2. The Protocols are a derivative work of Joly's Dialogues in Hell. There is no question that they are inauthentic.
3. Misattributing authorship is a lie unless it is unintentional; St. Chrysostom's Homilies Against the Judaizers are rhetorical and frequently exaggerate for effect in a manner that would have been known to his listeners - this is not true of Williamson's pastorals.
1. It's true that the historical record sometimes gets messed up.
Agreed. And I don't think people should be imprisoned like they are in Europe for simply questioning the historical record.
2. The Protocols are a derivative work of Joly's Dialogues in Hell. There is no question that they are inauthentic.
By that standard so is Romeo and Juliet being a variation of Il Novelino by Salernitano.
3. Misattributing authorship is a lie unless it is unintentional;
Don't worry. I fessed up in the posting that I made. The last sentence was, "oh, my mistake, that was St. John Chrysostom, not Williamson." But my opponent was so blinded by hatred, he didn't see that. I had to refer him back when he accused me of the same trickery.
St. Chrysostom's Homilies Against the Judaizers are rhetorical and frequently exaggerate for effect in a manner that would have been known to his listeners
Where did St. John C. state this? Can you cite that?
- this is not true of Williamson's pastorals.
How do you know this? I would say Williamson is a genius in that he throws out a statement much like Chesterton did that sounds on its surface absurd, but when you hear his argument it turns out to be perceptive statements. (eg. Women and trousers as a sign of the "blending of genders" in modern society. The syrupy and sappy romance of the Sound of Music which fills youngs peoples minds with error ridden concepts of marriage. )