Re: Do we have non Eusebian evidence that there were Christian Churches prior to 312?

"Martin Edwards" <big_mart_98@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:djtibo$sro$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> mountain man wrote:
>> While I would agree that the philosophy of the "Q document"
>> behind the scenes is in essence very similar to the philosophy
>> of the Essenic tradition, this is an issue of source and of history.
>
> It isn't: it resembles the teaching of the Cynics.


Why then the correspondences as tabulated here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/PreNicaean_essene_philosophy.htm




>> How these writings found their way into the christian scriptures
>> is still a matter of conjecture mixed with history, or perhaps
>> vice verse.
>>
>> Nevertheless, from an historical perspective, and a logical
>> perspective, to satisfy common sense, I would like to know
>> whether the ediface of christianity is supported alone by the
>> cornerstone of the Eusebian historical testaments, or in fact,
>> whether there exist any independent evidence (not crossing
>> his desk) that the "tribe called christians" were in existence
>> at all prior to the appearance of Constantine in 312.
>>
>>
>
> There is Pliny, but his Christians do not seem to have any belief about
> Christ having an earthly existence.


Pliny crossed the desk of the imperially sponsored Eusebius
who would like to see references to christians in antiquity,
even if such references represent christian slander. He is
not concerned about ethics, he wants priority dates and a
thread of history.

The Eusebian testaments are the single cornerstone upon
which Constantine's christian religion is constructed, and
to test the history of the structure we must reject it, and
determine if it has any external integrity or none.

If we consider it to be an ahistory then it must then join
real history as a strand in (or after) the life of the author.
We point to the Arian controversy and Nicaea.





Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au


.

Relevant Pages