Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

How may we go about creating a readable summary of all the arguments? Is that needed to get the mj agenda on the mainstream agenda?

Originally Posted by AM

Source
p.137


"What is unmistakably apparent in ecclesiatical historians
is the care for their documentation."


"The very importance of precedent and tradition in ecclesiastical history
compelled the ecclesiastical historians to quote documentary evidence to
an extent which is seldom to be found in political historians."



p.138
"We have defined some of the essential elements of ecclesiastical historiography:
1) the continuous interrelation of dogma and facts;
2) the transcendental significance attributed to the period of origins;
3) the emphasis on factual evidence;
4) the ever present problem of relating events of local churches to the
mystical body of the universal church."



Part II
p.138

"Simple and majestic Eusebius of Caesarea claims for himself the merit of
having invented ecclesiastical history. This merit cannot be disputed.

"Sozomenus thought that Eusebius had been preceded as an ecclesiastical historian by Clemens, Hegesippus, and Julius Africanus. None of these names can really compete with that of Eusebius."

Clemens the alleged author of the Gospel of Peter - not an ecclesiastical history. Sextus Julius Africanus - was a chronographer The more mysterious Hegesippus -- appears to be an anti-Gnostic apologist 2nd CE

p.139
"Preparatio evangelica is one of the boldest attempts ever made to show
continuity between pagan and Christian thought."


"[Eusebius], the witness of the last persecution and the advisor and apologist
of Constantine was in a vantage position to appreciate the autonomy and strength of the institution that had compelled the Roman state to surrender at the Milvian Bridge in 312. Though anxious to preserve the pagan cultural heritage in the new Christian order - indeed very anxious, as we shall soon see, to use the pagan tradition for his Ecclesiastical History -

Eusebius knew that the Christians were a nation, and a victorious nation at that;
and that their history could not be told except within the framework of the Church in which they lived.
Furthermore, he was well aware that the Christian nation was what it was by virtue
of its being both the oldest and the newest nation of the world."

Originally Posted by spin

I'm sorry, jkhuss1, but I don't get the idea that you have grasped any notion of what history is about. History is about relating events in texts to events in the real world. It is the attempt at saying what really happened. It requires evidence from the time involved, such as a coin for example celebrating the battle of Philippi or an inscription commemorating such an event. This hard evidence provides foundations on which to build our knowledge from texts. It's very hard for someone with a knowledge of ancient Roman history to question the reality of the battle of Philippi or who won it. When we deal with a text that gives information about the struggle after the death of Caesar, we know that at least this event (at Philippi) actually happened, so the text dealing with such matters has at least that datum guaranteed. Then we can through in statues of Julius Caesar and young Octavian, of Mark Antony and Cicero, and there is basically no doubt as to the reality of the list of players.

It's at this point that objective criticism of the available literature can begin. The historian cannot but be a hard critic of the raw material of history, because every text has an attitude. Every text was written from a point or points of view, at a particular time or times and reflect those times, with certain presuppositions and background knowledge that mold the text being written. The historian's job is to hack at a text until they can yield information that must be considered for its historical relevance.

You make claims about text that tend to reflect not the text, but your desires of what the text should say. For example, you say

"THere are over 300 references to Jesus Christ coming in the Old Testiment. . . It all points to Him. . ."

In fact, there is not one mention of Jesus Christ in the Hebrew bible and not one of those 300 references you talk about must be considered for the historical relevance you impute. In short, what you are doing is called eisegesis, which is diametrically opposed to the process that a historian must perform.

Prophecy by its nature is cryptic and little analysed or understood by its believers. In fact a lot of what is peddled as prophecy turns out to have been misunderstood by those seeking to define something as prophecy. Virgin birth and nailing to the cross for example are simply lack of understanding of text. You might believe differently, but belief is not at issue when doing history. History requires you to be able to present evidence which a rational person who doesn't believe what you do so that that person must consider it for its historical relevance.

You will find that not that many people either christian or not will accept your data as evidence that must be considered. That means you are not doing history at all, because you are not providing information that passes muster as evidence.

To my eye you seem to be purveying a series of reveries that will be acceptible only to those who believe like you, leaving you with no objective controls for what you are saying. People can simply ignore your comments as though they were from a raving nutter, which is not your desire at all. If you want to make sense, you have to find a language that will communicate with your listener and here it is at least the semblance of rational objectivity. (I must admit that aa5874 has difficulty getting up to the "semblance" stage, but then not that many people listen to him either.)

What I'm telling you in part is that you won't communicate when you choose not to talk in a language that will be meaningful to your listeners. That language as I said requires a grammar of argument and a vocabulary of evidence.


spin

Originally Posted by aa5874

Another useful source of information for me are those persons who post here and claim to be or appear to be HJers.

HJers complete failure to produce any good evidence for Jesus have destroyed their case for the HJ forever.

Originally Posted by jkhuss1

I looked in my dictionary and could not find eisegesis to be a word - It looks like a really good word - I just couldn't find it. . . Maybe my dictionary isn't educated enough to find it. . . I simply cannot find in myself the fair speech nor the great swelling words that are found in such a fine spokesman as yourself. . .
I guess you came up with it through all your years of crap inspecting, that stuff rubs off you know. . .

Originally Posted by jkhuss1

I would guess that in the Old Testament: Moses Wrote Genesis, Psalms was written by King David and others, Isaiah wrote Isaiah along with the help of a scribe at times who wrote down his words, Matthew was written by Matthew, Revelation was written by John while on the Isle of Patmos. . .

Originally Posted by jkhuss1

This all spanned about a Four Thousand year span. . .

Originally Posted by jkhuss1

It wasn't written by one person - like all the other world religious books were. . .

So when I quote the Bible and go from book to book, I am going to many different sources for all the information that I provide for you. . .

Originally Posted by jkhuss1

You want what someone see's historically looking back, I shared what God Revealed prophetically looking forward. . .

Originally Posted by jkhuss1

God knows the end from the Beginning. . . Thats why Jesus said, "I Am the beginning and the End."

Originally Posted by jkhuss1

That is why I don't care what you have to say about me - I've read the end of the BOOK. . .

Originally Posted by Toto

What date was this and who was the speaker? Your link goes to Abdal Hakim Murad

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Saturday 9 May

It is here 7:50 am - click on listen again, move the slider at bottom 50 minutes into the programme.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qj9z

Her quote is "we know more about him than any other figure of antiquity"

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, it can be said without fear of contradiction that Jesus is the BEST documented MYTH.

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Jesus better documented than any other ancient figure"

This was said on Radio 4 Thought for the Day this morning