Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-17-2009, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And I can make my own conclusion or change my position without your input.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If you don't want to read what I'm writing, you don't have to. Nobody's forcing you. But whether you read or not I'm going to keep writing.

Everybody can reach their own conclusions, whatever the input, and any conclusion by anybody can be mistaken ...... and this particular conclusion of yours is mistaken, for reasons I have already explained.

Do you not understand what you write? Once you admit that anybody can be mistaken then it must be obvious that you may also be mistaken about your conclusions.

You are arguments have now become futile by your very statement.

You must first prove you are not mistaken before you can even attempt to claim that I am.

And I ACTUALLY read what you write that is the reason I am on the boards. To read and respond.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is my view that the authors of the NT and those who canonised the NT along with many of the Church writers, or people posing as Church writers, were involved in providing deliberate mis-leading information to the world expecting that the world would believe as historical their monstrous lies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

That may be. What is the process by which you reached that view?

Why did you wait untiL now to ask by what process I have reached my view when you have already claimed I am mistaken? And you very well knew in advance that you could have ALSO been mistaken about your own views.

J-D · 09-17-2009, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

He says he wrote the first history, but that doesn't make it true.

Doesn't make what true - that he wrote the first christian history, or that this first history of christianity, which he wrote, is not necessarily true.

The fact that he says he wrote the first history of Christianity does not make it true that he wrote the first history of Christianity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Where does he say 'heart of hearts and intellect of intellects'?

This is a figure of speech employed to make the case

Rhetoric is no substitute for evidence. The more overblown rhetoric you use, the more ridiculous your position looks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

that Eusebius knew exactly what he was doing when he presented the four gospels as having been authored in the 1st century by the fabulous four on the floor - Matthew, Mark, CH Luke and Johnson. Scholarship and analysis of the facts has effectively ruled out the possibility of the apostolic authorship of the gospels. In a legal sense Eusebius actions may be analysed and presented as an instance of the fraudulent misrepresentation of history.

No, they can't--not in a legal sense. Unless, of course, what you mean when you say 'in a legal sense' is, in fact 'well, not really in a legal sense'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Richard Carrier states that "Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous."

J-D · 09-17-2009, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And I can make my own conclusion or change my position without your input.

Do you not understand what you write?

Yes, of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Once you admit that anybody can be mistaken then it must be obvious that you may also be mistaken about your conclusions.

Of course. And if somebody shows me grounds for thinking any conclusion of mine is mistaken, then I will modify or abandon it. I'm not going to abandon all conclusions whatever just because it's possible for any one of them to be mistaken. That would be lunacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are arguments have now become futile by your very statement.

Not at all. If that were so, then all the arguments of all those who admit their own fallibility would be futile and the only arguments worth taking account of would be the ones made by those who do not admit their own falllibility. Again, lunacy. In general, those who admit their own fallibility are better worth listening to than those who do not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You must first prove you are not mistaken before you can even attempt to claim that I am.

What do you mean by 'must'? There's no such rule of logic, or ethics, or courtesy, or this board.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And I ACTUALLY read what you write that is the reason I am on the boards. To read and respond.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

That may be. What is the process by which you reached that view?

Why did you wait untiL now to ask by what process I have reached my view when you have already claimed I am mistaken?

I did not say that your view itself was mistaken. I said that you were mistaken to say that there is no doubt about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And you very well knew in advance that you could have ALSO been mistaken about your own views.

aa5874 · 09-17-2009, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you not understand what you write?

Yes, of course. Of course.

You could be mistaken.

J-D · 09-17-2009, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Yes, of course. Of course.

You could be mistaken.

Because that's always true, about everybody, if that's all you've got then you've got nothing.

aa5874 · 09-17-2009, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You could be mistaken.

Because that's always true, about everybody, if that's all you've got then you've got nothing.

You could be...........

mountainman · 09-18-2009, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Eusebius wrote that he was writing the first christian history.

The fact that he says he wrote the first history of Christianity does not make it true that he wrote the first history of Christianity.

His continuators, preserving Eusebius, of course may have
altered the original Eusebian account and changed some of
the details in his history. The fact that he says he wrote
the first history of Christianity is consistent with the rest
of the available evidence. Especially the archaeological and
monumental and epigraphic evidence available for discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Richard Carrier states that "Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous."

aa5874 · 09-18-2009, 04:32 PM

I have noticed that about 36% of voters claim that some of the Jesus story is historical but can someone point out the historical events with respect to Jesus and the external source of antiquity that corroborates, mentions or identifies Jesus as a active participant in those events?

J-D · 09-19-2009, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The fact that he says he wrote the first history of Christianity does not make it true that he wrote the first history of Christianity.

His continuators, preserving Eusebius, of course may have
altered the original Eusebian account and changed some of
the details in his history. The fact that he says he wrote
the first history of Christianity is consistent with the rest
of the available evidence. Especially the archaeological and
monumental and epigraphic evidence available for discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Richard Carrier states that "Eusebius was either a liar or hopelessly credulous."

Consistent how?

mountainman · 09-22-2009, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

His continuators, preserving Eusebius, of course may have
altered the original Eusebian account and changed some of
the details in his history. The fact that he says he wrote
the first history of Christianity is consistent with the rest
of the available evidence. Especially the archaeological and
monumental and epigraphic evidence available for discussion.

Consistent how?

Not only is it consistent,
it is well beyond dispute.

"The immense authority which Eusebius gained was well deserved.
He had continuators but no rivals.
Simple and majestic Eusebius of Caesarea claims for himself
the merit of having invented ecclesiastical history.
This merit cannot be disputed. "

The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography,
Arnaldo Momigliano Sather Classical Lectures (1961-62),
Volume Fifty-Four, University of California Press, 1990, pp.138

View Poll Results: Do you think the statements the Gospels make about Jesus are historically accurate?
All of them are historically accurate.	4	6.25%
Some of them are historically accurate and some of them are not.	23	35.94%
None of them are historically accurate.	37	57.81%
Voters: 64. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-18-2009, 04:32 PM	#78
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	I have noticed that about 36% of voters claim that some of the Jesus story is historical but can someone point out the historical events with respect to Jesus and the external source of antiquity that corroborates, mentions or identifies Jesus as a active participant in those events?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.