Evolutionist

sorry, the source for the quote was:

agnostic/atheism

and the other two quotes were from various pages at:

religious tolerance

Toto

Bede - if you think that these assertions have been demonstrated on these boards to be myths so completely, the least you could do is provide a link to where that happened.

Bernard Muller

Excepts from one of my page:
Eusebius' >>HC, 1, 10: ... an explanation about the length of his ministry (which **starts here some two or three years before Pilate**; but **[case 1] a few lines earlier, the same ministry begins under "Pontius Pilate in the fourth year of his governorship"**!!!)<<
The change is made to support Eusebius' agenda. In the first case, it is to "prove" an opponent is wrong.

>>In his 'Evangelical Demonstration' Book III, after having cited the Testimonium and commented on it (as quoted earlier), Eusebius went on:
"Morever, the scripture of the Acts of the Apostles (xxi. 20.[Ac21:20] ) bears witness, that there were many **ten** thousands of Jews, **who were persuaded that he was the Christ of God**, who was foretold by the prophets."
But in Ac21:20, we read:
"When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews [and *NOT "many **ten** thousands* ..."] have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law."
[the Torah; but **no mention of these Jews seeing Jesus as "the Christ of God"!**]"<<

There is a passage of Tertullian that Eusebius said he quoted, but showed fragrant embellishments above was Tertullian wrote.
And then, Eusebius further exagerate when commenting on the same quote:
>> [Comments of Eusebius on Tert.'s quote] Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius of the **reports which were noised abroad through all Palestine concerning the resurrection** of our Saviour Jesus from the dead.
[in the (inaccurate) Eusebius' quote of Tertullian's Apology, only a doctrine is reported to Tiberius. But Tertullian himself never wrote about a doctrine communicated from Pilate: "Tiberius accordingly, ..., having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events [unspecified! No mention of resurrection] which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity"]
` He gave an account also of other wonders which he had learned of him, and how, after his death, **having risen from the dead, he was now believed by many to be a God** ..."<<


>> "Thus, under the influence of heavenly power, and with the divine cooperation, the doctrine of the Saviour, like the rays of the sun, quickly illumined the whole world; straightway [at once], in accordance with the divine Scriptures, the voice of the inspired evangelists and apostles went forth through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In every city and village, churches were quickly established, filled with multitudes of people like a replenished threshing-floor ... those whose minds ... were fettered by the ancient disease of idolatrous superstition, ... were ... through the teaching and the wonderful works of his disciples, set free" << HC, 2, 3.
This is against 'Acts', Paul's letters and even what Eusebius wrote later in History of the Church!

>> And very likely, Eusebius used a blatantly "Christianized" copy of Josephus' Antiquities (either that or he was interpolating!):
In 'The History of the Church', 2, 10, about the death of Agrippa I, Eusebius quoted Josephus "who clearly testifies to the truth in Antiquities Book XIX, where he tells us the amazing story in these words":
"... A moment later, he [Agrippa I] looked up, and sitting over his head he saw an angel ..."
An angel is featured in Acts:
Ac13:23 "Immediately, because Herod [Agrippa I] did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died."
But in all the ancient copies of 'Antiquities', we read:
"But as he [Agrippa I] presently afterwards looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head." (Ant., XIX, VIII, 2) <<

>> Hegesippus, a second century author (who did not appear to know about Josephus' works) and also a confirmed Christian "embellisher", wrote:
"Immediately after this [James' execution] Vespasian began to besiege them
[the people of Jerusalem; but that was eight years later!]"
'The History of the Church', 2, 23
Of course, Eusebius was glad to accept the "information" and even embellish on it:
"After the martyrdom of James and the capture of Jerusalem which instantly followed ..."
'The History of the Church', 3, 11
But Eusebius knew about the eight years difference. After quoting Josephus on the passage about James' execution (HC, 2, 23), he went on:
"In the eighth year of Nero's reign ... [61-62]" (HC, 2, 24)
After that, Eusebius commented on Nero's persecutions (64), then the trouble in Palestine starting under Florus "in the twelfth year of Nero's reign [65-66]" (HC, 2, 25-26), to arrive finally to the time of Vespasian:
"When Nero had been master of the empire for thirteen years, the business of Galba and Otho occupied a year and a half [68-69]; and then Vespasian ...
[successfully fought against the Jews, "was proclaimed emperor while still in Judea"]" (HC, 3, 5) <<

There are probably more of those in Eusebius' works.

Best regards, Bernard

Layman

Could you clarify this? Are we talking about African slaves here in the states? What is your authority for this?

MortalWombat

You may want to let the editors of Christianity Today know about their "myth" too.

Amen-Moses

The only reason the horse was standing up was because it was nailed to the stable wall!

Amen-Moses

Family Man

Bede could probably "support" most of these. I do recall an atheist claiming that witch hunts/inquisitions murdered millions.

Of course, what we have here is Bede taking the mistaken claim of a single atheist and turning it into an "atheist myth". Imagine his outrage if atheists were to take a single misstatement by a Christian and turning it into a "Christian myth".

This thread is an embarrassment to Bede's claim to approach history seriously.

Bede

Clearly some people haven't been on these boards as long as I have! Actually, looking at the registered dates this is certainly true. There seem to be three lines of defence here: it doesn't matter (as if history is not worthwhile in its own right); that I am attacking a strawman (while other replies make clear I'm not) and that my myths are actually true.

But most interesting of all is the idea that somehow atheists don't have myths as these have to be religious or to do with gods. The Chrisitians destroying the Great Library is a myth because it tends to be uncritically accepted (I've seen it many times on these boards) and it is used as an example of Christian perfidiousness. The fact it isn't true is not strictly relevant to it being a myth. But the unwillingness of some not to let go of it, I would suggest is a characteristic of mythology. So I would defend my myths as just that, in the same way that Washington and that tree is a myth.

Am I attacking a strawman in that few atheists believe all these - I fear not but it is pleasing to see how many don't buy into all of them. But even on this thread we have the claim Hitler was a Christian. Certainly Family Man countering with Christian myths is much what I would expect from him. My atheist myths are fairly widely believed judging by these boards and the II library (I was inspired by joedad resurrecting to old Eusebius is a liar canard). I'd have no objections to Family Man calling the story of St Christopher a Christian myth even if it is not widely believed.

Likewise Bowden rewriting my own statements and refuting the re-written version. That defines the strawman argument and should be preserved for posterity.

On the settled debate about the historical conflict - the following might be of interest:

The conflict between science and religion

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

lpetrich

Bede:
(his "myths"; I'll handle #1 and #9 separately...)
2) That Christians (or Moslems) burnt down the Great Library of Alexandria.

Nobody knows for sure, it must be said. I like the story of the Muslim conqueror who stated something like "if it agrees with the Koran, then it's superfluous. If it's contrary to the Koran, then it's heretical. Either way, those books have got to go!"

3) That the Church taught that the earth was flat.

Who said that?

4) That Hitler was a Christian.

Adolf Hitler never left the Church, and he used Jesus Christ's famous temple temper tantrum as a prototypical example as to what should be done about the Jews.

5) That the inquisition was unusually brutal for its time.

Who said that?

6) That the victims of witch hunts/crusades ran into millions.

How much does Bede think it was?

7) That Christianity was responsible for the Dark Ages.

Learning was stagnant for nearly a millennium and only gradually revived; it was often considered dangerously pagan.

8) That Eusebius was a liar.

???

10) That conversions to Christianity tended to be forced.

Except that there is an abundance of evidence of forcible suppression of other religions. I wonder what Bede thinks of similar evidence of forced conversion being involved in the spread of Islam. And also of the geographical distribution of Catholicism and Protestantism as a result of the Wars of Religion, which was associated with the forcibly-enforced principle of cuius regio, eius religio ("whose region, his religion")

Does he think that people conquered by Muslim armies suddenly, voluntarily decided that Mohammed was greater than Jesus Christ?

Does he think that people ruled by a Catholic leader suddenly, voluntarily decided that those Protestants were a bunch of conceited johnny-come-latelies who have strayed from the traditions of the Church?

Does he think that people ruled by a Protestant leader suddenly, voluntarily decided that the Pope is an impostor, that venerating saints is idolatrous, and so forth?

Family Man

Actually, my claim isn't so much that atheists don't have myths so much as much of your claims of myths are oversimplifications.

Consider the case of Hitler as a Christian. Are you seriously claiming that Hitler's relationship with Christianity can be summed up with the phrase, he wasn't a Christian? As a young man, he most certainly was. He also certainly used Christian religious beliefs whenever he could to his advantage. He clearly feared the church as a rival power source (but then, so did the majority of medieval kings -- were they not Christian?). In later life, was he a Christian? I honestly couldn't say for certain, and neither do I believe you can either. Assume that he wasn't; when did he deconvert? What were his beliefs? He did appear to believe in a higher power, at the very least. The issue of Hitler's religious beliefs are much more difficult than you're implying, and does great discredit to yourself.

And to quote Nomad, the Cliff Clavern of the Sec Web, as your authority for your Hitler was not a Christian claim is downright funny. All Nomad ever really showed, for all his bombast, was that Hitler feared and despised the Church, not that he wasn't a Christian. Anti-church statements do not imply anti-Christian statements.

Or consider the "myth" about forced conversions. At what time period are you talking about? Early church. I'd agree. But during the conquisitidora, as others pointed out, there were forced conversions, as you well know.


And tell me, how many people have you heard say that millions of people died because of witch hunts/inquisition? I've been here longer than you and I remember that conversation. The answer is one. Exactly one. If you remember, I agreed with you that he was exaggerating his numbers. You've created a myth out of an statement by a single atheist when you had other atheists agreeing with you!

Bottom line is that your list is a trollish attempt to provoke, and little more.