Creation of Christianity and Scriptures in 4th Century

[Duvduv]

As is known, the traditional Jewish texts make no mention of a Jewish movement following someone named Jesus in the first century CE. Not in the Jerusalem Talmud, not in the Babylonia Talmud, not in any Midrash. Outside of the official church narrative and texts in the possession of the Church and its monasteries, there is no corroboration of the stories of the New Testament at all. And of course there is no evidence as to WHO established the canon of texts back in the 1st century. Archeological data especially from scraps is sparse and unclear, whereby parchments are used and reused, and not sufficiently tested, including inks.
So WHO established the New Testament narrative and the canon?
The only body that had the means, motive and opportunity was the new regime established by Constantine and his loyal chief propagandist named Eusebius, a process that continued through the 4th century and then into the 5th.
How did the gospel stories become exclusive canon? In this regard it is clear that the regime established a boiler plate of ideas and stories and allowed scribes to write narratives for acceptance that appealed to different segments of the Empire using these basic themes and embellishing them as required by the standards for the Empire. Thus we have similar but not identical gospel stories (that include contradictions among one another), as well as the follow-up body of literature contained in the Epistles to reinforce and give a life to the theoretical teachings and stories but which yet also contradict the gospels and even one another, giving the impression of multiple witnesses to the 1st century events. Thus the Chi Rho religion established under Constantine and his Bible became the (backdated) religion of the 1st century Judea for the great new regime...

 

[JackRT]

the new regime established by Constantine and his loyal chief propagandist named Eusebius

Charles B. Waite in his History of the Christian Religion to the Year 200 writes of Eusebius: "No one has contributed more to Christian history, and no one is guilty of more errors. The statements of this historian are made, not only carelessly and blunderingly, but in many instances in falsification of the facts of history. Not only the most unblushing falsehoods, but literary forgeries of the vilest character darken the pages of his writing."

 

[TuxAme]

Is there a question in here?

 

[Silmarien]

As is known, the traditional Jewish texts make no mention of a Jewish movement following someone named Jesus in the first century CE. Not in the Jerusalem Talmud, not in the Babylonia Talmud, not in any Midrash. Outside of the official church narrative and texts in the possession of the Church and its monasteries, there is no corroboration of the stories of the New Testament at all. And of course there is no evidence as to WHO established the canon of texts back in the 1st century. Archeological data especially from scraps is sparse and unclear, whereby parchments are used and reused, and not sufficiently tested, including inks.
So WHO established the New Testament narrative and the canon?
The only body that had the means, motive and opportunity was the new regime established by Constantine and his loyal chief propagandist named Eusebius, a process that continued through the 4th century and then into the 5th.
How did the gospel stories become exclusive canon? In this regard it is clear that the regime established a boiler plate of ideas and stories and allowed scribes to write narratives for acceptance that appealed to different segments of the Empire using these basic themes and embellishing them as required by the standards for the Empire. Thus we have similar but not identical gospel stories (that include contradictions among one another), as well as the follow-up body of literature contained in the Epistles to reinforce and give a life to the theoretical teachings and stories but which yet also contradict the gospels and even one another, giving the impression of multiple witnesses to the 1st century events. Thus the Chi Rho religion established under Constantine and his Bible became the (backdated) religion of the 1st century Judea for the great new regime...

We have significant fragments from New Testament writings that date to the early 3rd century (see here), so it is simply not possible that the Gospels were written by 4th century scribes. You would also need to discount all of the writings from the Patristic period, since Church Fathers widely quoted from what would eventually become the New Testament. Clearly these writings both existed and had authority well before Constantine.

 

[klutedavid]

As is known, the traditional Jewish texts make no mention of a Jewish movement following someone named Jesus in the first century CE. Not in the Jerusalem Talmud, not in the Babylonia Talmud, not in any Midrash. Outside of the official church narrative and texts in the possession of the Church and its monasteries, there is no corroboration of the stories of the New Testament at all. And of course there is no evidence as to WHO established the canon of texts back in the 1st century. Archeological data especially from scraps is sparse and unclear, whereby parchments are used and reused, and not sufficiently tested, including inks.
So WHO established the New Testament narrative and the canon?
The only body that had the means, motive and opportunity was the new regime established by Constantine and his loyal chief propagandist named Eusebius, a process that continued through the 4th century and then into the 5th.
How did the gospel stories become exclusive canon? In this regard it is clear that the regime established a boiler plate of ideas and stories and allowed scribes to write narratives for acceptance that appealed to different segments of the Empire using these basic themes and embellishing them as required by the standards for the Empire. Thus we have similar but not identical gospel stories (that include contradictions among one another), as well as the follow-up body of literature contained in the Epistles to reinforce and give a life to the theoretical teachings and stories but which yet also contradict the gospels and even one another, giving the impression of multiple witnesses to the 1st century events. Thus the Chi Rho religion established under Constantine and his Bible became the (backdated) religion of the 1st century Judea for the great new regime...

Do you accept the validity of the Marcion canon?

 

[dzheremi]

I don't take unscourced absurd fantasy that sounds like it came out "Ancient Aliens" History Channel school of conspiracy theory seriously, and neither should any of you.

We know when the canon was established because we have the letter in which it was first laid down as we still have it today (the 39th festal letter HH Pope Athanasius the Apostolic, the twentieth bishop of Alexandria, written in 367 AD -- thirty years after Constantine died), and Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian, i.e., a member of the group which was rejected by the gathered bishops of the Christian world at the first council of Nicaea in 325.

So in order to believe your story, we'd have to believe that somehow a man who belonged to the rejected party, which was tossed out of the Church while he was still alive and serving as emperor, somehow also founded the religion that rejected the theology of the group he was baptized by (which makes so little sense it should've been a red flag to you that what you posted was total nonsense; obviously for the Arians who baptized Constantine to exist, then Christianity itself has to already exist, because the Arians were early Christian heretics), and codified the canon of scripture used by that same religion 30 years after he died...

And you're accusing the Christian religion of being "backdated"?

 

[TuxAme]

Constantine must have had Josephus' writings about the Christians forged, and must have time travelled to create the Didache before AD 200.

 

[dzheremi]

Ah...you mean when he wasn't busy inserting references to Jesus being God into the writings of HH St. Ignatius of Antioch in the early 100s, or the word "Trinity" to describe God into the writings of St. Theophilos of Antioch in the 170s?

Constantine: the busiest time-travelling, ECF-forging, Bible-canonizing Roman emperor a "backdated" fourth-century false religion ever had.

 

[JackRT]

John Dominic Crossan has provided a detailed classification of our sources for the historical Jesus according to the chronological stratification of the traditions. For a brief discussion of each source, including the reasons for its proposed dating, see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus (HarperCollins, 1991) Appendix 1, pp. 427-50. All dates shown are C.E. (Common Era).

First Stratum [30 to 60 C.E.]

1. First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (late 40s)

2. Letter of Paul to the Galatians (winter of 52/53)

3. First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians (winter of 53/54.)

4. Letter of Paul to the Romans (winter of 55/56)

5. Gospel of Thomas I (earliest layer of Thomas, composed in 50s)

6. Egerton Gospel (50s)

7. Papyrus Vienna G. 2325 (50s)

8. Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1224 (50s)

9. Gospel of the Hebrews (Egypt, 50s)

10. Sayings Gospel Q (50s)

11. Miracles Collection (50s)

12. Apocalyptic Scenario (50s)

13. Cross Gospel (50s)

Second Stratum [60 to 80 C.E.]

14. Gospel of the Egyptians (60s)

15. Secret Gospel of Mark (early 70s)

16. Gospel of Mark (late 70s)

17. P. Oxyrhynchus 840 (?80s)

18. Gospel of Thomas II (later layers, 70s)

19. Dialogue Collection (70s)

20. Signs Gospel, or Book of Signs (70s)

21. Letter to the Colossians (70s)

Third Stratum [80 to 120 C.E.]

22. Gospel of Matthew (90)

23. Gospel of Luke (90s)

24. Revelation/Apocalypse of John (late 90s)

25. First Letter of Clement (late 90s)

26. Epistle of Barnabas (end first century)

27. Didache (other than 1:3b2:1, 16:35) (end first century)

28. Shepherd of Hermas (100)

29. Letter of James (100)

30. Gospel of John I (early second century)

31. Letter of Ignatius, To the Ephesians (110)

32. Letter of Ignatius, To the Magnesians (110)

33. Letter of Ignatius, To the Trallians (110)

34. Letter of Ignatius, To the Romans (110)

35. Letter of Ignatius, To the Philadelphians (110)

36. Letter of Ignatius, To the Smyrneans (110)

37. Letter of Ignatius, To Polycarp (110)

38. First Letter of Peter (112)

39. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 1314 (115)

40. First Letter of John (115)

Fourth Stratum [120 to 150 C.E.]

41. Gospel of John II (after 120)

42. Acts of the Apostles (after 120)

43. Apocryphon of James (before 150)

44. First Letter to Timothy (after 120)

45. Second Letter to Timothy (after 120)

46. Letter to Titus (after 120)

47. Second Letter of Peter (between 125 and 150)

48. Letter of Polycarp, To the Philippians, 112 (140)

49. Second Letter of Clement (150)

50. Gospel of the Nazoreans (middle second century)

51. Gospel of the Ebionites (middle second century)

52. Didache, 1:3b2:1 (middle second century)

53. Gospel of Peter (middle second century)

 

[paul1149]

An awful lot of people back then, including the earliest disciples, went to horrible deaths - for a lie? No. And the NT texts were propagated prodigiously from very early on and have an extraordinarily good paper trail

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So WHO established the New Testament narrative and the canon?

YHVH

 

[JackRT]

An awful lot of people back then, including the earliest disciples, went to horrible deaths - for a lie? No. And the NT texts were propagated prodigiously from very early on and have an extraordinarily good paper trail

The persecutions of the early Christians were actually quite sporadic in time and place and over the centuries have been exaggerated. Most as what passes for history regarding the deaths of the Apostles and other early Christians is probably better classified as legendary.

 

[Duvduv]

We have significant fragments from New Testament writings that date to the early 3rd century (see here), so it is simply not possible that the Gospels were written by 4th century scribes. You would also need to discount all of the writings from the Patristic period, since Church Fathers widely quoted from what would eventually become the New Testament. Clearly these writings both existed and had authority well before Constantine.

You are simply accepting the church narrative. What proof do you have they were written before Constantine?

 

[Duvduv]

Why is everyone ignoring my questions?! WHO established the canon if not Constantine's church?! Marcion? What proof is there he existed in the 2nd century? Alternative writings? So what? Lots of people could write alternative novels.

 

[Duvduv]

Ah...you mean when he wasn't busy inserting references to Jesus being God into the writings of HH St. Ignatius of Antioch in the early 100s, or the word "Trinity" to describe God into the writings of St. Theophilos of Antioch in the 170s?

Constantine: the busiest time-travelling, ECF-forging, Bible-canonizing Roman emperor a "backdated" fourth-century false religion ever had.

Don't worry about the trinity. They worked on that after the canon was composed. What do you think? The Romans with all their libraries and archives were idiots?!

 

[Duvduv]

Constantine must have had Josephus' writings about the Christians forged, and must have time travelled to create the Didache before AD 200.

Josephus is full of holes, like Swiss cheese. Not the least of which is that not a single traditional Jewish source discussing the first century mentions a Jewish priest, traitor, general, historian of this name, or the so-called mass suicide at Masada, or Essenes.

 

[dzheremi]

Don't worry about the trinity. They worked on that after the canon was composed. What do you think? The Romans with all their libraries and archives were idiots?!

No, I think you're pedaling long-discredited conspiratorial garbage that rests on questions that have already been answered in this very thread. There's no reason to take any of your blathering seriously if you prefer to live in a fantasy-land where you're so stuck on the idea of Constantine 'inventing' Christianity and the Christian canon that you cannot handle the actual historical evidence of what did happen, and so instead have to resort to non-responses like "You are just accepting the Church narrative". By that (non)rationale, we could say "You are just accepting the Jewish narrative", by your constant reference to how first-century Jewish sources lack this or that. Nobody cares. Christianity is not Judaism. The Judaizers lost at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem c. 50 AD, and so nobody cares what any Jews who are not Christ and His apostles and disciples have to say about anything.

 

[Duvduv]

Yiu have the right to believe the uncorroborated Church narrative. But to talk about conspiracy theories when the entire Christian narrative as the successor religion to Judaism is based on Church dogma is funny. So where did Christianity emerge from? The Aztecs? The Japanese? And since you would claim there were Jewish Christians in the first century, don't you think Jewish sources would mention them from the first century, like they do the Samaritans and Saduccees??

 

[dzheremi]

It's not uncorroborated, unlike all the stupid nonsense you've been posting, and modern Rabbinic Judaism, which is the form of the religion that most people have in mind when they say "Judaism" (since it has been the dominant form of the religion for well over a millennium by now), significantly postdates the establishment of Christianity, both in reality (1st century vs. 6th century) and in your insane fantasy (4th century vs. 6th century). Goodbye.

 

[Silmarien]

You are simply accepting the church narrative. What proof do you have they were written before Constantine?

Did you even read what I wrote? I was discussing archeological evidence in the form of fragments of the New Testament that date to at least a century before Constantine. That has nothing to do with the church narrative at all. Though Patristic literature should certainly count as evidence as well, unless you think that Constantine fabricated every early Christian theologian too. (I see you're denying that Marcion existed, though, so I guess that is the route you want to take.)