mountainman

Eusebius gloats about Constantine's destruction of the temples.

Archaeology confirms the destruction of temples at this time.

It's not that I trust him, but that some of his reports in "Vita Constantini" have some semblance to the political reality of the time - Constantine was new Moses leading the faithful flock to the Promised Land of Christendom, for example.

Another example is his description of book burning, and military search and destroy missions for "prohibited books". I have little doubt this was the political reality. Of course Eusebius does not name the prohibited books (in VC, but he does name some in HE) or the names of their authors.

No I dont tust Eusebius, or that when we read "Eusebius" we are reading text from the 4th century, since it could have been added to as late as the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th century by his contnuators and / or preservers.

But sometimes Eusebius accidentally tells the truth.

Here is another example of this:







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Bronzeage

Heresy is the act of disagreeing with religious authority. The consequences of heresy depends upon how much power the religious authorities have at the time and place. When religious power is closely tied to government power its bad time to be a heretic.

"Time and place" is the critical element. One of the charges against Socrates was heresy. Many Protestant heretics met violent deaths at the hands of religious authority, but Martin Luther, one of the greatest of heretics died in bed at the age of 62.

Time and place.

aa5874

Please, tell us who claimed Constantine was the new Moses and leading the faithful flock to the promised Land of Christendom?

There is a massive problem.

Once you admit that Eusebius is not credible then you must present credible sources that corroborate Eusebius.

We have no actual recovered manuscripts of "Vita Constantini" dated to the 4th century by Paleography or C 14.

It would appear to me that it cannot be shown that a character called Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, wrote "Church History" or "Vita Constantini" c 325 CE.

You seem to have identified the problem.

At one time Eusebius appears to be telling the truth and at other times he appears to be lying.

That is an indication that writings under the name of Eusebius have been manipulated.

If Eusebius the bishop of Caesarea wrote the history of the Roman Church what history did the Bishops of Rome write?

Astonishingly, amazingly, the Bishops of Rome did NOT write and did NOT write the history of the Church of Rome.

Eusebius got his history of the Roman Church from a Presbyter from Lyons.

The Presbyter from Lyons got his history of the Roman Church from Hegesippus.

What we have before us is a massive fraud and forgery under the name of Eusebius.

We know that writings under the name of Eusebius were manipulated because supposed writers and bishops of the Church itself contradict the chronology of Eusebius before, during and After Nicaea.

It was the Roman Church that preached Heresy.

The Heresy of the Trinity.

Clivedurdle

Then should not everything be taken with a very large pinch of salt, especially when someone is asserting something or calling someone else a heretic?

Bronzeage

Of course. "Heresy" is simply a difference of opinion. It only becomes an issue when one side has the power to inflict pain on those with whom they disagree.

Duvduv

The idea of Eusebius always reminds me of the cases of good old Thomas Cranmer and Thomas More, the official doctrinologists of the emerging Anglican religion in the time of Henry VIII, except that they existed as individuals but Eusebius, well..........

Tom Sawyer

I believe that the official definition of heresy is "believing something different than what the people in power believe".

For instance, when Henry VIII started Anglicanism, he burned a bunch of people at the stake for heresy because they wouldn't renounce Catholocism. Then when his daughter Mary became queen, she burned a bunch of people at the stake for heresy because they wouldn't convert back to Catholicism. So, one shift of power (well, two if you count His Royal Majesty, King Not-Remembered-By-History) and the definition of heresy does a complete flip. The Elizabeth took over and neither of them really met the definition of heresy anymore.

andrewcriddle

Although there are exceptions such as the killing of Friar Forrest, in general Catholics under Henry VIII were not burnt but killed in other ways such as hanging. They were being executed for the secular offense of denying the King's authority over the church, rather than for heresy as such.

Andrew Criddle

Bronzeage

So, the difference in heresy and treason in mainly in how the matter ends.

Duvduv

Cramner and More were doctrinologists for the emerging new religion. Then they turned into enemies. But Cramner created the Book of Common Prayer and other doctrines and dogmas for the "true de-Vaticanized" church, and of course enemies were persecuted. There must have been those creating parodies of the new church whose writings will be taken as a serious reflection of religion in five hundred years from now.
The scenario that developed in England can help us understand the world of the means, motive and opportunity in the Constantinian regime of the 4th century.