 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / September 2003looking for a reliable web source of info on Nicean Council
Everything I've found so far seems to be heavily weighted toward one or the other of several philosophical axes to grind. Are there ANY indesputable facts on the web? Where might I locate them? thanks heron  SignatureNature, heron stone to be commanded, heonstone@comcast.net must be obeyed. mywebpages.comcast.net/heronstone heron stone wrote... > Everything I've found so far seems to be heavily weighted toward > one or the other of several philosophical axes to grind. > > Are there ANY indesputable facts on the web? > Where might I locate them? Oh, I'm absolutely sure - nay, *certain* - that there are! Lots of them too - reliable, accurate and indisputable ones. However, you'll just have to take my word for it I'm afraid? Cheers Martin > heron stone wrote... > > Everything I've found so far seems to be heavily weighted toward [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oh, I'm absolutely sure - nay, *certain* - that there are! Well, Heisenberg disagrees with you and I'm uncertain ;-) > Lots of them too - reliable, accurate and indisputable ones. Like www.flatearth.org ? ;-) > However, you'll just have to take my word for it I'm afraid? Well - I'm afraid, too; but could I take your wallet instead of your word (no offence meant)? ;-) Cheers, Michael Kuettner > Martin Reboul schrieb im... > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > Well, Heisenberg disagrees with you and I'm uncertain ;-) Huh! What did he know? He even admitted it! > > Lots of them too - reliable, accurate and indisputable ones. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well - I'm afraid, too; but could I take your wallet instead of > your word (no offence meant)? ;-) You'd not get very far with either.... I'm afraid! Maybe the catholic encylopeadea knows. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ > > Martin Reboul schrieb im... > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > You'd not get very far with either.... I'm afraid! > > However, you'll just have to take my word for it I'm afraid? > > Well - I'm afraid, too; but could I take your wallet instead of > your word (no offence meant)? ;-) Capitalist swine! In the socialist paradise, workers will not have wallets. Or if they do, there will be nothing in them! :) All the best, Roger Pearse > > > However, you'll just have to take my word for it I'm afraid? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Capitalist swine! In the socialist paradise, workers will not have > wallets. Or if they do, there will be nothing in them! :) Exactly. Now I'm a Capitalist swine with a Communist wallet ;-) Btw, does anyone know from whom the bonmot stems - "In Capitalism man exploits man. In Communism it's the other way round." ? Cheers, Michael Kuettner > > "Michael Kuettner" <miksbg@eunet.at> wrote in message > news:<bknmr2$3pr57$2@ID-202433.news.uni-berlin.de>... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Btw, does anyone know from whom the bonmot stems - > "In Capitalism man exploits man. In Communism it's the other way round." ? Or "Capitalism stands at the brink of the abyss, Communism is much ahead" Cheers Soren heron stone, fair question. There are reliable facts on net. However you better specify which field in history you want reliable information about and which language you can read because in most cases you have to go to Primary/Prime sources which if they are to be found transcribed and translated into English aren't the same as to read old documents in their origin language. Only a few are to be found scanned in their handwritten scape, if you are looking for open information on net that is. An other question to you is if you can't read one pro and one against if you want to read scholar's interpretation of facts. If so you better specify period and area where you are looking for information. Inger E > Everything I've found so far seems to be heavily weighted toward > one or the other of several philosophical axes to grind. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to be commanded, heonstone@comcast.net > must be obeyed. mywebpages.comcast.net/heronstone > heron stone, > fair question. Which you've failed to understand, as usually. > There are reliable facts on net. However you better specify > which field in history you want reliable information about and which How many "Nicean Councils" were there ? ANYBODY AT HOME BETWEEN YOUR EARS ? To the original poster : Could you be a bit more precise ? What exactly are you looking for - or what do you regard as partisan views ? Cheers, Michael Kuettner > > heron stone, > > fair question. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Could you be a bit more precise ? > What exactly are you looking for - or what do you regard as partisan views And which language did you post your question in? Inger is not sure. Matt Harley Inger Johansson wrote... > heron stone, > fair question. There are reliable facts on net. However you better specify [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Only a few are to be found scanned in their handwritten scape, if you are > looking for open information on net that is. Inger - are you insinuating and asserting that all Primary/Prime sources contain 'facts'? If you are, this explains a lot! > An other question to you is if you can't read one pro and one against if you > want to read scholar's interpretation of facts. If so you better specify > period and area where you are looking for information. It depends what you call a 'scholar' though doesn't it? You see Inger, you are most certainly NOT "a scholar" by any stretch of the imagination - just a gullible, vain and unbelievably arrogant woman. I don't need to criticise your execrable English to demonstrate or prove this, as by your general silliness and ridiculous assertions, you do it yourself! A scholar *learns* - you clearly, repeatedly, persistently never do! So Heron Stone, do be careful whose advice you listen to, who you believe and take everything with a pinch of salt! I'm afraid Inger wouldn't know 'a fact' if it jumped up and bit her....yes, well, never mind - that IS a fact! But you'll have to take my word for it...? Good Luck, and Always Read Between the Lines! Martin > Inger Johansson wrote... > > heron stone, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Inger - are you insinuating and asserting that all Primary/Prime sources > contain 'facts'? If you are, this explains a lot! This sounds a bit odd to me. Leaving aside some sort of personal dispute here, the facts about any historical event are only accessible to us by consulting the raw primary data, surely? And surely consulting this first must be the priority, rather than the opinions, learned or otherwise, of later writers? Particularly if religion or politics comes into it? But perhaps I misunderstand your point, and you wouldn't disagree with any of what I've just said. (I know the phrase 'primary sources' is used by American historians as a technical synonym which seems synonymous with 'eyewitness' -- the US has so little history, I suppose I can see why -- but I avoid it as meaningless for ancient history, when *any* witness is valuable <grin>). All the best, Roger Pearse Roger Pearse wrote... > Martin Reboul wrote... > > Inger Johansson wrote... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > meaningless for ancient history, when *any* witness is valuable > <grin>). The keyword was ALL of course! Most sources contain something useful or even invaluable, although many are unreliable, with most you need to read between the lines, and the majority are biased - written to an agenda or to please someone. Even the most modern accounts are 'questionable' at least. But some, a few, are absolute nonsense - fiction, fantasy or based upon wishful thinking, hallucination and Chinese whispers - the Bible contains much of this of course as an example. Worst of all however, some 'sources' don't even exist, but are figments of the imaginations of the gullible, deceitful and fanciful. Others are derived from hoaxes - but best I don't mention the Kensington Runestone, there's always a bloodbath! I'm generally talking about documents here. Archaeological and physical scientific evidence comes first of course. In short, no - I don't disagree with any of what you said Roger! Cheers Martin > Roger Pearse wrote... > > Martin Reboul wrote... [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > scientific evidence comes first of course. > In short, no - I don't disagree with any of what you said Roger! Ah, I was afraid we were at cross-purposes. I don't disagree with any of your points either, which all seem like common sense to me. All the best, Roger Pearse In soc.history.medieval Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> Inger Johansson wrote... >> > heron stone, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> Inger - are you insinuating and asserting that all Primary/Prime sources >> contain 'facts'? If you are, this explains a lot! >This sounds a bit odd to me. Leaving aside some sort of personal >dispute here, the facts about any historical event are only accessible [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >politics comes into it? But perhaps I misunderstand your point, and >you wouldn't disagree with any of what I've just said. You are quite right, but implying that the "facts" about a historical event can be determined to everyone's satisfaction by consulting the primary sources is a bit optimistic. Those sources are as biased and selective as modern political journalism. >(I know the phrase 'primary sources' is used by American historians as >a technical synonym which seems synonymous with 'eyewitness' -- the US >has so little history, I suppose I can see why -- but I avoid it as >meaningless for ancient history, when *any* witness is valuable ><grin>). No. The term is used by medieval and ancient historians to mean sources written at or close to the events in question. How close is close? It depends. The unofficial criteria (there is no official one) is that the writer could have had contact with eyewitnesses or perhaps with eyewitnesses once removed. ----- Paul J. Gans > In soc.history.medieval Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> Inger Johansson wrote... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > sources are as biased and selective as modern political > journalism. Paul, now you really prove that you haven't the slightest idea about History especially about Medieval History which is History from contemporary sources. I take it that you never ever in your life have been learnt anything at all about textanalyse, what I understand from your funny lines is that you also haven't had enough lessons in philosofy nor in normal logicstic analyse which makes me wonder because after all you are supposed to be a Professor of Chemistry and a Chemistry scholar normally have had the two later.... I guess Roger and I have to tell you about how a handwritten text from for example 4th century existing in 5 copies from 8th to 11 th is done. You see if you have had textanalyse as courses on your way to your degrees, tendency is the easy part no matter if the text is from 4th century or from yesterday. Roger would you like to start the short lesson for Paul's need or shall I ? I would suggest that we take a text of Marcellinus' or Zosimon's to do so, but you might have better suggestions Inger E > > You are quite right, but implying that the "facts" about > > a historical event can be determined to everyone's satisfaction [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Inger E You are completely missing the point. As usual. Do you need lessons in reading comprehension? > > In soc.history.medieval Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >"Martin Reboul" <martin@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > to be a Professor of Chemistry and a Chemistry scholar normally have had the > two later.... Good grief. As it happens, I hold a Chemistry degree myself. > I guess Roger and I have to tell you about how a handwritten text from for > example 4th century existing in 5 copies from 8th to 11 th is done. I don't think this was Paul's point; rather the opposite, actually? All the best, Roger Pearse > > > In soc.history.medieval Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > >"Martin Reboul" <martin@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Good grief. As it happens, I hold a Chemistry degree myself. Then you at least seems to remember how logistic analyses are done in old texts. I don't always agree with you but I think it's fair to say that I never found any non-history scholastic analyse from your pen. I wouldn't have thought you not to have at least a minor in History and/or Religion. Cheers Inger E > > I guess Roger and I have to tell you about how a handwritten text from for > > example 4th century existing in 5 copies from 8th to 11 th is done. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Roger Pearse Inger Johansson wrote... > Roger Pearse skrev... > > Inger Johansson wrote... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > >> > heron stone, > > > > >> > fair question. There are reliable facts on net. However you better > > > > >> > specify > > > > >> > which field in history you want reliable information about and which > > > > >> > language you can read because in most cases you have to go to > > > > >> > Primary/Prime > > > > >> > sources which if they are to be found transcribed and translated into > > > > >> > English aren't the same as to read old documents in their origin > > > > >> > language. > > > > > > Only a few are to be found scanned in their handwritten > > > > > > scape, if you are > > > > >> > looking for open information on net that is.(IJ) > > > > >> Inger - are you insinuating and asserting that all Primary/Prime sources > > > > >> contain 'facts'? If you are, this explains a lot! (MR) > > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > supposed to be a Professor of Chemistry and a Chemistry scholar # > > > normally have had the two later.... (IJ) Inger, Paul has never claimed to be a philosofer - he is however, without question, a Professor of Chemistry and a scholar. You are neither of those, you are just a silly woman who makes a fool of herself by posting about things she knows nothing about, swearing that things are historical facts that clearly aren't, and then accusing everyone of persecuting her if they disagree with her ridiculous, absurd opinions. And with incredible, unbelievable arrogance! > > Good grief. As it happens, I hold a Chemistry degree myself. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Inger E Is she talking about the finding of titanium white on old maps or language I wonder? Inger makes up her own language, then gets cross and pouty if anyone asks for clarification or questions anything she says. 'Logistic' sounds rather like 'logic'.... I'm afraid she has absolutely no understanding of the latter at all. I don't like to bad-mouth a lady, but... well, I won't say it. She is also supremely rude, as you can see. > > > I guess Roger and I have to tell you about how a handwritten text from for > > > example 4th century existing in 5 copies from 8th to 11 th is done. > > > > I don't think this was Paul's point; rather the opposite, actually? Ah - that's what must have got you in her bad books Roger. I wouldn't worry about it - she is, I'm afraid, a joke! Cheers Martin > > > after all you are supposed to be a Professor of Chemistry ... > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > never found any non-history scholastic analyse from your pen. I wouldn't > have thought you not to have at least a minor in History and/or Religion. Thank you for your much too kind words, Inger. Of course those of us who did sciences mostly don't have those qualifications. But as you rightly imply, skills and approaches acquired in one discipline can be transferrable (or so I am told). All the best, Roger Pearse > > > > after all you are supposed to be a Professor of Chemistry ... > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Roger Pearse Same to you. Inger E > In soc.history.medieval Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> Inger Johansson wrote... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > sources are as biased and selective as modern political > journalism. Perhaps they are biased -- that would be one of the things we would have to determine in each case, of course. But if we start with the raw data, at least we descope one layer of bias. I'm open to better suggestions for objectivity, of course. > >(I know the phrase 'primary sources' is used by American historians as > >a technical synonym which seems synonymous with 'eyewitness' -- the US [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No. The term is used by medieval and ancient historians to > mean sources written at or close to the events in question. I agree with you (I think that is how ancient historians use it), and I would use it in that sense, but there are certainly pages online by members of the faculty at US universities which restrict it to more or less 'eyewitness'. I don't see the point of the term if it is used so narrowly; but I can see it would make sense in a modern context, hence my joke. > How close is close? It depends. The unofficial criteria > (there is no official one) is that the writer could have had > contact with eyewitnesses or perhaps with eyewitnesses once > removed. Seems reasonable to me. And one must be flexible, within reason. It would be pretty daft to discard Zosimus' testimony on the end of Roman Britain -- the only source we have for what he says -- on the grounds that he wrote around 500. His statements constitute the data base. He's near enough to have real information that hasn't otherwise survived. All the best, Roger Pearse In soc.history.medieval Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> In soc.history.medieval Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Inger Johansson wrote... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> sources are as biased and selective as modern political >> journalism. >Perhaps they are biased -- that would be one of the things we would >have to determine in each case, of course. But if we start with the >raw data, at least we descope one layer of bias. I'm open to better >suggestions for objectivity, of course. Yes. And to determine the remaining biases one has to have much other data, data that is hard to come by. It isn't a tragedy. It is just the way history works. All there are are probabilities and possibilities and the human mind that tries to make order and coherence out of them. >> >(I know the phrase 'primary sources' is used by American historians as >> >a technical synonym which seems synonymous with 'eyewitness' -- the US [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> No. The term is used by medieval and ancient historians to >> mean sources written at or close to the events in question. >I agree with you (I think that is how ancient historians use it), and >I would use it in that sense, but there are certainly pages online by >members of the faculty at US universities which restrict it to more or >less 'eyewitness'. I don't see the point of the term if it is used so >narrowly; but I can see it would make sense in a modern context, hence >my joke. Right. >> How close is close? It depends. The unofficial criteria >> (there is no official one) is that the writer could have had >> contact with eyewitnesses or perhaps with eyewitnesses once >> removed. >Seems reasonable to me. >And one must be flexible, within reason. It would be pretty daft to >discard Zosimus' testimony on the end of Roman Britain -- the only >source we have for what he says -- on the grounds that he wrote around >500. His statements constitute the data base. He's near enough to >have real information that hasn't otherwise survived. Oh yes. We are in basically the same position with regard to William Wallace of "Braveheart" fame. No contemporary works on him remain, if any ever existed. >All the best, And to you. ---- Paul J. Gans > >And one must be flexible, within reason. It would be pretty daft to > >discard Zosimus' testimony on the end of Roman Britain -- the only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to William Wallace of "Braveheart" fame. No contemporary > works on him remain, if any ever existed. Interesting -- thank you. As you say, that's what happens in history. All the best, Roger Pearse > heron stone, > fair question. There are reliable facts on net. However you better specify > which field in history you want reliable information about and which > language you can read because in most cases you have to go to Primary/Prime > sources which if they are to be found transcribed and translated into > English aren't the same as to read old documents in their origin language. This is true, of course, but I think the translations in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (etc) are pretty literal; certainly for Tertullian they are. > Only a few are to be found scanned in their handwritten scape, if you are > looking for open information on net that is. Very few indeed. This is because most of the libraries that hold them are very obstructive. However, I have just photographed a Tertullian manuscript, from one that wasn't! > An other question to you is if you can't read one pro and one against if you > want to read scholar's interpretation of facts. If so you better specify > period and area where you are looking for information. Yes, it would depend on what the author wants to learn about. Most of the comment I see is either on the myth that the bible canon was chosen at the first council (a look at B.M.Metzger on the Canon would seem a good reference point), or else discussions of Arianism with the myth that Arius didn't believe Jesus was divine (no idea what sort of book would cover the theology). The Roman historian T.D.Barnes did two books on the period: "Constantine and Eusebius" and "The New Empire", both ca. 1980, Oxford University Press. All the best, Roger Pearse > heron stone, > fair question. There are reliable facts on net. However you better specify > which field in history you want reliable information about ... He said "Nicean Council". How more specific do you want? Matt Harley > Everything I've found so far seems to be heavily weighted toward > one or the other of several philosophical axes to grind. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > heron You have run into the usual pack of squabbling jackdaws on these ngs; while there is a few who are happy to be useful contributors, the generality is simply here to pick and make trouble. The usual suspects. Although from a particular faith, the following is informative on Nicaean Councils 1 and 2: http://www.euratlas.com/time1.htm http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11045a.htm Try also: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea2.html http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea http://www.hist.edu/325nice.html Hope this is helpful. NL > Are there ANY indesputable facts on the web? What is an indisputable fact? Please give a few examples. > > Are there ANY indesputable facts on the web? > > What is an indisputable fact? > > Please give a few examples. We've been down this road before many times. The only person who thinks absolute fact exists in terms of a description in words is D S Hines, everyone else knows that it's more complicated than that. -- William Black ------------------ On time, on budget, or works; Pick any two from three > > Are there ANY indesputable facts on the web? > > What is an indisputable fact? > > Please give a few examples. The Universe is big. Richard III probably wasn't a hunchback. Jeffrey Archer was a liar Edward IV drank a lot. Winston Churchill smoked cigars. You can't believe anything you read in the papers. Those are FACTS! > > > Are there ANY indesputable facts on the web? > > > > What is an indisputable fact? > > > > Please give a few examples. Not any more > The Universe is big. I dispute this! > Richard III probably wasn't a hunchback. I dispute this too! > Jeffrey Archer was a liar I dispute this as well! > Edward IV drank a lot. I dispute this! > Winston Churchill smoked cigars. I dispute this! > You can't believe anything you read in the papers. I dispute this! > Those are FACTS! I dispute that they are facts! SignatureIf you believe there are witches, and you look hard, you will probably find them; they did so in the Middle Ages. > martin@reboul says... > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > I dispute that they are facts! How about...."BernardZ is very, very difficult to please" then? That MUST be a fact, surely? > If you believe there are witches, and you look hard, you will probably > find them; they did so in the Middle Ages. The classic 'proof' of the existence and efficacy of witchcraft was made by a judge in the 1950's, who said that witchcraft must exist, as there were Laws against it.... I don't need to go back 500 years to find a witch anyway - I know several. No need to look either - met most of them in the pub! Cheers Martin > > > Those are FACTS! > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That MUST be a fact, surely? I doubt that any of these people would have any problem in that http://www.porno-palace.com/404/404.html > > If you believe there are witches, and you look hard, you will probably > > find them; they did so in the Middle Ages. > > The classic 'proof' of the existence and efficacy of witchcraft was made by > a judge in the 1950's, who said that witchcraft must exist, as there were > Laws against it.... They also exist in the bible, one of them called up the dead. > I don't need to go back 500 years to find a witch anyway - I know several. > No need to look either - met most of them in the pub! Have we not all. I almost married one. I don't envy the bloke, she is going marry this December. SignatureIf you believe there are witches, and you look hard, you will probably find them; they did so in the Middle Ages. In soc.history.medieval BernardZ <Bernard_zzz@optushotmail.com remove optus> wrote: >> Are there ANY indesputable facts on the web? >What is an indisputable fact? >Please give a few examples. There are no indisputable facts. That's indisputable... ;-) ----- Paul J. Gans > > Are there ANY indesputable facts on the web? > > What is an indisputable fact? > > Please give a few examples. 1 + 1 = 2 2 + 2 = 4 Matt Harley > > > Are there ANY indesputable facts on the web? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Matt Harley Sure, in DECIMAL... > Everything I've found so far seems to be heavily weighted toward > one or the other of several philosophical axes to grind. > > Are there ANY indesputable facts on the web? > Where might I locate them? This is the very question I asked myself a couple of years ago, when I got suspicious of what people were saying about something it was alleged to have done. After a while, I realised that any modern account was liable to have extraneous ideas in it. All the raw information must either be in documents written at the council, or by people who were there, or at least around at the same time (say up to a century later); or else archaeological (improbable). If I could get to that, I could see at least what every modern writer was basing his account on, if any. What I did was go and find every ancient writer who mentions the council, and see what they said (I was working close to a major research library at the time, so had the opportunity). Most of them were actually online; the rest apart from Gelasius of Cyzicus I put online. You can read all the primary data for yourself using the links on my page at <http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html> (Most of the docs are at CCEL, of course). Gelasius doesn't exist in English, is said to be largely fictional, is pretty late, and voluminous, and I really didn't need to translate him for my purposes. The pagan writer Zosimus does not refer to the council, as he wants to move Constantine's conversion to 326, in order to link it with military disasters late in the reign. Thus he suppresses all mention of Christian-linked stuff before then, which of course includes the council. But then again, he's writing ca. 500... I hope that is useful. I didn't read the stuff very hard: only looking for the issue I had in mind. But no doubt whatever you want to know can be found there also. All the best, Roger Pearse In soc.history.medieval Roger Pearse <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> Everything I've found so far seems to be heavily weighted toward >> one or the other of several philosophical axes to grind. >> >> Are there ANY indesputable facts on the web? >> Where might I locate them? >This is the very question I asked myself a couple of years ago, when I >got suspicious of what people were saying about something it was >alleged to have done. >After a while, I realised that any modern account was liable to have >extraneous ideas in it. All the raw information must either be in >documents written at the council, or by people who were there, or at >least around at the same time (say up to a century later); or else >archaeological (improbable). If I could get to that, I could see at >least what every modern writer was basing his account on, if any. >What I did was go and find every ancient writer who mentions the >council, and see what they said (I was working close to a major >research library at the time, so had the opportunity). Most of them >were actually online; the rest apart from Gelasius of Cyzicus I put >online. You can read all the primary data for yourself using the >links on my page at > <http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html> >(Most of the docs are at CCEL, of course). Gelasius doesn't exist in >English, is said to be largely fictional, is pretty late, and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >of Christian-linked stuff before then, which of course includes the >council. But then again, he's writing ca. 500... >I hope that is useful. I didn't read the stuff very hard: only >looking for the issue I had in mind. But no doubt whatever you want >to know can be found there also. A suggestion and a couple of points: The suggestion is that you make the type size larger. It is devilishly small on Mozilla 1.4 and only slightly larger in Opera 6.03. The best thing would be not to set a size at all and make the headings sizes relative to the "normal" size such as <font size="+1"> or the like. That said, you are asking very hard questions. Religious issues, especially bedrock issues, are notoriously hard to fathom. The Council, in retrospect, seems very important and while nobody would actually lie, many would stress points in the record that favor their modern viewpoint. The Church in particular will do this -- not out of malice -- but because doctrine has built up over the centuries to be what it is. There seems to be little doubt that the Pauline doctrine was but one of many. He alludes to that himself. How and why it won out is cloaked in mystery but it seems certain that other doctrines were surpressed vigourously. Thus at this remove it is likely impossible (barring a marvelous discovery of 1700-year old document(s)) that what happened can ever be reconstructed in any satisfactory way. What you say about modern documents is certainly true. But it is also true, and perhaps more true, for contemporary ones. Any contemporary contentious issue is going to stir strong emotions and color what a writer puts down on parchment. That said, early Church history has a voluminous literature written by modern (20th century) authors. That's where I'd start. Why? Because the scholars who wrote them have often devoted years to reading not only about the council, but any other contemporary documentation, related or not, that they can find. Just my two cents, and worth what you paid for them. ---- Paul J. Gans Thank you Paul for your comments! > A suggestion and a couple of points: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > all and make the headings sizes relative to the "normal" > size such as <font size="+1"> or the like. This is the joy of style-sheets, isn't it? -- that they do not travel. Mine are all set up for IE. I have no idea why 10pt is so much smaller on Netscape than on IE. I'll bear it in mind, tho. > That said, you are asking very hard questions. Religious > issues, especially bedrock issues, are notoriously hard to > fathom. The Council, in retrospect, seems very important > and while nobody would actually lie, many would stress points > in the record that favor their modern viewpoint. I agree entirely, although I think this applies to any topic which is politicised, religious or otherwise. This is why I wanted to get the raw data base accessible. Once we can read that, we can get past a lot of issues. Then we are faced with interpreting what we find (another issue) -- and the accounts are not entirely consistent, for one thing, as it was a highly political business at the time -- but at least we are not getting distortions of the basic data on which any discussion must be based. [I've snipped a couple of religious points which I'll descope, if you don't object]. > What you say about modern documents is certainly true. But > it is also true, and perhaps more true, for contemporary ones. > Any contemporary contentious issue is going to stir strong > emotions and color what a writer puts down on parchment. Any issue that is contentious, in fact. My own interest is specially in patristics, which was more contentious longer ago. This leads to the interesting situation that we can see how some of the rows were resolved, once they were not matters of life and death. For instance, the letters and some treatises of St. Cyprian exist in two recensions, one markedly more papalist than the other. In the days when Catholic vs Protestant dominated things, this meant that Catholic scholars asserted the long version proved that St. Cyprian held Tridentine ideas, while Protestant ones asserted that version was interpolated, probably by the Jesuits. Nowadays it seems to be accepted that Cyprian revised his own works after hearing of the Novatianist controversy at Rome, in order to boost the assailed authority of the pope, and that both are authentic; on the other hand, Catholic scholars now accept that Cyprian's statements need to be read in that localised context, and that Cyprian was rather an opponent than otherwise of later Roman claims, in so far as they manifested in his day. I sometimes think of this when I see some of the shouting going on. > That said, early Church history has a voluminous literature > written by modern (20th century) authors. That's where I'd > start. Why? Because the scholars who wrote them have often > devoted years to reading not only about the council, but any > other contemporary documentation, related or not, that they > can find. I'm with you, to a certain extent; that I would certainly consult them to find the raw data, and where I could get it. I did do this to a certain extent, not relying on my personal knowledge of the fathers for precisely this reason. However, my own approach, before I read any scholarly discussion -- and on politicised subjects, scholarship seems invariably to reflect the consensus of the political establishment who make the appointments and pay the bills -- I'd certainly want to familiarise myself first with the data. In the humanities, I am told, you don't get a PhD unless you advance a thesis of your own -- thesis in the sense of 'this is my argument' -- and I have heard of cases where you may not get your PhD if that thesis is one which is objectionable to the establishment, regardless of the research in the thesis-document. So there's no question of bias individually, but the system requires the advocacy of positions. As an amateur, on the whole, I'd rather avoid taking up positions! > Just my two cents, and worth what you paid for them. <smile> Mine too. All the best, Roger Pearse |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.