aeebee50

You would have to be talking about Eusebius of Caesarea the historian, not Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia who was a friend of Arius and supported him.

ApostateAbe

Toto in another thread brought up a similar argument from silence, and I will repost my response here. Toto is too busy with holiday cheer to continue to argue with me.

aa5874

It is YOUR argument that was derived from DEAD AIR, utter Silence.

1. You know that there is ZERO corroboration, Complete Silence, from non-apologetic sources of antiquity that Paul was the most popular Christian. See ALL or any Extant non-apologetic sources of antiquity

2. You know that in the Pauline writings Paul claimed he did NOT get his gospel from any man . See Galatians 1.10-12.

3. You know that there is ZERO corroboration, Complete Silence, for your claim that Paul was the only "apostle" that had the means to write.

4. You seem to have ZERO idea that there were Christians, like Simon Magus, Menander, Marcion, Valentinus, Carporcrates, Cerinthus, Basilides, Saturnilians that had documented their doctrines and beliefs.

5. If it was SO COSTLY to write how did the Bishop Ignatius manage to WRITE SEVEN Epistles while supposedly on his way to Rome under guard?

PhilosopherJay

Hi ApostateAbe,

This Jewish history Professor Meir Bar-Ilan here suggests overall literary rates at under 3% in Israel, although urban centers like Jerusalem might have had literary rates of up to 15%.

We should remember that no post offices existed. While military officials and very wealthy people could communicate through letter writing, sending servants on long journeys to deliver them, this was not an option for ordinary citizens. You would actually need to know a person going to a particular place to get a letter delivered. This also meant that you could not expect to receive an answer to a letter for months or years, as the person you sent the letter to would have to find someone going to your town who was willing to deliver the letter.

There is also the problem of scribes. Some or all of Paul's letters were written by scribes. How much input they had is impossible to say.

How much interpolation the letters had is also impossible to say.

It was also a popular rhetorical exercise to pretend to be a well known person and write a letter that you imagined that person would write.

Published letters are perhaps the least trustworthy of all texts from this time period, although no texts are entirely trustworthy.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

You mean people would write letters and books to THEMSELVES and claim it was from a well known person.

It does NOT any sense for a person to think he is a well known person and writes letters and books so that in effect that he GETS no benefit from his pretense.

For example, a man named Moses may have written the 10 commandments himself and then claim it was really WRITTEN by God.

Eusebius may have written parts of "Against Heresies" himself and then claimed it was written by Irenaeus.

Duvduv

The Bottom Line here, aa5874, is that these so-called historians are merely commissioned or uncommissioned biased loyalists and not objective unbiased historians. So how can ANYTHING significant that they claim be taken at face value? It makes absolutely no sense.

aa5874

Every single word from an APOLOGETIC Source is EXTREMEMLY, EXTREMELY Significant.

Would you dimiss the oral or WRITTEN statements of a person accused of committing a crime even if you think that they may have lied?

Would you dismiss the CONFESSION of a person who previously lied?

Written and oral statements from the accused are NOT ever dismissed. Every statement, oral or written, can be held AGAINST the accused.

Every single word, every single statement from an APOLOGETIC Source of ANTIQUITY must, must, be taken into account.

Now, there is evidence that "Church History" attributed to Eusebius may be the work of more than one author or was written AFTER Eusebius was already dead. .

In "Against the Galileans", The Emperor Julian issued a challenge that showed he was UNAWARE that Josephus wrote about Jesus and UNAWARE of "Church History" attributed to Eusebius, UNAWARE of "Against Celsus" and "Commentary on Matthew" attributed to Origen.

"Against the Galileans" attributed to Julian the Emperor c 360 CE Julian declared that he is to be considered a TOTAL LIAR if anyone can show that WELL-KNOWN writers mentioned Jesus and Paul.

In the ENTIRE lifetime of Julian up to "Against the Galileans" Julian the Emperor did NOT appear to be AWARE that writings attributed to EUSEBIUS did state that Josephus, a WELL-KNOWN writer, did mention Jesus.

We KNOW that the Roman Church was involved in FRAUDULENT activities when it had in its possession a most fruadulent document the "Donation of Constantine".

Duvduv

I see your point, but in terms of establishing or inferring anything about objective facts it is impossible based on these people, and I am increasingly surprised that scholars would take chronologies and descriptions of "heresies" from someone like Eusebius seriously in reconstructing events....

aa5874

It cannot be impossible to established that many writings attributed to certain writers are chronologically and historically bogus.

Again, NOTHING written in antiquity can be dismissed. NOTHING.

The writing called "Church History" attributed to EUSEBIUS does ACTUALLY CONTAIN the Clues or CODES to determine which writings are FRAUDULENT.

From "Church History", I was able to deduce that the following writings were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.

1. Writings under the name of Paul were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


2. Writings under the name of Ignatius were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


3. Writings under the name of Clement of Rome were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


4. Writings under the name of Polycarp were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


5. Writings under the name of Papias were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


6. Writings ubder the name of Irenaeus were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


7. Writings under the name of Clement of Alexander were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


8. Writings under the name of Origen were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


9. Writings under the name of Tertullian were WHOLLY or PARTIALLY fabricated or manipulated.


It is IMPERATIVE that "Church History" be taken EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY seriously and NOT be DISMISSED.

"Church History" attributed is probably the MOST significant writing of the Church and PROVIDES MANY, MANY CLUES and CODES to show that the History of the Jesus cult of Christ as stated in the very book is INDEED FRADULENT.

Ironically, "Church History" is a detailed document of EXACTLY how the FRAUD was carried out.

Duvduv

Clues and codes?????????? About how the fraud took place??
What's that supposed to mean?

Why on Earth would anyone such as Eusebius do that?? I have been taking all these discussions seriously, and now I am wondering why........