patcleaver

Thanks for the cite.

The above was a typo in post #5221781 / #103 , from a part which was cut and pasted from my earlier post #5217512 / #79, which was correct. I wonder how it happened, it could have been my spell checker.

I obviously intended to say that Jerome always used Iosue for Joshua in the OT.

Jerome wrote by hand and we don't have his original Vulgate (just hand copies from the 10th century). Even if we had it, they were hand written, and we probably could not always be sure how he intended to spell things. I think that reports about Jerome's consistency are probably baseless.

As I said before, I am not really interested in the so called "Jesus name fraud" and besides its off topic. In response to a question, I just did a little research on the internet, and I reported what I found. As I said above, it is mostly from Christian sites and it could be wrong. I am not planning to do any more research on this topic.

If you disagree with me then tell me your theory and may be I'll agree.

I was told by a Catholic Theologian that the preface was dishonest because every time that some of the Greek texts that they were using disagreed with the Clementine Vulgate, that they just followed the Vulgate. Their changes from the Vulgate were almost all over theological issues. Of course, I have no evidence of that, and I no longer trust what I learned from Theologians.

Toto

The initial 'i' in those words is a vowel.

TedM

If this is true, and I can easily believe that it is, a reposting of his admission over and over when he posts here would be a service to all of us. If this is not true, I hope you retract your statement.

That is how it appears. A bit of intellectual fun with no real belief, unless he falls prey to his own creative imagination. If so, he needs serious help.


Yes, that's why this theory seems so insulting to me--it is so obviously impossible. Although it is mildly interesting to see what contortions result in the attempts at a defense, it is ultimately quite distasteful...and for me personally..disturbing.

ted

TedM

Yes, and since common sense for MANY reasons says Eusebius did not write all that your postulate claims, your postulate has virtually no "explanatory power". Your postulate requires that Eusebius be a genuis and an idiot at the same time, and that's just for starters...

I don't think this is true at all. What about the competing religions--gnostics and docetics, for example? What about the desire to know more about Jesus than what the 4 gospels have in them?


The orthodox view is much much simpler.


I'm not going to debate this, as quite frankly I don't have the background to respond to you in detail. However, I'm not a fool. Your postulate is quite simply--ridiculous, and it is clear that either I won't be able to help you see that or Roger is dead on. I wish that neither is the case for your own sake.

Sorry Pete. You seem like a nice guy..if you really believe this stuff, I would have to think the problem has to do with a pathological distrust of authority.

take care,

ted

spamandham

But what about the explanatory power of something in between? Assume as you have that Eusebius was entirely dishonorable. But now consider that there is evidence that he syncretized known pre-existing belief systems, such as Apollonius, Sol Invictus, and Pythagoreanism as I think you will agree.

That being the case, is greater explanatory power achieved by presuming he invented Christ Jesus as well, or is greater explanatory power achieved by presuming this too was a pre-existing tradition of some kind syncretized into "the Boss"s new religion? If so, then the question is, what was it prior to Eusebius?

spamandham

I don't see why it matters whether or not he believes it himself or what his intents were for coming up with it. The only question that matters is how it stacks up. Even if it's a "devils advocate" position, it serves the quest for knowledge, as long as it's not so implausible as to simply waste time and effort.

TedM

It is a waste of time and effort for that exact reason. It's entirely implausible, as it defies common sense. A good exercise would be to come up with the top 2-3 reasons why it doesn't make any sense and then try to refute those reasons. Writing style, language, cultural issues, volume of work, contradictory things that challenge the premise within the canon itself, inane and boring works if made up, the lack of markers of such a massive conspiracy, etc..

It's a stupid postulate.

Yellum Notnef

Speaking of a stupid postulate......

Aren't you celebrating the resurrection of your god today? You guys sure do get uppity on your holidays.

Toto

For Orthodox Christians, this is still Lent, and Easter does not come until April 27.

But still, please keep the irrelevancies and insults down.

Toto

Watch out for the argument from common sense. It is often a way of importing your own prejudices without examining them.

Take language. If the Christian narrative is historical, why are there no original Christian documents written in Aramaic? Why is there such a desparate attempt to show that there is some Aramaic basis to the gospel languages?