An Anachronistic Message

On 07-28-11, I had an interesting conversation with a Christian @lauramzy. She did the usual bible quoting and unsupported assertions, followed by ranting in all capitals; you know, generally losing her cool. Only, in so doing the usual quoting et cetera, she gave me an opportunity to see where people get that their deity is a loving peaceful deity contrary to everything I know about it.

The first Bible verse I received was 1 John 4:7

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

Now the first thing one will notice is that this verse is claiming in the third person to know god and further to know god is love. Ok, interesting observation considering the content of the books that precede this particular verse. This is not, however, evidence that the Christian god is love; it is merely a claim of such. And in the context in which this verse was written it seems to be a sermon of praise and platitudes. No one, well except Christians grasping at straws, would expect this to be factual anymore than public comments at a wedding reception.


Now, this next one contradicts her claim in that her deity is professing to do the fighting as opposed to diplomacy. Deuteronomy 3:22

Ye shall not fear them: for the LORD your God he shall fight for you.

The previous verse has an interesting assertion about:

 Thine eyes have seen all that the LORD your God hath done unto these two kings

So, this just doesn't sound like a peace loving god which is directly contradicting her claim. Is she confusing her own feelings of security for those of peace? I don't understand why she would use it unless it just fit her search criteria and she didn't read further. Most importantly, this is a case of a first person narration of a particular opinion not that of direct observation, nor is it a record of any deity making such a claim. In the next verse Exodus 14:14 is the same problem:

The LORD shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace.

It is starting to look like my interlocutor searched for the word peace and love in an attempt to find confirmation for her theses regarding her deity's disposition. Again, the verse she has chosen shows not diplomacy but vigilante violence. So far, no sign of a loving, peaceful god even in her choice of verses.


Then in her next exchange she actually asks if I am embarrassed about my stance. This as she proffers a verse straight out of the battle of David and Goliath 1 Samuel 17:47

And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give you into our hands.

This deity offers the enemy up for slaughter. I would not consider this peaceful under any circumstance. In the verse preceding the above David is bragging about the Lord delivering Goliath so that David will take his head. If this is a peaceful, loving deity, what would a violent deity be? In my view this is a nationalistic god of war. It should not be surprising as Yahweh Sabaoth means God of War or Armies, yet it is the rare fundamentalist that knows these facts.


Still haven't seen evidence of the peaceful god of which my interlocutor writes. I hate to tell her that after many  decades of study, nothing even close to a peaceful, loving deity has emerged. The verses she has presented so far are not evidence of anything of the sort. From what I have learned from reading the bible, Yahweh is a god of war, and even considering her quoted verses this still stands, so far. Many of her quoted verses were clipped. Out of 1Samuel 25:33 she removed 33b & 33c but cited 33a & 33d.

And blessed be thy advice, and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand.

But this verse isn't talking to, or about, Laura's deity; rather, it reflects David's thanking of Abigail for calming him down. While it is claimed in a previous verse that the Lord sent Abigail, this is not what the cited verse is about as David mentions the advice. Considering that David is also a literary construct, as are most of the main characters of the Bible, this verse is, at most, a bit in the mythology of David. I can't help but to think that there has to be better examples that @lauramzy could have cherry-picked in her attempt to frustrate my case.

Psalm 11:5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Now Psalm 11:5 as she quoted it: "The soul of the Lord hates those who love violence," is close enough, but the next verse shows that the Lord hateth those that mirror himself. 

Psalm 11:6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.

 Of course, these are verses of lyrical poetry, so their value as to factual anything is vacuous. Still, it is easy to see that the authors viewed their deity as, well, violent. In my opinion, this character of Hebrew polytheistic mythology reflects the barbarity, to be precise, of the era.

 Psalms 33:16 A king is not saved by his great army...

This is talking about being saved spiritually not by armies but by favor in the eyes of the Lord. Only, it is but a few verses later that the violence of this deity are highlighted in that mankind should be in fear of this god of war. Psalm 33:18

Behold, the eye of the LORD is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy;

I was 6-years-old when I first realized that no one should fear a loving deity. I read The Book of Mormon in the second grade after reading Wagons West about Joseph Smith & Brigham Young. I was then convinced that religion was a fantasy; it was started by the idea that no one should fear someone that loves them. I finished the Bible the first time at 11 (my sixth grade teacher said she could read it in a year). I was never so credulous as to believe Santa or the Easter Bunny—that I can remember (I told my 4 and 5 year old brothers that those things were pretend just before my sixth birthday). I was motivated by the word fear in all the ecclesiastical discourse to start finding my own evidence, and I never looked back. The next proffering was:

 Psalms 20:7 Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.

While this is another case where mankind's war power is put in a secondary position in relation to faith, it says nothing of the deity's passiveness or love. And in a verse just previous to this one:

 Psalm 20:3 Remember all thy offerings, and accept thy burnt sacrifice; Selah.

Burnt sacrifices have never struck me as something needed by a loving entity of any kind. Am I missing something? I know we are taking about lyrical verse that describes someone's perception and their practices in relationship with this entity not the acts of the entity themselves, but it is indicative of the verses being presented as evidence of a peaceful loving deity. Then she sends Psalm 140:1-2 along with the typical insults of those suffering from cognitive dissonance and the fear engendered in their faith as a deterrent from apostasy.

Protect me from the violent who...stir up wars continually. r u satisfied yet? do u feel stupid yet?

As far as a relationship with the deity goes, this verse is asking for protection from violent sorts. Then in just a few verses after, this author is asking the deity to: Let burning coals fall upon them: let them be cast into the fire; into deep pits, that they rise not up again (140:10). Again, an appeal to the violence innate in this belief system, and that vengeance seemingly expected from their deity. So, to this point Laura Ramzy has shown nothing evidentiarily to support her claim that her deity is a peaceful loving entity, and I have used the same chapters or psalms to show that she is, in fact, wrong in her stance without, as yet, referencing my own material evidence.


If she had done as I and many others have done and actually read the books, she would know what I and others know about this war god of Hebrew mythology, but she, like many of her mindset, have let interpreters, middlemen, woo woo salespeople, and charlatans tell her what they want her to know concerning this deity regardless of the literary evidence and historical facts. People read into the verses what they want to see instead of reading the verses as they are written.


People need to understand that the Bible really is that bad, and the reason it is that bad is because the book was trapped by the advent of the Gutenberg printing press in 1440 (Gutenberg Bible, Vulgate, 1450s) in the configuration that it's currently in after almost a millennium of exclusively priestly interpretation. This is the translation from which the King James version was taken in 1611. It wasn't even until the Council of Trent 1546 CE that the Catholic Church canonized the books in the Bible and still there are many different canons (ie. Greek, Ethiopian, Syriac, etc.).  Prior to this, even long after, the public was not permitted to read the Bible; in fact, many English translations were destroyed for this very reason.


Maybe, it is because of this betrayed trust, by those she accepted interpretations from, that she is motivated to get so violently defensive of her view: misdirected anger? Alas, this is nothing we haven't come to expect from the professed Christians of the world. 


Please note that there are many of these maxims I whole-heartily agree with, for instance, this next bit on wisdom.

 Ecclesiastes 9:18 Wisdom is better than weapons of war

Actually, other than the idea of sin expressed therein the rest of the verse is quite compelling if one merely replaces sinner with bungler (NRSV), delusionally dishonest, malcontent, or psychotic, etc. Ecc 9:18 "Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good." As sinner encompasses much considered thought crimes and innately human drives as commanded by supposedly absolute moral dictate. This is not, however, the words of my interlocutor's deity. No! The words are those of the "Teacher" or 'Gatherer," so some assume it is the mythical character Solomon son of David (also a literary construct), yet, even though these are words to live by, they are not evidence supporting Laura's claim of a peaceful loving deity.

  Hosea 1:7 I will save...not by bow, sword, battle, horses, horsemen

A few verses before this one the author puts the words,
Hosea 1:4-5

1:4 And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.
1:5 And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel, in the valley of Jezreel.

1:6b ... for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.

into the mouth of this deity. Also, the saving expressed in 1:7, if somewhat ambiguous, is by mercy on a favored people. Only, in light of the previous verses expressing revenge, I'm not seeing peaceful at all, and if we ignore the Documentary Hypothesis, the polytheistic origins of Hebrew mythology, and the constant redaction by the Deuteronomists et al. this Yahweh is supposedly the creator of all people; so why is it not love but nationalism being expressed? I see literary evidence of what is believed to be a nationalistic regional deity, a local war god—not a loving anything. 


The next verse she quotes in her continued attempt to assail me with her proof is:

  Zechariah 4:6 Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit

Only the whole verse reads "Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts." Where Lord of Hosts translates as God of Armies, and this is supposedly an angel conferring this information. And what is it that is by spirit transmitted? In Zech 5:3 it says: "Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth," again, not peaceful or loving is it?

  Matthew 5:44 Love your enemies; pray for persecutors

This is obviously Mt 5:44 not 5:43 that she marked it as. This is from the Sermon on the Mount which is actually taken from a much older (maybe 7 centuries older, Buddha) philosophy than this narrative which was written after the beginning of the second century from the evidence I have gathered. This verse also follows a narrative in which  it is commanded to pluck out an eye if it should offend one. That the Earth is this God's footstool; so, although it has its applications in the real world, the philosophy is not practiced by this narrative character nor his father as exemplified in Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Mark 9:50 Be at peace with each other.

In a continuation of the verses from Mark 9:43 that have this Jesus character telling the congregation to "pluck an eye," "cut off a foot," or  "the hand." What could be more violent, even barbaric, than this? This is a case of the writer's request put in the mouth of Jesus, not that of a deity. Also, it can be argued that this is in the context of nationalism, the in-group, actually the believers themselves not humanity at large.

Romans 12:17 "Return no one evil for evil...live at peace with everyone" did i make a point now too?

 This is a sermon transmitted via Epistle by Paul/Saul not any recount of a deity's actions. People are being told how to act not shown how their deity has or does act. This has real world applications but is not the evidence for a peaceful loving deity. It is an ethic that some humans practice without the sermon.

Romans 12:21 Overcome evil with good

This is still Paul communicating through the Epistles his own ethics (In fact, Chapters 12 & 13 are full of ethics that are not attributed to the Gospel Jesus character. Could this be because Paul knew of no historical Jesus?) 

Romans 14:19 "Make every effort to do what leads to peace..." how about now?

Again, a sermon, but this is concerning restrictions of food, the eating of meat, and being thought highly of by one's peers. Laura has not produced one iota of evidence showing the peaceful loving deity. So far, only the snide remarks of an arrogant, if not a little frightened, Christian showing all the symptoms of mindlessly adhering to socially supported inculcation with culturally accepted dogma.

1 Peter 3:11 "Turn from evil; do good; seek peace; pursue it." next time u speak of my religion do ur research.

 This isn't talking about her deity. This is in reference to the subjection of women to their husbands, and the husband's piety as a result of the wife's practices while both of them can attain higher levels of morality by thinking before reacting. In historical context this is a lesson in ethics that common people of this time will not find, for educational systems serving the masses are still some 1600 years hence. Note that my interlocutor displays the arrogance of ignorance quite prevalent in most theistic discourse with the fundamentalist adherent. Also note that it is all too obvious that she has yet to read the book she claims as the base for her world view. 
Relying instead on the woo woo merchants I made mention of earlier. And, yes, I do pity her.


Then after some time to reflect, I'm guessing, Laura Ramzy sends Proverbs 9:7-12 to me. Does anyone think it was not because of the words "arrogant cynic" in her choice of translation. Only, a more accurate translation would be "scoffer" in historical context. Alas, I tried very hard not to be either. And if one actually reads Proverbs 9 and considers it in historical context, that is, noting that Hebrew scripture was the basic education of most commoners of that era. Realizing, still further, that if one was a Jewish shepherd of the Diaspora, even a Nomad, this was Higher Education as there was nothing better to know 2200 years ago. Though Laura takes it out of historical context, and, for that matter, context in general. This whole proverb is a call to those searching for wisdom, and even though I disagree with the god claims in it, because we have far to much evidence to the contrary today, we can all agree that it is a good idea to seek out wisdom. Proverbs 9:7-12

General Maxims

Whoever corrects a scoffer wins abuse;
   whoever rebukes the wicked gets hurt. 
A scoffer who is rebuked will only hate you;
   the wise, when rebuked, will love you. 
Give instruction to the wise, and they will become wiser still;
   teach the righteous and they will gain in learning. 
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
   and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. 
For by me your days will be multiplied,
   and years will be added to your life. 
If you are wise, you are wise for yourself;
   if you scoff, you alone will bear it.

Here is a link to the search of all, or most, of our correspondence. I will let you, dear reader, decide who this verse could help the most. And I still recommend reading this entire proverb about Lady Wisdom, who could have been Asherah, wife of El, at one time. Tomorrow, because this post is already too long, I will discuss the heinous acts that won Yahweh his title as a blood soaked deity of mythology.

Why Rupert Murdoch Love$ God: World's Biggest Sleaze Mogul Also Getting Rich from Christian Moralizers | | AlterNet

Murdoch knows something I found out way back in the 1970s and 80s, when I was still my founder-of-the-religious-right Dad’s sidekick and a right wing evangelical leader/shill myself: There’s gold in them-thar God hills! James Dobson alone once gave away 150,000 copies of one of my evangelical screeds that sold more than a million copies. (I describe why I got out of the evangelical netherworld – fled -- in my book Sex, mom and God.)

So here’s my question to Rob Bell of the God-loves-everybody school of touchy-feely theology and/or to the right wing "family values" crowd who worry about gay marriage between responsible loving adults  while they perform financial fellatio on the mightiest and most depraved/pagan media baron to ever walk the earth: 

What serious, let alone decent religiously conscious person – left or right, conservative or liberal -- would knowingly work to enrich this dreadful man who will go down in history as the epitome of everything that all religion says its against: lies, greed, criminality, and sheer disgusting exploitation of the defenseless that would shame a sewer rat?

Secular “un-saved” and "godless" and "liberal" authors like Jeff Jarvis have pulled books from Harper Collins because it’s owned by Murdoch as he writes: “[my]  next book, Public Parts, was to be published, like my last one, by News Corp.'s HarperCollins. But I pulled the book because in it, I am very critical of the parent company for being so closed. It's now being published by Simon and Schuster.”

Where are the big time religion writers like the "I-give-all-my-royalties-to-the-poor" Rick Warren to be found refusing to publish with Zondervan, Harper One or write another word for Beliefnet? What’s mildly lefty Rob Bell’s defense for enriching Murdoch and helping to finance Fox “News” via publishing with Harper One when he could publish with anyone? 

For that matter where are the evangelical/Roman Catholic/Muslim—or just minimally decent -- people, religious or irreligious guests and commentators now refusing to be interviewed by Fox News even if it will help sell their books?

Knowing what we know about the union-busting, slime-spreading Murdoch empire and it's disgusting and criminal actions can a moral person work for or use the products of this all-encompassing web of profit, far right politics and corruption?

I don't think so.

But of course the religion writers have plenty of company.

What about journalists working for Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal?

What about Deepak Chopra? 

He publishes with Harper One. Thus Chopra is helping finance Fox News. And so is Desmond Tutu. He’s also a Harper One author. 

And what about all the “progressive” stars, producers and writers doing deals with the Fox movie empire? Such Hollywood moralists used to boycott working in the old apartheid South Africa, but will work for/with Murdoch today as he empowers the far religious racist right through Fox News! Desmond Tutu used to call for boycotts of far right religious nuts in South Africa oppressing blacks in the name of God, and now he’s a Murdoch contributor!

Go figure! 

Why should the people – religious leaders, writers, actors, agents, producers et al -- who help Murdoch wreck America and the UK -- remain respectable in our countries? 

Okay, they deserve a second chance. 

Mea Culpa! 

I published two books with Harper Collins some years ago after Murdoch had taken over. I had a deal with the Smithsonian that was tied into Harper Collins for distribution, then the Smithsonian backed out but my books stayed at Harpers. After they were published I thought about – and regretted -- helping Murdoch. I've never published with them again. 

This is merely a sample. Please see the whole write up at alternet.org and remember:

With the sleazeball Rupert Murdoch attracting, or maybe I should say sticking to (in the slimiest sense of the word), the likes of Deepak Chopra, Rick Warren, and Rob Bell, who enrich the News Corp Empire with their supernatural snake oil chicanery, falsified feel good stories, and of course it's too good to be true world view, it should be easier for decent people to see their way clear to boycott Fox News, Beliefnet, Zondervan, Wall Street Journal, Harper Collins and any other institution that profits from the gullibility or credulousness of a large section of the populace. Follow the evidence and you too can avoid the knavery of these charlatans.

Beachbum's Mountain View

All I Say Is, God Is Not.

Our Founding Fathers concluded that God was not an intercessory god.

And, of course, I respectfully agree; God is not.

Still others conclude that God is not anthropomorphic.

And they will get no argument from me, God is not.

Still more assert that God is not discernable through science,

and by way of the evidence, I conclude, God is not.

Patriarchal authorities say: God is not female.

With this oligarchy, I seldom agree, but God is not.

Others argue that God is not responsible for evil.

Again, I agree, God is not.

 

When I'm enraged by those claiming God is telling them to hate,

I quell my temper and merely state: God is not.

When the priests were calling for their congregations to support the Reich,

There were those, I'm sure, that knew: God is not.

When the Generals scream men charge that wall knowing God is on our side,

I have dusted my sights while thinking, God is not.

When they've told me their God is love,

I cite Bible verses, after verse, clearly showing their God is not.

 

When they ask if, to their prayers, God is listening,

I remark, the evidence shows: God is not.

When they ask if God is the creator of all things,

I say my parents made me, so no; God is not.

And, when they say they see the evidence for God all around,

I know evolutionary reproduction is responsible for what they see; God is not.

 

Everyone seems to have their own version of what God is,

And, like me, they all have visions of what God is not.

So, when they ask me what God is,

I must conclude, God is not.

 

So, when they claim an atheist couldn't possibly understand what God is,

All I say is, God is not.

Beachbum's Mountain View

Of Falsification and Fabrication, A Christian Tradition

A brief on the falsifications of actual history that went into the fabrication of what would become the state religion of Rome just before its demise. And much of it can be attributed to a single church historian. This is a small sample of what we now know and an even smaller sample of what is the probable case against self proclaimed historian.

 

A history of the Commission (Matthew 28:19)

 

Eusebius of Caesarea read and recorded the text of the verse we know as Matthew 28:19, so we have an extant version from 411 CE written as:

 

"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."

 

Eusebius regularly cites it again and again in his works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany only preserved in an old Syriac version in a Nitrian codex in the British Museum written in AD 411, in his famous History of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine I.

 

My point is, if it can be changed from what Eusebius knew it to be (above) to its current form:

 

28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"

 

Then;

 

1. The current version is obviously a later addition to the gospel, for 2 reasons:

 

First; It took the church over 200 years of fighting (sometimes bloody) over the doctrine of the trinity before this baptismal formula came into use. Had it been in the original gospel, there would have been no fighting. Think about it, why do we also have Greek Orthodox and Ethiopian sects now?

 

Then there is Acts, and its claim that when people are baptized they are baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). Peter says explicitly that they are to "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38). This is a redemption, a purification, not an initiation as evinced in the Matthew version.

 

2. This contradicts the Jesus character's narrative statement that his message was for the Jews only (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:24-27, and many others). The gospels, and especially Acts, have been edited to play this down, but the contradiction remains. It was the apostle Paul who originally wanted to extend the "Anointed Savior" myth (at least Paul's version of it that is evinced in the Epistles) to include the gentiles. This was later rejected by those who wrote the words for the Jesus character in the Gospel narrative. This may be due to the fact that Matthew was written from a different Anointed Savior tradition than Paul's.

 

The fact that it contradicts Matthew 10:5-6 & 15:24-27 shows simply that this gospel's core rests on a regional tale recorded by those wishing to capture an apocryphal, as well as nationalistic, story that they most likely knew wasn't historical, let alone, factual. I still contend that due to the chronological implications of both the Gospel Jesus character's proclamation that he would return to take the throne of David before the disciples were finished teaching (Matthew 10:23, Luke 1:32-33) and Paul's assertion that he would be taken up to heaven while he still lives (1 Thess 4:17), shows that the whole of this Christology is mutilated and manipulated into the concept used by Catholicism as a populist political conveyance by Eusebius for the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great well after it lost all of its original meaning. The Romans had long known the politically cohesive power of these nationalistically uplifting and superstitious stories. Which is why they rarely interfered with and sometimes even incorporated the religious views of the local inhabitants of places they conquered then occupied. So, Constantine the Great knew full well what was to be done at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. He took Paul's idea and tried to use it to incorporate many regions under one religious banner. Which brings me back to my original point that the verse in Matthew (we know as Matthew 28:19) that Eusebius knew was redacted, possibly by Eusebius himself, for Rome's political reasons.

 

The above is just one of many cases, in evidence, concerning the dishonest practices of the church fathers that facilitated the religio-political institution that is Christianity and the origins of the Jesus of Nazareth myth.

 

Eusebius is also accredited with fabricating the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus' History of the Jews 18.3.3. While someone else could be responsible for 20.9.1, I personally think Eusebius was the church authority on the project, in any case.

 

This along with what amounts to a rationalization of the act in his Praeparatio Evangelica (book xii, Chapter 31), which says how fictions (pseudos)—which the historian Edward Gibbon (c. 1776) rendered 'falsehoods'—may be a "medicine", which may be "lawful and fitting" to use in the pursuit of convincing young people [the context evinced in the platonic dialog from which this Eusebian passage was derived]:

 

"That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach:

[Here Eusebius quotes Plato’s Laws 663e, words spoken by the Athenian character:] “And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie [pseudesthai] to young men for a good reason, then can’t he lie? For falsehood [pseudos] is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.” [Then, quoting words spoken in response by the character Clinias:] “Truth is beautiful, Stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.” [Followed by Eusebius’ further comments:] You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach. [Translation by Richard Carrier, in “The Formation of the New Testament Canon” note 6]

 

In other words, Eusebius of Caesarea claims it is fine to use falsehoods to create Christianity to appease the political whims of Constantine the Great (c. 327 CE) from what was originally the claimed revelations of apostles working the Jewish anointed savior sects among the Jewish diaspora.

 

This is one of the strongest of the ever growing evidences supporting the claimed fabrication of Christianity which facilitated the political agenda at the heart of the reunification of the Roman Empire, in supporting the Mythicist's case regarding the non-Historicity of the Jesus character, and in the fabrication of the whole of the early Christian history, as Eusebius was the official Historian and conscripted creator of the first 50 Bibles of the soon to be state religion of both the Eastern and Western Empires of the newly reunited Roman Empire.

 

So, does it matter that some argue over whether Eusebius was a fictionalizer, fabricator or just a liar supporting a political agenda? Of course not! And it seems to have become a tradition.

Beachbum's Mountain View

It Always Hurts When You Laugh

It's their sore spot!

From: Beachbum's Mountain View It's their sore spot! ... http://beechbum.posterous.com/it-always-hurts-when-you-laugh