how can i explain this?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2014, 06:48 PM
RE: how can i explain this?
(04-04-2014 05:37 PM)sophonian Wrote:  Another thing that makes me doubt about all this stuff is what Tertullian has to say. Is he saying that he has read in pagan archives another descripction of what happened in 32 a.c?
" In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives"

The fact is there's no evidence Jesus even existed, so no-one can say for sure when (if at all) he was born or died.

The fact that this is the year 2014 isn't a very good way of determining the year Jesus was born. In fact he may have actually been born in 7 BC. Which throws subsequent dates out.

If there was an eclipse witnessed by Pagans in 33 AD then it could be as much as 7 years after he actually died.

A quick search shows the nearest eclipse to the supposed time of the crucifixion as 19th of March 33 AD, off the coast of southern Africa.

And besides, like I said before, an eclipse can be completely ruled out due to the Passover festival being held at full Moon.

The passages about darkness may simply refer to it being cloudy... Or more likely are completely fictional and included simply for dramatic effect. The Gospels may have been written well over a century later, in which case their authors couldn't have witnessed the events described.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Sam's post
04-04-2014, 10:27 PM
RE: how can i explain this?
Eusebius was full of shit. He 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.)
“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.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 12:46 PM
RE: how can i explain this?
Did he really said that? Im too confused, I thought that changing the meaning of the text is a form of lying, and a sin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: how can i explain this?
(05-04-2014 12:46 PM)sophonian Wrote:  Did he really said that? Im too confused, I thought that changing the meaning of the text is a form of lying, and a sin.

Well in that case the authors other Bible were sinful as hell... The text has been changed and edited many, many times.

Much of the Old Testament is traditionally attributed to Moses (a man for whom there's no evidence of his existence), but historians have discovered significant evidence that it is the work of at least four authors, separated by hundreds of years.

They can be identified by linguistic differences, political goals and contradictions.

In effect, the Bible has been edited and rewritten time after time, to suit the political agendas of the authors.

So for someone to edit something in the 1st or 2nd century isn't unusual.

Even today, there are seemingly endless versions of the Bible, all changed in subtle ways to suit the teachings of their respective churches.

The 'New World Translation' version used by the Jehovah's Witnesses is one of the most heavily doctored, with the inclusion of the name Jehovah many thousands of times throughout, and the subtle removal of passages which contradict the Watchtower Society's teachings.

... I use that as an example simply because that's the version I was brought up with. But they're all broadly the same. A lot of people point to the King James Bible as the definitive version... But that was in itself a revised edition.

In recent years, various "lost Gospels" have been uncovered... Some have been dated to the same time period as the four Gospels of today. They may once have all been included in the Bible but edited by the church to fit its doctrine.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Sam's post
05-04-2014, 04:10 PM
RE: how can i explain this?
So let me get this straight, you're confused over how it is a Christian could misquote a pagan or secular work and fit in in with the Christian agenda to try and bolster their credibility.

What's your confusion over exactly?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 05:40 PM
RE: how can i explain this?
I have been persuaded that early church writers like Eusebious were so serious when they talk about sin, so I am surprised that he did it so easily.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2014, 05:47 PM
RE: how can i explain this?
(05-04-2014 05:40 PM)sophonian Wrote:  I have been persuaded that early church writers like Eusebious were so serious when they talk about sin, so I am surprised that he did it so easily.

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))

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
07-04-2014, 07:55 AM
RE: how can i explain this?
(05-04-2014 05:40 PM)sophonian Wrote:  I have been persuaded that early church writers like Eusebious were so serious when they talk about sin, so I am surprised that he did it so easily.

The whole "it's a sin" narrative is what gives them the ability to make their version the final, authoritative version. It's not that he actually thinks it's a sin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: