Solo

Um Gottes willen, du klingst nach Roland Freisler ihm selbst.

Jiri

GakuseiDon

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. ...

Roger Pearse

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:

Worth remembering, I think, when the headbangers howl.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

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.

Once Eusebius was the FIRST "to enter the subject", then the Church had NO HISTORY before Eusebius.

squiz

Sticks and stones, Roger.

Littlejohn

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

.

show_no_mercy

Too bad the gospel authors didn't heed this advice.

mountainman

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 ....


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

The more appropriate quote by the Bishop Lighfoot about Eusebius is this:

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

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.