FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-17-2010, 06:24 AM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Good point but Bonhoeffer's was just perpetuating a system established through ancient thuggery. Hitler was just the latest incarnation of Caesar.
Um Gottes willen, du klingst nach Roland Freisler ihm selbst.

Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 08-17-2010, 06:46 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Some previous threads from the archives, in which Roger Pearse and GDon valiantly try to uphold the virtue of Eusebius in the face of infidel scorn:
Well, at the least note that I quoted in my post above the following by Lightfoot, and note that it comes from Roger Pearse's own website:
A far more serious drawback to his value as a historian is the loose and uncritical spirit in which he sometimes deals with his materials. This shews itself in diverse ways. (a) He is not always to be trusted in his discrimination of genuine and spurious documents. ...
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 08-17-2010, 07:14 AM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

I thought this post might be of interest (not to fools, obviously):

The testimony of Eusebius of Caesarea about Christian origins has often been found inconvenient by those determined to attack the church. Ever since Gibbon, the accusation has been made that Eusebius deliberately suppressed material that might throw discredit on the church. Indeed Gibbon insinuated, and fools have believed, that Eusebius actually made a policy of such activity; that telling lies for the glory of God was acceptable.

In Eusebius’ "Gospel Problems and Solutions", To Stephanus question 4, I find the following statement on precisely that issue:

Quote:
May such an argument, that a falsehood has been composed to the praise and glorification of Christ, never by any means prevail in the church of Christ and of God, the fathers of the strict truth!
Worth remembering, I think, when the headbangers howl.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 08-17-2010, 08:46 AM   #14
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Again, before Eusebius began to write "Church History" he must have attempted to get the history of those BEFORE him. Based on his own word he came up virtually empty-handed except for some fragments.

Eusebius was in a dilemma. No-one BEFORE Eusebius had a history of the Church.

No bishop of the Church, no Jesus believer, and no writer of the Church had any history up to the time of Eusebius.

Eusebius himself was a bishop of the Church.


This would mean that Eusebius could NOT have known of Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1, "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus, the writings under the name of Paul and Acts of the Apostles.

As a bishop of the Church it must be expected that Eusebius was TAUGHT the "history of the Church" by those BEFORE HIM.

There should have been some sort of Canon with the UNIVERSALLY "authentic" Acts of the Apostles with the post-ascension history from ascension to Paul in Rome.

Someone must have TAUGHT the BISHOP Eusebius that Jesus was crucified during the time when Pilate was governor of Judea, and after Jesus resurrected that he ascended to heaven as found in Acts of the Apostles.

The BISHOP of Caesarea MUST have been TAUGHT, before he attempted to write his history of the Church, that Peter and the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost was in ROME with Paul.

The BISHOP MUST have known or was TAUGHT the Peter was the FIRST bishop of Rome and that there were 12 BISHOPS of Rome up to the time of Irenaeus.

The BISHOP Eusebius should have had knowledge of the "history of the Church".

The BISHOP BEFORE Eusebius MUST HAVE or was MOST LIKELY to have Told Eusebius about the "history of the Church".

Each successive BISHOP from PETER to EUSEBIUS MUST have discussed the "history of the Church".

Why was the BISHOP of Caesarea LONELY? Why was he the FIRST? Why did no other BISHOP before Eusebius have any "history of the Church".

Eusebius should NOT have been LONELY. The BISHOP of Caesarea should NOT have been the FIRST.

The Bishop should have been the LAST or the LEAST.

The BISHOP Eusebius was LONELY and FIRST because there was NO history of the Church up to the 4th century and it was INVENTED while he was writing.

Listen to the CONFESSION of the BISHOP of Caesarea.

Quote:
...I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path...
Once Eusebius was the FIRST "to enter the subject", then the Church had NO HISTORY before Eusebius.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 08-17-2010, 08:48 AM   #15
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Munich Germany
Posts: 434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
...fools...
Sticks and stones, Roger.
squiz is offline  
Old 08-17-2010, 09:32 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Italy
Posts: 708
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili View Post
. . . and besides, isn't ok to lie for a good cause if 'all is well that ends well?'
.
This concept was made own not only by Eusebius, but by all the clergy who followed in successive centuries!

Eusebio compared such a behavior to the lies of doctor towards his patient, now nearing its end but held in 'good mood' by the lies of the doctor who assured him a safe healing in short; the 'end justifies the means' by machiavellic memory!... Often but (if it not always!) the real purpose of those that refer itself to this saying, are worse than the means they adopt!


Greetings


Littlejohn

.
Littlejohn is offline  
Old 08-17-2010, 09:33 AM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
In Eusebius’ "Gospel Problems and Solutions", To Stephanus question 4, I find the following statement on precisely that issue:

Quote:
May such an argument, that a falsehood has been composed to the praise and glorification of Christ, never by any means prevail in the church of Christ and of God, the fathers of the strict truth!
Worth remembering, I think, when the headbangers howl.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Too bad the gospel authors didn't heed this advice.
show_no_mercy is offline  
Old 08-17-2010, 07:51 PM   #18
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Here's my attempt to give Eusebius some sympathy.

Imagine it like this. The Empire accepts Christianity as some sort of favored religion and then Eusebius has to go through all these texts which have been preserved badly (admittedly though under conditions that were less than favorable for accurate record keeping - persecutions, tribunals etc.). The Emperor wants to make Christianity look respectable. What do you do? Tell your boss that no originals exist. You boss's mother is in the business of selling pieces of the cross for God's sake. You end up doing what you or I or anyone else would do when they go into work - you find a way to make your boss happy.

And you know why? Because you know that if you don't do it some other asshole will.

That's some sympathy for Eusebius. But where is the sympathy for the Jews and the Gentiles who suffered under the imposition of the NEW and STRANGE Religion of Constantine? The problem is that by leaving out an assessment of Eusebius's boss Constantine, you leave wide open the very real possibility that the Emperor's wants to make Christianity look respectable were plainly and commonly simply fraudulent. The Boss was a warlord and he was at war when he made inroads into the Eastern Roman empire and Alexandria, etc ....

Eusebius is not writing at a time of peace and harmony. Momigliano writes that "both Herodotus and Eusebius wrote under the inspiration of a newly established freedom." and that ....

Quote:
Originally Posted by AM
“The revolution of the fourth century,
carrying with it a new historiography
will not be understood if we underrate
the determination, almost the fierceness,
with which the Christians
appreciated and exploited

"the miracle"

that had transformed Constantine
into a supporter, a protector,
and later a legislator
of the Christian church.”

Quote:
And you tell yourself that you are in a unique position 'within the system' to preserve some little bit of what you think is 'the truth' from its enemies - like saving the reputation of Origen ...
Which Origen? There are two Origen's in the 3rd century.
One of them is a "christian" and the other of them is a "Platonist".
Many people admit that there cannot be one figure - there are two.
How can you be absolutely sure Eusebius did not fabricated the Christian Origen?


Constantine's Own Lies and Deceipts in "the Oration at Antioch"

Added to the concern over Eusebius, for those who seek the detailed evidence, are the fraudulent assertions made by Constantine when first publically touting his new and strange religion to the Graeco-Roman priesthoods, the philosophers and the civilians of the Eastern empire at the [WAR] Council of Antioch. For a list of these frauds, see Robin Lane-Fox "Pagans and Christians"..

Eusebius simply followed Constantine's falsehoods.
Eusebius wrote during and chronicled the political "Christian Revolution".
I agree that Eusebius probably had little choice.
mountainman is offline  
Old 08-17-2010, 08:08 PM   #19
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
.... Lightfoot (written in the 19th C) that looks at Eusebius of Caesarea's worth as a historian:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eu.../lightfoot.htm

From the latter link:
A far more serious drawback to his value as a historian is the loose and uncritical spirit in which he sometimes deals with his materials. This shews itself in diverse ways. (a) He is not always to be trusted in his discrimination of genuine and spurious documents. ...
The more appropriate quote by the Bishop Lighfoot about Eusebius is this:

Quote:
"None ventured to go over the same ground again,
but left him sole possessor of the field
which he held by right of discovery and of conquest.
The most bitter of his theological adversaries
were forced to confess their obligations to him,
and to speak of his work with respect.

It is only necessary to reflect for a moment
what a blank would be left in our knowledge
of this most important chapter in all human history,
if the narrative of Eusebius were blotted out,
and we shall appreciate the enormous debt
of gratitude which we owe to him.

The little light which glimmered over the earliest
history of Christianity in medieval times
came ultimately from Eusebius alone,
coloured and distorted in its passage
through various media.



-- J.B. Lightfoot, Eusebius of Caesarea, (article. pp. 324-5),
Dictionary of Christian Biography: Literature, Sects and Doctrines,
ed. by William Smith and Henry Wace, Vol II.
What sort of a blank would be left in our knowledge
of this most important chapter in all human history,
if the narrative of Eusebius were blotted out?

The blank would be a total void and emptiness.
Eusebius is the first and only "historian" of the "Historical Jesus".
If Eusebius is shown to have been a liar, the the HJ is a lie.
What does the available scientific evidence suggest?
mountainman is offline  
Old 08-17-2010, 08:13 PM   #20
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
...I am the first to enter upon the subject, I am attempting to traverse as it were a lonely and untrodden path...
Once Eusebius was the FIRST "to enter the subject", then the Church had NO HISTORY before Eusebius.
The fact that Eusebius was compelled in his "Church History" to describe Christianity as new and strange suggests that Christianity was in fact a new and strange religion when Eusebius wrote his "history". The consensus of academic opinion suggests that Eusebius wrote his "history" (from the year DOT to the Council of Nicaea c.325 CE) between the years of 312 and 324 CE, with a number of revisions thereafter to accomodate the all-important issues thrashed out in the war council of Nicaea.
mountainman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:44 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.