Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-08-2016, 04:43 PM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2016 04:49 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 11:11 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 11:08 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It is not. It is an unverified claim. You choose to accept as evidence. Evidence of gospels would be the writing itself, that we could see. It was an era of pious fraud.

You continue to make the positive claim of "pious fraud" to insinuate that everything written was fraudulent.

Prove it.

Big Grin

The reality is that we both know that it is impossible to prove that pious fraud was in any way related to all these religious texts in antiquity. So all you are doing here is asserting it without evidence; concluding it based upon what you perceive to be lies, half-truth, tall-tales, etc.

And you assert pious fraud at the complete exclusion of all other, more probable, explanations.

Now, in respect to Luke-Acts, this author begins his version of events as though he is in a position of creating a report for Theophilus:

Luk 1:1 - 1:4:  Since many took in hand to write up an account concerning the matters which have been borne out among us, even as those who from the beginning delivered to us, becoming eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, it seemed good to me also, following all things accurately from the very first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you might know the certainty of those things in which you have been instructed.

The opening statement in Luke is what makes Luke completely unique from all other records. He makes it quite clear that he is writing up a report for Theophilus on the events concerning Jesus. He makes no statements of being an eyewitness to Jesus himself.

There would be absolutely no reason why this author would be committing any act of fraud whatsoever with the above quoted verses. They are simple, direct, reasonable, and depict nothing extraordinary.

Also, we don't always have multiple attestations of other ancient works, and since we accept those other ancient works as representing the truth in regards to many of the mundane things they say, we have precedence to accept this rather mundane few verses of Luke the same way.

So no, not everything in ancient texts is written with the intention of pious fraud, and in fact the biggest reason any of these ancient writers wrote what they wrote is because, quite simply, they believed in gods with such intensity that no faith in the modern world could compare.

"the biggest reason any of these ancient writers wrote what they wrote is because, quite simply, they believed in gods with such intensity that no faith in the modern world could compare."

Nope. They were the same as modern people, although much less informed about the world. They made shit up. Even you admit that. They were in the business of convincing the crowds. Politics and money were everything back then, just the same as they are today. Read Bucky's post and digest it.

The ones who genuinely believed in Gods were, by and large, the consumers, the poorer classes, the less educated. Things haven't changed much today.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 08:39 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 12:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 11:11 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  You continue to make the positive claim of "pious fraud" to insinuate that everything written was fraudulent.

Prove it.

Big Grin

""I will only mention the Apostle Paul. [...] He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles'."
Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus

"We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."
St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)

Was Saint Paul a liar? Looks like it.

According to whom, though? What you are doing here is showing a classic apologetic dialogue between an early church father and an antagonist of Christianity. This is nothing we haven't seen before from Celsus, Trypho etc.

But this is nothing but an opinion of the antagonist, and does nothing as far as prove and convict Paul of being a liar.

Quote:"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?"
St. Paul, Romans 3.7.

Taken out of context and has nothing to do with the image you are trying to portray. Paul is using rhetoric in his argument here. Let's look at it closer.

Paul is speaking to a Jewish audience. Again, as always it is the classic ancient Christian struggle to justify the faith of the uncircumcised (Gentile) to the circumcised (Jew).

He states that just because a Jew is circumcised it does not make him superior to the Gentile in the eyes of his god (3:1). Then he asks rhetorically if some of those circumcised Jews began to lose faith and belief in their god, will their lack of belief destroy the faith in God that other Jews have (3:3)?

He then replies to his own rhetorical question by saying (paraphrase) "No, rather allow God to be true, and instead every one of us be a liar (3:4). Then, he again rhetorically says that if the unrighteousness of man can somehow praise the righteousness of God, does it therefore mean that God would be unrighteous if he brought his wrath to mankind (3:5)?

Then, again he answers his own rhetorical question by saying (paraphrase) "No, for then how could God possibly judge the world if He was unrighteous?" (3:6)

Then again, rhetorically, Paul says (paraphrase) "For if my lies actually did magnify the glory of God, how then could I be judged as a sinner?" (3:7)

What Paul is doing here is using rhetoric to defend the faith of the uncircumcised Gentiles from accusations from the circumcised Jews that the Gentiles are using lies to further their religion. This is verified in the very next verse which says:

Rom 3:8 No! But instead, as we are wrongly accused by some people who also claim that we say such things as, "Let us do bad things that good may come," then their condemnation is justified.

In response to his rhetorical question in 3:7, Paul says "No," to the accusation of lying to magnify the Glory of God. What he is actually doing is telling the Jews that their accusation- that the Gentiles are lying to get people to believe their doctrine- is nothing but a pile of bullshit, and that those who make those accusations will face a justified condemnation.

His entire rhetorical defense begins back in Romans 2:17, with his entire point to condemn the Jews who make false claims against the doctrine of the Gentiles, and to finally conclude that the Gentiles are justified by their faith, and do not need the Jews' laws with the following statement:

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law.

And that is what that is all about, Mr. Ball.


Quote:Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

But Mr. Ball, in reality, no evidence of Eusebius actually stating any such thing can be found. The words quoted come from the chapter heading, rather than the text.

Your main man, Richard Carrier, actually translates it as so:

"That it will be necessary sometimes to use fiction as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment."

Furthermore, Carrier says "But I think Eusebius is not advocating dishonesty, so much as suggesting that fiction has a role to play in education."

Thing is, we cannot find any agreement as to whether he wrote this, or someone else added the header, or what exactly the translation actually says.

Source Here.


Quote: Clement of Alexandria was one of the earliest of the Church Fathers to draw a distinction between "mere human truth" and the higher truth of faith:

"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople: "Do you see the advantage of deceit? [...] For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

"Golden Mouth'' John is notable for his extensive commentaries on the Bible which emphasized a literal understanding of the stories. The style popular at Alexandria until then was to acknowledge an allegorical meaning of the text:

"Thus eminent ‘believers’ added falsehood to the beliefs of later generations. ‘For the best of reasons’ they ‘clarified’ obscure points, conjured up characters to speak dialogue that could have been said, invented scenarios that could have happened and borrowed extensively from a wider culture. And this all before they became the custodians of power and had real reasons for lies, inventions and counterfeits. As we shall see, god's immutable laws became as flexible as putty."
(St.?) John Chrysostom

The 5th and 6th centuries were the 'golden age' of Christian forgery. In a moment of shocking candour, the Manichean bishop and opponent of Augustine Faustus said:

"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."

In the huge battle for adherents, the propagandists sought to outdo each other at every turn. For example, by the 5th century, four very different endings existed to Mark's gospel. Codex Bobiensis ends Mark at verse 16:8, without any post-crucifixion appearances. It lacks both the 'short conclusion' of Jesus sending followers to 'east and west' as well as the 'long conclusion', the fabulous post-death apparitions, where Jesus promises his disciples that they will be immune to snake bites and poison.

Once the Church had gained acceptance by much of Europe and the Middle East, it's forgery engine went nuts.

"The Church forgery mill did not limit itself to mere writings but for centuries cranked out thousands of phony "relics" of its "Lord," "Apostles" and "Saints" […] There were at least 26 'authentic' burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one […] At one point, a number of churches claimed the one foreskin of Jesus, and there were enough splinters of the "True Cross" that Calvin said the amount of wood would make "a full load for a good ship."
Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy.

Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556), the zealot for papal authority and founder of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, wrote:

"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

None of the above actually proves anything at all, let alone demonstrate any kind of pious fraud with Luke's opening 4 verses in that Gospel.

You haven't done anything here, Mr. Ball.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2016, 09:42 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 08:39 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Paul is speaking to a Jewish audience. Again, as always it is the classic ancient Christian struggle to justify the faith of the uncircumcised (Gentile) to the circumcised (Jew).

And that is what that is all about, Mr. Ball.

Bullshit. You copied that crap from somewhere ... and the letter is to the Romans, not the Jews.

Quote:Your main man, Richard Carrier, actually translates it as so:

"That it will be necessary sometimes to use fiction as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment."

It says what it says. Nice try. Pious fraud was a fact.

Quote:None of the above actually proves anything at all, let alone demonstrate any kind of pious fraud with Luke's opening 4 verses in that Gospel.

You haven't done anything here, Mr. Ball.


Neither have you.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 03:59 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 08:39 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 12:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ""I will only mention the Apostle Paul. [...] He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles'."
Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus

"We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all ... the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result."
St. Jerome, Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)

Was Saint Paul a liar? Looks like it.

According to whom, though? What you are doing here is showing a classic apologetic dialogue between an early church father and an antagonist of Christianity. This is nothing we haven't seen before from Celsus, Trypho etc.

But this is nothing but an opinion of the antagonist, and does nothing as far as prove and convict Paul of being a liar.

Quote:"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?"
St. Paul, Romans 3.7.

Taken out of context and has nothing to do with the image you are trying to portray. Paul is using rhetoric in his argument here. Let's look at it closer.

Paul is speaking to a Jewish audience. Again, as always it is the classic ancient Christian struggle to justify the faith of the uncircumcised (Gentile) to the circumcised (Jew).

He states that just because a Jew is circumcised it does not make him superior to the Gentile in the eyes of his god (3:1). Then he asks rhetorically if some of those circumcised Jews began to lose faith and belief in their god, will their lack of belief destroy the faith in God that other Jews have (3:3)?

He then replies to his own rhetorical question by saying (paraphrase) "No, rather allow God to be true, and instead every one of us be a liar (3:4). Then, he again rhetorically says that if the unrighteousness of man can somehow praise the righteousness of God, does it therefore mean that God would be unrighteous if he brought his wrath to mankind (3:5)?

Then, again he answers his own rhetorical question by saying (paraphrase) "No, for then how could God possibly judge the world if He was unrighteous?" (3:6)

Then again, rhetorically, Paul says (paraphrase) "For if my lies actually did magnify the glory of God, how then could I be judged as a sinner?" (3:7)

What Paul is doing here is using rhetoric to defend the faith of the uncircumcised Gentiles from accusations from the circumcised Jews that the Gentiles are using lies to further their religion. This is verified in the very next verse which says:

Rom 3:8 No! But instead, as we are wrongly accused by some people who also claim that we say such things as, "Let us do bad things that good may come," then their condemnation is justified.

In response to his rhetorical question in 3:7, Paul says "No," to the accusation of lying to magnify the Glory of God. What he is actually doing is telling the Jews that their accusation- that the Gentiles are lying to get people to believe their doctrine- is nothing but a pile of bullshit, and that those who make those accusations will face a justified condemnation.

His entire rhetorical defense begins back in Romans 2:17, with his entire point to condemn the Jews who make false claims against the doctrine of the Gentiles, and to finally conclude that the Gentiles are justified by their faith, and do not need the Jews' laws with the following statement:

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law.

And that is what that is all about, Mr. Ball.


Quote:Bishop Eusebius, the official propagandist for Constantine, entitles the 32nd Chapter of his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation:

"How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived."

But Mr. Ball, in reality, no evidence of Eusebius actually stating any such thing can be found. The words quoted come from the chapter heading, rather than the text.

Your main man, Richard Carrier, actually translates it as so:

"That it will be necessary sometimes to use fiction as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment."

Furthermore, Carrier says "But I think Eusebius is not advocating dishonesty, so much as suggesting that fiction has a role to play in education."

Thing is, we cannot find any agreement as to whether he wrote this, or someone else added the header, or what exactly the translation actually says.

Source Here.


Quote: Clement of Alexandria was one of the earliest of the Church Fathers to draw a distinction between "mere human truth" and the higher truth of faith:

"Not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith."
Clement (quoted by M. Smith, Clement of Alexandria, p446)

John Chrysostom, 5th century theologian and erstwhile bishop of Constantinople: "Do you see the advantage of deceit? [...] For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

"Golden Mouth'' John is notable for his extensive commentaries on the Bible which emphasized a literal understanding of the stories. The style popular at Alexandria until then was to acknowledge an allegorical meaning of the text:

"Thus eminent ‘believers’ added falsehood to the beliefs of later generations. ‘For the best of reasons’ they ‘clarified’ obscure points, conjured up characters to speak dialogue that could have been said, invented scenarios that could have happened and borrowed extensively from a wider culture. And this all before they became the custodians of power and had real reasons for lies, inventions and counterfeits. As we shall see, god's immutable laws became as flexible as putty."
(St.?) John Chrysostom

The 5th and 6th centuries were the 'golden age' of Christian forgery. In a moment of shocking candour, the Manichean bishop and opponent of Augustine Faustus said:

"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since – as already it has been often proved – these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."

In the huge battle for adherents, the propagandists sought to outdo each other at every turn. For example, by the 5th century, four very different endings existed to Mark's gospel. Codex Bobiensis ends Mark at verse 16:8, without any post-crucifixion appearances. It lacks both the 'short conclusion' of Jesus sending followers to 'east and west' as well as the 'long conclusion', the fabulous post-death apparitions, where Jesus promises his disciples that they will be immune to snake bites and poison.

Once the Church had gained acceptance by much of Europe and the Middle East, it's forgery engine went nuts.

"The Church forgery mill did not limit itself to mere writings but for centuries cranked out thousands of phony "relics" of its "Lord," "Apostles" and "Saints" […] There were at least 26 'authentic' burial shrouds scattered throughout the abbeys of Europe, of which the Shroud of Turin is just one […] At one point, a number of churches claimed the one foreskin of Jesus, and there were enough splinters of the "True Cross" that Calvin said the amount of wood would make "a full load for a good ship."
Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy.

Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556), the zealot for papal authority and founder of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, wrote:

"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

None of the above actually proves anything at all, let alone demonstrate any kind of pious fraud with Luke's opening 4 verses in that Gospel.

You haven't done anything here, Mr. Ball.

But Mr. Ball, in reality, no evidence of Eusebius actually stating any such thing can be found. The words quoted come from the chapter heading, rather than the text.

Ah ha...Drinking Beverage So you think the heading was...an interpolation? Huh That's odd...I was sure you insisted on evidence for an interpolation. This is what you wrote in post 1921...

"Since those facts above cannot be ignored, could we accurately predict that your response to this must, by necessity, be "It's all interpolated?" Since you have no other recourse, your only option to maintain your position is to make the claim of interpolation, since the evidence definitely shows he knew plenty about Jesus Christ.
And if you make the claim of interpolation, I will most certainly corner you into presenting historical evidence to prove it. So ... let's see it."


Haha Big Grin You will have to dig deep into the hermeneutic box of tricks to explain your way out of this one. Good luck with that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
05-08-2016, 04:18 AM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2016 05:06 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Hey GU, I'm a generous man. By now I know how you write your spiel. I'll save you some time, and help you out of this little conundrum, this hole you have dug yourself in. How about starting with this...

"Was there anyone there with a microphone and a camera when Eusebius allegedly wrote the heading to his chapter? Can you therefore prove he wrote it? As there are no recordings of his words, or the movement of his pen, to claim he wrote it is an argument from silence.

What is more, the vast majority of scholars and historians believe that the heading to Eusebius' chapter may be an interpolation. What is more, if we consider the heading to the chapter, the one supposedly written by Eusebius, we find that there is an overwhelming consensus from the historical community that it may have been an interpolation. I'm trained in this. If you look with an historical perspective, you will find that the ones who know are in the majority, and there is little doubt that many of them are of the opinion that most of them are aware of a large proportion of a vast sea of opinion recognising that Eusebius was most likely not aware of the heading of the chapter documented by some interpreters as being his.

You mythicists and atheists have an agenda that directly contradicts what most educated people, that is the consensus and the majority, say about Eusebius and interpolations, particularly on Wednesday afternoons. I'm no theist, but think of the young lives you are ruining with your websites and your hatred.

Fucking unbelievable."


I hopes this helps you frame your reply. You may need to repeat this ten times or so, but you will get your point across. Just remember...don't read what anyone else writes. Just skim over it, and repeat yourself. Jeebus loves you. He died for you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
05-08-2016, 07:24 AM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2016 01:50 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(04-08-2016 09:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-08-2016 08:39 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Paul is speaking to a Jewish audience. Again, as always it is the classic ancient Christian struggle to justify the faith of the uncircumcised (Gentile) to the circumcised (Jew).

And that is what that is all about, Mr. Ball.

Bullshit. You copied that crap from somewhere ... and the letter is to the Romans, not the Jews.

Why would anyone need to copy it from somewhere else when it's right in Romans for the whole world to see? Besides, all you need to do it copy any sentence I said and do a Google search and you will know it doesn't exist anywhere else online.

It's my work, and no one elses.

Have you even read Romans? Or do you, like most proponents of Jesus Mythicism, merely look for what enables your arguments by skimming the text looking for whatever could resemble what you really want to see?

It required very little focus to understand that the text shows how Paul is defending the Gentile church in Rome from accusations of Jews. Although the letter is written to the Romans, the intent is to show the Gentiles in Rome how silly the accusation is that the Jews are making.

Paul's rhetoric is an excellent example of the type of prose used by those who were educated and literate during those times.

But you will never understand this unless you study history for the benefit of studying history, as opposed to studying some of it for the benefit of contesting Christianity.

The text says exactly what I said it says, Mr. Ball.

Now I am not trying to say that Paul never lied about some things, but only that this quote does not provide any evidence of it.

No


Quote:
Quote:Your main man, Richard Carrier, actually translates it as so:

"That it will be necessary sometimes to use fiction as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment."

It says what it says. Nice try. Pious fraud was a fact.

If you want to remain convinced about that, then it won't make any difference against my argument. But pay very close attention to my post regarding this to Mark further down on this page. Wink

The first 4 verses of the Gospel of Luke have nothing to do with the argument you are trying to present.

Just because Jack said something it doesn't mean that it makes John a liar. How the fuck does that work?

Big Grin

Quote:
Quote:None of the above actually proves anything at all, let alone demonstrate any kind of pious fraud with Luke's opening 4 verses in that Gospel.

You haven't done anything here, Mr. Ball.


Neither have you.

Actually, we both know I have. You just don't like the fact that the education I gave you regarding Paul and that verse is so obviously correct, and from this point onward you will know well enough that if you attempt to use that verse against another educated person in the future they will utterly destroy your position exactly as I have.

You see, Mr. Ball, it can be easy to not understand that verse from your antiquated King James bible. But when read in the Greek, it's crystal clear.

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 08:05 AM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2016 01:52 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-08-2016 03:59 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  But Mr. Ball, in reality, no evidence of Eusebius actually stating any such thing can be found. The words quoted come from the chapter heading, rather than the text.

Ah ha...Drinking Beverage So you think the heading was...an interpolation?

No.

So much for the rest of your argument and your next post to me, huh?

What now?

Big Grin

Also ... have you or Mr. Ball actually read the text? My position is not that it was interpolated, nor do I really have anything against the text. The translation is spotty, but really no matter how you translate it, you will get pretty much the same message from it or something similar.

So what does it mean?

Firstly, it's a header which then goes on to discuss it in the text. But, why is the header there? Where does it come from? And why would you and Mr. Ball (and other mythicists) conclude that the header reflects the sentiments of Eusebius?

Firstly, I will post the header and then the text following it:

PRAEPARATIO EVANGELICA - BOOK XII, CHAPTER XXXI: THAT IT WILL BE NECESSARY SOMETIMES TO USE FALSEHOOD AS A REMEDY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WHO REQUIRE SUCH A MODE OF TREATMENT.

PLATO- "But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver (who is to be of ever so little use) could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their own good, is there any falsehood that he could have told that would be more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by being forced to do it, but instead willingly?

"Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men with it."

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.


SOURCE HERE

The header at the top says absolutely nothing about what Christians should do in regards to their religion. It's a header, and what it does is provide a brief description of the text that follows. This is completely consistent with all the chapters in the book.

Now the text that follows is a quote of Plato in which he uses an example of how a falsehood (lie) can be beneficial when used to entice people to willingly do whatever is required of them for their own good. This text is 100% consistent with what the header says, demonstrating that the header is intended to preface the text of Plato.

Plato's text demonstrates that it was Plato's opinion that sometimes a lie will work better than the truth at persuading people to do things. Perfectly consistent with what the header says.


Therefore, the header is a preface of the text that follows regarding the comments of Plato, and does not reflect the sentiments of Eusebius.

Again, Mark, have you actually read the text to learn this, or ... are you simply following the Mythicist position who have never actually read the text either?

Seriously Mark, if you ever bothered to actually learn history instead of desperately trying to fabricate it you might actually learn something.

Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 02:12 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

You fool unbeliever! He's not talking to Christians, when he quotes Plato, he's just throwing it out there!! It has nothing to do with Christian pious fraud! Not at all!!!

[Image: giphy.gif]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
05-08-2016, 02:24 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2016 02:35 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-08-2016 02:12 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

You fool unbeliever! He's not talking to Christians, when he quotes Plato, he's just throwing it out there!! It has nothing to do with Christian pious fraud! Not at all!!!

Do you actually have any argument? Or, are you like this guy?

[Image: e6cfb15e7c33b130e5cbdce7dc18176f.jpg]

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 05:03 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-08-2016 08:05 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 03:59 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  But Mr. Ball, in reality, no evidence of Eusebius actually stating any such thing can be found. The words quoted come from the chapter heading, rather than the text.

Ah ha...Drinking Beverage So you think the heading was...an interpolation?

No.

So much for the rest of your argument and your next post to me, huh?

What now?

Big Grin

Also ... have you or Mr. Ball actually read the text? My position is not that it was interpolated, nor do I really have anything against the text. The translation is spotty, but really no matter how you translate it, you will get pretty much the same message from it or something similar.

So what does it mean?

Firstly, it's a header which then goes on to discuss it in the text. But, why is the header there? Where does it come from? And why would you and Mr. Ball (and other mythicists) conclude that the header reflects the sentiments of Eusebius?

Firstly, I will post the header and then the text following it:

PRAEPARATIO EVANGELICA - BOOK XII, CHAPTER XXXI: THAT IT WILL BE NECESSARY SOMETIMES TO USE FALSEHOOD AS A REMEDY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WHO REQUIRE SUCH A MODE OF TREATMENT.

PLATO- "But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver (who is to be of ever so little use) could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their own good, is there any falsehood that he could have told that would be more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by being forced to do it, but instead willingly?

"Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men with it."

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.


SOURCE HERE

The header at the top says absolutely nothing about what Christians should do in regards to their religion. It's a header, and what it does is provide a brief description of the text that follows. This is completely consistent with all the chapters in the book.

Now the text that follows is a quote of Plato in which he uses an example of how a falsehood (lie) can be beneficial when used to entice people to willingly do whatever is required of them for their own good. This text is 100% consistent with what the header says, demonstrating that the header is intended to preface the text of Plato.

Plato's text demonstrates that it was Plato's opinion that sometimes a lie will work better than the truth at persuading people to do things. Perfectly consistent with what the header says.


Therefore, the header is a preface of the text that follows regarding the comments of Plato, and does not reflect the sentiments of Eusebius.

Again, Mark, have you actually read the text to learn this, or ... are you simply following the Mythicist position who have never actually read the text either?

Seriously Mark, if you ever bothered to actually learn history instead of desperately trying to fabricate it you might actually learn something.

Laugh out load

Thanks for that total bullshits spiel in which you claim the heading of the chapter written by Eusebius was actually written by Plato. At least I think that's what you are trying to say. You must have dug deep to find that one. This demonstrates the depth you're willing to go to to fool yourself.

What do some real historians think of Eusebius?

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263 – 339 CE)
“[Eusebius was] the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.”
Jakob Burckhardt
(http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/history/h...ardt.html)

“Not until the mass of inventions labeled ‘Eusebius’ shall be exposed, can the pretended references to Christians in Pagan writers of the first three centuries be recognized for the forgeries they are.”
Edwin Johnson
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Johnson_(historian))

Who was he?

Eusebius was a prolific church historian, and is known as the father of church history. His ten-volume Ecclesiastical History gave access to a host of sources and traditions otherwise long since lost (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm).

He had Origen’s library at Caesarea for his use, as well as a library at Jerusalem. Yet to write a comprehensive history of the previous three centuries when none had been written before, with no biographies and no chronology of events, was a daunting task. In his introduction to the Church History (or Ecclesiastical History,) he wrote:

“I feel inadequate to do [church history] justice as the first to venture on such an undertaking, a traveler on a lonely and untrodden path. But I pray that God may guide me and the power of the Lord assist me, for I have not found even the footprints of any predecessors on this path, only traces in which some have left various accounts of the times in which they lived.”

Eusebius’ lack of contemporary critique gave him license to lower his standard of scholarship, so he became a creator of history too, as confirmed by the comments of the above respected historians. He probably forged a handwritten note to the king of Edessa he claimed was written by Jesus himself. (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm). The apostle Thaddeus supposedly delivered this fabrication to the king, together with a self-portrait of the author—Jesus, who had wiped his face with the canvas. Eusebius was the first to mention the letter and claimed to have personally translated it from Syriac (Ecclesiastical History I, xii.)

Eusebius’ most famous rewrite of history is the so-called “Testimonium Flavianum,” in which he probably inserted the following passages into Josephus:

“Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

This famous passage about Jesus Christ was never mentioned by any of the fathers of the first, second, or third centuries, and they were all familiar with Josephus. Eusebius may have first coined it, although scholarly opinion is divided about this (http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm).

Eusebius placed Christ’s crucifixion before the destruction of Jerusalem, and damned the Jews as the guilty party;
“To Pella those who believed in Christ migrated from Jerusalem; and as if holy men had utterly abandoned the royal metropolis of the Jews and the entire Jewish land, the judgment of God at last overtook them for their abominable crimes against Christ and his apostles, completely blotting out that wicked generation from among men…Such was the reward of the Jews iniquitous and wicked treatment of God’s Christ.” (Book III, 5, ii.)

When Eusebius was a little over forty years old, some arms of the government imposed a period of suppression on Christians. (http://www.fourthcentury.com/diolectian-...n-chart/). Churches were razed, scriptures burnt, and bishops were imprisoned or exiled. He survived, but never forgot the trauma.

He was elated by Constantine’s acceptance of Christianity in 313 CE, and sang his praises loudly. He went on to write Constantine’s biography, which confirms how close church and state had become.

He wrote a fifteen-volume refutation of paganism called
“Preparation, and Demonstration of the Gospel,” in which he attempted to prove Christ fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. He wanted to show that Christianity was the world’s best religion. The Christians had been a minority, one that was sometimes oppressed, but now he hoped his church could reign supreme, and he stopped at nothing to create Christian propaganda so that might happen.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: