Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 01-07-2013, 08:41 AM

Oh, and in case you wonder why the American Catholic does not mind being called Christian is like putting red paint on his front-door so he can tell the prawling 'two by two' [that comes around from time to time]: "I am already bleeding, can't you see?" Try the neighbor, and good luck to you.

Toto · 01-07-2013, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The OP dialog split out by Toto concerned the report of Eusebius about Constantine's actions as studied and analysed in Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice by T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72.

You have presumed to pronounce judgement on this report.

Have you got any idea what this report was about and what it said?

OVER

Here is the context again ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by T D BARNES

On the assumption that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate, it may be argued that in 324 Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and that he carried through a systematic and coherent reformation, at least in the eastern provinces which he conquered in 324 as a professed Christian in a Christian crusade against the last of the persecutor.

What report of Eusebius was Barnes referring to aa5874?

I think this is just a figure of speech. "Report of Eusebius" could refer to anything that Eusebius wrote or reported.

Is there any point to this thread? It seems it can be summarized as "mountainman HATES Eusebius, the tool of Constantine." :huh:

mountainman · 01-08-2013, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The OP dialog split out by Toto concerned the report of Eusebius about Constantine's actions as studied and analysed in Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice by T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72.

You have presumed to pronounce judgement on this report.

Have you got any idea what this report was about and what it said?

OVER

Here is the context again ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by T D BARNES

On the assumption that Eusebius' report is reliable and accurate, it may be argued that in 324 Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, and that he carried through a systematic and coherent reformation, at least in the eastern provinces which he conquered in 324 as a professed Christian in a Christian crusade against the last of the persecutor.

What report of Eusebius was Barnes referring to aa5874?

I think this is just a figure of speech. "Report of Eusebius" could refer to anything that Eusebius wrote or reported.

Read the article Toto, the report referred to by Barnes is a letter of Constantine to the eastern provincials.

Barnes also states the following ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by BARNES

The significance, even the meaning, of the last letter depends on its date and context. Eusebius expressly sets it later than the prohibition of sacrifice (47.1): hence its guarantee to the eastern provincials that they may retain possession of their "shrines of falsehood" should be less important than its total silence about their right or ability to perform ritual acts of sacrifice in pagan temples.

The earlier quoted section follows the above.

Quote:

Is there any point to this thread?

Of course there is.

Quote:

It seems it can be summarized as "mountainman HATES Eusebius, the tool of Constantine." :huh:

I see my research as that of an amateur historian. I do not HATE Eusebius or Bullneck but I have no pity for them. I see them as a pious forger and the sponsor of pious forgery respectively, and I am full agreement with the sentiment of Momigliano when he writes ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM writing about Big E.

only a historian can be guilty of forging evidence
or of knowingly used forged evidence in order to
support his own historical discourse. One is never
simple-minded enough about the condemnation of
forgeries. Pious frauds are frauds, for which one
must show no piety - and no pity.

aa5874 · 01-09-2013, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...I see my research as that of an amateur historian. I do not HATE Eusebius or Bullneck but I have no pity for them. I see them as a pious forger and the sponsor of pious forgery respectively, and I am full agreement with the sentiment of Momigliano when he writes ....

You are accusing Eusebius of forgery WITHOUT any evidence. Why?? You very well know that the evidence suggests even the Canonised NT is filled with FAKE authors or FALSELY attributed authorship.

Writings of so-called Apologetics suffered the same fate. There was probably a 4th century character called Eusebius of Caesarea but he may NOT have composed "Church History".

Duvduv · 01-09-2013, 08:05 AM

It's too bad that scholars don't deconstruct the works attributed to apologists the way they do the texts of the NT. Perhaps it isn't a good professional goal to spend time investing in deconstructing a Justin, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Origen or Tertullian the way it is in deconstructing the epistles and gospels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...I see my research as that of an amateur historian. I do not HATE Eusebius or Bullneck but I have no pity for them. I see them as a pious forger and the sponsor of pious forgery respectively, and I am full agreement with the sentiment of Momigliano when he writes ....

You are accusing Eusebius of forgery WITHOUT any evidence. Why?? You very well know that the evidence suggests even the Canonised NT is filled with FAKE authors or FALSELY attributed authorship.

Writings of so-called Apologetics suffered the same fate. There was probably a 4th century character called Eusebius of Caesarea but he may NOT have composed "Church History".

Chili · 01-09-2013, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...I see my research as that of an amateur historian. I do not HATE Eusebius or Bullneck but I have no pity for them. I see them as a pious forger and the sponsor of pious forgery respectively, and I am full agreement with the sentiment of Momigliano when he writes ....

You are accusing Eusebius of forgery WITHOUT any evidence. Why?? You very well know that the evidence suggests even the Canonised NT is filled with FAKE authors or FALSELY attributed authorship.

Writings of so-called Apologetics suffered the same fate. There was probably a 4th century character called Eusebius of Caesarea but he may NOT have composed "Church History".

Correct, the enigmatic word is always from the 'unkown author' and doubters want to assualt the author instead of the words he wrote, because they do not understand.

When I did Shakespeare (critically), a lady (with all respect to her) concluded that he could not have been from Stradford as she was from Oxford (implied) and after 40 years still did not understand a word he wrote.

mountainman · 01-09-2013, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...I see my research as that of an amateur historian. I do not HATE Eusebius or Bullneck but I have no pity for them. I see them as a pious forger and the sponsor of pious forgery respectively, and I am full agreement with the sentiment of Momigliano when he writes ....

You are accusing Eusebius of forgery WITHOUT any evidence. Why??

Eusebius has been accused of forgery by many researchers well before I was born aa5874 and I thought I made this quite clear above at post # 7 in which I have cited such evidence.

Quote:

You very well know that the evidence suggests even the Canonised NT is filled with FAKE authors or FALSELY attributed authorship.

And you very well know that Eusebius was the editor-in-chief of the very first widespread and extremely lavish and expensive publication of bible codices under the rule of Constantine. We are dealing with a forgery mill that was commissioned by that emperor and which has continued operations century after century to the present day.

Quote:

Writings of so-called Apologetics suffered the same fate. There was probably a 4th century character called Eusebius of Caesarea but he may NOT have composed "Church History".

There is little doubt that the continuators of Eusebius may have altered at least some of his works. However there is also little doubt that a history of the church up until the all important Council of Nicaea in 325 CE was set out by this wretched Eusebius propagandist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwin Johnson's "Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins" (1890)

"This unknown monk pretends to be a man of research
into very scanty records of the past
... [...] ...

He is not a man of research at all,
except in the sense in which many novelists and romancers
are men of research for the purposes of their construction.
This writer is, in fact, simply a theological romancer,
and only in that sense can he be called an historian at all".

mountainman · 01-09-2013, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

[SIZE="2"]It's too bad that scholars don't deconstruct the works attributed to apologists the way they do the texts of the NT. Perhaps it isn't a good professional goal to spend time investing in deconstructing a Justin, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Origen or Tertullian the way it is in deconstructing the epistles and gospels.

Eusebius is essentially the source for Justin, Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.B. Lightfoot

from Eusebius of Caesarea, (article. pp. 324-5),
Dictionary of Christian Biography: Literature, Sects and Doctrines,
ed. by William Smith and Henry Wace, Vol II.]

"None ventured to go over the same ground again,
but left him sole possessor of the field
which he held by right of discovery and of conquest.
The most bitter of his theological adversaries
were forced to confess their obligations to him,
and to speak of his work with respect.

It is only necessary to reflect for a moment
what a blank would be left in our knowledge
of this most important chapter in all human history,
if the narrative of Eusebius were blotted out,
and we shall appreciate the enormous debt
of gratitude which we owe to him.

The little light which glimmered over the earliest
history of Christianity in medieval times
came ultimately from Eusebius alone,
coloured and distorted in its passage
through various media.

Duvduv · 01-09-2013, 06:48 PM

Would then this suggest that Eusebius or those working under this name had a hand in the production of books by the others, especially where so little is actually known about them?!

aa5874 · 01-09-2013, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are accusing Eusebius of forgery WITHOUT any evidence. Why??

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...Eusebius has been accused of forgery by many researchers well before I was born aa5874 and I thought I made this quite clear above at post # 7 in which I have cited such evidence...

What logical fallacies you write!!! All of a sudden you now put forward a most absurd notion of 'guilt by time '.

How long did people accuse Constantine of composing the Donation of Constantine??

Hundreds of years before you were born. It also took hundreds of years to EXPOSE that the Donation of Constantine was NOT composed by the Emperor.

You claim there was a forgery mill. Do you understand what that means??

Even Writings under the name of the Emperor of Rome, the very Constantine, were forged.

Only writings of Constantine were forged??? Please, mountainman, you seem not to understand how a Forgery Mill functions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You very well know that the evidence suggests even the Canonised NT is filled with FAKE authors or FALSELY attributed authorship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

And you very well know that Eusebius was the editor-in-chief of the very first widespread and extremely lavish and expensive publication of bible codices under the rule of Constantine. We are dealing with a forgery mill that was commissioned by that emperor and which has continued operations century after century to the present day.

Again, mountainman, it was Exposed that writings attributed to the very Constantine, the Emperor of Rome, "Bullneck" were FORGED---the same Bullneck" Constantine that you accuse of operating a Forgery Mill.

I must remind you that Julian, the Emperor, did NOT acknowledge that Eusebius wrote "Church History" or the the Life of Constantine.

In "Against the Galileans", Julian acknowledged the " Praeparatio Evangelica" and it does NOT contain the TF.

The "Praeparatio Evangelica" mentions Josephus many times but NOT the Forged TF.

Julian is NOT a corroborative source for the authorship of "Church History".

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Writings of so-called Apologetics suffered the same fate. There was probably a 4th century character called Eusebius of Caesarea but he may NOT have composed "Church History".

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

There is little doubt that the continuators of Eusebius may have altered at least some of his works. However there is also little doubt that a history of the church up until the all important Council of Nicaea in 325 CE was set out by this wretched Eusebius propagandist.

Again, you have actual ZERO evidence that "Church History" was composed in the 4th century and was actually written by Eusebius.

You argue that the writings of Justin and all Apologetics were forged or manipulated before the 4th century and seem not to understand the very Bullneck Constantine the MOST Powerful Emperor of Rome was a victim of a Massive Forgery.

Eusebius wrote "Church History"??? Eusebius was more powerful than the Bishop of Rome??

When you read and carefully examine " Praeparatio Evangelica" and "Against the Galileans" you will see that "Church History" was most likely a MASSIVE Forgery.

Eusebius was probably ALREADY DEAD before "Church History" was composed.

Constantine "Bullneck" was ALREADY DEAD for hundreds of years when the Donation of Constatine was FORGED under his name.

Eusebius and Constantine appear to be VICTIMS of the Forgery Mill of the Roman Church.

Please, desist from accusing Eusebius of forgery when you have NO evidence.

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

01-07-2013, 08:41 AM	#11
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	Oh, and in case you wonder why the American Catholic does not mind being called Christian is like putting red paint on his front-door so he can tell the prawling 'two by two' [that comes around from time to time]: "I am already bleeding, can't you see?" Try the neighbor, and good luck to you.

01-09-2013, 06:48 PM	#19
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Would then this suggest that Eusebius or those working under this name had a hand in the production of books by the others, especially where so little is actually known about them?!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.