Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 05-01-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If somebody's message is only successfully communicated to one person in seventeen centuries, I think it is reasonable to consider that a low success rate.

But which of these two is more plausible:

(1) Arius really meant what you say he meant, and you are the only person in seventeen centuries to realise it;

(2) Arius did not mean what you say he meant, and yours is a unique misinterpretation?

Neither of the above.

Quote:

I'm afraid that in the absence of anything further, I would have to bet on (2).You wouldn't want four word-for-word identical accounts (on the forgery hypothesis), but you also wouldn't want overt contradictions, either. Just to begin at the beginning, there might be some reason to include a genealogy in some accounts and not others, but it makes no sense to forge two different inconsistent fabricated genealogies. And there are other contradictions between the Gospel accounts, which just don't sit easily with your hypothesis.That is totally illogical. What justification do you have for doing that? There is no reason why somebody who considers the four canonical Gospels to be fictions can't consider the hypothesis of separate compilation of those four fictions. If you don't want to assess the plausibility of alternative hypotheses, then you aren't really disinterestedly testing your assertion that your hypothesis is the most likely, you are simply engaging in special pleading.

I am after bigger fish.

J-D · 05-01-2007, 06:45 PM

If you don't want to explain or to justify your position I can't make you. But I can write you off.

mountainman · 05-01-2007, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If you don't want to explain or to justify your position I can't make you. But I can write you off.

I have attempted to collate notes in regard to
the explanation and justification of the position
I am currely exploring at my website.

Did you understand the relevance of the Eusebian
canon tables to the possible fabrication of the gospels?

spin · 05-01-2007, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Momigliano's work provided much data for my thesis. Not all, but much. My thesis prevents me from considering the hypothesis that the time of Jesus Christ was any earlier than the time of Constantine. Nevertheless, if in considering this alternate hypothesis, you can see some value still in this book, perhaps you could summarise these advantages for me.

Momigliano tended to write short articles and sometimes short books. Just what exactly did Momigliano's work provide you?? Which works of his have you consulted?

spin

J-D · 05-01-2007, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I have attempted to collate notes in regard to
the explanation and justification of the position
I am currely exploring at my website.

I don't see anything there that deals with the points I have just raised. But I do see further evidence of your 'talent' for squeezing the minimum amount of thoughts into the maximum amount of words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Did you understand the relevance of the Eusebian
canon tables to the possible fabrication of the gospels?

No.

jgibson000 · 05-01-2007, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I have attempted to collate notes in regard to
the explanation and justification of the position
I am currely exploring at my website.

I thought you were going to explore this by joining and posting to the Classics List. Playing it safe, are you?

JG

mountainman · 05-05-2007, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If somebody's message is only successfully communicated to one person in seventeen centuries, I think it is reasonable to consider that a low success rate.

The following is presented as an explanation
for this statistic:

I consider that many researchers in the fields of both
ancient history and biblical history have themselves
considered - in certain and specific instances -
that Eusebius of Caesarea employed fiction in a number
of places in hist textual accounts.

However, my thesis is perhaps the first to analyse the
logical implications of Eusebian fiction on a larger scale.

Thus am I entitled to attempt to seek any corresponding
ancient historical citations that support this postulate,
and the words of Arius do just that.

jgibson000 · 05-05-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The following is presented as an explanation
for this statistic:

I consider that many researchers in the fields of both
ancient history and biblical history have themselves
considered - in certain and specific instances -
that Eusebius of Caesarea employed fiction in a number
of places in hist textual accounts.

However, my thesis is perhaps the first to analyse the
implications of Eusebian fiction on a larger scale.

Why don't you have the courage of your convictions and find by joining and posting to the Classics List?

There's also the Late Antiquity List that would provide you with relevant feed back. Go here: http://www.sc.edu/ltantsoc/#ltantiq

JG

J-D · 05-06-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The following is presented as an explanation
for this statistic:

I consider that many researchers in the fields of both
ancient history and biblical history have themselves
considered - in certain and specific instances -
that Eusebius of Caesarea employed fiction in a number
of places in hist textual accounts.

However, my thesis is perhaps the first to analyse the
logical implications of Eusebian fiction on a larger scale.

Thus am I entitled to attempt to seek any corresponding
ancient historical citations that support this postulate,
and the words of Arius do just that.

These remarks do not affect the validity of mine.

mountainman · 05-06-2007, 09:00 PM

How an historian of liberty, Lord Acton, describes
gangsters, brigands, despots, etc.

Here is the familiar quote in its context:

"And remember,
where you have a concentration of power in a few hands,
all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control.
History has proven that.
All power corrupts;
absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Forget conspiracy theories.

05-06-2007, 09:00 PM	#60
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	How an historian of liberty, Lord Acton, describes gangsters, brigands, despots, etc. Here is the familiar quote in its context: "And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Forget conspiracy theories.

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

05-01-2007, 06:45 PM	#52
J-D Moderator - General Religious Discussions Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New South Wales Posts: 27,330	If you don't want to explain or to justify your position I can't make you. But I can write you off.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.