Historical Jesus

[Leucius Charinus]

e.g., if valid, it could mean he considered himself to be a Christ or some other such thing, such as adopting the Chi-Rho as an imperial symbol

Yes it could be a coincidence.

No! Not a coincidence. That's not what I proposed, which was "he [may have] considered himself to be a Christ or . . . [perhaps he] adopted the Chi-Rho as an imperial symbol."

OK

But all the later Christian emperors of the 4th and subsequent centuries employed this same icon. That's not coincidental.

I agree that that, i.e., later emperors employing the same symbol, would not have been coincidental: it would have been consequential.

But at least some doing it may well not have been doing it to identify or portray themselves as "Christian emperors," i.e., they too could have been doing it to either align themselves with Constantine per se or to follow what had become an imperial imperative, or both.

The Nicene Church industry was established by Constantine after he because "Fearless Leader". It was all-powerful (practically) lucrative and tax exempt. If we can believe Eusebius:

• Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, Chapter 52;
  https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25024.htm
  
  For their father's forethought had provided that all the attendants of his son's should be Christians. And not only so, but the military officers of highest rank, and those who had the control of public business, were professors of the same faith: for the emperor placed confidence in the fidelity of men devoted to the service of God, as in a strong and sure defense.

As for

• Life of Constantine (Book I)
  https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25021.htm
  
  Chapter 31. A Description of the Standard of the Cross, which the Romans now call the Labarum.
  
  A long spear, overlaid with gold, formed the figure of the cross by means of a transverse bar laid over it. On the top of the whole was fixed a wreath of gold and precious stones; and within this, the symbol of the Saviour's name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of its initial characters, the letter P being intersected by X in its centre: and these letters [ i.e, ☧ ] the emperor was in the habit of wearing on his helmet at a later period. From the cross-bar of the spear was suspended a cloth, a royal piece, covered with a profuse embroidery of most brilliant precious stones; and which, being also richly interlaced with gold, presented an indescribable degree of beauty to the beholder. This banner was of a square form, and the upright staff, whose lower section was of great length, bore a golden half-length portrait of the pious emperor and his children on its upper part, beneath the trophy of the cross,* and immediately above the embroidered banner.
  
  The emperor constantly made use of this sign of salvation as a safeguard against every adverse and hostile power, and commanded that others similar to it should be carried at the head of all his armies.

* this likely refers to the X, not the sign of a crucifix, i.e., not a t shaped symbol

Again, use of the Chi-Rho by Constantine may not have been a reference or deference to Jesus the Christ! And the text I've highlighted in red suggests he may well have considered himself to be "The Saviour." And that authentic-Eusebius may well have too, i.e., before Eusebius's writings were later Christianised by the 4th century and subsequent church industry.

Eusebius refers to Constantine as a "Moses" figure three times. Constantine was leading the New Nation of Christians out of the Egypto/Graeco/Roman empire and into a Christian Roman empire,

[Leucius Charinus]

The more I think about it, the more it seems that Constantine might have been adopting Christian symbols for himself, and that that later got 'rehabilitated' as him adopting or honoring Christ as his savior, e.g., the famous story about Constantine being baptized on his death bed.

There's little doubt left in my mind that the church industry indulged in pious fraud as a business model. The Donation of Constantine was trotted out centuries later along with the "False Decretals" of Pseudo-Isidore - a massive Latin church forgery mill of the 9th century.

[RealityRules]

The Nicene Church industry was established by Constantine after he because "Fearless Leader". It was all-powerful (practically) lucrative and tax exempt. If we can believe Eusebius:

• Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, Chapter 52;
  https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25024.htm
  
  For their father's forethought had provided that all the attendants of his son's should be Christians. And not only so, but the military officers of highest rank, and those who had the control of public business, were professors of the same faith: for the emperor placed confidence in the fidelity of men devoted to the service of God, as in a strong and sure defense.

That will likely be made-up rhetoric. Probably even a false attribution to Eusebius by later forgers.

The whole of Book IV of “Life of Constantine” is likely legend-rhetoric. It starts saying Constantine was

variously engaged in promoting the extension and glory of the church of God, and striving by every measure to commend the Saviour's doctrine

You've cited the last part of a two-chapter mini-discourse about Constantine's sons.

Chapter 51 starts

Having thus established his power in the opposite extremities of the world, he divided the whole extent of his dominions, as though he were allotting a patrimonial inheritance to the dearest objects of his regard, among his three sons. To the eldest he assigned his grandfather's portion; to the second, the empire of the East; to the third, the countries which lie between these two divisions. And being desirous of furnishing his children with an inheritance truly valuable and salutary to their souls, he had been careful to imbue them with true religious principles, being himself their guide to the knowledge of sacred things, and also appointing men of approved piety to be their instructors.

Yet other accounts say the sons "divided the empire among themselves" and two warred, leaving Constantine II dead by 340 AD.

The brothers divided the empire among themselves, with Constantius II receiving Greece, Thrace, the Asian provinces, and Egypt in the east . . . his brothers Constantine II and Constans warred over the western provinces of the empire, leaving the former dead in 340 and the latter as sole ruler of the west. The two remaining brothers maintained an uneasy peace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantius_II

So much for "true religious principles," allegedly Christian ones, and "men of approved piety as their instructors."

And check out Chapter 46

In the course of this period [the 30th year of his reign], his three sons had been admitted at different times as his colleagues in the empire. The first, Constantinus, who bore his father's name, obtained this distinction about the tenth year of his reign. Constantius, the second son, so called from his grandfather, was proclaimed Cæsar about the twentieth, while Constans, the third, whose name expresses the firmness and stability of his character, was advanced to the same dignity at the thirtieth anniversary of his father's reign. Having thus reared a threefold offspring, a Trinity, as it were, of pious sons, and having received them severally at each decennial period to a participation in his imperial authority, he judged the festival of his Tricennalia to be a fit occasion for thanksgiving to the Sovereign Lord of all, at the same time believing that the dedication of the church which his zealous magnificence had erected at Jerusalem might advantageously be performed.

"a Trinity, as it were," lol.

Some of that may be true, e.g., "dedication of the church which his zealous magnificence had erected at Jerusalem" in the last years of his life, but it at least equally may not be.

[RealityRules]

Eusebius refers to Constantine as a "Moses" figure three times. Constantine was leading the New Nation of Christians out of the Egypto/Graeco/Roman empire and into a Christian Roman empire

That doesn't seem to be very Christian

FWIW, the references to Moses are in Book I: in chapters 12, 20, 38 and 39, e.g.,

Chapter 20

keeping up his resemblance to the great prophet Moses. Indeed, in every sense God was his helper; and he had before ordained that he should be present in readiness to succeed his father.

and Chapter 39

after the example of His great servant Moses, Constantine entered the imperial city in triumph

There are hints of at least his upbringing in the cult of Sol Invictus in there too, e.g.,

Chapter 43

as the sun, when he rises upon the earth, liberally imparts his rays of light to all, so did Constantine, proceeding at early dawn from the imperial palace and, rising as it were with the heavenly luminary, impart the rays of his own beneficence to all who came into his presence.

[Leucius Charinus]

The Nicene Church industry was established by Constantine after he because "Fearless Leader". It was all-powerful (practically) lucrative and tax exempt. If we can believe Eusebius:

• Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, Chapter 52;
  https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25024.htm
  
  For their father's forethought had provided that all the attendants of his son's should be Christians. And not only so, but the military officers of highest rank, and those who had the control of public business, were professors of the same faith: for the emperor placed confidence in the fidelity of men devoted to the service of God, as in a strong and sure defense.

That will likely be made-up rhetoric. Probably even a false attribution to Eusebius by later forgers.

That's possible. Other sources indicate that once Constantine became the supreme military commander of the entire Roman empire and embarked on an attempt to unify the empire under one religious umbrella he acted like a dictator or malevolent despot. Hints of this are found in

• Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Book III;
  https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26023.htm
  
  “On his death the doctrine which had been set forth at Nicæa, was subjected to renewed examination. Although this doctrine was not universally approved, no one, during the life of Constantine, had dared to reject it openly.”

This "doctrine" IMO was the Christian doctrine. That nobody dared to reject the emperor's doctrine openly indicates that such an action could lead to serious health issues. However as is the case today such people of immense power and control are easily surrounded by a "coalition of the willing" and those who pay lip service and hosts of "yes men". Considering such a scenario it is quite possible that Constantine posted his own "Christians" into the upper echelons of his army and of the public business.

The whole of Book IV of “Life of Constantine” is likely legend-rhetoric. It starts saying Constantine was

variously engaged in promoting the extension and glory of the church of God, and striving by every measure to commend the Saviour's doctrine

The very first occasion Constantine "floated" the Christian religion was at the Council of Antioch where (it is often considered) he gave an oration (just after winning the civil war) to the people of the eastern empire. This oration makes an interesting read. Constantine claims that the advent of Jesus Christ was predicted by a sibyl in the epoch BCE. A host of other frauds are orated. It makes a great read. The historian Robin Lane Fox makes a good summary in his book "Pagans and Christians, in the Mediterranean World from the second century AD to the conversion of Constantine". I have a summary of this here:
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/RLF_citations.htm

You've cited the last part of a two-chapter mini-discourse about Constantine's sons.

Chapter 51 starts

Having thus established his power in the opposite extremities of the world, he divided the whole extent of his dominions, as though he were allotting a patrimonial inheritance to the dearest objects of his regard, among his three sons. To the eldest he assigned his grandfather's portion; to the second, the empire of the East; to the third, the countries which lie between these two divisions. And being desirous of furnishing his children with an inheritance truly valuable and salutary to their souls, he had been careful to imbue them with true religious principles, being himself their guide to the knowledge of sacred things, and also appointing men of approved piety to be their instructors.

Yet other accounts say the sons "divided the empire among themselves" and two warred, leaving Constantine II dead by 340 AD.

Eusebius' account was c.337 CE at the death of Constantine.

The brothers divided the empire among themselves, with Constantius II receiving Greece, Thrace, the Asian provinces, and Egypt in the east . . . his brothers Constantine II and Constans warred over the western provinces of the empire, leaving the former dead in 340 and the latter as sole ruler of the west. The two remaining brothers maintained an uneasy peace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantius_II

So much for "true religious principles," allegedly Christian ones, and "men of approved piety as their instructors."

100%. The "Christian emperors" of the 4th century were ruthless and dealt out persecution and intolerance to the pagan milieu.

Eusebius also fails to mention the mafia style execution (by Constantius) of large numbers of Constantine's relatives after Constantine's death. A good article on this is:

• “THE SUMMER OF BLOOD: The "Great Massacre" of 337
  and the Promotion of the Sons of Constantine”
  http://www.jstor.org/stable/20788042
  by R. W. Burgess who writes:
  
  Although Constantine was the first Christian emperor, his reign was marred by more familial bloodshed than that of any other Roman emperor: he himself was involved to one degree or another in the deaths of his wife’s father, his wife’s brother, his half sister’s husband, his eldest son, his wife, and another half sister’s husband and son (Maximian, Maxentius, Bassianus, Crispus, Fausta, Licinius, and Licinius II, respectively.
  
  Moreover, soon after his death most of the male descend-ants of Constantius I, his father, and Theodora, Constantius’s second wife and Constantine’s stepmother and half sister-in-law, were assassinated in a plot that involved at least one of his sons

And check out Chapter 46

In the course of this period [the 30th year of his reign], his three sons had been admitted at different times as his colleagues in the empire. The first, Constantinus, who bore his father's name, obtained this distinction about the tenth year of his reign. Constantius, the second son, so called from his grandfather, was proclaimed Cæsar about the twentieth, while Constans, the third, whose name expresses the firmness and stability of his character, was advanced to the same dignity at the thirtieth anniversary of his father's reign. Having thus reared a threefold offspring, a Trinity, as it were, of pious sons, and having received them severally at each decennial period to a participation in his imperial authority, he judged the festival of his Tricennalia to be a fit occasion for thanksgiving to the Sovereign Lord of all, at the same time believing that the dedication of the church which his zealous magnificence had erected at Jerusalem might advantageously be performed.

"a Trinity, as it were," lol.

Eusebius glosses over the "Summer of Blood".

Some of that may be true, e.g., "dedication of the church which his zealous magnificence had erected at Jerusalem" in the last years of his life, but it at least equally may not be.

I leave stuff like that up to the archeologists. I haven't checked what archeology exists for the Jerusalem church but no doubt it is out there somewhere.

[Leucius Charinus]

Eusebius refers to Constantine as a "Moses" figure three times. Constantine was leading the New Nation of Christians out of the Egypto/Graeco/Roman empire and into a Christian Roman empire

That doesn't seem to be very Christian

I see it as a "power grab".

FWIW, the references to Moses are in Book I: in chapters 12, 20, 38 and 39, e.g.,

Chapter 20

keeping up his resemblance to the great prophet Moses. Indeed, in every sense God was his helper; and he had before ordained that he should be present in readiness to succeed his father.

and Chapter 39

after the example of His great servant Moses, Constantine entered the imperial city in triumph

Thanks for digging those out. I read through the text but never got around to listing these.

There are hints of at least his upbringing in the cult of Sol Invictus in there too, e.g.,

Chapter 43

as the sun, when he rises upon the earth, liberally imparts his rays of light to all, so did Constantine, proceeding at early dawn from the imperial palace and, rising as it were with the heavenly luminary, impart the rays of his own beneficence to all who came into his presence.

[/quote]

(If this doesnt display use right-click open in new tab)

Constantine's Column:

The Column of Constantine (reconstruction shown above).could have been easily seen from the Sea of Marmara and the Bosphorus, and was completed at the dedication of "The City of Constantine", 11 May 330. It was constructed of nine drums of porphyry each 2.9 m in diameter, topped by a Corinth Capital. Its total height was more than thirty-six meters. The column was crowned with colossal bronze statue of Constantine, depicted wearing a crown of seven rays. (It may have been Pheidas' sculpture of Apollo Paropius from the Acropolis of Athens, recycled with bullneck's head. Some accounts describe Constantine holding a spear in the left hand, and a globe in the right hand. Data from The Emperor Constantine, by Hans A. Pohlsander.

Historian John Julius Norwich writes that in the Column of Constantine,

• “Apollo, Sol Invictus and Jesus Christ all seem subordinated to a new supreme being—the Emperor Constantine.”

[RealityRules]

FWIW, the references to Moses are in Book I: in chapters 12, 20, 38 and 39

Chapter 12 of Book I of Life of Constantine starts

Ancient history relates that a cruel race of tyrants oppressed the Hebrew nation; and that God, who graciously regarded them in their affliction, provided that the prophet Moses, who was then an infant, should be brought up in the very palaces and bosoms of the oppressors, and instructed in all the wisdom they possessed . . . God, exalting him to be the leader of the whole nation, delivered the Hebrews from the bondage of their enemies, and inflicted Divine vengeance through his means on the tyrant race . . .

Then

the tyrants of our day have ventured to war against the Supreme God, and have sorely afflicted His Church. And in the midst of these, Constantine . . . [who] . . . dwelt, as that other servant of God had done, in the very home of the tyrants, but young as he was did not share the manner of life of the ungodly . . .

Chapters 13 to 20 inclusive wax lyrical about Constantius, Constantine's father. Chapter 13 starts

At a time when four emperors shared the administration of the Roman empire, Constantius alone, following a course of conduct different from that pursued by his colleagues, entered into the friendship of the Supreme God. For while they besieged and wasted the churches of God, leveling them to the ground, and obliterating the very foundations of the houses of prayer, he kept his hands pure from their abominable impiety, and never in any respect resembled them. They polluted their provinces by the indiscriminate slaughter of godly men and women; but he kept his soul free from the stain of this crime . . .

Chapter 17 refers to Constantius

acknowledging the Supreme God alone, and condemning the polytheism of the ungodly, and had fortified his household by the prayers of holy men

afaik, Constantius was immersed in the cult of Sol Invictus championed by Aurelian: so much that the Roman Empire became monotheist for Sol. Indeed, Constantius is said to have been a votary for it. So, the Supreme God referred to here would likely be Sol Invictus, not Christ or His Father.

In chapter 20 we get the reference to Constantine as Moses wrt to revisiting the time of the four emperors when he was a youth: three of them, but not Constantius, alleged persecutors of Christians (Eusebius denied that Constantius destroyed Christian buildings, but Lactantius records that he did).

The emperors then in power, observing his [the young Constantine's] manly and vigorous figure and superior mind, were moved with feelings of jealousy and fear, and thenceforward carefully watched for an opportunity of inflicting some brand of disgrace on his character. But the young man, being aware of their designs, the details of which, through the providence of God, more than once came to him, sought safety in flight; in this respect again keeping up his resemblance to the great prophet Moses. Indeed, in every sense God was his helper; and he had before ordained that he should be present in readiness to succeed his father.

Chapter 21 says Constantine escaped from "plots which had been thus insidiously laid for him" and "made his way with all haste to his father" who was "lying at the point of death." then

taking a final leave of the circle of sons and daughters by whom he was surrounded, in his own palace, and on the imperial couch, he bequeathed the empire, according to the law of nature, to his eldest son, and breathed his last.

But, Constantius died in York, Britain, where he had spent winter after a military campaign against the Picts beyond the Antonine Wall. It's unlikely he would have been been encircled by his sons and daughters.

[RealityRules]

There's a few references to Christ and Christians in Life of Constantine but none to Jesus.

[Leucius Charinus]

FWIW, the references to Moses are in Book I: in chapters 12, 20, 38 and 39

Chapter 12 of Book I of Life of Constantine starts

Ancient history relates that a cruel race of tyrants oppressed the Hebrew nation; and that God, who graciously regarded them in their affliction, provided that the prophet Moses, who was then an infant, should be brought up in the very palaces and bosoms of the oppressors, and instructed in all the wisdom they possessed . . . God, exalting him to be the leader of the whole nation, delivered the Hebrews from the bondage of their enemies, and inflicted Divine vengeance through his means on the tyrant race . . .

Then

the tyrants of our day have ventured to war against the Supreme God, and have sorely afflicted His Church. And in the midst of these, Constantine . . . [who] . . . dwelt, as that other servant of God had done, in the very home of the tyrants, but young as he was did not share the manner of life of the ungodly . . .

Chapters 13 to 20 inclusive wax lyrical about Constantius, Constantine's father. Chapter 13 starts

At a time when four emperors shared the administration of the Roman empire, Constantius alone, following a course of conduct different from that pursued by his colleagues, entered into the friendship of the Supreme God. For while they besieged and wasted the churches of God, leveling them to the ground, and obliterating the very foundations of the houses of prayer, he kept his hands pure from their abominable impiety, and never in any respect resembled them. They polluted their provinces by the indiscriminate slaughter of godly men and women; but he kept his soul free from the stain of this crime . . .

Chapter 17 refers to Constantius

acknowledging the Supreme God alone, and condemning the polytheism of the ungodly, and had fortified his household by the prayers of holy men

afaik, Constantius was immersed in the cult of Sol Invictus championed by Aurelian: so much that the Roman Empire became monotheist for Sol. Indeed, Constantius is said to have been a votary for it. So, the Supreme God referred to here would likely be Sol Invictus, not Christ or His Father.

In chapter 20 we get the reference to Constantine as Moses wrt to revisiting the time of the four emperors when he was a youth: three of them, but not Constantius, alleged persecutors of Christians (Eusebius denied that Constantius destroyed Christian buildings, but Lactantius records that he did).

The emperors then in power, observing his [the young Constantine's] manly and vigorous figure and superior mind, were moved with feelings of jealousy and fear, and thenceforward carefully watched for an opportunity of inflicting some brand of disgrace on his character. But the young man, being aware of their designs, the details of which, through the providence of God, more than once came to him, sought safety in flight; in this respect again keeping up his resemblance to the great prophet Moses. Indeed, in every sense God was his helper; and he had before ordained that he should be present in readiness to succeed his father.

Thanks again for these references.

Chapter 21 says Constantine escaped from "plots which had been thus insidiously laid for him" and "made his way with all haste to his father" who was "lying at the point of death." then

taking a final leave of the circle of sons and daughters by whom he was surrounded, in his own palace, and on the imperial couch, he bequeathed the empire, according to the law of nature, to his eldest son, and breathed his last.

But, Constantius died in York, Britain, where he had spent winter after a military campaign against the Picts beyond the Antonine Wall. It's unlikely he would have been been encircled by his sons and daughters.

The history of Sozimus provided some further info on Constatine's "break for freedom" and his race against capture from the east to the west to Chlorus:

• History of Sozimus
  
  Affairs being all regulated and the barbarians quiet, since the Romans had been so successful against them, Constantine, who was the son of Constantius by a concubine, and had previously an ambition of being emperor (but was more inflamed with that desire, since Severus and Maximinus had acquired the name and honour of Caesars), was now resolved to leave the place where he had resided, and to go to his father Constantius, who was beyond the Alps, and generally in Britain. But being apprehensive of seizure by the way, many persons being well acquainted of his anxiety for dominion, he maimed all the horses that were kept for public service, whenever he came to any stable where they were kept, except what he took for his own use. He continued to do this throughout his journey, by which means he prevented those that pursued him from going further, while he himself proceeded toward the country where his father was.
  
  It happened that Constantius died at that time; the guards, therefore, who thought none of his legitimate children to be fit for the imperial dignity, considered that Constantine was a person capable of sustaining it, and conferred the honour upon him, in hopes of being remunerated with handsome presents.

[dejuror]

The proposition that so-called 'gnostic,' heretic and apocryphal literature are post-Constantine productions ignores the many references to entities and theologies defined as gnostic in the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and the author of the Refutation of All Heresies.

To propose that writings attributed to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, etc., are also 4th century productions or heavily altered in the 4th century or later is unrealistic.

At one time it was unrealistic to propose that all the NT gospels were falsely attributed to characters called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
At one time it was unrealistic to propose that the so-called Epistles of Paul were written by multiple authors.
At one time it was unrealistic to propose that all the Epistles of Peter, James, John and Jude were falsely attributed to them.
At one time it was unrealistic to propose that the so-called Apocalypse of John was not written by the supposed apostle.

In effect, at one time it was unrealistic to propose the entire NT is a product of fiction, forgeries and bogus dates of authorship.

Now that it is known or deduce from evidence that the entire NT is a product of fiction, forgeries and fabricated dates of authorship it is now unrealistic to assume that Christian writings outside the NT have not suffered the same fate.

" Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus is a clear case of forgery and manipulation. It is completely contradictory that Irenaeus a supposed presbyter or bishop of the Church of Lyons (c 175 CE) to argue that Jesus was crucified when he was about 50 years old while claiming to have knowledge of the gospels, especially gLuke, in which Jesus was about 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius and crucified under Pilate c 27-37CE.

The writings attributed to Tertullian are also products of forgery. In "The Apology" attributed to Tertullian c 197 CE it is claimed the resurrected Jesus met his disciples in Galilee and after he commissioned them to preach the gospel ascended to heaven. Such claims contradict gLuke and Acts of the Apostles in which the resurrected Jesus ordered his disciples to wait in Jerusalem to get power from on high and that he ascended to heaven at Bethany--not Galilee.

It must also be noted that "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is unknown or not mentioned by any Christian writer in the 4th century.
Eusebius in "Church History" who wrote about Tertullian in the 4th century mentioned at least 8 writers who wrote against Marcion and did not mention or acknowledge Tertullian's Against Marcion".

Jerome writing in the 4th century mentions writings of Tertullian but does not acknowledge Tertullian's Against Marcion.

The claims about Marcion knowing of the so-called Pauline letters in Tertullian's Against Marcion" are contradicted by Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Origen and Ephrem's "Against Marcion".

Multiple christian writers up to the end of the 3rd century have no knowledge of the supposed apostle Paul, his persecution of Christians, his blinding bright light conversion, his commission to preach the gospel, talking in tongues, starting churches, being bishop of Rome, his miracles and practising exorcism anywhere in the Roman Empire.

Even the author of Acts of the Apostles, a supposed close companion of Saul/Paul did not acknowledge a single letter by him at anytime.

The character called Paul is a 4th century invention by forgers acting under the authority of the Roman Government.

Roman 13

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same..

It must not be forgotten that so-called Pauline letters were written to territories under Roman rule (Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica, Galatia and Colosse).

[Leucius Charinus]

Jerome writing in the 4th century mentions writings of Tertullian but does not acknowledge Tertullian's Against Marcion.

• When Erasmus released his edition of the collected works of the church father Jerome, he devoted an entire volume to those that he deemed forged and spurious. He used it as an opportunity. He wanted to show that Jerome was hardly the only author to have false works written in his name. And so he turned his preface into mini-treatise on the problem of forgery. He documented a veritable sea of forgeries or otherwise spurious works, both Latin and Greek, pagan and Christian. /// According to Erasmus, some of these were accidental misattributions; others were deliberate forgeries. As he bemoaned: "nothing is easier than to place any name you want on the front page of a book"
  
  p.123; “Fake for Real: A History of Forgery and Falsification”
  Edited by Andrea Mork, House of European History;
  https://www.academia.edu/44330973

[RealityRules]

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardc ... stianities

In Fredriksen's view, the history of ancient “Christianities” is more deep and nuanced than previously thought, and she intends to "introduce the reader to the complexities and ambiguities, the ironies and surprises and the twists and turns" to reveal this. If you ask Fredriksen, the Christian faith does not have its roots just in Jesus, there is more to the origin story . . . According to her, the narrative and development of "Christianities" encompasses a wide range of characters, including aristocratic patrons, eccentric ascetics, gods, devils, angels, magicians, astrologers, and regular folks. https://www.worldhistory.org/review/478 ... dred-year/

[Leucius Charinus]

Fredriksen studied for a double B.A. in Religion and History at Wellesley College, from which she graduated Phi Beta Kappa in 1973. After a year of formal theological study at St. Hilda's College, she received a diploma in theology from Oxford University in 1974. She is a former Catholic who converted to Judaism

Fredriksen's book From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the Early Images of Jesus served as a template for the Frontline documentary From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Fredriksen

[BWE]

Out of curiosity, what difference does it make if he was real or if the philosophy was arranged by a different guy named Jesus who wasn't the son of God or whatever but who did preach the philosophy and develop a small following?

What philosophy? It's obviously had everything but the kitchen sink thrown in as afterthoughts, sermon on the mount stuff. You'll pick something and say that was the philosophy. It's like a kind of inverse mapping to the historical existence of Jesus, inverse cherry-picking. Somebody else said not to do unto others, since they might not share your tastes, an idea that is even more seditious. Tracing it back to an individual is not about the philosophy, but about the way one person was dealt with by a society. The main investment made in a thread like this one is in the worth of history as a discipline.

Hmm. That's both well said and a little sketchy at the same time. I love it.

I think the rise of xianity in its own right is an interesting topic but - speaking as the son of a historian - that seems a little bit overkill. The worth of history as a discipline is embedded in the worth of civilization, culture, economic behavior, zeitgeist, etc.

Whether or not it can answer a question it can't answer seems a high bar to put in front of the discipline.