Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 05-31-2002, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Veil of Fire:
Why you expect coroborating evidence for every quasi-historical figure EXCEPT Jesus is a blantant example of how intellectually dishonest people like to try to play "connect the dots" after having already decided what picture they're going to "find".

Aren't you question begginb by assuming that Jesus is only a "quasi-historical figure" comparable to Robin Hood, etc.?

Quote:

There's no significant difference between the legend cycle of Jesus and the legend cycle of Robin Hood, excepting, maybe, that there's more evidence beyond the legend cycle for Robin Hood's existence.

You have claimed there is no difference between the legend cycle of Jesus and that of Robin Hood.

Might you support this argument by providing a list of the sources commonly used to study Robin Hood. And the relevant information, such as date of composition, context, textual tradition, and alleged authorship.

Toto · 05-31-2002, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:

Do you realize that you spend most of your time whining about the style of other posters than you ever do contributing to the substance of the disucssion?

Are you stalking me? Have you surveyed all of my well over 2,000 posts? I've only commented on yours and Nomad's style, maybe some on Metacrock, because it is so egregious, as far as I recall. I think that pointing out your debate strategy is part of the discussion. Otherwise some poor innocent might be deceived into thinking that you actually are making a point.

Do you think it is off limits? Do you set the rules other people have to play by?

Since you are losing the argument, you have descended to personal attacks with emotion-laden words. Something wrong with pointing this out?

Layman · 05-31-2002, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
[QB]

Are you stalking me? Have you surveyed all of my well over 2,000 posts? I've only commented on yours and Nomad's style, maybe some on Metacrock, because it is so egregious, as far as I recall. I think that pointing out your debate strategy is part of the discussion. Otherwise some poor innocent might be deceived into thinking that you actually are making a point.

Do you think it is off limits? Do you set the rules other people have to play by?

I think it's a waste of time. And it's not only your constant harping about style--ignoring so much blatant skeptic carping--but the lack of substantive comments from you (apart from the aforementioned Amazon.com customer reviews).

Quote:

Since you are losing the argument, you have descended to personal attacks with emotion-laden words. Something wrong with pointing this out?

But I'm not "losing the argument." And you are the one who began the "personal attacks" and "emotion-laden words." You, the poor victim, called me a "bully" and "picking a fight" and adopting some devious "lawerly fashion."

Then you whine louder when I respond.

Toto, you are always so quick to remind me why I don't spend much time here anymore.

05-31-2002, 11:24 AM

Gentlemen,

The Josephus passage is something about which there is wide agreement among contemporary scholars of all colours. The agreement is that it is Josephan with Christian interpolations. Peter Kirby (I think on the Jesus Mysteries list) showed that of current books he'd read, only amateur Jesus Mythers said the TF was a complete fabrication. A case can be made for this (and lets face it, sceptics have been busting a gut trying) but scholars basically disagree. No amount of Michael's nameless orientals or dead white Europeans is going to change that.

Ken Olsen is the only person I've seen who has put together a scholarly argument for the Eusebian forgery and the idea he was some sort of arch liar is simply an anti-Christian myth.

While it is possible to disagree with the academic concensus it would be honest for the likes of Peter and Michael to admit they are going out on a limb and most experts think they are wrong.

And even if the TJ is totally forged, the case the Jesus's existence is still historically watertight as, again, almost any scholar will tell you.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and rerason</a>

Layman · 05-31-2002, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede:
[QB]Gentlemen,
Ken Olsen is the only person I've seen who has put together a scholarly argument for the Eusebian forgery and the idea he was some sort of arch liar is simply an anti-Christian myth.

I've been reviewing Olson's article. The only place I can find it referenced is on the internet. Has it been published in any peer reviewed journals or as a dissertation?

Thanks

Layman · 05-31-2002, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


I've been reviewing Olson's article. The only place I can find it referenced is on the internet. Has it been published in any peer reviewed journals or as a dissertation?

Thanks

I noticed a reference to a piece posted in the Catholic Quarterly. "Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61:2,
April 1999, pp. 305-22.

Anyone know of an online link to this? Is it the same as his article here:

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/files/"Eusebian%20Fabrication%20of%20the%20Testimoni um"" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/files/"Eusebian%20Fabrication%20of%20the%20Testimoni um"</a>

Toto · 05-31-2002, 01:36 PM

I can't devote more time to this today, but here is a reference from the previous thread on Josephus, where it was demonstrated that Eusebius did in fact say it was fine to tell fables, and Richard Pearse had to recant:

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000145" target="_blank">Josephus Passage</a>

Layman · 05-31-2002, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
I can't devote more time to this today, but here is a reference from the previous thread on Josephus, where it was demonstrated that Eusebius did in fact say it was fine to tell fables, and Richard Pearse had to recant:

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000145" target="_blank">Josephus Passage</a>

What a[nother] crock.

Pearse never agreed that Eusebius said it was "fine to tell fables." Neither Pearse nor Eusebius said anything of the kind.

And his revised article still points out how ridiculous an assertion that is:

Quote:

1.Eusebius does not say that falsehood and lying are acceptable, for whatever reason. This is an inference from his text, and not a very charitable one.
2.Plato asks whether, if any lie/fiction/fable is permissible, the one he is discussing might not be one. Plato has been discussing whether or not the self-interest of
the individual is the same as the interest of the community. He has just concluded that it is. The comment in question follows. Plato asks us for a moment to
imagine that self-interest and public interest are opposed. He asks whether it would not then be justifiable, if any lie were (and he leaves that open), to tell
people that in fact they were the same. The purpose is the good of the community, i.e. acting 'justly', rather than selfishly.
3.The infidels.org idea presumes that Eusebius has the idea of 'lie' in mind, rather than that of educational fiction. However we have seen that the word
'pseudos' is actually ambiguous in Greek. Plato seems to have an idea of deception in mind, but is it necessary to presume that Eusebius has?
4.So is Eusebius really saying that the Bible is full of lies, and that this is one of the things the Greeks copied from the Jews? I find it hard to believe that
Eusebius thought the bible was full of lies. Such a curious proposition would certainly require more evidence than one footnote in the PE, anyway. That the
bible contains stories, such as parables, intended to educate is surely a better interpretation? To resolve this, we need to see what Eusebius says elsewhere.
5.The idea presumes not just that Eusebius believes the bible is full of lies, but that if the bible is full of lies, it must be OK to lie; and that Eusebius has applied
this in his writings. The purpose of the allegation seems to be to permit some of his testimony to be discarded. The first idea seems very strange, and the
others are simply inferences from it. But no evidence is given for any of these.

In fact, if we look at PE 12, 4, we see how Eusebius really thinks about the scriptures - an external literal meaning, which is in fact a parable, and an inner meaning
for those who have passed beyond the first stages of instruction. This relates so strongly to what Eusebius says here - 'for those who need this form of instruction' -
that it seems pointless to look further.

But what about the issue that Eusebius is showing that the Greeks got all their good ideas from the Jews? This is correct - that is what the PE is about. It's hard to
see how the portion of Plato says anything useful, then. But the comment of Clinias is perhaps the idea on which Eusebius is commenting.

'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.' Plato disagrees; but Eusebius omitted his disagreement. Eusebius' comments
follow this connecting phrase in the Laws.

...

Pulling it together

I think we're asking too much of the text, and trying to build a philosophy on an inference. Eusebius was concerned to show that Greek ideas had their origin in the
bible. For this purpose he ransacked his library for material that would illustrate this. Of course this material was often written with quite other values in mind, and
we need not suppose that every word he quotes supports his thesis, or is even relevant. In chapter 32 of the PE he returns to the Laws, a bit further on, and in his
comment he ignores all of what he quotes apart from the conclusion. In chapter 31, he is responding to the observation of Clinias, picking up on the idea of fiction as
a way to convince more easily than reason, and making a general point about the bible. That Plato's purpose is to the advantage of the community, and the
disadvantage of the individual is irrelevant to Eusebius, and he ignores it. All he picks up on is the method of teaching a useful idea, by means of words not strictly
true.

Eusebius is following a different idea to Plato, which explains why he is using both The Republic and The Laws as it suits him. He has been looking at education,
not of the infants of a community, but of the spiritual infant. In chapter 4 he has already discussed the right use of scripture, and how it contains fables. Here we
have the idea that people should be told things not strictly true. (Plato's reason he ignores - the benefit of the community instead of the individual is the reverse of
what he is interested in). And he returns to the theme of fables in the bible, and how these benefit the individual.

<a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/index.htm</a>

05-31-2002, 01:55 PM

Toto, you are so slippery!!!

We all agree that Eusebius was happy with fables/parables etc. So was Jesus. In that thread it was proven that Eusebius did not say it was OK to tell lies or falsehoods. The traditional sceptic myth that Eusebius said lying was OK is untrue. He did not.

Trying to insinuate that his saying fables are fine means he was a likely forger is simply ridiculous.

Can you see that?

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

05-31-2002, 01:57 PM

Layman, you beat me to it!

Do you think Toto actually believes what he writes or just tries to wind us up? He certainly has no problem with falsehoods, sorry fables.

Yours

Bede

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

05-31-2002, 11:24 AM	#54
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Gentlemen, The Josephus passage is something about which there is wide agreement among contemporary scholars of all colours. The agreement is that it is Josephan with Christian interpolations. Peter Kirby (I think on the Jesus Mysteries list) showed that of current books he'd read, only amateur Jesus Mythers said the TF was a complete fabrication. A case can be made for this (and lets face it, sceptics have been busting a gut trying) but scholars basically disagree. No amount of Michael's nameless orientals or dead white Europeans is going to change that. Ken Olsen is the only person I've seen who has put together a scholarly argument for the Eusebian forgery and the idea he was some sort of arch liar is simply an anti-Christian myth. While it is possible to disagree with the academic concensus it would be honest for the likes of Peter and Michael to admit they are going out on a limb and most experts think they are wrong. And even if the TJ is totally forged, the case the Jesus's existence is still historically watertight as, again, almost any scholar will tell you. Yours Bede <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and rerason</a>

05-31-2002, 01:36 PM	#57
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I can't devote more time to this today, but here is a reference from the previous thread on Josephus, where it was demonstrated that Eusebius did in fact say it was fine to tell fables, and Richard Pearse had to recant: <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000145" target="_blank">Josephus Passage</a>

05-31-2002, 01:55 PM	#59
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Toto, you are so slippery!!! We all agree that Eusebius was happy with fables/parables etc. So was Jesus. In that thread it was proven that Eusebius did not say it was OK to tell lies or falsehoods. The traditional sceptic myth that Eusebius said lying was OK is untrue. He did not. Trying to insinuate that his saying fables are fine means he was a likely forger is simply ridiculous. Can you see that? Yours Bede <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

05-31-2002, 01:57 PM	#60
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Layman, you beat me to it! Do you think Toto actually believes what he writes or just tries to wind us up? He certainly has no problem with falsehoods, sorry fables. Yours Bede

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.