mountainman

As I stated quite some time back J-D,
provide one unambiguous citation that
demonstrates to anyone here that there
were christians before Constantine
invented them, and I'll be refuted.

It is really that simple.


This forum does relate to Biblical History
does it not? Historical evidence J-D,
not rhetoric.



Best wishes,



Pete

Jubal_DiGriz

Wait, what? You're saying Constantine invented Christianity? It's widely agreed that he consolidated it into a single authoritarian church, and had tremendous influence, but he was hardly the inventor of it. What we think of what a Christian is now is different from what it meant five hundred years ago, which was different from what it meant before Constantine's time, but that doesn't mean there were no Christians.

You want a quote? Try The Entire Gospel. It was certainly written by followers of Christ (whoever that was), involved in a religious movement, and it was all very likely written before Constantine was born. See I and II Corinthians for some organizational materials, and historical evidence of a wide Christian/Christ-worshiping movement.

If that's not enough, here's a link to a biography for a prominent Christian who was doing his thing some fifty years before Constantine was born.

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/cyprian.php

And just it case you might have some problem with the article, might I point out that references are given at the bottom, many of which are taken from Cyprian himself.

EDIT/ADDENDUM: After looking for your posts a bit more carefully, and perusing your website, it seems you're embarking on a full-fledged scholarly proof of this idea. To put it crassly but honestly, are you insane? As in, incapable of distinguishing fantasy from reality? If you've done any kind of scholarship into early Christianity (which you obviously have) with a modicum of objectivety (which you clearly haven't), denying that a religious movement centered around a Jesus Christ existed before Constantine is ludicrous. Your "pagan/Christian: thing, whatever. That in the ancient world words were used well before being written down seems obvious to me, but I'm not a linguist and I get your point. That Constantine was a brilliant, manipulative opportunist isn't really in question anymore (by scholars, at least).

But how on earth can you justify this even to yourself, when there are centuries of documents and analysis that go against even the possibility of this being true? This level of self-delusion is on the level of 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Constantine took a pre-existing phenomenon that had the potential to threaten Roman rule in some parts of the Empire, and he turned it into a tool to help consolidate his rule. Is that so difficult to wrap your head around?

mountainman

just it case you might have some problem with the thesis,
might I point out that all --- indeed everything --- we know
about not only Cyprian, but the entire pre-nicene epoch, is
descendent from the writings prepared by Eusebius 312-324.

Our position is that Eusebius tendered fiction not history.
He did it because he was ordered to do sdo by THE BOSS.

Our position is that Cyprian and Jesus were equally fictive.
Constantine forged three type of things:

1) wholesale fiction and fabrication.
2) forgery of extant authors (Origen, Porphyry, etc)
3) interpolation of extant authors (TF, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc)


Best wishes,

Pete

Jubal_DiGriz

I call your bullshit.

First. I find it incredible that one man could have invented and forged three hundred years of literary history, complete with authors of varying voices, opinions, history, and knowledge, with the occasional clue that indicates accurate historical context, and then distributing it in such a way that contemporaries will accept them as originals, and would base entire theologies off of them, from geographically diverse regions. Moreso that he did this in twelve years. Ever more so that it was completely unnecessary. Constantine, as Emperor, could actually create a whole new religion and force it into effect, and not need to go to the absurd lengths to forge a tradition behind it. And even if all that did happen, miraculously, how did 1700 years of scholars fail to notice the forgery? Scholars, especially modern ones, are very very good at that sort of thing. All you have are some crude guesses and sensationalist claims, and a few out-of-context quotes.

Second, and by far most important where did the Gospels come from? You completely ignored that part of my post. Did Eusebius write that, too? Does somehow all this talk about Jesus, Christ, and literary providence somehow not have anything to do with Christianity?

<edit>

Toto

Hi Jubal: A lot of us have tried to say that more diplomatically. Philosopher Jay has tried to say that mountainman is a good corrective to the idea that pre-Eusebian texts should be taken at face value, but even he cannot support the idea that Eusebius forged the entirety of Christian history up to his time, including the heretics and the contradictory parts.

mountainman seems to have started this an an exercise to see where the idea would take him, and that could be a useful exercise. But he is unwilling to admit that it has taken him crashing into a wall. There are archeological remains of a 3rd century church in Dura-Europa, but he is forced to figure out a way around that.

It would be a radical enough thesis to say that Christianity was invented in the last half of the second century, but it would be more supportable. I don't know why mountainman is committed to his 4th century date. But the rules of this forum do not forbid posting strange theories that have no evidence.

Johnny Skeptic

I no longer have a copy of Rodney Stark's "The Rise of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)," but I recall that in chapter 1 Stark discusses early archaeological and papayrological (is there such a word?) evidence regarding the growth of Christianity. I forget exactly what he said, but if anyone has a copy of the book, please take a look at what Stark says in chapter one and let us know what he says.

Toto

You can view The Rise of Christianity on Google Books, but I don't see such a chapter in a quick look.

eta: Stark relies on secondary sources to a large extent. That's not where I would expect to find the information you want.

spamandham

I've reviewed the thread again, and I see reference made to the story, but I don't see the story itself or a link. Is this something you cover on your site somewhere?

spamandham

If Pete is correct that these terms are found nowhere prior to the fourth century, I would say it's reasonable to conclude it was not in widespread usage for a long time prior to that. It might have been in wide spread usage for a short period prior, or it might have been in limited usage for a long time prior.

The evidence, real or forged as Pete claims, suggests that by the end of the 2nd century, Christianity was wide spread. The claim that the first usage of the terms coincides with their actual invention is not out of whack under that consideration, whether Pete is right or wrong about his forgery hypothesis.

Jubal_DiGriz

Sorry, that was a good intervention. I was a bit over the line, there.