dejuror wrote:The supposed early "history" of the Church is bogus.

The mere fact that the very Canon of the Church is littered with FAKE 1st century authors is evidence that no Apologetic writing can be accepted as credible WITHOUT corroboration.

It took hundreds upon hundreds of years before it was deduced that the authorship, chronology of authorship and contents of the NT Canon was manipulated.

It is extremely important to understand that virtually ALL CHRISTIAN writers of antiquity put out the false bogus propaganda that the Gospels of the NT Canon were composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and a single writer under the name of Paul wrote ALL the Epistles of the Pauline Corpus including Hebrews.

The False claims of authorship and chronology of authorship was INVENTED to promote the FALSE PRIMACY of the Jesus cult of Christians.

The history of the Jesus cult was really LATER than the history of the so-called Heretic.

In effect, the stories of the so-called Heretics PREDATED the Jesus stories of the NT Canon including the Pauline Corpus.

The so-called Heretics were most likely the FIRST cult of Christians with stories of Jesus--NOT Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude are ALL FAKE 1st century authors.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James and Jude have NO history outside the NT and Apologetics.

Ok, we're getting somewhere! I think many of those who side with the 'HJ' side here don't ascribe priority to orthodox Christianity. However, which particular "heresies" do you think we should look into to find out more about the origins of Christianity?

proudfootz wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:The codex appears substantially in the 4th century.



All this points towards a very late "literary school".

It's interesting to think how the new technology might have impacted the development of this religious cult.

Nearly all the Christian related papyri fragments found are in the form of the codex and not the roll. Some modern Biblical Scholars therefore theorise that the early Christians were the earliest innovators of the codex. This is backwards. The alternative is that all these papyri are in fact from the 4th century, when the codex had become the new technology.

As you are probably aware none of these "so-called early" papyri fragments are explicitly dated by any dating methodology other than palaeography. The following recent article argues that these "early" palaeographical dates cannot realistically be confined to the ante Nicene epoch, but that a 4th century upper bound needs to be included:

https://www.academia.edu/6755662/The_Li ... er_II_P66_

The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P.Bodmer II (P66)
By Brent Nongbri, Macquarie University [2014]

Abstract

Palaeographic estimates of the date of P.Bodmer II, the well-preserved Greek papyrus codex of the Gospel of John, have ranged from the early second century to the first half of the third century. There are, however, equally con- vincing palaeographic parallels among papyri securely dated to as late as the fourth century. This article surveys the palaeographic evidence and argues that the range of possible dates assigned to P.Bodmer II on the basis of palaeography needs to be broadened to include the fourth century. Furthermore, a serious con- sideration of a date at the later end of that broadened spectrum of palaeographic possibilities helps to explain both the place of P.Bodmer lI in relation to other Bodmer papyri and several aspects of the codicology of P.Bodmer II.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:It is apt to see Constantine as a military dictator who wanted to BIND-TOGETHER the empire.

It's not unheard of to take a smidgen of etymology on which to base one's reading, and simply run off with it. This isn't necessarily muddled or dogmatic in itself, but such a reading isn't one we can prescribe for other people.

Doesn't Plato deal with the political cycles and the [military] dictator? This is not a modern concept. I made the point that it is appropriate to class Constantine in the same mould as Mussolini or Stalin - as a military dictator. Such a figure IMO was the first to raise the NT Bible to a political prominence.

Hmmmmm. Prescriptive hermeneutics. I know I've come across that practice somewhere before. OTOH, if this is only running something up a flagpole to see if anyone salutes, have fun.

What remains of the ancient historical evidence from the rule of Constantine supports this classification of Constantine as a military dictator. Perhaps it is appropriate to itemise this evidence and raise it on the flagpole?

proudfootz wrote:I think the various authors of the various texts had various motivations. Maybe some really did have visions, maybe some were scam artists like those who prey on the credulous.

You are correct to point out that there are a great many texts associated with so-called "Early Christianity". The commonly known ones are found in hotel/motel drawers all over the world and are known as the NT canonical books. There are 20 odd of these NT books and most people have heard of them and have had them preached to them from the pulpits.

However on the far side we have all the non canonical books, which are chiefly classed as "gnostic" (gospels and acts) and which were classified by the early [canonical] church as the books of the heretics. It is important to see the difference between these two sets of books, and to understand that they have different histories of authorship and preservation. The canonical books were preserved in the Imperial scriptoria while the bulk of the non canonical books which escaped burning and destruction by the orthodox were preserved by burying them in the earth.

In a separate thread I have put forward my ideas about the non canonical books.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... 49509.html

Stein wrote:
Actually, while Constantine was no pussy cat, people tend to forget that it was not Constantine who jackbooted Christianity as the faith of the realm. He simply gave Christianity official status as one of the Empire's legitimate faiths. His official policy with respect to other doctrines/traditions was more pluralist than hegemonic: "Let those, therefore, who still delight in error, be made welcome to the same degree of peace and tranquility which they have who believe. For it may be that this restoration of equal privileges to all will prevail to lead them into the straight path. Let no one molest another, but let every one do as his soul desires.....With regard to those who will hold themselves aloof from us, let them have, if they please, their temples of lies....". (http://latter-rain.com/eccle/constant.htm)

In fact, the jackbooting of Christianity as the only faith of the Empire came with Constantine's successor, Theodosius. Theodosius outlawed all other practices, even in private homes(!), effectively "bull-dozed" all the temples, etc. In fact, in all of human history, not just Roman, Theodosius may even be the first(?) ruler ever to have legislated the draconian policy of one faith for all. I'll have to double-check that, but that may be the case. Yes, feuds and massacres among devotees of different faiths have happened throughout human history, of course, long before Theodosius. But Theodosius may have been the first(?) to pro-actively codify the ascendancy of one specific belief as LAW.

There is no doubt that Theodosius poured the concrete slab over the non Christians in the empire.

'We authorise followers of this law to assume the title of orthodox Christians; but as for the others since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious names of heretics.
' - Emperor Theodosius, 381 CE

Theodosius enforced the authority of Constantine's 318 Nicene "fathers".

However it was Constantine who got the wrecking ball swinging through the most ancient and highly revered pagan temples, who actively promoted, supported and legislated on behalf of the Christian cult, who first widely and lavishly published the NT Bible codices, who commenced the burning of the pagan books (eg: Plato and Euclid as preserved in the books of Porphyry) and the execution and torture of the pagans. It is quite arguable that what became the Index Librorum Prohibitorum was started in the rule of Constantine by Eusebius - a list of prohibited books. If one was caught with these books the penalty was execution by beheading.

The way I look at it is that Theodosius finished c.381 CE what Constantine had started c.325 CE

Also check: Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice
T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72

On the assumption that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate, it may be argued that in 324 Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and that he carried through a systematic and coherent reformation, at least in the eastern provinces which he conquered in 324 as a professed Christian in a Christian crusade against the last of the persecutor.

THE NON HISTORICAL "ESSENCE" of JESUS and NICAEA 325 CE

The only evidence that Jesus existed before Nicaea is the literary evidence (including the NT) which has been preserved (and probably forged) by the church organisation slash industry during the long and dark centuries between the 4th and the 16th. Some people might want to call upon the absolute certainty that the Dura fragment 24 is a relic of the 3rd century. Others may wish to cite some epigraphic remains or the Dura-Europos "house church" or the antiquity of the "Christian" catacombs" in Rome under Vatican control since the renovations of Pope Damasus in the later 4th century. Yet others may seek refuge in the attestation of Biblical palaeographers for the early dating of papyri fragments. All this so-called evidence is eminently questionable.

However it should be pointed out that the massive controversy in the Roman Empire which erupted out of the Nicaean Council (about which Constantine's professional army circled) was over the ESSENCE of Jesus. What was the essence of Jesus? There was little agreement. The histories of Constantine's rule and the Arian controversy were authored in the 5th century, a hundred years after Nicaea. My bet is that there were a great many academic pagans who were arguing that the essence of Jesus was bullshit. I think the church industry simply passed over this opinion. It was not good for business.

The problem with this argument of course was that it went directly against the majesty of the Emperor - "lese majeste" - a charge which was equivalent as treason and subject to the death penalty. So we can see why, as Sosomen narrates, that no one dared to openly challenge Constantine's doctrine while Constantine lived (He died 337 CE, perhaps poisoned by his brothers on account of the savage execution of his son Crispus). Calling Jesus bullshit at that time was liable to result in getting a sword shoved through one's neck. In fact the heresy laws enacted at that time stayed with the church industry slash organisation for over 1000 years, and fuelled the inquisitions. (The first of which is attested in the mid 4th century under the rule of Constantius by Ammianus)

The church industry later sub-contracted these draconian laws to the legal systems of the Christian nations and their states (the influence of the church industry was Orwellian) in the guise of the Laws of Blasphemy, which were operative until 150-200 years ago. We are only just starting to crawl out from under the Orwellian influence of the church industry. Jesus is their bullshit literary puppet. They control the past by fixing everyone's attention on the NT Bullshit story, just like the shackles bound the people's heads to the visions of the shadows on the cave wall in Plato's Cave.

Jesus is not historical (there's no evidence) and the emperor Constantine has no clothes - no evidence that is of any value. (Let's skip the One True Cross found by his mother shall we?). Constantine personally advocated (Oration at the Council of Antioch 325 CE) that the proof of the advent of Jesus was provided by two Roman poets in the epoch BCE. Robin Lane Fox called this a "fraud twice over".

The essence of Jesus is forgery. The church organisation slash industry had a lot to gain a little to lose by keeping the bullshit running century after century. Business was business.

There is certainly doubt about some of the veracity of the so-called Church Fathers, and the validity of writings attributed to them, but the Jesus narrative is likely to have started before the 4th C.

Cutner H (2000) Jesus: God, Man or Myth? An Examination of the Evidence Book Tree (publisher).

Language: English
ISBN-10: 1585090727
ISBN-13: 978-1585090723

Okay but a bit plodding
By Tom Munro on January 25, 2003
Cutner suggests that the creator of Christianity is Paul. His letters are the first surviving material to suggest the existence of Christ. Paul of course never met Christ but had visions of him. Cutner suggests that the construction of the Christian myth has been based on religious concepts that were current at the time. Krishna, Dionysius, Krishna and Osiris all had similar careers. That is being divine personages, born as men, killed and then risen from the dead. The story of Christ seems derived from these similar legends. Cutner does not explain the mechanics of the process he just suggests that it is the overwhelming likelihood.
The structure of the book is to look at the evidence for Christ in the ancient authors and in the bible. The material and approach is similar to another book The Christ by Remsberg. Of the two, Remsberg's book is probably better written and is a much clearer exposition of the theory. This book however has a chapter looking at Jewish sources and it also has a chapter dealing with the response to the Myth theory of Jesus.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-God-Myth-Ex ... nskepti-20

AD Loman says Paul is a constructed character, too.

RealityRules wrote:There is certainly doubt about some of the veracity of the so-called Church Fathers, and the validity of writings attributed to them, but the Jesus narrative is likely to have started before the 4th C.

Why is that likely? Let me guess. Because the utterly corrupt church organisation is in proud possession of literary and manuscript evidence to the contrary? Such as Tacitus Annals? A manuscript supposedly sourced from the early 2nd century which no one mentions for well over 1000 years, and which was suddenly and unexpectedly found (after the Pope offered rewards) in the manuscript archives of the utterly corrupt 14th/15th century church organisation?

The Jesus Story was written by unknown authors in an unknown century. I do not see any unambiguous evidence for the appearance of the Jesus Story until the Christian revolution of 4th century. The forgery of lineages is a common practice.

What specific item of ante Nicene evidence is "likely" to be genuine?

RealityRules wrote:AD Loman says Paul is a constructed character, too.

The utterly corrupt church organisation of the 4th century accepted the forged letter exchange between Paul and Seneca as genuine. The manuscript tradition exhibits evidence that this letter exchange prefaced the letters of Paul in some manuscripts. What does this tell us about the construction of the Pauline character and the fabrication of the Pauline material?

http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/noncanonical-literature/noncanonical-literature-writings/the-correspondence-of-paul-and-seneca/


1. SENECA TO PAUL, greeting

I believe, Paul, that you have been informed of the talk which I had yesterday with my Lucilius about the apocrypha (or possibly the secret mysteries) and other things; for certain sharers in your teaching were with me. For we had retired to the gardens of Sallust, where, because of us, those whom I speak of, going in another direction, saw and joined us. Certainly we wished for your presence, and I would have you know it. We were much refreshed by the reading of your book, by which I mean some of the many letters which you have addressed to some city or capital of a province, and which inculcate the moral life with admirable precepts. These thoughts, I take it, are not uttered by you but through you, but surely sometimes both by you and through you: for such is the greatness of them and they are instinct (warm) with such nobility, that I think whole generations (ages) of men could hardly suffice for the instilling and perfecting of them. I desire your good health, brother.

2. PAUL TO SENECA, greeting

I received your letter yesterday with delight, and should have been able to answer it at once, had I had by me the youth I meant to send to you. For you know when, and by whom, and at what moment, and to whom things ought to be given and entrusted. I beg, therefore, that you will not think yourself neglected, when I am respecting the dignity of your person. Now in that you somewhere write that you are pleased with my letter (or, write that you are pleased with part of my letter) I think myself happy in the good opinion of such a man: for you would not say it, you, a critic, a sophist, the teacher of a great prince, and indeed of all -unless you spoke truth. I trust you may long be in health.


etc etc etc

drivel drivel drivel ...

What would you say to a person who was searching down through a barrel of rotten apples expecting to find a good and genuine apple at the bottom of the barrel?

I have been reading about the dream world and how it strongly shaped peoples' views; probably their theological views.