Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2016, 05:25 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Speaking of Eusebius he makes it into Lost Christianities, too.

Quote:The third question to be addressed concerns the reports of Eusebius himself, whether he can be trusted to give an accurate account of the relationships between proto-orthodox and heretical Christians over the course of the first three centuries. In the early days of Enlightenment scholarship, Eusebius was occasionally attacked for presenting a biased and unhistorical account.17 With new discoveries of primary sources showing the wide varieties of early Christianity, scholars of the nineteenth century sometimes went further and argued that his narrative was inaccurate and theologically driven. But it was not until the early twentieth century that Eusebius’s account came under severe scrutiny, leading to a devastating attack on his portrayal of early Christian unity and diversity.

Quote:Bauer argued that the early Christian church did not consist of a single orthodoxy from which emerged a variety of competing heretical minorities. Instead, earliest Christianity, as far back as we can trace our sources, could be
found in a number of divergent forms, none of which represented the clear and
powerful majority of believers against all the others. In some regions of ancient
Christendom, what later came to be labeled “heresy” was in fact the earliest
and principal form of Christianity. In other regions, views later deemed
heretical coexisted with views that came to be embraced by the church as a
whole, with most believers not drawing hard and fast lines of demarcation
between them. To this extent, “orthodoxy,” in the sense of a unified group
advocating an apostolic doctrine accepted by the majority of Christians everywhere, simply did not exist in the second and third centuries. Nor was “heresy” secondarily derived from an original teaching through an infusion of Jewish ideas or pagan philosophy. Beliefs that later came to be accepted as orthodox or heretical were competing interpretations of Christianity, and the groups that held them were scattered throughout the empire. Eventually one of these groups established itself as dominant, acquiring more converts than all the others, overpowering its opponents, and declaring itself the true faith. Once its victory was secured, it could call itself “orthodox” and marginalize the opposition parties as heretics. It then rewrote the history of the conflict, making its views and the people who held them appear to have been in the majority from apostolic times onwards.

Bart Ehrman - Lost Christianities pgs. 172-173

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
05-08-2016, 05:28 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2016 07:09 PM by Mark Fulton.)
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 the bullshits spiel The fact is, Eusebius wrote

"How far it may be proper to use falsehood as a medium for the benefit of those who require to be deceived;"

Eusebius was trying to justify lying...something he was remarkably proficient at.

What do some historians think of Eusebius?

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

"The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related what might rebound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion.

Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other; and the suspicion will derive additional credit from the character of Eusebius, which was less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries".
--- Gibbon

"Perhaps, on some future occasion, I may examine
the historical character of Eusebius;
perhaps I may enquire, how far it appears
from his words and actions,
that the learned Bishop of Caesarea
was averse to the use of fraud,
when it was employed in the service of Religion."
--- Gibbon

"[the fourth century was] the great age of literary forgery,
the extent of which has yet to be exposed"

“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))

"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced
that the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.
Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth."

...[and, a little later ..]...

"The wretched Eusebius will have it
that poems in hexameters are to be found even among them,
and sets up a claim that the study of logic exists among the Hebrews,
since he has heard among the Hellenes the word they use for logic."

Emperor (360-363 CE) Flavius Claudius Julianus (the Apostate)
"Against the Galileans" remains of the 3 books,
excerpted from Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum (1923)"


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).

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
05-08-2016, 05:45 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-08-2016 05:03 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thanks for that total bullshits spiel in which you claim the heading of the chapter written by Eusebius was actually written by Plato.

I said no such thing.

Now I know why you don't understand these ancient texts, or what anyone tries to telll you.

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 05:47 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 04:42 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
The Integrity of the Early Christians

“It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie, and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction: I have even heard that some of your interpreters, as if they had just come out of a tavern, are onto the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the originals writings, three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism.”
(Celsus 178 CE, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus)

“A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire. Our forefathers and doctors have often said not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity dictated.”
St. Gregory (mid fourth century, from Jerome’s letter 52 to Nepotian, http://catholicism.org/gregory-great.html)

“It will not appear strange to those who have given any attention to the history of mankind, which will always suggest this sad reflection: That the greatest zealots in religion, or the leaders of sects and parties, whatever purity or principles they pretend to have seldom scrupled to make use of a commodious lie for the advancement of what they call the truth. And with regard to these very Fathers, there is not one of them…who made any scruple in those ages of using the hyperbolical style to advance the honor of God and the salvation of men.”
(Dr. Conyers Middleton, 1844)

Were the church fathers reputable, honest commentators? We can examine their writings to find out.

Papias was one of the very earliest “fathers.” Eusebius claimed Papias knew someone who had known the author of Mark’s Gospel, yet gave no details about this. Surely Papias would have documented something so important. The name “Mark” wasn’t associated with the authorship of a gospel until about twenty years after Papias’ death, which means the claim is untrue.

Unfortunately for Papias’ reputation, Eusebius expressed serious reservations about the caliber of his intellect:

“I guess he got these ideas from a misinterpretation of the apostolic accounts. For he did not understand what they said mystically and in figurative language. For he obviously was a man of very little intelligence, as one can tell judging from his sayings. Nevertheless, it was due to him that so many churchmen after him adopted a similar opinion, basing their position on the fact that he was a man of the earliest era” (Eccles. Hist. 3.39.12–13.)

Eusebius had to guess where Papias got his facts from, wrote him off as unintelligent, and then admitted he was a significant and early source of dogma!

Papias wrote that Jesus said:

“The days shall come, in which there shall be vines, which shall severally have ten thousand branches; and every one of these branches shall have ten thousand lesser branches; and every one of these branches shall have ten thousand twigs; and every one of these twigs shall have ten thousand clusters of grapes; and everyone of these grapes being pressed shall yield two hundred and seventy-five gallons of wine. And when a man shall take hold of any of these sacred bunches, another bunch shall cry out ‘I am a better bunch, take me, and bless the Lord by me!’” (Irenaeus, Adv. Hær., v. 33, 3.) He was willing to concoct anecdotes and obviously wasn’t a reliable historian.

Ignatius, or someone writing in his name, wrote of the “star of Bethlehem:”

“A star shone forth in heaven above all other stars, and the light of which was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment. And all the rest of the stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to this star” (to the Ephesians chapter XIX.) He may have been writing metaphorically, yet to claim something this comical is childish.

Justin was unscrupulous. He interpolated the Septuagint with a number of phony prophecies concerning Jesus, which were weak, clumsy, and dishonest. They can be found in the dialogue of Justin with Trypho the Jew (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...pho.html). Trypho didn’t exist; he was a straw man, Justin’s literary invention he used to argue against Judaism.

Justin justified his belief in Jesus as follows:

“When we say also that the Word, which is the first birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter” (First Apology, chapter 21.) Instead of discussing evidence, he said (quite correctly) that the Jesus account was similar to myths about other gods, and should therefore be equally true. Yet Jesus, if he ever existed, had died only one hundred years earlier.

He claimed that Socrates (469–399 BCE) and Heraclitus (535–475 BCE) were Christians, (First Apology Chapter 46, Second Apology Chapter 10) a statement similar to saying that Galileo was a scientologist.

He believed insane people were possessed by the souls of the wicked, so were proof of the immortality of souls. (First Apology, Chapter 18.)

Irenaeus praised ignorance as a virtue:

“It is therefore better and more profitable to belong to the simple and unlettered class, and by means of love to attain to nearness to God, than, by imagining ourselves learned and skilful” (Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 26.) He had little respect for human intellect or integrity.

Origin wrote:

“Before replying to Celsus, it is necessary to admit that in the matter of history, however true it might be, it is often very difficult and sometimes quite impossible to establish its truth by evidence which shall be considered sufficient” (Contra Celsum 1.58.) This was a plain admission that many Christian claims couldn’t be verified. At least he was candid enough to admit it.

He also wrote:
“As this matter of faith...we accept it as useful for the multitude, and that we admittedly teach those who cannot abandon everything and pursue a study of rational argument to believe without thinking out their arguments.” (Contra Celsum 1.10.) He admitted that “we” turned to faith as a tool to convince a gullible crowd. “We” were his fellow bishops, the men who promoted Christian dogma.

Origen thought the sun, moon, and stars were living creatures, each with a free will, that sometimes sinned. One might forgive him for having no understanding of astronomy, but not for imagining that celestial objects had thoughts. He clung to the pagan superstition that comets and new stars portend great world events, and thought that this gave credibility to the story of the star of Bethlehem:

“It has been observed that, on the occurrence of great events, and of mighty changes in terrestrial things, such stars are wont to appear, indicating either the removal of dynasties or the breaking out of wars, or the happening of such circumstances as may cause commotions upon the earth, why not then the Star of Bethlehem?” (Contra Celsum, chapter 1.)

Tertullian was a teller of tall tales. He asserted,
“I know it that the corpse of a dead Christian, at the first breath of the prayer made by the priest, on occasion of its own funeral, removed its hands from its sides, into the usual posture of a supplicant; and when the service was ended, restored them again to their former situation.” (De anima chapter 51.)

He denounced the sin of going to the theatre:
“We have the case of the woman—the Lord Himself is witness—who went to the theater, and came back possessed. In the outcasting (exorcism), accordingly, when the unclean creature was upbraided with having dared to attack a believer, he firmly replied: ‘And in truth I did most righteously, for I found her in my domain” (De Spectaulis.)

He believed the hyena could change its sex every year (De Pallio, Chapter 3,) eclipses and comets were signs of god’s anger (To scapula, Chapter 3) and volcanoes were openings into hell (De Penitentia, 12.)

He advised Christians not to think critically, but to employ blind faith. To him, all kinds of rational thinking became superfluous compared to holy writings:

“For philosophy is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy… What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after receiving the gospel! When we believe, we desire no further belief. For this is our first article of faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.” (De Praescriptione, Chapter vii.)

He claimed, without evidence, that Pilate converted to Christianity:
“All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius” (The Apology, Chapter 21.)

He wrote:
“The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed because men must needs be ashamed of it. And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible. But how will all this be true in Him, if He was not Himself true--if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again?” (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.v.html). He obviously preferred faith to reason, and disliked complexity.

In the same work he called Aristotle “wretched” and disparaged the tentative investigative nature of Greek science as

“self-stultifying…ever handling questions but never settling them.” This attitude was the antithesis of rational thought.

Compare this to what his contemporary Celsus said:

“For why is it an evil to have been educated, and to have studied the best opinions, and to have both the reality and appearance of wisdom? What hindrance does this offer to the knowledge of God? Why should it not rather be an assistance, and a means by which one might be better able to arrive at the truth?” (Excerpts from Contra Celsus by Origen, book 3 Chapter 59.)

Celsus realized early Christians were irrational.

Tertullian lacked common sense, was a lazy thinker, justified his own ignorance using religion, and thought he could just invent facts to advertise an agenda.

Jerome was an impressive scholar, (it was a daunting task to translate the Old Testament) yet admitted to employing babble to beguile the hoi polloi:

“There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation.” (Epistle to Nepotian, lii, 8.)

He claimed:
“It is usual for the sacred historian to conform himself to the generally accepted opinion of the masses in his time” (The book of Psalms in Latin, XXVI.) In other words, the historian need not rely on facts, but could consider common opinion as the truth.

Eusebius is notorious as the author of numerous falsehoods. He probably created the “Testimonium Flavianum,” (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html) and may have forged a letter in Jesus’ name. He admitted on at least two occasions that he was less than honest:

“We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity” (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, Chapter 2.) and

“How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived.” (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chap. 2.) So much for integrity and objectivity from Christianity’s most important historian!

He wrote of a man who was tortured until his body

“was one continued wound, mangled and shriveled, that had entirely lost the form of man” and then “recovered the former shape and habit of his limbs” (Ecclesiastical History, book V, Chapter 2.) These are the words of a man using falsehood as a medicine.

The Catholic Encyclopedia claims Augustine was

“a philosophical and theological genius of the first order, dominating, like a pyramid, antiquity and the succeeding ages. Compared with the great philosophers of past centuries and modern times, he is the equal of them all; among theologians he is undeniably the first, and such has been his influence that none of the Fathers, Scholastics, or Reformers has surpassed it.” High praise indeed! Yet this sounds like an apology for all other church theologians. The author is conceding there’s not a single theologian other than Augustine whose intellect can compare with great philosophers past and present. That doesn’t say much for the school of theology. Is Augustine thought a greater theologian than Paul, who more or less invented Christian theology? I wonder if this wording will be changed in future editions.

There’s no doubt he was highly influential. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/). Whether he was a great philosopher is more controversial. How could someone who relied so heavily on scripture rather than rational thought, be taken seriously?

He was adamant the earth was no more than six thousand years old:

“They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not yet 6,000 years have passed…” (City of God, Bk. xii, Chapter 10.) Science has proven the great philosopher’s “sacred writings” wrong. He was writing in the fourth century, and he didn’t know any better, but he was bone-headed about it, and derided anyone who didn’t believe the creation story:

“For as it is not yet 6,000 years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, so contrary to, the ascertained truth?” (City of God, Bk xviii, Chapter 40.) His “ascertained truth” was the Old Testament, which was wrong about the age of the earth by a factor of close to a million!

Although many Greek philosophers from Pythagorus on had held that the earth was round, and Augustine had heard the theory, he was adamant the earth was flat and inhabited on the upper side only:

“As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men who are on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, is on no ground credible.” (City of God, Chapter xvi.)

This “towering figure of early Christianity” claimed:

“I was already Bishop of Hippo, when I went into Ethiopia with some servants of Christ there to preach the Gospel. In this country we saw many men and women without heads, who had two great eyes in their breasts; and in countries still more southly, we saw people who had but one eye in their foreheads.” (Sermones, xxxiii.)

The great doctor invented his own biological facts:

“Frogs are produced from the earth, not propagated by male and female parents” (City of God, Chapter xvi) and

“There are in Cappadocia mares which are impregnated by the wind, and their foals live only three years” (City of God, Chapter xxi.)

This number one theologian attempted to explain how people could survive fire in hell without being consumed, and wrote two chapters in City of God, on the topic, the first entitled
“Whether it is Possible for Bodies to last Forever in Burning Fire,” and the second
“Examples from Nature Proving That Bodies May Remain Unconsumed and Alive in Fire.”

This highly influential intellect thought demons caused disease:

“All diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to these demons; chiefly do they torment fresh-baptized Christians, yea, even the guiltless new-born infant” (De Divinatione Daemonorum, Chapter 3.) I know some superstitious people today who still attribute illnesses to demons.

The great interpreter of scripture accepted the fable of the miraculous translation of the Septuagint, (six-hundred-odd years before his time)

“It is reported that there was an agreement in their words so wonderful, stupendous, and plainly divine, each one apart (for so it pleased Ptolemy to test their fidelity), they differed from each other in no word, or in the order of the words; but, as if the translators had been one, so what all had translated was one, because in very deed the one Spirit had been in them all. And they received so wonderful a gift of God, in order that these scriptures might be commended not as human but divine, for the benefit of the nations. Who should at some time believe, as we now see them doing. If anything is in the Hebrew copies and not in the version of the Seventy, the Spirit of God did not choose to say it through them, but only through the prophets. But whatever is in the Septuagint and not in the Hebrew copies, the same Spirit chose rather to say it through the latter, thus showing that both were prophets.” (The City of God, book xviii.)

In reality the Septuagint translation was notoriously unreliable, a fact any Hebrew scholar can confirm today. Augustine invented history to justify the traditional text.

This “great pyramid of learning” pondered over

“…whether angels, inasmuch as they are spirits, could have bodily intercourse with women?” (City of God, book xv, Chapter 23.) After much deliberation over an entirely imaginary subject, he concluded that they can and do, and that he had proof:

“Many proven instances, that Sylvans and Fauns, who are commonly called ‘Incubi,’ had often made wicked assaults upon women, and satisfied their lusts upon them: and that certain devils, called Duses by the Gauls, are constantly attempting and effecting this impurity.” (City of God, book xv, chapter 23.)

Augustine devoted two whole treatises to the topic of lying (a topic he knew a lot about.) The first of these, ‘De mendacio’ (‘On Lying,’) written in 395 CE, discussed the pros and cons of lying. Of the eight kinds of lie that he identified, (each with several sub-types) he excused ‘jocular’ lies, was ‘uncertain’ about others, (depending on motive and the likelihood of being believed) and questioned the morality of the remainder. The second, ‘Contra mendacium’ written in 422 CE, cautioned his readers as follows.

“One never errs more safely, methinks, than when one errs by too much loving the truth, and too much rejecting of falsehood.” (St Augustine, Retractations, Book I.) He’d evidently thought long and hard before coming to this conclusion, yet frequently failed to follow his own advice.

This “philosophical genius” wrote

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” (Against the letter of Mani 5,6.) He thought “the Gospel” wasn’t believable, but that the church knew better. Today the Vatican claims Augustine was their number one authority. The two ideas produce a classic circular argument.

He too derided the value of critical thought.

“There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity…It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn.” (Confessions.) This comment denigrates scientific investigation; an attitude that is, in fact, the antithesis of good philosophy.

Augustine was a reasonably intelligent man, although his great rival Pelagius was far more sensible. His teachings on original sin, women and sex were despicable. He claimed to be an authority on history and scientific subjects he knew very little about, and invented facts to fill in the gaps. He wasn’t honest enough to admit the deficiencies of his religion.

The men discussed here were the more educated members of the early Christian churches. Yet they were narrow-minded, superstitious, and dishonest, and a few of them even admitted it. Some of them forged documents. They displayed very little critical faculty; no story was too silly, no falsehood too glaring, no argument too weak to prevent them teaching it with full confidence of its truth. They thought it was permissible, and even commendable, to assert falsehoods for the sake of selling faith. They were the tabloid journalists of their day. It’s on their testimony and others of their ilk that today’s Christian assumes the Gospels are truthful.

It’s obvious that these characters, and others with the same attitude, would have edited and interpolated the New Testament. Some altered quotations from the Septuagint to create phony prophecies concerning Jesus. Someone added Jesus’ resurrection appearance to the Gospel of Mark. Someone attributed the authorship of the Gospels to Jesus’ apostles. Someone probably inserted into Matthew’s Gospel that Jesus wanted to start a new church with Peter at its head. Someone probably inserted Jesus’ name into Paul’s writings. Some wrote literature in Paul’s name. Someone wrote Acts to try to link Yeshua’s disciples with Paul’s theology. Some incorporated traditions from other cults into the new one. There are countless other examples of their dishonesty. There was a corrupt culture in the early Christian church. There was also a patronizing attitude towards the common people; they were to be fooled and manipulated for the church’s benefit.

There are no excuses for this. Fiction touted as truth, uncritical scholarship, and appeals for faith are unacceptable to an educated audience.

They were using the types of arguments that some groups in that era considered acceptable. Yet there were men of their time and before them such as Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Celsus, Cicero, Philo, Seutonius, Tacitus and others, who employed much higher standards of scholarship. Their compositions are believable, consistent and still read well, whereas most of these Christian writings don’t.

None of these church fathers were honest enough to publicly admit what their peers such as Celsus pointed out; their faith was formed on a foundation of manufactured nonsense. How could anyone today be convinced of the divinity, the miracles, or the teachings of Jesus after considering what these characters had to contend?

It’s crystal clear to me why they concocted lies and denigrated other commentators such as the Gnostics and Marcion. Promoting their version of the dogma fortified their own power and status, and that of the institutions they represented.

Consider the writings attributed to Ignatius. He emphasized the importance of bishops to bolster the power of his church and counter all opponents. In the letter to the Ephesians he wrote:

“Wherefore it is fitting that ye should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also ye do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Therefore in your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is sung.”

In his letter to the Trallians he paralleled the position of bishop with the position of Christ:

“For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing,” (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm) and

“...Let us be careful not to resist the Bishop, that through our submission to the Bishop we may belong to God...We should regard the Bishop as the Lord Himself.” Ignatius was advocating an earthly monarchy with a bishop on the throne. Paul had said much the same thing 50+ years earlier, with himself as the equivalent of a king. The Vatican still runs a monarchy today, with the pope as God’s mouthpiece.

Tertullian too claimed bishops were at the top of the tree.

“The supreme priest (that is the Bishop) has the right of conferring baptism: after him the presbyters and deacons, but only with the Bishop’s authority.” (http://www.therealchurch.com/articles/th...hers.html)

St. Augustine wrote,

“Neither in the confusion of paganism, nor in the defilement of heresy, nor yet in the blindness of Judaism, is religion to be sought, but among those alone who are called Catholic Christians.” (De Vera Religions, chapter v.) A heretic was any Christian who didn’t believe exactly what Augustine believed. He wrote,
“There is no salvation outside the church” (De Baptismo. IV, cxvii.24.) Anyone who didn’t go to his church was denied heaven.

These men were bishops buttressing their own positions and their church’s coffers. They were pompous priests who perched themselves in high places in pursuit of power, money and prestige. Elders or presbyters were beneath the bishop, deacons or servants below the elders, and the common plebs at the bottom of the pile. The people were poorly equipped to detect dishonesty, or to tell the difference between truth and fiction. Bishops had little real respect for them. They regularly referred to the public as “rabble” or “fools” or “the multitudes” or the “crowd,” yet it was the commoners who put cash in their collections.

It’s sad, wrong and ironic that generations of trusting Christians have wasted their time dissecting the New Testament, expecting to be enlightened, when the characters who created it were so cavalier with the truth. Priests have always insisted people believe the bible was divinely inspired. By forcing faith on children and adults too busy to carefully consider it, they’ve ruled over human reason.

Times have changed. We mustn’t let these writings and those who advocate them have an authority they don’t deserve. It’s time bibliolatry and theology were replaced with open-mindedness, pragmatic thought, and genuine empathy. The era in which uninformed people blindly believe Christian dogma and bow down to those promoting it should now be over.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 05:50 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-08-2016 05:45 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 05:03 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thanks for that total bullshits spiel in which you claim the heading of the chapter written by Eusebius was actually written by Plato.

I said no such thing.

Now I know why you don't understand these ancient texts, or what anyone tries to telll you.

Consider

That was edited by me. Ignore it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 06:03 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-08-2016 05:50 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 05:45 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I said no such thing.

Now I know why you don't understand these ancient texts, or what anyone tries to telll you.

Consider

That was edited by me. Ignore it.

Fine, but nothing else you said in the post in any way offers a challenge to my obviously correct demonstration of what the text actually says, and it doesn't say what you claim it says regarding Eusebius.

Also ..

Quote:Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263 – 339 CE)
“[Eusebius was] the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.”

Jakob Burckhardt

Great ... an art historian specializing in the Renaissance with absolutely no experience in religious history whatsoever. Been dead now for about 120 years.

Quote:“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

Surely you jest? this guy has the same conspiracy mind as you have. He claims the "Dark Ages" between CE 700 and CE 1400 had never actually occurred, and that it was actually some sinister Christian plot that had been invented by Christian writers who created imaginary characters and events. Therefore, any and all history that has been recorded during the dark ages is 100% a Christian plot, according to him. He's also been dead for over 100 years.

What the fuck Mark?

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 07:00 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2016 07:47 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-08-2016 05:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thanks for the bullshits spiel The fact is, Eusebius wrote

"How far it may be proper to use falsehood as a medium for the benefit of those who require to be deceived;"

Eusebius was trying to justify lying...something he was remarkably proficient at.

No ... he wasn't. And all your whacked-out attempts to distort history will never change the reality of the past. Here it is again:

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."



1. The header at the top says absolutely nothing about what Christians should do in regards to their religion.

2. It is a header, and what it does is provide a brief description of the quote of Plato that follows. This is completely consistent with all the chapters in the book.

3. Now the text that follows is a quote of Plato in which Plato presents 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.

4. Plato's quoted text is 100% consistent with what the header says, demonstrating that the header is intended to preface the text of Plato. Every single chapter of this massive tome does exactly the same thing with their headers.

5. 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.

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


Mark, I fully realize how difficult it can be for you to ever admit you could be mistaken about what you have convinced yourself to be the truth. Not meaning to insult, but you are very much like a religionist when you cannot let go of your beliefs regarding Christian history, in which you will deny all far more probable explanations in favor for what you have become convinced to be true.

When you create new beliefs because you hate something such as Christianity, they can suck you into another belief system themselves which, just like Christianity, entrap you so strongly that not even sound reasoning and direct evidence can ever make a dent in what you have entrapped yourself to believe.

Mark it will never be the truth that sets you free, because the truth can never be conclusively determined in anything. Rather, it is reason that will provide you the key to unlock your own jail cell, opening the door to a far greater approximation of what the truth most likely is.

Think about this before you reply.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 07:38 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2016 07:43 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-08-2016 07:00 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 05:28 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thanks for the bullshits spiel The fact is, Eusebius wrote

"How far it may be proper to use falsehood as a medium for the benefit of those who require to be deceived;"

Eusebius was trying to justify lying...something he was remarkably proficient at.

No ... he wasn't. And all your whacked-out attempts to distort history will never change the reality of the past. Here it is again:

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.".



1. The header at the top says absolutely nothing about what Christians should do in regards to their religion.

2. It is a header, and what it does is provide a brief description of the quote of Plato that follows. This is completely consistent with all the chapters in the book.

3. Now the text that follows is a quote of Plato in which Plato presents as 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.

4. Plato's quoted text is 100% consistent with what the header says, demonstrating that the header is intended to preface the text of Plato. Every single chapter of this massive tome does exactly the same thing with its headers.

5. 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.

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


Big Grin

Why do you think Eusebius put it there?

Take a big breath. Why are you so anal about largely irrelevant details.? Just drop your guard for a minute. Look at what I've written, what the historians have written, what the church fathers have written, and just get it. Be a "big picture" man.

THERE WAS A CORRUPT CULTURE IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

These people were unscientific, pathetic empire builders. They fought vehemently amongst themselves. They destroyed nearly all literature that wasn't Christian. The great library at Alexandria was lost to the world forever because of Christianity.

The ruling classes, by and large, considered them a joke... until they became politically useful.

You are reading their pathetic books with reverence. People who do that are an embarrassing stain on human integrity... just like the so called "Muslim scholars" who read the Koran with rose coloured glasses.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 07:51 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2016 08:12 PM by GoingUp.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-08-2016 07:38 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 07:00 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  No ... he wasn't. And all your whacked-out attempts to distort history will never change the reality of the past. Here it is again:

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.".



1. The header at the top says absolutely nothing about what Christians should do in regards to their religion.

2. It is a header, and what it does is provide a brief description of the quote of Plato that follows. This is completely consistent with all the chapters in the book.

3. Now the text that follows is a quote of Plato in which Plato presents as 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.

4. Plato's quoted text is 100% consistent with what the header says, demonstrating that the header is intended to preface the text of Plato. Every single chapter of this massive tome does exactly the same thing with its headers.

5. 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.

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


Big Grin

Why do you think Eusebius put it there?

Take a big breath. Why are you so anal about largely irrelevant details.? Just drop your guard for a minute. Look at what I've written, what the historians have written, what the church fathers have written, and just get it. Be a "big picture" man.

THERE WAS A CORRUPT CULTURE IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

These people were unscientific, pathetic empire builders. They fought vehemently amongst themselves. They destroyed nearly all literature that wasn't Christian. The great library at Alexandria was lost to the world forever because of Christianity.

The ruling classes, by and large, considered them a joke... until they became politically useful.

You are reading their pathetic books with reverence. People who do that are an embarrassing stain on human integrity... just like the so called "Muslim scholars" who read the Koran with rose coloured glasses.

Listen, when all who stand up and claim there was corruptness in the Christian church, I am he who stands at the front of the line screaming bloody murder louder than anybody else.

But this fucking bullshit- such as this Eusebius crap- that the Jesus Mythers try to pass of as if its some kind of truth is so far beyond ridiculousness that it amazes me that anybody would actually embarrass themselves by believing it. In fact, as a teacher, it horrifies me that this kind of misinformation/disinformation is being passed off to our young people as if it actually provides a valid education, when in reality all it does is poison the minds of our young, and entraps them into another belief system that has nothing to do with approximating the truth.

I mean the fact that it can be so easily refuted makes it so fucking obvious that it's completely undeniable. It stands as a traitor to reason, and an affront to the development of honest skepticism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2016, 08:09 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(05-08-2016 07:51 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(05-08-2016 07:38 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Why do you think Eusebius put it there?

Take a big breath. Why are you so anal about largely irrelevant details.? Just drop your guard for a minute. Look at what I've written, what the historians have written, what the church fathers have written, and just get it. Be a "big picture" man.

THERE WAS A CORRUPT CULTURE IN THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

These people were unscientific, pathetic empire builders. They fought vehemently amongst themselves. They destroyed nearly all literature that wasn't Christian. The great library at Alexandria was lost to the world forever because of Christianity.

The ruling classes, by and large, considered them a joke... until they became politically useful.

You are reading their pathetic books with reverence. People who do that are an embarrassing stain on human integrity... just like the so called "Muslim scholars" who read the Koran with rose coloured glasses.

Listen, when all who stand up and claim there was corruptness in the Christian church, I am he who stands at the front of the line screaming bloody murder louder than anybody else.

But this fucking bullshit- such as this Eusebius crap- that the Jesus Mythers try to pass of as if its some kind of truth is so far beyond ridiculousness that it amazes me that anybody would actually embarrass themselves by believing it.

I mean the fact that it can be so easily refuted makes it so fucking obvious that it's completely undeniable.

You're hopelessly gone. You can't even mount a coherent reply.

How can you group "Jesus mythers" with people who may have a particular opinion about Eusebius? You are clearly just mouthing off abuse at anyone who disagrees with you.

Why don't you go outside and abuse your garden shed? You'll achieve the same result as being here.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: