Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

quote:

---

Tares from the Wheat is way more convoluted than the truth. It involves a huge conspiracy involving the Catholic church coming up with a centuries long plan to destroy Protestantism that joins forces with a curmudgeonly group of scholars who conspire to release the C.Sinaiticus and the theory of evolution at about the same time.

---

I wonder why Faith is so often let down by her sources.

Let's stick that one next to "All the accusations against him are lies. He was no forger ..." shall we?

That would be because you stated a position, and we defeated it.

Here is a review of Tares Among the Wheat

quote:

---

Now, for the person who is all into Jesuit conspiracies and is emotionally manipulated by scary horn sounds and dark shadowy images in a film, I can see how he or she can be easily persuaded to believe what Pinto is saying here. I’m guessing he is banking on the hope no one will actually go to the computer and double-check his claim, because if anyone were to do so, ...

---

quote:

---

Pinto is something of an obscure documentarian who makes strange films on conspiracy theories. See for instance his two films playing on the UFOTV.COM youtube channel [UFO TV people!], the Secrets of the Dollar Bill and Riddles in Stone, in which he lays out the influence Free Masons and the Illuminati have had upon the history of the United States.

---

quote:

---

The documentary format provides Pinto the ability to dramatize key characters and sequences in his convoluted conspiracy theory. That allows him the opportunity to stage how he wants his viewers to perceive the principal individuals central to his thesis.

​

Tischendorf is portrayed as angry and brooding Simonides, is portrayed as a handsome, swashbuckling scholar, like some heroic Indiana Jones character, who sadly met his early death going up against the sinister scheming of Tischendorf and the massive Jesuit machine.

​

The dramatizations are so absurd that they would be comical if it weren’t for the fact that what Pinto is trying to convey to his audience wasn’t so profoundly in error.

---

Thanks for your work on this Mod (and Dr. A too). I was really skeptical of this whole "Bible Hoax of 1881" stuff and it seems pretty clear it is nothing more than a nonsense conspiracy theory.HBD

Because there is nothing else to use? Yet James is an essential part of showing that Protestants are everything good and the Catholic Church is evil. At least we aren't getting the 'just recently converted from Catholicism' excuse Faith has used in the past.

Pick your source and you can promote any idea you want.Pinto's stuff is very well documented, it's about a conspiracy all right, a real one, and he's got me reading up on history that most of us know nothing about.But my blog was started long before I ever heard of Chris Pinto, and my arguments against the Codex Sinaiticus and the new Bibles are based on what John W Burgon, Dean of Chichester Cathedral and contemporary of the Bible Revision committee, wrote about the Bible Revision of 1881 in his book The Revision Revised as well as other sources.The denizens of EvC are so consistently on the wrong side of every issue it's really astonishing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nobody thinks you're Napoleon but you. Astonishing!

Well yes. If your source is a mad street person, you can promote the idea that the Government is stealing his thoughts.And if your source is Pinto, you can promote the idea that Simonides was not a forger, a liar, and a crook.This is why historians prefer to look at primary sources rather than the rantings of a crank with an ax to grind.

quote:

---

Pinto's stuff is very well documented, it's about a conspiracy all right, a real one, and he's got me reading up on history that most of us know nothing about.

---

Which is why relying on him got you so little information about the case against Simonides.

quote:

---

But my blog was started long before I ever heard of Chris Pinto, and my arguments against the Codex Sinaiticus and the new Bibles are based on what John W Burgon, Dean of Chichester Cathedral and contemporary of the Bible Revision committee, wrote about the Bible Revision of 1881 in his book The Revision Revised as well as other sources.

---

If Burgon offers better arguments, then why not use his, instead of pushing Simonides so much when you obviously hadn't properly investigated the case ? And how do you know that your assessment of Burgon's arguments isn't as bad as your assessment of Chiniquy ? Or all the other sources that have let you down?

quote:

---

The denizens of EvC are so consistently on the wrong side of every issue it's really astonishing.

---

That's because we consider the side of prejudice, lies and hate to be the wrong side.

As I said, I haven't read through this whole discussion, but one reason I haven't is that I had the impression early on that you were all just rehashing the usual claims against Simonides, really nothing new that hadn't been answered by Chris Pinto.But also your claim that I was making a big deal out of Simonides simply isn't true. I acknowledged that I sounded definite about his innocence when I shouldn't have and when it didn't even reflect my own opinion about the case, but beyond that it was you all who pushed the issue, not I. Finally I just backed out.My position on this, not only expressed at my blog but even on this thread, has been that Chris Pinto has done a good job of calling the usual view of Simonides as con man and forger into question, but that there are still unanswered questions and I don't know how it's going to turn out. I don't see that anyone here has done any more toward answering them either, again my impression is that you're all just rehashing the popular accounts.I'm not interested in discussing Burgon. I've wrapped my blog around him and you can go read about him there. His case is based on textual criticism and is very detailed and complex.And it's funny how you just think your own opinion rules and flatly declare it. Chiniquy is a trustworthy source, I haven't given him up on the basis of EvC's political correctness, odd you would think I would.As I'm sure you could guess, I differ with you about which side is "the side of prejudice, lies and hate." EvC is the master of those "virtues."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Burgon nowhere claims that the Codex Sinaiticus is a forgery; he refers to its antiquity, does not dispute it, and even bases some of his arguments on it. So where did you get that idea?

So you are capable of being wrong about the actual content of a discussion in a thread you're participating in.This should not surprise me.

Not a forgery, and I never claimed that was Burgon's argument. His argument is that Sinaiticus was a corruption by early gnostics and that the church already knew about the class of manuscripts to which it belongs and rejected them as corrupt. Read Revision Revised.

Assertion isn't an argument.

When you assert that you don't know what's been said to you, that is sufficient to demonstrate that you don't know what's been said to you. Unless, of course, you're lying.