Timetospend

Agreed as to the gospels.

My response was to post #66. In that post, the writer generalized it to the Bible, which allows for a wider use of Scriptures.

Thanks,

mountainman

And of course there is the observation that who on
earth is going to argue the testimony of four independent
eye-witness accounts in a court of N-th century Roman law?

When Constantine embraced the faith, he added his weight
behind the interpretation of this law. He embraced the faith
c.312 CE, and after doing so for 12 years, finally enforced
the faith as part of his political strategy in the empire with
effect from Nicaea.

We must not forget that Constantine was totally "justified"
because by the time Nicaea arrived, he was incumbent for
a dozen years in the ancient well-repected role of
Pontifex Maximus, associated for over a thousand years
with the (political and military) ruler of Rome.

So if the Pontifex Maximus OK'd the four independent
testimonies in the Roman court system, which brave
soul was about to oppose his will, and what reason
would anyone have for opposing his will?

Yeah, sure, four is a nice elemental number.
But taxation was Constantine's primary motivation.
The dollar. Have a squiz at: Chrysargyron



Best wishes,



Pete Brown

spin

Well, not exactly. You don't have the gradation of power that you find in Polycarp's letter to the Philippians: kings (which would seem to refer to emperors), potentates (which are Roman officials, ie provincial governors) and princes (which would be the rulers of local principalities). Not really the same, is it andrewcriddle? (Besides, when do you think 1 Timothy was written and on what evidence do you arrive at that date?)

This is followed by prayer for the persecutors and haters (of christians) (which naturally demonstrates that the kings, potentates and princes were contemporary with the writer). When was there persecution of christians in the second century? Certainly no indication during the time of Trajan when Ignatius was supposed to have lived. We have to wait until the time of Hadrian and Pliny the Younger, but of course that doesn't fit the indications regarding Ignatius. There were also persecutions under Marcus Aurelius, so the time of the two kings seems like a reasonable option for the persecutions alluded to in Polycarp's Philippians. It's before the time Irenaeus was writing, so there is no problem regarding his mention of Ignatius. And Ignatius was still alive when Polycarp wrote his letter, as can be gleaned internally. the 160's doesn't seem too strange. The only problem is later writers.


spin

spin

How could one expect you to know?


spin

Solitary Man

spin's dating is inexcusable.

First, kings doesn't have to refer to the emperors. Even if it does, it can still refer to the line of emperors. Christians didn't live only under one reign, but multiple ones. It's absurd to think he's referring to a specific instance.

Secondly, there were persecutions under Trajan. Trajan even orders it to Pliny.

If aChristian can smell the radical dating BS, I'm sure most here can too.

Solitary Man

spin

Sorry, you're partially right for a change. In too much of a rush to respond right at the moment. Later....

andrewcriddle

Polycarp is generally thought to allude to the pastorals on several occasions, hence the pastorals were substantially earlier than Polycarp, hence Polycarp and the author of the pastorals did not both write during the early years of Marcus Aurelius.

In any case, IF "Kings" was only an appropriate term to use during the rule of two emperors and this situation first happened after the midlle of the 2nd century, then I would be surprised if the author of 1 Timothy (purporting to be writing in the 1st century) would use it even in the somewhat unlikely event that he really wrote during the early years of Marcus Aurelius. It would be two obvious an anachronism.

Andrew Criddle