Good question. Errors of fact are specifically what I'm looking for. Certain kinds of error are inexcusable: quoting out of context, neglecting material that you are familiar with, just because it erodes your argument, instead of dealing with it directly like a man, etc.. If it could be shown...
It looks like I might have experienced some confusion when chopping your quote up into separate sentences. It is certainly a substantive critique. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but it is something concrete (for a change).
Does Gibbon unfairly excoriate Constantine? I'm willing to...
He is authoritative in this sense: I can quote his facts, and I have a reasonable assurance that his facts will be true. You seem to support me on this:
Not a single factual correction of a significant nature? Very impressive, for 1776. This is a paradigm setting masterpiece in its genre...
Please try to understand my skepticism, when I am told that it is impossible to conceive of Paul as a citizen.
At first, I took this at face value: "This guy has looked into these things a lot more deeply than I have," I thought. "For years, I have been hearing that Paul was a master of...
The one fact that I cited from Gibbon, about the myth of persecution, was accepted by you.
So, I cite as my first source on Gibbon's authority: angellous.
I am only reacting to your reflexive aversion to Gibbon. The second I mentioned this authoritative historian, a cacophony of dismissive abuse kicked in. When I asked what justifies this abuse, silence. At most, I get wikipedia articles, which I then pour over in vain, looking for good, solid...
It is depressing, sir. You seem to have a high level of education on this matter, and it is quite depressing to see Orwell's theory in action, that the formally educated are the most susceptible to propaganda.
Gibbon is a respected authority, and you still are unable to give me one factual...
I'm not very impressed by the wiki link you provided.
It is basically a series of descriptions of various theories of the decline and fall. They are categorized under four heads. I.Decay owing to general malaise, II.Monocausal decay, III.Catastrophic collapse, IV.Transformation.
I.This...
This is exactly what I'm looking for:
I am even familiar with some of this material. Allow me to consider your arguments and compose an appropriate response at my leisure; something proportional to your own detailed and thoughtful response.
Easy to make general assertions. To provide a specific example, more difficult.
So he should not have used "literary" sources? What was he supposed to do, not read books?
Limited? How? Lacks the nuance of other historians? In what way? What other historians? More un-backed general...
I think "839311" has posed some excellent questions, which should be seriously considered by all Judicially based monotheists, as well as all students of that subject.
I first became aware of this problem in reading Max Weber. Should the godly separate themselves from the ungodly? The...
No doubt. The process of education is time consuming, and never reaches a terminal point.
For example, this list that you helpfully provided:
That looks like a year's worth of reading in and of itself! Thanks to the net, it is probably all instantly available, although I would lack the...
I'm not going to re-read that two thousand page sleeping pill for at least a year or two. His bias is quite easy to determine, however, since he is very open about it. I believe I represent him correctly.
The listing for Galatians in the index shows it referenced quite frequently.
It...
You got me. Thanks for helping me identify this critical failure of my argument. I am influenced by the writings of Robert Eisenman. I got the whole "Paul never self-identifies specifically as a Jew" thing from Eisenman. If that is wrong, it makes his other assertions questionable, I...
I understand that Paul was preaching against circumcision and the "dead letter" of the law. This immediately brings to mind the question: what kind of Jew would promulgate such doctrines? Of course, Paul never refers to himself as a Jew. A Hebrew, yes. An Israelite, yes. But a Jew, never...
Here's another one for you. 2 Corinthians 3:13-15.
What a novel interpretation of the Torah! Moses didn't wear the veil because his face was radiant with a holy light from Yahweh, no, he wore a veil to hide "the end of what was passing away." So, even at the very beginning, the Torah was...
You can't see it?
Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave womans son will never share in the inheritance with the free womans son.
In other words, Get rid of the Jews, for the Jews will never share in the inheritance with the gentile Christians.
Paul deserves no apologetic sympathy. His anti-semitism is profoundly disgusting. Check out Galatians 4:21-31.
If this is not raging, I don't know what is. The children of the slave woman? Are you kidding me?
By the way, Paul scrupulously avoids the word, Jew, as a description of himself. True, he is an "Israelite" and a "Hebrew," but never a Jew. He reserves this term for his ideological opponents, especially those who "killed all the prophets."
The Gospel-writers, inspired by Paul's...