mountainman

Hi Brian,

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_071.htm

Yes, I am aware that the paleographical dating assessment for
a series of ms fragments are currently cited as pre-Nicaean.

However, if a manuscript were to be written in 325 CE, but in the more
ancient Hadrian script, the paleographic assessment would tend to place
the MS in the time of Hadrian. C14 dating is less prone to error, and
is generally accepted as far more "scientific" than handwriting analsysis.

Thus, although I am aware of these apparent paleographic dating
exceptions to the theory, I do not treat them as critical, as I would
any C14 dating in the pre-Nicaean epoch.

Hope this explains my position.
Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

I am currently defending the position that it is reasonable
to consider that the items of evidence (archeological and
scientific) which have been presented in this forum, on this
thread and others, in support of the inference that there
were a "tribe of christians" on the planet in the pre-Nicaean
epoch, are insufficient to refute the refutation of said inference.

Which evidence to which you obviously subscribe, and to which
I obviously have some reservations, permits you to justify
your opinion, that you "would expect an objective person
to say that you should be ignored."



Pete

mountainman

Joseph Wheless, in "FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY states the case:
for Irenaeus ...
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene...of%20Lyons.htm
and Justin Martyr ...
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene...n%20Martyr.htm


Many were called but few manuscripts were chosen by Constantine.
You should note that there does not exist AFAIK any formal mainstream
relationship between the Nag Hamadi documents, and early christianity.

I think other documents, such as those for example, now shown to be
false, such as the literature relating to Pontius Pilate, and other known
embellishments to the "canonical theme", need be considered also.

I believe that Constantine proceeded with the project over many years,
perhaps decades, and the vast mass of non-canonical gospels, letters,
fictions and other literature was all generated together with what is now
known as the canonical NT. The Roman Emperor was usually considered
next to god himself at that time, by his people, and whatever he endorsed
was particularly "thrice-blessed".

IMO he had the means to generate all this literature, and did so, in order
to make it appear to the people that he was embracing an old tradition,
not a new and strange invention of his own mind. "In Preparation" includes
a literary rationalisation of why christianity is different from the ancients:
the "tribe of jews", "the tribe of Hellenes", "the tribe of Egyptians", etc
each of which had their "ancient tradition".

RE: banished, burned and elsewise suppressed literature:

This is not simple and has multiple issues.
For example:

1) after Nicaea, a new religion was set loose. Whoever had power
exercised it to separate canon and non canon, according to their
understanding.

2) FRAUD is CHARGED: Versions of Josephus, without the TF, would
have existed particulalrly in the east. The writings of Origen, and other
writers, who were "made christians" was still extant without any references
to the standard doctrines of christianity (eg: reference to Jesus, etc).
These manuscripts needed to be destroyed or corrected.
For corrections, see Rufinus on Pamphilus and Origen.

3) OTHER manuscripts, such as the literature of Apollonius, and the
biography of his by Philostratus would have been targetted for deletion
because a) it did not mention the existence of pre-Nicaean christianity,
and b) because the philosophy contained therein was considered
harmful and extraneous, and who-knows-what-reasons.

4) PAGAN Literature could be anything from Plato to Iamblichus, and
the treatises on pythagorean philosophy. This was burnt and destroyed
because it was non-christian, and the list of detailed attrocities performed
by the new and strange christian ROMAN religion let loose at Nicaea,
is best summarised here:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_060.htm


5) OTHER REASONS: We dont know, I think, why the Nag Hamadi ms
were placed there: or who placed them there. AFAIK, there exists a
C14 citation for this (gThomas???? -- dont know) of c.360CE.



Hope this outlines some of the issues,
Best wishes



Pete Brown

mountainman

Thanks for this reference.

The Romans were the PROFESSIONAL RULERS of their empire
for centuries and centuries leading up to Nicaea. Constantine
constructed Constantinople at the crossroads of the silk road
for a good reason, and the continuance and survival of the
Byzantine empire from that city, for the next thousand years,
was assured.
Are the barbarian references to pre-Nicaean bishops via
either Eusebius or Origen?




Pete Brown

Doug Shaver

Oh, just about every word you've posted in defense of your thesis. Typical conspiracy-theory nonsense.

spin

Still nothing serious to say about the churches at Dura-Europos and Megiddo.

mountainman, you can't simply bullshit your way past these things as though they don't exist or as though you can doubletalk them away.

You still haven't dealt with the Latin tradition. Eusebius didn't write in Latin. Lactanitus wrote both before Eusebius and during the reign of Constantine, so obviously christianity existed before Constantine, unless of course you would like to attempt to redefine Lactantius as you have fudged everyone else who you can't deal with. In the end everyone here knows that you are just a profile of Eusebius as well, just late arriving.

Stop the joke. It's neither credible nor funny.


spin

mountainman

Thanks for the allowance Doug.
Have a nice day.


Pete

mountainman

Megiddo is still being excavated, while we speak, and the academic
opinion of its dating is a cross-section of pre-Nicaean and post-Nicaean,
so let the evidence and its presentation continue to be forthcoming
in relation to this, your second citation.

We have already discussed DURA-EUROPA:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_072.htm

The serious archeological citations and detailed arguments by which
it has been asserted that the interior of the house-church at Dura
Europa dates to the period c.256 CE (when the city was taken by the
Persians) is buried somewhere in books published by YALE DIVINITY
college, or similar institution.

Other posters have asked how the dating has been calculated for
the house-church, and even where the location of the house-church
is in relation to the town, and the subsided wall of the town, but even
this information --- you have not presented, but simply asserted.

FInally, even allowing for an early dating, (See the web-page above)
there is no evidence from the avaliable painitings on the walls of
the house-church, that these images depict anything "christian".

They have been lined up in other threads and examined by objective
posters to this forum, and have been found wanting as to their being
some form of "artistic evidence of a christian motif". Seriously, take
any art-work, and some people will see in it their own motifs. Seriously,
do you truly believe that the art and images are "christian", and if
you do, because I am interested in the way the human mind works,
perhaps you could explain why people could believe this without
questioning the absolute nature of their belief.



Precisely which aspect of the "Latin tradition" needs to be covered?
Rufinus (391CE) clearly makes admissions in regard to the translating
of Eusebius/Pamphilus/Origen to Latin in regard to the constant and
incessant requirement of having to correct their DOCTRINES.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=169596

We know others translated to Latin, Eusebius and the NT and OT c.400CE.
Lactantius worked for the new and strange ROman church, under
Constantine. That part appears reasonable certain. So what?

What precise aspect of the Latin tradition is inconsistent with the theory
that there were no references in any literature to "the tribe of christians"
prior to the reign of Constantine.



You dont seem to understand the issue spin.
It is objectively still possible that the true and
correct history of christianity commenced only in
the 4th CE under the supreme imperial mafia thug
Constantine, the Basilica Man of the New and strange
ROMAN church, who considered himself, amongst
other things to be Bishop of Bishops.

Appeal to the ad hominem in this ocean of ascii that you
like to think of as your intellectual swimming pool is useless
to the exercise at hand.

The theory is falsifiable, and refutable. You need to find
one and only one scientific and/or archeological citation
by which any objective man-or-woman-in-the-street
may be convinced, through presentation of the details,
that christianity existed whatsoever at all in the
Pre-Nicaean epoch of antiquity.

Lighten up buddy. I am happy to have the theory refuted
in whole (or part) by such evidence. But it will be evidence
that is considered by a consensus of opinion in this forum
to be scientific and/or archeological, and not simply an
appeal to some authority, or to the ad hominem ascii.

Best wishes,




Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

hallq

Do you realize how many documents would have had to have been forged for your theory to work? Countless works by church fathers, including refutaions of (on your theory) non-existent heretics and (on your theory) non-existent enemies of Christianity. See Irenaeus, Origen, etc. Give it a rest.

mountainman

It is not impossible, hypothetically, that Constantine
applied the same military strategies and logistics for which
he had been known as never losing a battle, except in this
case, it was an arena of the new technology, the generation
(and selective destruction) of traditional literature.

With an entire army of fraudulent pithy correspondence,
squadrons of philosophy, and cohorts of literary stories
of calumny, most of it low-level, he may have succeeded
in fooling the empire, and the world, that his new and
strange ROMAN UNIVERSAL religion had precedent in earlier
centuries, prior to Nicaea.

The TF in Josephus is the pinacle of this wholesome forgery,
and supreme imperial perversion of the traditional literature,
such that it allows Josephus, the well respected historian,
to witness the fictional existence of "the tribe of christians".

The works of the so-called "church fathers", all of which is
gathered together by Eusebius, at his desk at the library
of Caesarea in the 4th CE, are not countless, but finite.

And it is quite likely that the forgeries did not stop with
Eusebius, but that others in the new and strange religion
discovered other new angles, new details, new martyrys,
and new stories to fill in the gaps, and the history of this
most wonderful of "tribes of man".

I wont give it a rest, unless you are able to provide to me
an independent scientific and/or archeological citation by
which anything relevant to this "tribe of christians" can be
ascertained to have existed in the pre-Nicaean epoch.

An appeal to a non-existent authority in this instance will
not suffice. Best wishes,



Pete Brown