spin

Next thing you know you'll be listening to Britney Spears!


spin

Doug Shaver

As worded there, I have no problem with it. The problems arise with its application to "any given case." I think the evidence for a first-century origin of Christianity is quite sufficient to warrant a belief that that is when it got started. Alternative theories, in my judgment, are badly lacking in parsimony.

Ted Hoffman

False dichotomy. (3) Eusebian history is a mixture of fact and inaccuracies.
This would be arguable or even acceptable, except "Eusebian authenticity" is not Eusebian authenticity as we know it. We believe Eusebius wrote Church History, Life of Constantine and Proof/Demonstration of the gospel among others. It would make perfect sense to argue Eusebius fabricated the history therein.
But that is not what you are arguing when you challenge what you call "Eusebian authenticity." You are instead arguing that Eusebius is Thucydides, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Polybius, Lucian, Philo, Gaius, Dio Cassius and evryone else who purported to write anything in the first few centuries regarding Christianity. That all those names are just noms de plum that Eusebius used.

You should be arguing this case, not arguing the implications, or step one and six. It doesnt matter what number of postulates or explicates exist. This claim is serious enough. Stay here and work on this. Forget all else. Just start a thread showing us how you prove that Eusebius wrote Antiquities of the Jews and War. All else is irrelevant. Start on this. Then move to Tacitus. Did you include Ignatius, Polycarp? I dont know. If you can prove only one of the putative authors is in fact Eusebius, then a reasonable person can think your theory is worth looking into.

What is your proof that Eusebius wrote Matthew and Mark? Let us start there please. Which of these books were written by someone other than Eusebius. And how do you know?

Ted Hoffman

And according to your hypothesis mountainman, how do we know Constantine is not Eusebius? How do you know Eusebius existed at all? Maybe the mafia thug constantine invented an author called Eusebius?
I would like to know how you rule out things because "anything goes" is written all over your theory.

Gamera

Your conflation of Britney Spears with the most significant movement in the field of history for the past 50 years, makes my point about your knownothingism better than anything I could say.

Gamera

The only shame I see here is your admission of ignorance in a field of study, followed by a dismissive opinion about it.

I'm not saying you have to be theologian to come to a conclusion about the historicity of the Christian Scriptures. I would say that you need to study the field a bit if you want to make claims about what it says on the subject.

aa5874

How can you say that there is sufficient evidence for Christianity with respect to Jesus Christ in the 1st century when it cannot be determined with any certainty the following:

1 The date of writing of any book of the NT.
2. The authors of any book of the NT.
3. The actual time of circulation of the any book of the NT.
4. The history of main characters of the NT.
5. The veracity of any event in the NT.

I fail to see how a person could claim that there is enough evidence that Christianity, as it relates to Jesus Christ, started in the 1st century when it is obvious that there is none.

Doug Shaver

I didn't say that. You are misrepresenting me.

spin

Too funny, Millard. You've discovered historiography and you're so serious. Which writers on historiography have you read that cover these "past 50 years" for you to decide which is the "most significant movement" in the field? how would you rate the work of the following from the "past 50 years" in your analysis? E.H. Carr, Graham Chapman, Keith Jenkins, Michael Palin, Paul Ricoeur, W.H. Walsh and Hayden White?


spin

Gamera

You surely haven't read White or Ricoeur, but nice little google list.