see myself
as a neutrality, quite peaceful, and capable of being convinced by DATA.

I dont have these above books, and the ones cited by spin at the basis
of other claims concerning pre-nicene christian archeology.

As this forum admits discussion on history related to the christian bible
(first bound by Constantine) I had hoped someone could hit me with
the detailed data of a citation which would blow my thesis out of the
water.

The whole objective of this research is to find one counter-exception.
Why read all these books if I am wrong about my purposeful thesis?

I would just rather be convinced I am wrong, and go back to the farm
(like Diocletian, whom at the moment I am convinced had never heard
of the word, or the tribe, or the religion, of christianity) and grow
spuds.


Best wishes,



Pete Brown
Did Constantine create christianity?

wiccan windwalker

mountainman...how on earth do you write a "purposeful THESIS" without having read even the most basic seminal treatises on the subject matter most critical to your thesis? sheesh..... you SAY you are intellectually neutral but the subtext of your query suggests you are quite partisan..and, forgive the suggestion...quite intellectually lazy as well.

mountainman

The subject matter of historical research into antiquity and later antiquity is generally considered to be very broad, and multi-stranded. I have spent the last 14 months or so covering as much ground as I can, on a daily basis.

My research notes are referenced above, but are not up to date.
You can get an idea of the ground I have been trying to cover by
looking at an index of the discussion threads I have commenced
in this forum.

I understand the principle of doing the hard yards, because I have
done them in other areas and other disciplines. See my website -
I am a database professional and inventor, and I dont call 14 months
"hard yards" in this discipline of history, where one could spend
decades without knowing too much.

I am simply looking for a short-cut.
If my thesis is wrong, give me the data.

Until then, or until I myself find a proper and irrefutable scientific
and/or archelogical citation by which I can convince myself, yes,
look at that, we have evidence of "christianity" before 312 CE,
all I am doing is looking myself for something that should have been
looked for long ago.

I dont mind looking, and researching. Surely my website testifies
to this. Did you do your research before responding? Anyway,
wiccan person, student of life, be well.




Pete

wiccan windwalker

pete, with all due respect, any first year seminary student could show you the evidence you seek. A two minute google search will as well. Neil Godfrey just gave you some sources and there are many many more. Archaeological evidence of pre-Constantinian Christianity is firmly established. Please tell us we are all missing somehting here!

mountainman

In the case of:

1) Dating of prenicene NT papyrus fragments is via paleography.
2) There are only 2 C14 citations: a) 350 CE; b) 280 +/- 60 CE.
3) The archeological citation for Dura Europa is here refuted.
4) The citation with respect to the Inscription of Abercius is here refuted.
5) The citations to the "Early Church Fathers" we view as Eusebian fiction.

While I am awaiting the detailed citations contained in the above two
texts, if you happen to have other archeological and/or scientific
evidence which can objectively demonstrate the existence of even
one christian (ie: a member of "the tribe of christians" as described
by Josephus' fourth century interpolator, Eusebius) then you have
my permission to make the citation.

Otherwise, from a logical standpoint, it is not impossible that what
the world today knows as the phenomenom of christianity was first
invented as an imperial scam in the fourth century, under the supreme
imperial mafia thug Constantine, out of the whole cloth.

Said theory explains a number of historical issues:

0) The words of Arius (there was a time he was not) and the
true nature of what is called "The Arian Controversy".
1) Julian's invectives ("a fiction of men composed by wickedness")
2) The utter destruction of the writings of Apollonius of Tyana.
3) The attempted destruction of Philostratus' "Life of Apollonius".
4) The persecution, plunder, death and genocide (of "pagans") under
the first christian regimes from Constantine, as explicitly outlined in
the work by Vlasis Rassias, Demolish Them! (Athens 1994)
5) Comparison between JC and Apollonius had to await the invention of JC.
6) Rufinus's Epilogue to
"Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen", otherwise
known as "the Book Concerning the Adulteration of the
Works of Origen."
7) Destruction of "pagan literature" within 100 years of Nicaea.
8) The real reason that Eusebius was directed to make the TF.
(Constantine wanted a priority date for the fiction, to keep it at
arm's distance from his own time, lest anyone should suspect
that the:
You have made two appeals to authority WWW.
Make your next response with a data citation.
It is the only authority I will respect.
You may refute the theory.
Good luck.




Pete Brown

spin

And exactly what problem do you have with the state of Greek palaeography of the period??

Exactly which texts have been tested??

This is delusional. The linked text doesn't deal with the archaeological context and is ignorant about what was there. I cited a textual source for mountainman to check out regarding the frescoes, but he will not consult it. mountainman shows no knowledge of the full range of frescoes present and depends on the vagueries of what is available on internet, when it is obviously lacking on this occasion.

As the archaeological context necessitates that the house church was covered over well before the Parthian assault of Dura-Europos there is a closed context of prior to 256 CE for the frescoes which represent the risen Jesus and the three women at the tomb, as well as the healing of the paralytic. This is an obvious falsification of the Grand Conspiracy.

Occam's razor excludes this view. There are so many discordant points of view in the early church fathers, that one has to postulate the "editor-in-chief", as mountainman would have Eusebius, would have to be responsible for imposing all these points of view, the heresies the diverse church discussions as to theology, inventing them from nothing. It is much more economical to account for the myriad of differences to different authors writing at different times.

Umm, Arius rejected the same essence theory and claimed that Jesus was begotten, ie "there was a time he was not". Arius assume the existence of Jesus, but that it started and was not from eternity.

I have shown on a few occasions that mountainman simply doesn't understand Julian's text.

The Grand Conspiracy lives only in the mind of mountainman. It is based on his conjectures and has no substantive evidence for it, though he has been crapping on about it here for a long time now.


spin

post tenebras lux

Hi spin, unless you have a copy of Julian's text that you can reference (and if you do, please reference it) your comment above is extremely misleading.

How have you shown that Pete doesn't understand Julian's text?