Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Correct (though some argue that they were the authors) but I use them as handy labels. I have long had a sneaking suspicion that Eusebius wrote Luke and Acts, but I could easily be wrong. What I think can be demonstrated is that Matthew is Greek Christian rather than Christian Jew. The misreadings (not to say manglings) ot OT tet has been known for a long time (if passed over by the Bible authorities) but the significance of the use of the Septuagint only hit me in the passage of the kiddies in the temple. When I compared it with the OT, it was different. When I compared it with the Septuagint, it fitted. Jesus would never have quoted from the Septuagint; A Greek Christian writer of Matthew would. Whoever the writer was, it wasn't the Matthew in the list of disciples, and I doubt that the Matthew -name used for Levi, son of Alphaeus is true.
Yes. We are being asked to take the claims of these people at face value. But for me, the bottom line is what we get in the Gospel of John, which claims to be based on an eyewitness account, Some have claimed that the eyewitness is the writer. And some of it strikes me as quite plausible. But some is decidedly not. Bottom line is that whatever in the gospels is eyewitness, or at least reliable report, it doesn't support Christianity. It is at best reporting some very clever trickery, or more probably only looks that was by accidental coincidence and much of it is pious invention.
I suppose what I'm saying is - if i am convinced that so much of the gospels is fiddling, invention and nonsense, why should I trust the claims of Church fathers, who, for all i can tel, were the same sort of people. Dammit, people fiddle, misrepresent and lie on the boards an out in the media, for their Faith. It's ok to fool people and lie to them if it convinces them to believe what is known to be true on Faith.
Why should it have been any different in early Christianity?
Just go on then denying the early church records. Do whatever you have to do to remain a skeptic. Keep your shield of hermeneutical suspicion at the ready so you can maintain your mistrust.
This is a bit of a problem with Our pal, je makes a claim, dismisses the evidence that it doesn't stack up, and appeals to early Church apologists and some selected Bible Scholars who appear to support his position. We have clashed before over Appeal to Authority. True, they are experts in the field, but I already cited the example of one fine scholar who frankly slipped into intellectual dishonesty when faced with matthew's two donkeys.
Even authorities, especially those with a axe to grind, are open to question.
You're the one dismissing the historical evidence of the early church because as you stated in the other post, you don't trust them.
Now you'll have to excuse me. I'm about to flounce once again.
Last edited by Michael Way; 01-15-2018 at 03:15 PM..
Just go on then denying the early church records. Do whatever you have to do to remain a skeptic. Keep your shield of hermeneutical suspicion at the ready so you can maintain your mistrust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
You're the one dismissing the historical evidence of the early church because as you stated in the other post, you don't trust them.
Now you'll have to excuse me. I'm about to flounce once again.
I know. I don't claim to be an epert on the church fathers, but I do know they did a lot of apologetics and the fact is that I am convinced on the internal evidence that such and such and such a thinj did not happen. Example, the early debates on the nativity produced the apologetic (one of the early fathers - name escapes me) that was the 2nd census argument really. Something to do with Saturnius being the governor. There was an appeal to his authority on the lines that he knew from some record or other that this was so. I suggested that this was just an explanation that he'd thought up.
Well, now I am sure that Varus was acting Syrian governor at the time of the postulated Herodian "census" and Qurinus was doing something somewhere else - chasing bandits in the hills of Asia Minor, or something. The explanation was merely that - an apologetic not based on some knowledge the fellow had.
And really, because I am sure on the evidence that John's gospel has been grossly fabricated (perhaps -as I say on an original story with quite a bit of fact in) and thus whatever or whoever some Church father or a pal of his claimed to have heard from the Apostle John, it cannot validate John's gospel as we now have it. I have to be very much aware that the church fathers believed this stuff and has a good reason to produce Explanations (never mind make claims - justified, if they supported the religion), and so while not totally dismissing the claims, we have to be cautious about what they actually were.
Another appeal made is to Jerome, I believe claiming to have seen "Matthew" (the gospel) in Caesarea. Assuming that's true, just what did he see? Matthew as we now have it, or some early document with the material in? Perhaps, even the Synoptic Gospel with the "M" material (Syrio -Phoenecian woman and feeding of 4,000) which has to have existed for both Mark and Matthew to have copied and added to it.
I don't know, but there are other explanations than 'This proves that Matthew as we now have it existed at the time". That's if Jerome is being straight with us.
Even today, there are Authorities who let Faith compromise their objectivity (as in the example of Matthew's 2 donkeys) and that's aside from others Like lane -Craig's apologetic for the Resurrection (which isn't worth a damn) or that Lawyer who swears that the Gospels would stand up in court when they really don't and that is a faith -claim, rather than objective assessment.
Why should the Church fathers with a big fat Axe to grind be any more objective? I can't take their word for it - nor yours, old mate, because you evidently just wave my arguments (with evidence) aside and reiterate the same claims. I simply cannot trust you people.
I accept as true the historical statements that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did write the Gospels. I reject your completely unsupported and biased claim that they didn't. You offer nothing but empty biased opinion on your part.
You have been offered plenty. You simply choose to ignore it. That you take the word of lying Church fathers such as Eusebius says a lot.
The great religious historian, Eusebius, ingenuously remarks that in his history he carefully omitted whatever tended to discredit the church, and that he piously magnified all that conduced to her glory”
{Robert Green Ingersoll. "The Ghosts". (1877).}
The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound 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 practised in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries.
{Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 3 (1776).}
"That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment"
{Eusebius. The title for chapter 32 of the twelth book of Evangelical Preparation}
In a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing. Someone who can accept this as a 'good idea' worth both taking credit for and following is not the sort of person to be trusted.
{Richard Carrier, Footnote 6 from "The Formation of the New testament Canon"}
Eusebius is of course known to quite happy about fiddling facts to support the faith. I mentioned also ..I think Tertullian on the nativity. He was just coming up with some explanation, rather as Mike came up with a plot between the Jews of Damascus and the Nabatean General to encompass the capture of Paul (which is improbable anyway. The Nabatean General couldn't care less about Paul) for not better reason than to make a contradiction fit together. Tertullian (if that's the guy) and his 2nd census apologetic is just more of the same, and if I can't trust modermn day apologists, why should I trust the Church fathers, just because they're dead?
... if I can't trust modern-day apologists, why should I trust the Church fathers, just because they're dead?
Lol. Yes. Appeal to authority all the way when someone just says "trust the church fathers".
No wonder that, growing up in the 60s, the slogan QUESTION AUTHORITY was so scandalizing to my handlers. It was intended to discourage fallacious appeals to authority, and Christianity is largely sustained by such appeals.
You have been offered plenty. You simply choose to ignore it. That you take the word of lying Church fathers such as Eusebius says a lot.
The great religious historian, Eusebius, ingenuously remarks that in his history he carefully omitted whatever tended to discredit the church, and that he piously magnified all that conduced to her glory”
{Robert Green Ingersoll. "The Ghosts". (1877).}
The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound 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 practised in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries.
{Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 3 (1776).}
"That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment"
{Eusebius. The title for chapter 32 of the twelth book of Evangelical Preparation}
In a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing. Someone who can accept this as a 'good idea' worth both taking credit for and following is not the sort of person to be trusted.
{Richard Carrier, Footnote 6 from "The Formation of the New testament Canon"}
You conveniently left out of your quote of Eusebius' statement what he meant in 'Preparation for the Gospel', book 12, chapter 31.
CHAPTER XXXI
[PLATO] 100 '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 good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?
'Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of 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. [Bolding mine]
In quoting Plato's statement in which Plato refers to the use of 'falsehoods' Eusebius is himself using Plato's statement with reference to what we call anthropopathisms. Ascribing to God human qualities and characteristics such as the ones that he mentions - Jealously, being asleep, angry, or subject to any other human passions, which are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction. And indeed that Hebrew Scriptures do utilize these ''falsehoods'' or anthopopathisms.
But like many critics, you see the word 'falsehood', or 'lie', or 'fiction' in Plato's statement which Eusebius used with reference to the Biblical use of anthopopathisms and take it to mean that he endorsed lying for God. The context of Eusebous' statement does not suggest that at all. And then you extend your misunderstanding of what Eusebius meant to imply that none of the early church fathers can be trusted.
And you will continue to do so.
Your first link was empty. The page could not be found.
Last edited by Michael Way; 01-16-2018 at 03:30 PM..
I'v alrerady pointed up one example of modern scholarship, showing an evident inclination ro sidestep a problem if it casts doubt of Gospel reliability.
If we are talking about Eusebius (and I'm no expert on the fellow who was quite late of the early authorities- mid 3rd century, I believe) there's an eample of his work here (i think this isn't sopyright (1).
One has to ask if Eusebius was merely credulous and unquestioningly accepted everything he was told by his sources, or if he consciously or unconsciously assigned a Christian significance to what he saw. One has to ask if Eusebius was deliberately trying to mislead his readers into believing that that he had actually seen a bronze statue of Jesus in Caesarea Philippi.
The fact that Eusebius did misrepresent a statue of a Roman Emperor as a statue of Jesus means that his accuracy, reliability and possibly honesty as a historian is suspect. Other assertions he made in Ecclesiastical History must be carefully assessed before they can be accepted as the unvarnished truth
Here's another, on Jerome https://peterlorenz.me/2016/05/26/jerome-reliability/ Yet just a few years later, in his Homily 11 on Psalm 78 (77 LXX) (401), Jerome confidently asserts that what had formerly been in his judgment “is found in all the ancient copies” (in omnibus ueteribus codicibus). [5] It is unlikely of course that Jerome had discovered any actual MSS in the few years between these remarks. Presumably he would have mentioned such favorable evidence! So we are forced to ask, is Jerome extrapolating on the basis of a self-assured conjecture to evidence that he simply never saw? [6]
(1) I have to be careful. I slipped up once and that was used gleefully by an unsscupulous apologist poster as a reason why my arguments should not be listened to.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-16-2018 at 06:37 PM..
So we find then that, not unlike today, some in the first five centuries of the church had little regard for Tertullian (Lactantius), some were largely positive (Eusebius and Jerome), and others recognizing his merits while unable to defend his faults (Augustine and Vincent). His influence on Latin Christianity was not always admitted (e.g., in Cyprian and Hilary), but his errors were significant enough that they were rarely ignored. https://christianity.stackexchange.c...-of-tertullian
While I don't want to dismiss these people entirely, they were in a different time and a different place and were perhaps tempted to make their case look better than it actualls or assume things to be so or, as I mentioned before, propose hypotheses rthat should not be taken as having some reliable documentation.
We can't take them at face falue, not now allow Mike555 to denand that we do so.
And yes, Tertullian was the one who argued for the Nativity
Another view is that this Latin inscription actually refers to Quintillius Varus, who was the governor of Syria at two separate times, reigning from 6 to 4 B.C. and again from 2 B.C. to 1 A.D. Between 4 and 2 B.C. reigned Sentius Saturninus. It is interesting that Tertullian (Against Marcion 4:7), in the third century A.D., notes that the imperial records show the occurrence of censuses in Judea during the reign of Sentius Saturninus. It is also noteworthy that, in the second century A.D., Justin Martyr (Apology 1:34) states that Quirinius was only a procurator of the province. Thus, some have argued, Quirinius was only an assistant to the governor Saturninus. The Nativity Defended - Christian Apologetics Alliance
There's som interesting chat about the reliability of these churcgh fathers and their claims
Papias was a companion of Polycarp. We know of him principally because Eusebius, the church historian, quoted from him directly. He is described as “an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp” by Polycarp’s disciple Irenaeus (c. 180). Eusebius adds that Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis around the time of Ignatius of Antioch. Papias tells us that the apostle John was a bishop in Ephesus and that he wrote the gospel of John. This was written by Papias somewhere around AD 100 to 120 (not AD 130 as you say). Writing in the first quarter of the second century, Papias said of Mark that, “John the Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord.” This “John the Elder” may be the apostle John. There are debates about that, but we can say that this Christian knew many of the apostles. http://evidenceforchristianity.org/10965-2/
Yes, we can say that,. but is it right? Can we take Papias as talking about what he knew or what he supposed? Can we trust Eusebius on quoting Papias correctly? Can we accept Irenaus on Papias knowing John who was bishop of Ephesus? Can we accept Papias on knowing that the Bishop of Ephesus was John? Can we trust this Bishop on really being the apostle John?
Just as I have doubts that Cephas really went to Rome, or if he did so, was some kind of Christian first Pope (1) and I doubt even more that any follower of Jesus was a Bishop of a Christian Church.
(1) I looked at the argument for Peter's tomb and what it comes down to is an old pre -Vatican tomb with someone writing on the plaster, "This is the tomb of Peter". Well, know doubt he believed it was, but was he right?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-16-2018 at 06:31 PM..
So we find then that, not unlike today, some in the first five centuries of the church had little regard for Tertullian (Lactantius), some were largely positive (Eusebius and Jerome), and others recognizing his merits while unable to defend his faults (Augustine and Vincent). His influence on Latin Christianity was not always admitted (e.g., in Cyprian and Hilary), but his errors were significant enough that they were rarely ignored. https://christianity.stackexchange.c...-of-tertullian
While I don't want to dismiss these people entirely, they were in a different time and a different place and were perhaps tempted to make their case look better than it actualls or assume things to be so or, as I mentioned before, propose hypotheses rthat should not be taken as having some reliable documentation.
We can't take them at face falue, not now allow Mike555 to denand that we do so.
And yes, Tertullian was the one who argued for the Nativity
Another view is that this Latin inscription actually refers to Quintillius Varus, who was the governor of Syria at two separate times, reigning from 6 to 4 B.C. and again from 2 B.C. to 1 A.D. Between 4 and 2 B.C. reigned Sentius Saturninus. It is interesting that Tertullian (Against Marcion 4:7), in the third century A.D., notes that the imperial records show the occurrence of censuses in Judea during the reign of Sentius Saturninus. It is also noteworthy that, in the second century A.D., Justin Martyr (Apology 1:34) states that Quirinius was only a procurator of the province. Thus, some have argued, Quirinius was only an assistant to the governor Saturninus. The Nativity Defended - Christian Apologetics Alliance
There's som interesting chat about the reliability of these churcgh fathers and their claims
Papias was a companion of Polycarp. We know of him principally because Eusebius, the church historian, quoted from him directly. He is described as “an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp” by Polycarp’s disciple Irenaeus (c. 180). Eusebius adds that Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis around the time of Ignatius of Antioch. Papias tells us that the apostle John was a bishop in Ephesus and that he wrote the gospel of John. This was written by Papias somewhere around AD 100 to 120 (not AD 130 as you say). Writing in the first quarter of the second century, Papias said of Mark that, “John the Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord.” This “John the Elder” may be the apostle John. There are debates about that, but we can say that this Christian knew many of the apostles. How do we know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels attributed to them? | Evidence for Christianity
Yes, we can say that,. but is it right? Can we take Papias as talking about what he knew or what he supposed? Can we trust Eusebius on quoting Papias correctly? Can we accept Irenaus on Papias knowing John who was bishop of Ephesus? Can we accept Papias on knowing that the Bishop of Ephesus was John? Can we trust this Bishop on really being the apostle John?
Just as I have doubts that Cephas really went to Rome, or if he did so, was some kind of Christian first Pope (1) and I doubt even more that any follower of Jesus was a Bishop of a Christian Church.
(1) I looked at the argument for Peter's tomb and what it comes down to is an old pre -Vatican tomb with someone writing on the plaster, "This is the tomb of Peter". Well, know doubt he believed it was, but was he right?
I agree. Peter was never near Rome on the Tiber. Jesus said to Peter...
"When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God." (John) 21:18,19 KJV.
Similar to an infirm man in a nursing home, or care-giving facility for folks getting on in years...Peter obviously died simply, of old age.
Not a death glorious enough for their elected first pope, the corrupted church in Rome instituted a serious propaganda campaign to remain indefinite for the duration of their power.
That is how Peter mysteriously ended upside down, and how the Apostle John's death by the sword was redacted out from The Book of Acts.
I say John's death by the sword because Jesus said of both John and his older brother James...
"Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:" Mark 10:38,39 KJV.
Apparently, the death by which BOTH sons of thunder glorified God was censored by the powers of those days...no different than what is done today.
In my opinion...Papias remains as the "beginning" of the ongoing scriptural propaganda campaign instituted by an entity most people have been duped into believing does not exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
over Appeal to Authority. True, they are experts in the field, but I already cited the example of one fine scholar who frankly slipped into intellectual dishonesty when faced with matthew's two donkeys. 
I know. I don't claim to be an epert on the church fathers, but I do know they did a lot of apologetics and the fact is that I am convinced on the internal evidence that such and such and such a thinj did not happen. Example, the early debates on the nativity produced the apologetic (one of the early fathers - name escapes me) that was the 2nd census argument really. Something to do with Saturnius being the governor. There was an appeal to his authority on the lines that he knew from some record or other that this was so. I suggested that this was just an explanation that he'd thought up.
Tertullian
