stephan huller

Anyone who claims that there is no evidence for the existence of Christianity before Nicaea has 'issues' - as they say over here. There is evidence. We've gone through this a thousand times here at the site. This isn't good enough for some people who - apparently - expect that there should be Walmart-sized assortment of ancient relics of Christianity. So, given that there is this disconnect between normative scholarship which has no problem with the state of 'the evidence' for the existence of Christianity and the execrable rabble who frequent this site who persist in 'doubting' the existence of a sect that grew into a majority in the late Empire, the question has to be turned around and re-introduced - what causes people to deny the evidence or find it 'inadequate' to accept a pre-Nicene religion?

I think hatred or hostility to Christianity as it survives is a perfectly reasonable explanation. Mental illness is the only other diagnosis.

Jeffrey Gibson

A religion that was predominantly pacifist until Theodosius and after (see A. Harnack, Militia Christi: The Christian Religion & the Military in the First Three Centuries (or via: amazon.co.uk) , R. Bainton, Christian Attititudes Towards War and Peace (or via: amazon.co.uk), C. John Caddoux, the Early Christian Attitude to War (or via: amazon.co.uk) (summarized here), R.J. Sider, The Early Church on Killing (or via: amazon.co.uk) (see a video of Sider summarizing his book here), J-M Hornus It is Not Lawful for me to Fight: Early Christian Attitudes towards War, Violence, and the Stare, G. J. Hering The Fall of Christianity:A study of Christianity, the state and war, and now both Christian Attitudes to War, Peace, and Revolution (or via: amazon.co.uk) by John Howard Yoder, Theodore J. Koontz and Andy Alexis-Baker and Caesar and the Lamb: Early Christian Attitudes on War and Military Service (or via: amazon.co.uk) by ]George Kalantzis) was "probably initially" used in Constantine's case to control the armies?? Really?

Can you tell me what informs your view on this? What have you read on the initial stages of Constantine's rule? Have you read any of the works I mention above?

Is there any reason I should take your claim seriously rather than as something that is "probably" woefully under informed and/or down right wrong?

Jeffrey

aa5874

Who will decide the truth when the veracity of evidence can be questioned?

There are weak or strong arguments based on the quality of evidence.

Virtually all apologetic sources contain stories about Jesus that are false and could not possibly be historical.

Examine the Canonised NT and Apologetic sources that used the books mentioned in the Canon and they are filled with fiction and implausible events which were believed to have happened.

Again, once the Canon and Apologetic sources are rejected as sources of fiction about the history of the Jesus cult then there is very little to support early Christianity before the 4th century.

Again, mountainman appears to reject Apologetics as not historically credible.

Now, I use the writings of Apologetic as HOSTILE witnesses.

I examine writings of Apologetics and identify where they CONTRADICT each other. The contradictions are significant clues.

You must understand that it is completely acceptable universally that one can use the evidence or statements of a Hostile witness.

Many, many Apologetics made contradictory statements that can be used to argue that the Jesus cult originated in the 2nd century like Justin Martyr, Aristides, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Arnobius, Eusebius, Ignatius, Clement of Alexander, Jerome, Ephrem the Syrian, Chrysostom, the Muratorian Canon, and others.

Toto

Pete was not the first to notice this, and his insistence on concluding that they only explanation is a massive forgery has diverted attention from what this actually means.

Jay Raskin published a book, The Evolution of Christs And Christianities (or via: amazon.co.uk) in 2006 which recognizes these points but does not go off into conspiracy land (although it did push the envelop)

Tristan Scott

You're rude, and do not understand the English language. Please note, I did not say "probably" this time.

stephan huller

I have heard no response from anyone to my comparison with various contemporary 'underground' sectarian groups. Yes it is useful to point out 'problems' with this or that. But as any married person can testify the ideal is for poets and dreamers. It all comes down to expectations. Is it unreasonable to suppose that an underground religion - a 'secret association' as Celsus defines Christianity - would leave us no trace of its existence?

Ich habe Dir schon tausend mal gesagt, Du sollst es sein lassen!


German is such a funny language. I can't imagine making love to someone in German. Although part of the reason for that is that I always the voices of my parents in my mind when I think in 'German'.

Jeffrey Gibson

I may very well be, but since the issue is whether you know what you are talking about, my manners have no bearing on the matter at hand. You claim is either an informed one or it isn't.

I don't?

Now who is being rude, not to mention puerile?

In any case, I take it from your prescinding from speaking directly to my question that the answer to it is: "You are correct, Jeffrey. There is no reason you should take my claim seriously since it is indeed an utterly uninformed one and I really have very little knowledge about Constantine and his early policies or early Christianity. I just don't want to admit that I have no idea what I am talking about".

Thanks for clarifying.

Jeffrey

Tristan Scott

And as you pointed out in your earlier post:

I think it is also not surprising because the written word was an expensive rarity especially among the poor. It's difficult sometimes for people today to relate to the idea of a time when there were no newspapers or magazines, and where a vast majority of human communication was conducted by word-of-mouth.

stephan huller

But again, the question is about the lack of physical evidence. What is this 'physical evidence'? Essentially is comes down to Gerald O'Hara's words to his daughter Scarlett in Gone With the Wind: "Why, land is the only thing in the world worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for. Because it's the only thing that lasts." In order to have land, you have to be rich (or at least have enough money to buy something substantial enough to survive in history). The inference then is that the Church only became substantial enough to afford things that would last as 'physical evidence' in the third and fourth centuries. As Celsus again points out, Christians gathered in the houses of rich patrons. They were a secret association of tradesmen and various rustic types principally. Even if we found the houses of these 'rich patrons' this is unlikely to result in identifiable 'physical evidence' for Christianity. The Church had to be rich to purchase land and buildings and go beyond private and secret gatherings and this seems to have happened in the third and fourth centuries.

Robert Tulip

Most of those who have "no problem with the state of the evidence" have faith-driven agendas. The state of the evidence is really bad, as normative scholar Bart Ehrman showed in his books on Christian fraud. Yes Christianity existed Before Constantine, but how much more than that can we say with certainty?

As the link I gave earlier on Christ the Magician explained, Christians mostly have a low level of interest in evidence, preferring instead to believe conventional fantasies. The evidence shows the reality is very different from the myths such as tossing to the lions, burning Rome, founded by Jesus, Exodus, flood, Eden, etc.

Your "Normative" Christian scholarship is precisely the problem, in that theology is an academic laughing stock, applying standards that are basically rejected by modern reason but are driven by ignorant fervor from the pews - the same fervor that enabled the orthodox to defeat the Gnostics and held back the rise of science.

Regarding Stephan's colourful language, his latest friendly phrases "execrable rabble", "hatred or hostility to Christianity" and "Mental illness" should have no place in this discussion. His capacity to distort reaches near-evangelical levels, as for example with his misuse of my comment about "surviving direct" evidence. My point was that the surviving early evidence is all indirect, since the early pious could not be bothered preserving anything from their alleged origins. The archaeological story is, shall we say, incomplete, as in the non-existence of Nazareth and the Exodus. A hermeneutic of suspicion is fully justified regarding early Christian evidence.