FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-22-2012, 08:56 AM   #291
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Ergo, the question of the integrity of stories provided by Eusebius about his alleged predecessors as historians, the so-called heretical sects, etc. can be called into question, including what texts were actually known in 325.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post


What model of crystal ball do you use Toto? The deluxe model? The only history of "Early Christianity" was not authored on planet Earth until the 4th century. Do you have shares in Eusebian Stock?
A small time bishop of Caesarea wrote the "History of the Church of the Roman Empire" and WITHOUT any input from the most POWERFUL Bishop of Rome??!!

This must be the biggest joke in history of all mankind.

If a small time bishop of Caesarea wrote ALL the History of the Church of the Roman Empire then the "Donation of Constantine" is NOT a forgery.

"Church History" under the name of Eusebius MUST be a most FRAUDULENT document whether wholly or in part.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 01-22-2012, 09:43 AM   #292
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Pete - you've had almost a decade to make your case for Eusebian fabrication of the entirety of Christian history, and you have failed. You can just keep repeating "what if Eusebius forged everything?" You don't have a coherent theory to support this idea, much less a way of accounting for the contrary evidence and arguments.

Anyone who seriously cares about this issue should search the archives.
Toto is offline  
Old 01-22-2012, 05:03 PM   #293
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Pete - you've had almost a decade to make your case for Eusebian fabrication of the entirety of Christian history, and you have failed.
The apologists claim to have had 2000 years, and they too have failed in their case, despite the might and wealth of our beloved tax-exempt and despotic church institutions and the academic sponsorship and tenure. I am just one old Australian surfer, and they are the hegemon.


Quote:
You can just keep repeating "what if Eusebius forged everything?" You don't have a coherent theory to support this idea, much less a way of accounting for the contrary evidence and arguments.

The apologists just keep repeating the mantra "what if the gospels are true"? They do not have a theory for the history of the pre-Nicaean epoch except for the research that Eusebius tendered in his thesis on the subject conducted between 312 and 324 CE, and Eusebius's history thesis has yet to be peer-reviewed.


Quote:
Anyone who seriously cares about this issue should search the archives.

Should all the HJ hobby-horses get stabled while we wait for Bart Ehrman's next book?
mountainman is offline  
Old 01-22-2012, 05:07 PM   #294
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
...
The apologists just keep repeating the mantra "what if the gospels are true"? They do not have a theory for the history of the pre-Nicaean epoch except for the research that Eusebius tendered in his thesis on the subject conducted between 312 and 324 CE, and Eusebius's history thesis has yet to be peer-reviewed.
Maybe that's why apologists have a bad rep around here? Why do you want to emulate them? :constern01:


Quote:
Quote:
Anyone who seriously cares about this issue should search the archives.
Should all the HJ hobby-horses get stabled while we wait for Bart Ehrman's next book?
If you have nothing new or productive to say, that might be the best thing to do.
Toto is offline  
Old 01-22-2012, 05:26 PM   #295
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
...
The apologists just keep repeating the mantra "what if the gospels are true"? They do not have a theory for the history of the pre-Nicaean epoch except for the research that Eusebius tendered in his thesis on the subject conducted between 312 and 324 CE, and Eusebius's history thesis has yet to be peer-reviewed.
Maybe that's why apologists have a bad rep around here? Why do you want to emulate them? :constern01:

I appear to emulate their dialectic because I have taken a position that is quite diametrically and antithetically opposed to their position, as everyone by now should be well aware. I am prepared to discuss both the positive and negative evidence against my position, and have taken the opportunity to rationally defend the position against all forms of negative evidence citations. I reject the notion that I emulate the behaviour of any specific group of people who inhabit this discussion space.

I also reject the notion that the motivation for my research is driven by a hatred of religion. I seek the ancient historical truth of the origins of the two sides of the coin of the appearance of the new testament phenomenom: the new testament canonical books and the non canonical books of the vile docetic gnostic heretics.
mountainman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:01 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.