Originally Posted by mountainman

I have ever always asserted that I am willing to be disproved
either in full or in part by the provision of appropriate archeological
and/or scientific evidence. I do not pretend to be infallible or to
offer anything other than a best-guess scenario for a sketch of
an alternative history of antuqity in which both the appearance
and the rise of christianity coincided with the appearance and rise
of the emperor Constantine.

I the end, all we have here in 2007 with respect to the period 000-325
are theories of history, which by all objective and scientifically minded
logic need to have the utmost and maximal integrity with respect to
all archeological and/or scientific citations. We are all dealing with
theories of history.

Specifically, we are still dealing with a theory of history written and
assembled from scanty records of the past for this period 000-325.
This theory of history was published under Constantine, and was
written by Eusebius Pamphilus of Cesarea. The entire foundation
of BC&H Studies rests upon the backbone of Eusebian history, but
it is possible that the Eusebian history is a pseudo-history.

Originally Posted by J-D

What makes you think there should be a BC&H consensus? Why shouldn't different posters have different views?

I, for example, am not asserting the truth of any particular chronology. You, on the other hand, sometimes appear to be, although at other times you appear to be asserting only its possibility, not its truth.

If somebody (and this would include you) does assert the truth of a particular chronology, it seems reasonable and fair to ask their grounds for doing so. On the other hand, insisting that somebody assert the truth of a particular chronology does not seem reasonable and fair to me. People should be allowed to say 'I don't know'.

Originally Posted by aa5874

I didn't want to belabor the point, but possibilty 1 is my selection, after investigation.

Originally Posted by J-D

What I asked you was:

'Are you now asserting only that your 'fourth century invention' hypothesis is a possibility, or are you asserting that it is the most likely possibility? If you are asserting that it is the most likely possibility, what basis do you have for that assertion?'

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

And you followed that list with the assertion that the myth of Jesus' magical conception was, alone, sufficient to eliminate "all logical possibilities".

It is this claim I would like you to support because it appears to me to be utterly false.

Originally Posted by mountainman

Or they should just remain silent.

Originally Posted by mountainman

At present (IMO) I think the most likely possibility
is that christianity is a fourth century phenomenom.

The basis for this assertion is that there is no physical
evidence for it (outside its own literary "tradition")
before the fourth century.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Prove that it is false.

Originally Posted by J-D

It is false because it commits the fallacy of composition.

Originally Posted by aa5874

Prove it.