EarlDoherty

If you are referring to exchanges over posts by "aa", this is not bickering. It is a cry for help.

Earl Doherty

Duvduv

MM, do you know of anyone with a website who tries to refute your arguments for the 4th century Christianity? Some people around here often get personal rather than substantive in terms of challenging your specific claims one by one. Or have you ever made any videos where you debate with others on the major substantive issues?

Toto

You are on that website, the only place on the web where anyone bothers to try to refute Pete's theories.

People here have challenged and refuted Pete's theories. I have not seen any personal attacks other than an occasional expression of frustration that Pete clings to theories that are so obviously insubstantial.

You can find some videos of Pete playing drums. I think it is a better use of his time.

Jeffrey Gibson

Actually, there are a few other forums/websites where Pete has mounted his thesis and where almost everyone except those who already have an axe to grind against Christianity have responded with substantive criticisms of his claims (as is done here):

http://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/to...that-jesus-did

http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=13370

http://www.secularcafe.org/archive/i...p/t-12064.html

http://historum.com/speculative-hist...-religion.html

http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=134121

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76151

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/...ead.php?t=3118

And Pete does the same dodges and raping of evidence on all of these sites that he does here

Jeffrey

Iskander

Duvduv

You may want to learn from this short lesson.

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=20848

Monty Python, shameful ridicule of the Bible, theatrical satire, Arius and Nicaea

Toto

I stand corrected. I guess I don't get out enough.

But David Icke??? Pete can't even convince people who believe that the Queen of England is a reptilian shape shifter?

DCHindley

Are you sure of that?

That Arius was not happy that God Himself (in the person of Jesus Christ) suffers "outrages" under the orthodox concept of the relationship between Jesus Christ and God the father is not in dispute. Nor do I dispute his conclusion that God prepared an aid for himself by making a newly born and newly created essence of Christ.

How he got there, he says, was to make assumptions or suppositions and mold them into wonders of faith.

He says: “Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages,	«ἄπαγε», φησίν, «οὐ βούλομαι τὸν θεὸν ἐγὼ ὕβρεων πάθει δοκεῖν ἐνέχεσθαι».
and on this account I suggest [ὑποτίθεμαι = assume, suppose, estimate] and fabricate [πλάττω = form, mold] wondrous things indeed in respect to faith:	καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὑποτίθεμαι καὶ πλάττω θαυμάσιά γε τῇ πίστει,
that God, when he had made the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ,	ὡς ὁ θεὸς νεογενῆ καὶ νεόκτιστον οὐσίαν Χριστοῦ ποιησάμενος
prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me.	βοήθειαν ἑαυτῷ παρεσκευάσατο, ὥς γέ μοι δοκεῖ.

That is a far cry from the present day meaning of "fabricate" (that is, to lie). You make it seem as though these bishops and the emperor were simply making up stories, when they were in fact deliberating on what they considered the very important issue, how does the Creator God adopted by Christians from the Jews, and the Savior God of their salvation theology, relate to the metaphysical first principals. This was the Christian version of the debates between the Platonic and Aristotelian schools over the first principals of the cosmic order.

PS: That Greek text was from this web page, a fact that I do not think anyone so far has shared with the rest of us.

Duvduv

I am not sure I understand why he would be the focus of patronizing criticism and yes, argumentum ad hominem, simply because people do not agree with his analyses, inferences and approach. If his views are considered non-kosher by the Church of Academia this should be clearly admitted by those who criticize him, as opposed to some people with quite outlandish ideas who are handled with kid gloves.
In any case, I'll wait for MM's response. I really did not have discussion groups in mind as much as I had video or written debates.

Adam

Typical Duvduv. Only here to garner whatever supports his fanatic faith no matter how ludicrous the claim. Asking only for evidence that reinforces those claims (as if there would be documentaries that would go against all common sense).

Duvduv

Can you translate this into normal English? Without subjective adjectives like "fanatic" or "ludicrous". You accuse me of asking for evidence Adam, but I guess you are happy to rely with faith on unsubstantiated claims. Why not just admit it?
Thank you.