Ongoing Skeptic Thread

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Cheese

IF I'm reading the bolded parts correctly, we are to assume that there is no recorded info that is to be believed because the Christian sect meant so little to anyone at that time in history because they were insignificant and likely one of hundreds of religious sects...yet we are to believe what is written in the Gospels even though they are filled with clutter, propaganda and exaggerations? Isn't that apologetics? Isn't that a form of over estimation as well?
Maybe Emperor Constantine simply needed a control mechanism and Christianity was his best solution at the time?

A group who's primary conflict with the Roman Government was it's unwillingness to accept the head of state as a god, was the best solution at the time?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Knalus

A group who's primary conflict with the Roman Government was it's unwillingness to accept the head of state as a god, was the best solution at the time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I

Constantine is perhaps best known for being the first "Christian" Roman emperor.
In February 313, Constantine met with Licinius in Milan, where they developed the Edict of Milan. The edict stated that Christians should be allowed to follow the faith without oppression.[205] This removed penalties for professing Christianity, under which many had been martyred in persecutions of Christians, and returned confiscated Church property. The edict protected from religious persecution not only Christians but all religions, allowing anyone to worship whichever deity they chose. A similar edict had been issued in 311 by Galerius, then senior emperor of the Tetrarchy; Galerius' edict granted Christians the right to practice their religion but did not restore any property to them.[206] The Edict of Milan included several clauses which stated that all confiscated churches would be returned as well as other provisions for previously persecuted Christians.

Throughout his rule, Constantine supported the Church financially, built basilicas, granted privileges to clergy (e.g. exemption from certain taxes), promoted Christians to high office, and returned property confiscated during the Diocletianic persecution.[209] His most famous building projects include the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and Old Saint Peter's Basilica.

The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the emperor as having great influence and ultimate regulatory authority within the religious discussions involving the early Christian councils of that time, e.g., most notably the dispute over Arianism, and the nature of God. Constantine himself disliked the risks to societal stability that religious disputes and controversies brought with them, preferring where possible to establish an orthodoxy.[211] One way in which Constantine used his influence over the early Church councils was to seek to establish a consensus over the oft debated and argued issue over the nature of God.

Most notably, from 313–316 bishops in North Africa struggled with other Christian bishops who had been ordained by Donatus in opposition to Caecilian. The African bishops could not come to terms and the Donatists asked Constantine to act as a judge in the dispute. Three regional Church councils and another trial before Constantine all ruled against Donatus and the Donatism movement in North Africa. In 317 Constantine issued an edict to confiscate Donatist church property and to send Donatist clergy into exile.[212] More significantly, in 325 he summoned the Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council (unless the Council of Jerusalem is so classified). The Council of Nicaea is most known for its dealing with Arianism and for instituting the Nicene Creed.

According to Lactantius, Constantine was visited by a dream the night before the battle, wherein he was advised "to mark the heavenly sign of God on the shields of his soldiers...by means of a slanted letter X with the top of its head bent round, he marked Christ on their shields."[155] Eusebius describes another version, where, while marching at midday, "he saw with his own eyes in the heavens a trophy of the cross arising from the light of the sun, carrying the message, In Hoc Signo Vinces or "with this sign, you will conquer";[156] in Eusebius's account, Constantine had a dream the following night, in which Christ appeared with the same heavenly sign, and told him to make a standard, the labarum, for his army in that form.[157] Eusebius is vague about when and where these events took place,[158] but it enters his narrative before the war against Maxentius begins.[159] Eusebius describes the sign as Chi (Χ) traversed by Rho (Ρ): ☧, a symbol representing the first two letters of the Greek spelling of the word Christos or Christ.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Cheese

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I

Constantine is perhaps best known for being the first "Christian" Roman emperor.
In February 313, Constantine met with Licinius in Milan, where they developed the Edict of Milan. The edict stated that Christians should be allowed to follow the faith without oppression.[205] This removed penalties for professing Christianity, under which many had been martyred in persecutions of Christians, and returned confiscated Church property. The edict protected from religious persecution not only Christians but all religions, allowing anyone to worship whichever deity they chose. A similar edict had been issued in 311 by Galerius, then senior emperor of the Tetrarchy; Galerius' edict granted Christians the right to practice their religion but did not restore any property to them.[206] The Edict of Milan included several clauses which stated that all confiscated churches would be returned as well as other provisions for previously persecuted Christians.

Throughout his rule, Constantine supported the Church financially, built basilicas, granted privileges to clergy (e.g. exemption from certain taxes), promoted Christians to high office, and returned property confiscated during the Diocletianic persecution.[209] His most famous building projects include the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and Old Saint Peter's Basilica.

According to Lactantius, Constantine was visited by a dream the night before the battle, wherein he was advised "to mark the heavenly sign of God on the shields of his soldiers...by means of a slanted letter X with the top of its head bent round, he marked Christ on their shields."[155] Eusebius describes another version, where, while marching at midday, "he saw with his own eyes in the heavens a trophy of the cross arising from the light of the sun, carrying the message, In Hoc Signo Vinces or "with this sign, you will conquer";[156] in Eusebius's account, Constantine had a dream the following night, in which Christ appeared with the same heavenly sign, and told him to make a standard, the labarum, for his army in that form.[157] Eusebius is vague about when and where these events took place,[158] but it enters his narrative before the war against Maxentius begins.[159] Eusebius describes the sign as Chi (Χ) traversed by Rho (Ρ): ☧, a symbol representing the first two letters of the Greek spelling of the word Christos or Christ.

Um, yeah. I know that he was the first Christian Emperor. I'm just saying that if you were to construct something as a control mechanism, Christianity is not the one you would invent. He altered the Christian church to be a more controlling entity, something it wasn't so much prior to his involvement, but it wasn't the awesome tool of control you seem to think it was. Especially if, according to you, it was invented in a "mythical" sort of way. Christianity in many ways represented resistance, not control. You are grasping at straws.

[Cheese]

^^^ pretty much what I meant, (I was hypothesizing not insinuating). He used one of the hundreds of insignificant religions of the time to his benefit. I am quite sure he understood the significance of religious practice in those days and needed something to unite his forces and people. ( According to Lactantius, Constantine was visited by a dream the night before the battle, wherein he was advised "to mark the heavenly sign of God on the shields of his soldiers...)
I agree, it might not be the most awesome tool, but considering that it really started to take off during this period (More significantly, in 325 he summoned the Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council (unless the Council of Jerusalem is so classified). The Council of Nicaea is most known for its dealing with Arianism and for instituting the Nicene Creed.)
I'm simply constructing "possibilities/theories" that might or might not be the truth. There is as much validity to this theory as any other considering there is pretty much no information at all, or simply the use of the Gospels.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

IF I'm reading the bolded parts correctly, we are to assume that there is no recorded info that is to be believed because the Christian sect meant so little to anyone at that time in history because they were insignificant and likely one of hundreds of religious sects...

You are clearly not reading the bolded portions correctly because that is not at all what I am saying. I'm not even sure how you can arrive at such a perspective from what I wrote. More appropriately, the very few details that are recorded by Roman historians about Christianity need to be measured carefully against everything that we do know about Second Temple Judaism and the more sympathetic sources that we do have.

Originally Posted by Cheese

...yet we are to believe what is written in the Gospels even though they are filled with clutter, propaganda and exaggerations?

NO! We are to treat the gospels as we would any historical source from the period, taking careful precautions to weigh all their claims against well established historical methodologies, and to further recognise that we can at best only reconstruct the past, and will likely do so incompletely.

Originally Posted by Cheese

...Isn't that apologetics?

Not at all. Apologetics is manipulating the historical sources uncritically to support one's assertions. Historians who treat the gospels as historical sources neither have a pre-set agenda, nor do they invoke uncritical methodologies and presuppositions. The best historians will not be very highly invested on one side or the other on any given matter, and will hopefully arrive at balanced and persuasive historical models that are unprejudiced. This means that they will treat the gospels like they would any source from the period; carefully weighing their claims against everything that we know about Palestine during the Second Temple period. When considered accurately, there is actually a good deal of historical information to be gleaned from the gospels, even despite their obvious theological interests.

Originally Posted by Cheese

Isn't that a form of over estimation as well?

No. It is a form of estimation that is both necessary and characteristic of any historical evaluation from ancient history. This is how history is done: by taking into consideration the sources as evidence, and weighing them accordingly.

Originally Posted by Cheese

Maybe Emperor Constantine simply needed a control mechanism and Christianity was his best solution at the time?

What on earth are you talking about? Christianity was not invented by Constantine.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

...I'm simply constructing "possibilities/theories" that might or might not be the truth. There is as much validity to this theory as any other considering there is pretty much no information at all, or simply the use of the Gospels.

This is particularly hilarious. Your novel "my theory is just as good as any other" approach is to history what the old injunctive "its just a theory" mantra is to evolutionary biology. You are doing nothing more than spitballing from a vast distance. This is precisely how not to do history.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Cheese

^^^ pretty much what I meant, (I was hypothesizing not insinuating). He used one of the hundreds of insignificant religions of the time to his benefit. I am quite sure he understood the significance of religious practice in those days and needed something to unite his forces and people. ( According to Lactantius, Constantine was visited by a dream the night before the battle, wherein he was advised "to mark the heavenly sign of God on the shields of his soldiers...)
I agree, it might not be the most awesome tool, but considering that it really started to take off during this period (More significantly, in 325 he summoned the Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council (unless the Council of Jerusalem is so classified). The Council of Nicaea is most known for its dealing with Arianism and for instituting the Nicene Creed.)
I'm simply constructing "possibilities/theories" that might or might not be the truth. There is as much validity to this theory as any other considering there is pretty much no information at all, or simply the use of the Gospels.

But it wasn't insignificant in the time of Constantine, it was very significant. The Christian church by the time of Constantine was a major part of the Roman Empire, but it tended to resist many of the controlling forces the Emperor and the Empire used to maintain the status quo. Emperors spent centuries attempting to quell the anti-emperor stance of the Christian Church, why do you think so many were fed to the lions? Why would you feed Christians to the lions if you invented it to control those people? This makes absolutely no sense. If anything, you could say that Constantine twisted the early Christian church, but you couldn't say that it was invented in order to create a mechanism of control over the regular folk. The emperor cults WERE the "invented" tool to control the masses, why build a new one? Christianity was divisive to Romans, not uniting. It's not just "not the most awesome tool", but it's possibly the worst tool available if control is your goal.

Christianity took off because he embraced it, not because he constructed it, and allowed the Good News to spread.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Knalus

But it wasn't insignificant in the time of Constantine, it was very significant. The Christian church by the time of Constantine was a major part of the Roman Empire, but it tended to resist many of the controlling forces the Emperor and the Empire used to maintain the status quo. Emperors spent centuries attempting to quell the anti-emperor stance of the Christian Church, why do you think so many were fed to the lions? Why would you feed Christians to the lions if you invented it to control those people? This makes absolutely no sense. If anything, you could say that Constantine twisted the early Christian church, but you couldn't say that it was invented in order to create a mechanism of control over the regular folk. The emperor cults WERE the "invented" tool to control the masses, why build a new one? Christianity was divisive to Romans, not uniting. It's not just "not the most awesome tool", but it's possibly the worst tool available if control is your goal.

Christianity took off because he embraced it, not because he constructed it, and allowed the Good News to spread.

I never suggested he invented it. I suggested he "might have" manipulated it to his benefit. Whether it was good news or not depends completely on your thoughts about Christianity.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You are clearly not reading the bolded portions correctly because that is not at all what I am saying. I'm not even sure how you can arrive at such a perspective from what I wrote. More appropriately, the very few details that are recorded by Roman historians about Christianity need to be measured carefully against everything that we do know about Second Temple Judaism and the more sympathetic sources that we do have.


NO! We are to treat the gospels as we would any historical source from the period, taking careful precautions to weigh all their claims against well established historical methodologies, and to further recognise that we can at best only reconstruct the past, and will likely do so incompletely.


Not at all. Apologetics is manipulating the historical sources uncritically to support one's assertions. Historians who treat the gospels as historical sources neither have a pre-set agenda, nor do they invoke uncritical methodologies and presuppositions. The best historians will not be very highly invested on one side or the other on any given matter, and will hopefully arrive at balanced and persuasive historical models that are unprejudiced. This means that they will treat the gospels like they would any source from the period; carefully weighing their claims against everything that we know about Palestine during the Second Temple period. When considered accurately, there is actually a good deal of historical information to be gleaned from the gospels, even despite their obvious theological interests.


No. It is a form of estimation that is both necessary and characteristic of any historical evaluation from ancient history. This is how history is done: by taking into consideration the sources as evidence, and weighing them accordingly.


What on earth are you talking about? Christianity was not invented by Constantine.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

When speaking of "records" I believe most people are referring to official administrative documentation of the daily on-goings of the Roman Empire. These are the sorts of documents that do not exist, and there is not much evidence that Roman government was this well organised in the first place.

It depends entirely upon what you believe is "remarkable". Furthermore, based on their writings and descriptions about Palestine, I am fairly certain that Tacitus, Heroditus, Pliny or whoever neither understood nor cared much about distinguishing one particular Jewish sect from another. In the first century CE and much of the second at least, Christians were still attending synagogues, reading Jewish scriptures, and celebrating Jewish festivals. In what way would they have appeared interesting enough to garner special attention?

Pretty decent by what standards? Certainly not by modern estimations, and I think most people have a tendency to either overestimate the extent and quality of evidence, or simply project modern expectations of what they imagined constituted "Roman record keeping" backwards. Again, our sources are pretty sparse, and not just for the existence of Jesus, but for the daily activities of huge numbers of people and instances.

Right. But again, this should not come as any surprise, because most of our sources about everything in the Roman empire are sparse, and they do not really function like you seem to imagine that they should. We know that there were hundreds of so-called "mystery religions" throughout the empire, but we know virtually nothing about them. We know even less from Roman historians about the practices of mystery religions than we do about the presence of Christianity. Should we then become dubious about the existence of mystery religions?

It seems to me that you along with a number of mythicists are dismissing all the evidence in the Gospels and in Paul for the existence of Jesus, on the basis that they are agenda driven sources. That may very well be, but they are still our best sources for the life of Jesus, and they do in fact contain a good deal of historical information, even amid the clutter of propaganda and "mythicised" exaggerations. In this instance, I am using the word "myth" differently, to note that many of the stories we have about Jesus have been developed or even cut from whole cloth to express various theological ideas.

The above are your words TC....you are suggesting as far as I can see that there are no "official records" or "administrative documents" as we would think today, outside of Second Temple Judaism which I admittedly know little about.

Then you say:
"It seems to me that you along with a number of mythicists are dismissing all the evidence in the Gospels and in Paul for the existence of Jesus, on the basis that they are agenda driven sources. "

I guess my answer to the above has to be yes, "until proven otherwise". It is you and your brethern's responsibility to educate the masses on the history/significances of the day and how that translates to a historical Jesus. That's the skeptic in me I guess.
I also freely admit that my Constantine example above was hypothesized and is likely fallacious.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Cheese

The above are your words TC....you are suggesting as far as I can see that there are no "official records" or "administrative documents" as we would think today, outside of Second Temple Judaism which I admittedly know little about.

Then you say:
"It seems to me that you along with a number of mythicists are dismissing all the evidence in the Gospels and in Paul for the existence of Jesus, on the basis that they are agenda driven sources. "

I guess my answer to the above has to be yes, "until proven otherwise". It is you and your brethern's responsibility to educate the masses on the history/significances of the day and how that translates to a historical Jesus. That's the skeptic in me I guess.
I also freely admit that my Constantine example above was hypothesized and is likely fallacious.

Just a little note here: there are gospels that are not currently included in the New Testament, and I believe Textcritic would be including those in his example of documents that contain evidence of the historical existence of Christ, am I right, Textcritic? The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, ect.?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

The above are your words TC....you are suggesting as far as I can see that there are no "official records" or "administrative documents" as we would think today, outside of Second Temple Judaism which I admittedly know little about.

Then you say:
"It seems to me that you along with a number of mythicists are dismissing all the evidence in the Gospels and in Paul for the existence of Jesus, on the basis that they are agenda driven sources. "

I guess my answer to the above has to be yes, "until proven otherwise".

I think what you seem to missing here is that when we as ancient historians evaluate the events from ancient history, we must do so with the clear recognition that ALL sources are agenda driven. There is no proving otherwise because this is not a condition that is unique to the gospels. Virtually ALL ancient documents suffer in one way or another from their unusual (by modern standards) levels of political, racial or religious bias. Furthermore, ALL of our written sources of Roman and Greek history are sparse. If you are not willing to accept that there are legitimate historical claims to be drawn from the gospels, then in the interest of consistency, you must also call into serious question the validity of virtually all other historical data from the Roman period.

By way of another example, our best source for Jewish history from the Persian to the Roman periods is far and away in the works of Josephus. But Josephus is also very obviously agenda driven: He is extremely concerned to write an especially sympathetic appraisal of the Jews, while simultaneously appealing to his Roman benefactor. As historians, we must weigh these features when assessing Josephus's accounts of things, but this does not mean that Josephus is useless.

Originally Posted by Cheese

It is you and your brethern's responsibility to educate the masses on the history/significances of the day and how that translates to a historical Jesus. That's the skeptic in me I guess.

I suppose that is fair, but from your presentation I would not agree that this is merely a healthy administration of scepticism. The above examples or theories that you have forwarded have been reaching, and I had hoped that my posts showed in basic outline more clearly the serious problems with your suppositions. My apologies if I have not been more clear here, but in many respects it feels as though you are being intentionally obtuse.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Just a little note here: there are gospels that are not currently included in the New Testament, and I believe Textcritic would be including those in his example of documents that contain evidence of the historical existence of Christ, am I right, Textcritic? The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, ect.?

Yes. Everything is examined, and all with the same questions in mind. Most of the so-called "extra-canonical" gospels are unfortunately quite late, and of course this does in some cases diminish their value as sources. GoT probably contains some traditions and sayings that go back to the first century, but this text is most commonly dated to the mid-second. Furthermore, because it is only a collection of sayings, it is difficult to use in assessing historical claims; most discussion surrounding GoT concerns which sayings may possibly have originated with things Jesus said, and which were clearly invented by the Church. The four New Testament gospels are all still considerably earlier than practically everything else we have, so understandably these still remain our most important documents for studying the historical Jesus.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Knalus

But it wasn't insignificant in the time of Constantine, it was very significant. The Christian church by the time of Constantine was a major part of the Roman Empire, but it tended to resist many of the controlling forces the Emperor and the Empire used to maintain the status quo. Emperors spent centuries attempting to quell the anti-emperor stance of the Christian Church, why do you think so many were fed to the lions? Why would you feed Christians to the lions if you invented it to control those people? This makes absolutely no sense. If anything, you could say that Constantine twisted the early Christian church, but you couldn't say that it was invented in order to create a mechanism of control over the regular folk. The emperor cults WERE the "invented" tool to control the masses, why build a new one? Christianity was divisive to Romans, not uniting. It's not just "not the most awesome tool", but it's possibly the worst tool available if control is your goal.

Christianity took off because he embraced it, not because he constructed it, and allowed the Good News to spread.

I have to disagree with you here, christianity was only divisive to the empire if kept outside, once it became a state religeon its very stubbornness became its strength to bind a devisive empire together, you have to recognise the Roman Empire was in chaos in this time, the ruling structures that had worked reasonably well for a city state had brocken down under the pressure of an eastern and western dual empire, with 2 potential emperors most of the time.

Christianity had soime huge advantages over other faiths at the time, it proslytised for a start, which was unsual, what would be the point of a state religeon that didn't attempt to or even banned allowing converts in, it was the speed that it spread and the fact that it didn't preach anything for this life that made it very desirable for the state to coopt.

The fact that it also preached chastity and poverty was a good thing, it was in line with traditional roman society as opposed to the weirder and wackier sects coming out of the east and Egypt.

Embracing early christianity would make perfect sense assuming an emperor was looking for a unifiying faith, what better way to prevent the christians themselves from spreading disent within the empire, they would also spread the faith themselves enthusiastically and there really wasn't anything about the church that was likley to offend conservative roman sensabilities, no drunkenan bachanalian rights involving little boys or the like (that, it would appear, would have to wait)

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I have to disagree with you here, christianity was only divisive to the empire if kept outside, once it became a state religeon its very stubbornness became its strength to bind a devisive empire together, you have to recognise the Roman Empire was in chaos in this time, the ruling structures that had worked reasonably well for a city state had brocken down under the pressure of an eastern and western dual empire, with 2 potential emperors most of the time.

Christianity had soime huge advantages over other faiths at the time, it proslytised for a start, which was unsual, what would be the point of a state religeon that didn't attempt to or even banned allowing converts in, it was the speed that it spread and the fact that it didn't preach anything for this life that made it very desirable for the state to coopt.

The fact that it also preached chastity and poverty was a good thing, it was in line with traditional roman society as opposed to the weirder and wackier sects coming out of the east and Egypt.

Embracing early christianity would make perfect sense assuming an emperor was looking for a unifiying faith, what better way to prevent the christians themselves from spreading disent within the empire, they would also spread the faith themselves enthusiastically and there really wasn't anything about the church that was likley to offend conservative roman sensabilities, no drunkenan bachanalian rights involving little boys or the like (that, it would appear, would have to wait)

Fair enough. From an emperor's point of view, though, if Constantine took the Christian position as a unifying act, as opposed to an honest conversion, it must have been a bitter pill to swallow. Hence the previous emperor's not just mistrust, but active dislike of the early Christian church. The perfect sense you mention would be seen best in hindsight.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Fair enough. From an emperor's point of view, though, if Constantine took the Christian position as a unifying act, as opposed to an honest conversion, it must have been a bitter pill to swallow. Hence the previous emperor's not just mistrust, but active dislike of the early Christian church. The perfect sense you mention would be seen best in hindsight.

Previous emperors blew hot and cold about the church though, the initial persecution was a fairly simple consequence of early christians refusing to make an offering for the emperor, by Constantines time the church was large enough that it was both courted by previous emperors and attacked, Constantines actions were not 'out of the blue' so much as an extension of previous acts of support from his rival and previous claiments to the throne.
All of this has to be seen in the light of an empire in semi constant civil war where gaining factional support was very important.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Previous emperors blew hot and cold about the church though, the initial persecution was a fairly simple consequence of early christians refusing to make an offering for the emperor, by Constantines time the church was large enough that it was both courted by previous emperors and attacked, Constantines actions were not 'out of the blue' so much as an extension of previous acts of support from his rival and previous claiments to the throne.
All of this has to be seen in the light of an empire in semi constant civil war where gaining factional support was very important.

I tend to think that this was more in line with what Constantine was actually attempting to do. We also tend to forget that he most likely did not embrace Christianity to the exclusion of all other religions. Constantine merely assured equal treatment for the church, and it is entirely possible that this occurred by adding Jesus to the Pantheon.

[afc wimbledon]

Its easy to overlook the absoloute chaos that the roman empire was in reality, the reason "The Decline and Fall' is such a great book is because it is an unremmiting tale of internicine violence and civil war, most of the emperors were lucky to survive a year or two before the pretorian guard offed them or they were dethroned by a co emperor, poisoned or the like.

which reminds me I must dust my Gibbon off and add him to the bathroom library

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Cheese

The above are your words TC....you are suggesting as far as I can see that there are no "official records" or "administrative documents" as we would think today, outside of Second Temple Judaism which I admittedly know little about.

Then you say:
"It seems to me that you along with a number of mythicists are dismissing all the evidence in the Gospels and in Paul for the existence of Jesus, on the basis that they are agenda driven sources. "

I guess my answer to the above has to be yes, "until proven otherwise". It is you and your brethern's responsibility to educate the masses on the history/significances of the day and how that translates to a historical Jesus. That's the skeptic in me I guess.
I also freely admit that my Constantine example above was hypothesized and is likely fallacious.

Like text critic says, if you are to ignore all corroborating texts on the basis of bias or agenda, there was no Constantine, Nero or the like either.

Guess what I'm saying, is it is as likely Jesus existed as most notable ancient persons we have no disagreements on. The only cause for skepticism is due to the fact he is a religious figure, therefore your bias leads you to doubt Jesus existence, but not others.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Like text critic says, if you are to ignore all corroborating texts on the basis of bias or agenda, there was no Constantine, Nero or the like either.

Guess what I'm saying, is it is as likely Jesus existed as most notable ancient persons we have no disagreements on. The only cause for skepticism is due to the fact he is a religious figure, therefore your bias leads you to doubt Jesus existence, but not others.

no...I disagree. There is a lot more info on Constantine etc than Jesus himself.
Whether that info is to believed or not is another story.
Even IF there was a man named Jesus it is not the same person as depicted in the bible, that is a total fabrication, or fable if you prefer.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Its easy to overlook the absoloute chaos that the roman empire was in reality, the reason "The Decline and Fall' is such a great book is because it is an unremmiting tale of internicine violence and civil war, most of the emperors were lucky to survive a year or two before the pretorian guard offed them or they were dethroned by a co emperor, poisoned or the like.

which reminds me I must dust my Gibbon off and add him to the bathroom library

with the exception of some very strong Emperors or outright ruthless or crazy, the leadership was always on a very loose setting.

Especially when the Empire split

The fascinating is based around the powers behind the throne. In terms of rule, for the most part a lot of these guys stayed on the gilded throne for decades

Some of my favorites

Tiberius - Absolutely ruthless and sadistic, he lasted for 22 years and was possibly poisoned by his grand nephew Caligula

Caligula only lasted 3 years but after a brief illness went insane and declared himself a god, turned his palace into a brothel to raise funds and named his horse as a high priest. Assasinated by his guard and the senate

Nero - lasted about 13 years, the theory is that he caused the great fire, his tax policies caused a great uprising and he fled and was declared as an enemy of the Senate and the people. He couldn't kill himself, and made his assistant murder him

Marcus Aurelius - 15 years died of natural causes, one of the more sane and uncorruptable Emperors who was dubbed the philosopher kings.

Commodus - Back to batsh%t insane he was the son of Marcus and lasted about 15 years, he was another god king who claimed that he was the son of the god Jupiter, One of the only Emperors to actually take part in the Gladiator games entering the arena himself. However most of the slaves would simply submit to him rather then fight him.