Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Newfie · 12-30-2008, 07:41 AM

Sorry to detour from your scholastic discussion Toto, but I've often wondered if High Liner Fish Products ever considered suing over logo infringement? Please carry on. :blush:

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-30-2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Lane-Fox makes the explicit X-Rated reference to fraud.

So you say. But where in Pagans and Christians specifically? And where specifically in Pagans and Christians does Lane-Fox note that Constantine used the acronym for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour",[/b] let alone that his use of the acronym involves fraud? On what page of this book can we find him doing so?

Quote:

Ask him.

I will. But right now I'm asking you. Are you going to give me a straight answer or not?

Quote:

And by the way, since the creeks were down I took the opportunity of driving the twenty seven hour trip to the library to get that reference that I had noted some years ago concerning the relationship between the use of the greek term episkapos and its meaning as "bishop" and "spy". Allow me to make a small disclaimer. At the beginning of my research I had no expectation of doing it [research] for more than a small time, an interlude of some form in my life, of unimportance. I expected to be refuted by evidence. I expected that there was something out there in the field of archaeology by which we could agree that "christians existed before the rise of Constantine". To my utter suprise, week after week, month after month, the forgeries mounted up on all sides, and the genuine citations were utterly ambiguous. Therefore, At some stage (which was not the beginning of my research) I decided to start documenting my notes. I read many books of Constantine.

Yes, including one written by a non Classicist which is aimed at a juvenile audience and contains (so far as I can see) no documentation of its claims.
.

Quote:

Unfortunately (from memory) I cited Pohlsander.

Actually, you cited a particular book by Pohlsander-- i.e. his The Emperor Constantine, and when you did, you made no claims that this citation was from memory. And when it was pointed out to you that what you claimed he said in this book could not be found there, you still mainteined that he said it, but that his claim on Episkopos was in "another of [his] books on Constantine", the name of which you found ways to avoid giving when asked to do so, even though a listing of Pohlsander's books can easily be found through an internet search.

Quote:

The correct reference I am now in a position to advise, is Julian Morgan in "Constantine (or via: amazon.co.uk)" in the series of books "Leaders of Ancient Rome". He writes at p.56/57 where [EDITOR: are my comments]

Quote:

Constantine kept tight control over the church, appointing all his bishops personally and maintaining a close relationship with them. These bishops had responsibilities for running churches in their so-called dioceses, or areas of local control. [EDITOR: Dioclesian created the "dioceses"] Much of their work was financial or administrative, and there were as many as 1,800 bishops across the empire, with large, landed estates under their control. Church land was exempt from taxation, so there were great advantages if a wealthy man could secure promotion to the position of bishop. Constantine referred to himself as the bishop of bishops, though this could well have been reference to the fact that episkopos, the Greek work for "bishop", can also mean "spy". He certainly wanted his bishops and priests to know that he was watching them and was involved in their activities.

I hope this is acceptable to justify the dual significance of episkopos in relation to the bishop of bishops Constantine, as a "spy of spies".

No, it's not. In the first place, it's taken from a book aimed at grade school children and is (like your theosophist's book on the life and teaching of Apollonius!) hardly an authoritative source.

Secondly, your source does not say, as you claimed it did here, that Constantine often referred to himself as "bishop of bishops"'s , let alone that the title does indeed have the twofold significance you claimed it had. So, once again, you've read into a "source" things that aren't there and misrepresented what it actually says.

Third, none of the statements that your source makes are documented.

Fourth, yours source's statements about the word episkopos and about Constantine that you use for your claims are at best dubious and at worst untrue.

Take the claim that one of the meanings of Episkipos was "spy". While technically true, the claim is irrelevant and cannot be used to support the tentative inference that is drawn from it, since, as has been shown to you, "spy" was not part of the semantic range that episkopos had in Constantine's time.

And then there's the claim that Constantine did in fact call himself "Bishop of Bishops"? I've searched the TLG and I have not found -- at least in literary texts -- any evidence that he ever did. So what substantiates the claim? Do you know?

So no, it's not acceptable to justify the dual significance of episkopos in relation to the bishop of bishops Constantine, as a "spy of spies", since it does not even come close to doing what you claim it does.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 12-30-2008, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You should have quit while you were ahead, or at least not so far behind.

This book is aimed at grades 5-8

Julian Morgan

Dear Toto,

What are you attempting to say? That data in books designed for the instruction of grade 5-8 students is not to be relied upon? I would have thought the opposite should apply.

Best wishes,

Pete

Toto · 12-30-2008, 09:43 AM

The editors and fact checkers (if any) for juvenile books are usually not specialists. Whenever scientists and academics review grade school textbooks, they are usually horrified at the amount of inaccuracy.

So that book should be regarded as unreliable.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-30-2008, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You should have quit while you were ahead, or at least not so far behind.

This book is aimed at grades 5-8

Julian Morgan

Dear Toto,

What are you attempting to say? That data in books designed for the instruction of grade 5-8 students is not to be relied upon? I would have thought the opposite should apply.

Then I wonder why you don't make it a practice to use the Golden Book Encyclopedia and/or the Children's Illustrated Encyclopedia or the Scholastic Children's Encyclopedia as your major sources for your knowledge and documentation of things.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 12-30-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The editors and fact checkers (if any) for juvenile books are usually not specialists. Whenever scientists and academics review grade school textbooks, they are usually horrified at the amount of inaccuracy.

So that book should be regarded as unreliable.

Dear Toto,

I will regard the data as unreliable when it is shown to be incorrect by citation and refutation, not because you (or anyone else) "says so" on the basis that the book was designed for juvenile students. If you are able to show this data is inaccurate, please feel free to rip it to bits with the appropriate counter-citations. But until then, your pronouncements "against authors of books intended for juvenile students" are baseless in this instance.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 12-30-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What are you attempting to say? That data in books designed for the instruction of grade 5-8 students is not to be relied upon? I would have thought the opposite should apply.

Then I wonder why you don't make it a practice to use the Golden Book Encyclopedia and/or the Children's Illustrated Encyclopedia or the Scholastic Children's Encyclopedia as your major sources for your knowledge and documentation of things.

Dear Jeffrey,

You mean like the practice of "New Testament and Biblical Scholars" who swear by Eusebius' Golden Book of PreNicene Christian Histories?

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 12-30-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Secondly, your source does not say, as you claimed it did here, that Constantine often referred to himself as "bishop of bishops"'s , let alone that the title does indeed have the twofold significance you claimed it had. So, once again, you've read into a "source" things that aren't there and misrepresented what it actually says.

Third, none of the statements that your source makes are documented.

Fourth, yours source's statements about the word episkopos and about Constantine that you use for your claims are at best dubious and at worst untrue.

Take the claim that one of the meanings of Episkipos was "spy". While technically true, the claim is irrelevant and cannot be used to support the tentative inference that is drawn from it, since, as has been shown to you, "spy" was not part of the semantic range that episkopos had in Constantine's time.

And then there's the claim that Constantine did in fact call himself "Bishop of Bishops"? I've searched the TLG and I have not found -- at least in literary texts -- any evidence that he ever did. So what substantiates the claim? Do you know?

So no, it's not acceptable to justify the dual significance of episkopos in relation to the bishop of bishops Constantine, as a "spy of spies", since it does not even come close to doing what you claim it does.

Dear Jeffrey,

There are a great deal of people who appear to have written books which make reference to Constantine considering himself as "Bishop of Bishops". Start with Schaff, or perhaps The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought C. 350-c. 1450 By James Henderson Burns.

We could start with the Constantine's legal role as "Pontifex Maximus", and over and above the flamen - priests assigned to a state-supported god or goddess in Roman religion. Was Constantine the flamen of flamen?

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 12-30-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newfie

I know that some people put the symbol on their cars, but this guy goes a step further.

Now, he must be a real Christian.

"Aar! Have you ever been to sea, Billy?"

Dear Newfie,

You do understand that Jesus was in fact the captain of a sailing boat, crewed by two angels, who transported the apostles Andrew and Matthias to the land of the Cannibals? See the Acts of Andrew and Matthias (Matthew) - From "The Apocryphal New Testament", M.R. James-Translation and Notes, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924

Quote:

4 When twenty-seven days had elapsed,
the Lord appeared to Andrew in the country
where he was teaching and said:
In three days Matthias is to be slain by the man-eaters;
go and deliver him.
'How is it possible for me to get there in time?

' Early to-morrow go to the shore
and you will find a ship.'

And he left him.

5 They went, Andrew and his disciples,
and found a little boat and three men.

The pilot was the Lord,
and the other two were angels.

Andrew asked whither they were going.
'To the land of the man-eaters.'

'I would go there too.'

'Every man avoids that place; why will you go?'

'I have an errand to do;
and if you can, take us.'

He said: 'Come on board.'

Isn't this a great sea-faring tale of the high seas and drama? Who would have thought JC could pilot a sailing boat with 2 angels, and come to the rescue of the disciples in the very nick of time to enable a dramatic rescue from the horrible "Land of the Cannibals"? Marvellous and edifying stories.

Best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-30-2008, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The editors and fact checkers (if any) for juvenile books are usually not specialists. Whenever scientists and academics review grade school textbooks, they are usually horrified at the amount of inaccuracy.

So that book should be regarded as unreliable.

Dear Toto,

I will regard the data as unreliable when it is shown to be incorrect by citation and refutation, not because you (or anyone else) "says so" on the basis that the book was designed for juvenile students. If you are able to show this data is inaccurate, please feel free to rip it to bits with the appropriate counter-citations. But until then, your pronouncements "against authors of books intended for juvenile students" are baseless in this instance.

So you are going to continue to use them?

Jeffrey

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-30-2008, 07:41 AM	#21
Newfie Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 2,457	Sorry to detour from your scholastic discussion Toto, but I've often wondered if High Liner Fish Products ever considered suing over logo infringement? Please carry on. :blush:

12-30-2008, 09:43 AM	#24
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The editors and fact checkers (if any) for juvenile books are usually not specialists. Whenever scientists and academics review grade school textbooks, they are usually horrified at the amount of inaccuracy. So that book should be regarded as unreliable.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.