September 2008 SCrewballs

[spirit5er]

um in case you haven't noticed.... it is you that is being laughed at.

I don't think you could get anyone to debate you because everyone can see how moronic your reasoning is. Why would anyone want to waste their time with you?

Do you really think that you can badger me with insults to debate you?

It just makes me less likely (if that were possible) to wish to.

Maybe you can talk JPH into a debate? you should try insulting him more

What...does JPH disagree with you about the worthiness of debating "morons"? Does the Holy Spirit give conflicting advice to different members of the body of Christ?

[spirit5er]

Oh dear.


Maybe you'd like to back this up, spirit5er? Arianism was widespread, and might have caused the church to split (during a time of non-persecution, too), so it wasn't about merely 2 or 3 heretics, if you have actually read church history...?

If you actually read my point in context, you'd find that I was agreeing with you, that Arianism was widespread, and I was mocking the orthodox position. For while JPH and other "orthodox" insist that the vast majority of 4th century Christians accepted the full deity of Jesus, it is clear from Constantine's motivation to call the Nicene Council, that the Christians of his day were NOT this unified.

Now hopefully, JPH's supporters aren't asking me to back up certain assertions about historical church figures that JPH's supporters should already know to be true? Do you really need me to cite the evidence that Eusebius of Caesarea was Arian in heart and only "orthodox" on paper?

Then again, you apologist-types depend on Eusebius' general trustworthiness and honesty like people in the desert depend on water, so I guess it would come as a shock to you to discover that your earliest and most comprehensive church history resource was written by a person who lied about his true theological beliefs merely to promote politics (and probably to keep his lofty job next to Constantine):

From the letter of Eusebius to his own diocese, on the Nicene Creed:
5. On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced of the essence of the Father, and one in essence with the Father. Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed, that the phrase of the essence was indicative of the Son's being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not however a part of His essence . On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term One in essence, peace being the object which we set before us, and steadfastness in the orthodox view." (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.)

Jerome said Eusebius of Caesarea was the most open champion of the Arian heresy, See Jerome, Letter # 84. Jerome would hardly say that about his contemporary in the faith, if he thought this unpopular belief was untrue.

Arius specifically said that Eusebius of Caesarea was condemned (circa 319 a.d.) because he and others said God existed prior to Jesus:
"Eusebius, your brother bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregorius, Aetius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of his Son." (Letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia)

Philip Schaff:
"From a letter addressed by this Eusebius to Paulinus of Tyre (Theodoret, H. E. I. 6) we learn that Eusebius of Cæsarea was quite zealous in behalf of the Arian cause. The exact date of the letter we do not know, but it must have been written at an early stage of the controversy." (NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine by Schaff, Philip)

How then did anybody get the idea that Eusebius of Caesarea was Trinitarian? As Eusebius himself said in his own letter, he didn't make too big a spectacle of his difficulties in accepting the wording of the Nicene Creed, since his true motivation therein was the peace of the empire. Yeah, just pretend you believe so you don't ruffle too many feathers. Now that's a church historian I'd love to depend on to prove the truth of various "orthodox" views.

I will keep in mind the dishonesty of this pretend trinitarian, should we end up debating statements whose truth depends on Eusebius' general integrity.

[jpholding]

What...does JPH disagree with you about the worthiness of debating "morons"? Does the Holy Spirit give conflicting advice to different members of the body of Christ?

I'm not debating you.

I'm getting cheap entertainment from picking you up and dropping you on your head.

[jpholding]

. For while JPH and other "orthodox" insist that the vast majority of 4th century Christians accepted the full deity of Jesus,

Where do I say this, pinhead?

Then again, you apologist-types depend on Eusebius' general trustworthiness and honesty like people in the desert depend on water, so I guess it would come as a shock to you to discover that your earliest and most comprehensive church history resource was written by a person who lied about his true theological beliefs merely to promote politics (and probably to keep his lofty job next to Constantine):

Hmmm....let's see. Shock...shock?




Nope. Sorry.

Funny too, but last I checked, we weren't relying on "general trustworthiness" but trustworthiness is a specific area. Darn those category switches.

Not that it matters. Your quote from Eusebius re "promote politics" shows a dismal ignorance of the nature of compromise in an agonistic society.

Jerome said Eusebius of Caesarea was the most open champion of the Arian heresy, See Jerome, Letter # 84. Jerome would hardly say that about his contemporary in the faith, if he thought this unpopular belief was untrue.

Ummmmm....

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001084.htm

Didn't want to quote that, did you? I can see why.

Apollinaris is the author of a most weighty book against Porphyry, and Eusebius has composed a fine history of the Church; yet of these the former has mutilated Christ's incarnate humanity, while the latter is the most open champion of the Arian impiety.

So, uh, while he does make an accusation like you say, he also affirms that his history of the church was "fine." Oops. Seems you need to take Jerome's advice, too:

We must not detract from the virtues of our opponents— if they have any praiseworthy qualities— but neither must we praise the defects of our friends. Each several case must be judged on its own merits and not by a reference to the persons concerned.

Or maybe you could backpedal by saying Jerome was only right when YOU want him to be...ya think?

How then did anybody get the idea that Eusebius of Caesarea was Trinitarian? As Eusebius himself said in his own letter, he didn't make too big a spectacle of his difficulties in accepting the wording of the Nicene Creed, since his true motivation therein was the peace of the empire.

And in that, he represented some of the best values of an agonistic society: Peace and concord.

Yeah, just pretend you believe so you don't ruffle too many feathers. Now that's a church historian I'd love to depend on to prove the truth of various "orthodox" views.

Hum. Now that we've seen that you covered up Jerome's approval of Eusy's history, what does that say about you as a dependable source of truth?

I will keep in mind the dishonesty of this spitfiver, should we end up debating statements whose truth depends on his general integrity.

[jpholding]

Dumplin' Dumbash's fans speak Screwballese again:

One of your best pieces to date, IMO. There are so many layers of convolution involved in apologetics, it’s easy to lose track of the bouncing ball, sometimes. I truly believe this is why a lot of these guys seem to prefer the live debate format- polished rhetorical talking points while skipping over the details is their best chance to ‘win’ an argument (at least, it’s sufficient to appease the cheering section). Your alternative approach i.e. reason and honesty, whilst less razzle-dazzly, is much appreciated here. Keep it up!

You know, I tried to read that article during my initial search for an explanation of Holding-type patronage. I’m pretty sure I didn’t even make it to the “ancient client-patron relationship” part. I like his Dumplin’ Dumbash material better. It somehow gives the impression that he’s cutting to a sort of chase.

Anyway, thanks for clearing that mess up.

[JonLanceBarker]

Funny thing is, Eusebius of Caesarea (Orthodox) and Eusebius of Nicomedia (Arian) are so frequently confused that even relative contemporaries like St. Jerome get mixed up.

[Challenger Grim]

Dumplin' Dumbash's fans speak Screwballese again:

You know, I tried to read that article during my initial search for an explanation of Holding-type patronage. I’m pretty sure I didn’t even make it to the “ancient client-patron relationship” part. I like his Dumplin’ Dumbash material better. It somehow gives the impression that he’s cutting to a sort of chase.

Anyway, thanks for clearing that mess up.

Considering DD's rather... complete inability to ever portray anything accurately, one must wonder if he's really cleared anything up or just made his fans dumber.

[jpholding]

I see Dreck is having a meltdown in his thread. F bombs, eh? That's about his speed.

[DoomRater]

Wow, I don't even have to participate in SheezyArt to get screwballs. Here's Gom Jabbar on existing eternally:

"The point is a human psych would snap under the burden of eternity NO MATER WHAT, genius."

[jpholding]

Screwbie for John Goddard, who is apparently so ignorant that even DJ is smarter than he is:

Matthew 10:8Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

It doesn't say, unless you are a rabbi, pastor, priest. Free means free.

I guess he missed the part in Luke 8:1-3 where it was noted that Jesus' ministry was supported out of the means of people like Mary Magdalene...that's why they could do everything "free".

Not only so, but Jesus wanted his ministry to stand in contrast to wandering charlatans who charged for alleged healings -- no application here to people teaching or writing books.



Well, it's stupidity like that which leads to people like DJ, so maybe we should lock them in the thread together.

[T-Shirt Ninja]

I nominate Dreck for his JPHOCD. After clearly being on ignore by JP, he says,

JP Holding-

Do you see what's happening?

This is me dictating your time.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

In a thread about DJ's book, Sea (the thread starter) asked who else had read the book. DDW noted that DJ gave himself a glowing review on Amazon. In response, DJ said this:

I hope you'll note that he said this despite earlier saying in a certain thread here he'd never done such a thing.

[Frogwarrior]

I hope you'll note that he said this despite earlier saying in a certain thread here he'd never done such a thing.

I did recently notice that, yes. Other people pointed it out.

[DoomRater]

Anyone nominated antispore.com yet?

[Meta Knight]

Anyone nominated antispore.com yet?

Lemme guess...some YEC moron who thinks that Spore is poisoning our kids minds?