mountainman

The inference that christianity existed before Constantine
is to be drawn from the desk of one fourth century author
who sat at the right hand of a malevolent despot at his
military supremacy party, namely Eusebius.

The inference that christianity existed before Constantine
actually has no evidence other than the say-so of Eusebius.

If you have a citation to evidence of christianity
existent before Constantine, what is it? Or put it this
way. What is the best evidence that you would point
at in order to assure me that the inference that christianity
existed before Constantine is not without support.


Pete

wordy

Pete, I know nothing so my take on it is worth nothing but I guess that if you have challenged christians and atheists and bystanders about this for many years and nobody has shown you evidence that satisfy you then you have done something very good.

One thought though. Could you be exceptionally critical and maybe not accept evidence that others find very plausible?

Could you cite or quote what evidence that nearly made it, the best among all those you rejected, not enough to persuade you but the one coming near or to be best among them?

The reason I ask is to get a feeling for where you set your standard, what is within reach and what is clearly outside of it?

wordy

Pete, my very wild hunch.

As far as I know the Bible doesn't mention the Qumran community. Maybe they didn't exist but we have their and the Nag Hammadi texts. Are not they before Constantine?

They maybe are not about "our" Jesus but somebody acting in similar way. Being a teacher and having a charismatic such teaching.

So could not this Eusebius refer to them but name them crhistian? Maybe Paul if he existed was chasing them? They maybe have sympathizers at the places Paul wrote to. Yes, I know maybe just show how little I know.

I find this link http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/InTest/Qumran.htm
Good luck getting something tangible someday.

PS

is this a fraud then?
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html

Asking google if it is a fraud this text showed up.

J-D

Well, perhaps. But I don't think so. Let's take a look at what you have to offer.Oh but it is ... as you yourself are about to demonstrate.All of which would be reasons to believe that a thesis is true. Indeed, that's close to a definition of evidence: evidence is reason to believe that a thesis is true. Once you grasp this, it emerges that what you suppose to be my error is no error.Actually, I haven't seen this, although you have asserted it. But that's not the point. The question is: do you have any evidence for your thesis that Christianity did not exist before Constantine? ...... And the answer is: No. All those pieces of evidence are consistent with your hypothesis that Christianity did not exist before Constantine; but they are also all consistent with the alternative hypothesis that Christianity did exist before Constantine. None of the pieces of evidence you offer falsifies the hypothesis that Christianity did exist before Constantine. None of them get us any closer to deciding between the two hypotheses.

J-D

You are the one who has asserted a thesis. I haven't. You have asserted the thesis that Christianity did not exist before Constantine, and your attempts to cite evidence for this thesis have been inadequate.

mountainman

You'll have a problem with coins, architecture, literature,
archeological relics, tomb inscriptions, and the contemporary
accounts of probably hundreds of authors who wrote during
the life of Henry VIII, and you will have a very big problem
with carbon dating citations with respect to the existence
and date of Henry VIII. History will throw up evidence to
refute the theory that Henry VIII was ficitious.

The only evidence that at the present moment has been
identified as being antithetical to the thesis that Constantine
invented christianity in the fourth century are the list
of exceptions --- reference previously provided.

"There is nothing new in the world
except the history you do not know".

--- Harry S. Truman
33rd US President (1945-1953).

mountainman

Thanks wordy.

Yes, of course, a very reasonable question.

I would refer you (and others) to this list of exceptions:
Index of exceptions against the theory

Exception 1:
Dating of old christian papyrus manuscripts & fragments [c.120 CE]


Exception 2:
The (presumed) christian church of Dura Europos [c.256 CE] & papyrii fragments

Exception 3:
The Inscription of Abercius, presumed christian [c.216 CE]

Exception 4:
The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia, presumed prenicene.

I have written artciles on each of these things, which
ordinarily are interpretted as being some form of evidence
that there were in fact christians on the planet in the
prenicene epoch.


I have yet to add the following:

5) The Catacombs of St. Callixtus (and all Vatican Catacombs)
6) The recent archeological discoveries at the Megiddo Prison.


I hope this answers your question(s) wordy, but if not,
just ask again.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman

I agree with your "wild hunch".

Eusebius from the fourth century was looking for something
in the past by which he could try and make it seem as though
the new and strange (Constantinian) Roman religion of the
fourth century, was in fact related to historical events in the
first century, second century and third centuries.

So he pointed at the "Tribe of Essenes" and he lifted the
description of the philosophical, religious and social practices
of the essenes from Philo and Josephus, and applied them
to new testament texts in the gospels. Have a good look
through A tabulation of some of the essential parallels
between the philosophy of the Essenes
and Constantine's New testament.

Essenic Philosophy and its Parallels ...
The following tabulation has been taken from the work
of Kersey Graves "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors",
Chapter 31: Christianity Derived from Heathen and
Oriental Systems, a parallel exhibition of the precepts
and practical lives of Christ and the Essenes.

The author presents the Essene philosophical writings
as being "condensed from Philo, Josephus, and other
authors.". The tabulation follows:

Essene
Philo says, "It is our first duty to seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness;" so the Essenes believed and taught.


Eusebian/Constantinian
"Seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all else shall be added (Matt. vi 33; Luke xii. 31.)







YES, I would be inclined to think that it is.

Many independent scholars think it is an interpolation.
If you have a look at the list of citations I listed by
century, all those in the first century are generally
regarded as "null events".

mountainman

I disagree with your assessment.

Here is a detailed list of this same evidence again
the first two categorically support the thesis that
the new testament is a fiction, and was invented
by a malevolent despot, Constantine. The rest
of the items strongly suggest it.


1) The words of Arius


What were the words of Arius?

There was time when He was not.
[Ed: He did not exist before Constantine.]

Before He was born He was not.
[Ed: He is a fabrication.]

He was made out of nothing existing.
[Ed: He is a fiction.]

He is/was from another subsistence/substance.
[Ed: He is fictitious.]

He is subject to alteration or change.
[Ed: He is fictitious, as are his gospels.]

These are the words of Arius, which the attendees at the Council of Nicaea were asked to vote upon. Arius and the few who sided with whatever these words implied, were banished. Arius was probably poisoned within 5 years. (See Sir Isaac Newton's notes on the actions of Athanasius).

Notably, all but Arius and these few signed on Constantine's dotted line, and probably became bishops of Constantine's new and strange Roman religion overnight. They felt it better to side with the new warlord and military supremacist, seeing as though he had gone to all this trouble of assembling an army of literature and documentation in support of the new god.

2) The words of Emperor Julian

Need I repeat them again in this forum?



3) The political climate depicted during the rise of Constantine.

See The Council of Nicaea.
Evidence of malevolent despotism.
Evidence of a dictator, murderer, etc.

4) The fact that Constantine first published the complete "bible".

It is a historical fact JD, whether ot not you wish
to countenance it, that Constantine was the first
person to bind together the Hebrew and
new testament texts.

5) The subsequent christian persecution of pagans for 250 years after the council of Nicaea

Ancient historical citations to events are
from the Theodisian Codex, and are as
outlined in Vlasis Rassias, Demolish Them!
Published in Greek, Athens 1994.

DO I need to post these citations again?

Summary of the above

The year 325 CE was a turbulent and chaotic boundary
event in the history of antiquity. The first 2 issues
above point to an implemented fiction.

The 3rd issue (Nicaea) has never been politically
explored as a military supremacy party.

The 4th issue speaks for itself, and the question placed
here in another thread is why was Constantine the first
to bind the bible together when the cast of hundreds
of half-literate "prenicene christian bishops" were
busy publishing their own herecies and at the same
time passing down the Hebrew texts in greek?

The 5th issue is very clearly evidence in favour of
christianity starting from Constantine, since the
persecutions are documented to have started
from the year 314 CE, and accelerate in no
uncertain terms.

It seems reasonable therefore, on the basis
of the foregoing issues, and the evidence,
to continue to research the thesis of ancient
history that Constantine invented christianity.

mountainman

Hi wordy,

My standard is scientific and/or archeologically
verifiable evidence acceptable in the field of
ancient history.

We dont have a letter from Jesus.
But we have a few bad ones from Constantine.

We have alot of prenice "christian authors".
But we have a deviously lavish Eusebius.

We have Arius and Emperor Julian pointing
the fingure at Constantine. We have alot of
money changing hands in the fourth century.

Land tax in 350 CE had tripled within living memory.
We have treasures moved to Briton and buried.
We have the reports of Amminaus Marcillenus.
Times were abysmal under the new state religion.
It was all very new. Noone knew what was going on.

A generation later and people knew even less.

I anticipate that archeological finds will prove
interesting in the future, and I just want to
put forward an alternative possibility for the
history of antiquity which may make sense
of these finds.

EG: Julian's three books, Ammianus obituary to
the despot Constantine, etc.

I am willing to be shown wrong. How much
further can I be in reach or out of reach.
Noone yet has found the silver bullet.
So I keep plodding on.

Its been nice talking wordy.
Enjoy summer in the north.


Pete