Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Camio · 02-18-2010, 09:12 AM

Very interesting input Rick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

The problem with texts is the same everywhere: Ancient sources lie. So we need criteria to tell what is true and what isn't.

Or rather: what may be true. This statement is valid for all human sciences IMO, but considering the criteria that are at our disposal to decide on those distant historical matters (i.e. nothing compared to the reliability of a physics lab test bench), we are even farther to any certainty.

Rick Sumner · 02-19-2010, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camio

Very interesting input Rick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

The problem with texts is the same everywhere: Ancient sources lie. So we need criteria to tell what is true and what isn't.

Or rather: what may be true. This statement is valid for all human sciences IMO, but considering the criteria that are at our disposal to decide on those distant historical matters (i.e. nothing compared to the reliability of a physics lab test bench), we are even farther to any certainty.

We could probably make it even more tentative than that--"what sounds true." Because that's really what it comes down to. But the point regarding the humanities at large is spot on.

aa5874 · 02-19-2010, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Eusebius appears to write about MYTHOLOGY in his "Life of Constantine", but he reserves the word to describe the beliefs of the non Christians of his time. Eusebius appears to be making an attempt to be an historian in most of his other works, and most people are agreed that Eusebius himself was a proponent of the "Historical Jesus Theory". In his literature, including the following extract, he seems to be speak easily and confidently concerning the existence of an historial Jesus Christ, and we must not forget that he was the editor of the first Greek language large-scale publication of the "New Testament".

Eusebius clearly stated that Jesus had a two-fold nature, one Divine and the other human. Eusebius presented a MYTH as historical.

One does not claim that Homer was a proponent of the "historical Achilles". Homer presented the offspring of a sea-goddes and a human king, but still a myth..

The belief that Jesus existed as both fully God and man, it is not at all about history since no such entity ever existed.

HJ denotes the nature of existence not the belief of existence.

Marcion believed his Phantom son of God Jesus existed and was actually on earth, but his belief cannot alter that Gods are considered mythological.

Jesus Christ was considered a son of a God by Eusebius, therefore Eusebius was presented as a mythological entity.

The writer using the name Eusebius gave the world a 6 for a 9, an MJ for an HJ.

"Blessed are those who have not seen me but still believe" the words of Jesus to the King of Edessa according to Eusebius. Now, who could have seen HJ?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.