Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
08-27-2004, 08:07 AM | #11 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,777
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
08-27-2004, 08:35 AM | #12 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
08-27-2004, 10:07 AM | #13 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
History, as such, is not under discussion in the work at all. In this passage, a piece of Plato is discussed, and the way in which the Hebrew scriptures acknowledge the inability of most men to reason (and how, unlike the philosophers, they don't exclude that class of men) and embody it as part of their message is outlined. Of course, Eusebius may have been a lying so-and-so anyway, but you need to keep in mind that he quoted Plato: "Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.". You may as well say that this is evidence that he went out of his way to be truthful in his histories. Quote:
|
||||
08-27-2004, 10:32 AM | #14 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,777
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
08-27-2004, 10:40 AM | #15 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
Basically, Eusebius endorses Plato's royal lie. A royal lie is still a lie. |
|
08-27-2004, 05:09 PM | #16 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
Quote:
Is there any evidence that Eusebius carried out wholesale lying in producing his histories? Is there a list somewhere? |
||
08-27-2004, 07:25 PM | #17 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
08-27-2004, 07:40 PM | #18 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
|
Why assume that Eusebius started writing his Ecclesiastica Historica after the conversion of Constantine?
best, Peter Kirby |
08-28-2004, 02:01 AM | #19 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
The whole Eusebius the liar business is now old hat. The passage makes clear that he is not talking about lies because he refers to the Old Testament doing the same thing. There is simply no way that Eusebius or anything other Christian would say the OT contains lies. Therefore 'lie' is a mistranslation being used with mischevous intent. The correct term, as is blindlingly obvious from the context, should be fable or parable or figurative speech.
We also have no firm evidence Eusebius ever forged anything else. The whole idea is an atheist myth that they should now drop. Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason |
08-28-2004, 02:22 AM | #20 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
|
Quote:
More importantly, Eusebius' exact date and place of birth are unknown [this leaves your question difficult to answer - indeed, the exact date of Constantine's conversion is unknown]. I have seen sources that indicate that in 296 he was in Palestine and saw Constantine who visited the country with Diocletian. If we assume that he was born c.265, then by 213 (at the age of around 40) is when he could have acquired enough respect, knowledge, standing in the Church and recognition to merit taking the monumental task of writing the Chrurch History. And by that time, Constantine was converted. GDon, Quote:
I find his approach mealymouthed, long-winded and apologetic. I have provided you with the translation and given you a clear interpretation of the passages. If I rob the poor and claim that the bible says that those who have little will have the little taken away from them and those who have more will be added more, will you claim that I am only quoting the Bible? If you buy Pierce's interpretation, like I said, cool with me. Carrier disagreed, and he builds the argument down from Plato here . No one, in early Christian history (besides Papias) is as suspect as him - he is the first to quote the TF - the TF turns out to be an interpolation. He is the first to mention and use Hegessipus - we find no copies of Hegessipus elsewhere. He uses Clement ambiguously and makes incredulous miraculous claims for a man of his stature and things that contradict his claims - like Josephus' lost reference that was cited by Origen - which made James the Just a 'powerhouse' on his own - have gone missing. What gives? Look, this thread is meant to discuss this issue. Don't take my role of playing devil's advocate to imply that conclusions have been made. |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|