mountainman

The Historical Integrity of Eusebius of Caesarea

"There is nothing new in the world
except the history you do not know".

--- Harry S. Truman
33rd US President (1945-1953).

JoeWallack

Tell Me Lies Tell Me Sweet Little Lies

JW:
Just to be clear, my own opinion of Eusebius is that he was a lying, cheatin, no-good, low-down, double-dealing, double-Crossing Monssouri scum. For those of you, unlike me, who are still undecided about Eusebius and require more information than just my Holy See So (like evidence) let's consider an Update of Specifics regarding Eusebius' willingness to tell the Truth:


Star Of David Wars III - Revenge Of The [Sic]

JW: Arise Lord Eusebius.

Eusebius: Yes, Master.

A Summary of the previous charges and convictions against Eusebius:

1) Perhaps the most famous Accusation:

Is it okay to Lie for Jesus?

Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...NTcanon.html#6

"That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach. [As said in Plato's Laws 663e by the Athenian:] 'And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.' [then by Clinias:] 'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.' You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach."


2) A close Second:

Is it okay to Lie that people who weren't for Jesus were for Jesus?

Evangelical Demonstration 3.5, Ecclesiastical History 1.11, and Theophany

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ium.html#cited

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."


3) Third and not discussed at II (at least recently):

Is it okay to expand your HorLizons and Lie for the entire Trinity? (Matthew 28:19)

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics...c/mat2819.html

JW:
I wouldn't believe everything this author has to say but I think a pretty good case can be made that before Nicea Eusebius didn't quote the Trinity in 28:19 and after Nicea he did.


4) (and the cruncher, as the Brits say) discussed here recently:

Is it okay to Lie to Yourself for Jesus?

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...1&page=3&pp=25

Letter To Marinus:

"[Marinus] How is it that in Matthew the savior appears late on the sabbath after he has been raised, but in Mark it is early on the first day of the week?"

[Eusebius] "The solution of this might be twofold. For the one who sets aside the passage itself, the pericope that says this, might say that it is not extant in all the copies of the gospel according to Mark. The accurate ones of the copies, at least, circumscribe the end of the history according to Mark in the words of the young man seen by the women, who said to them: Do not fear. You seek Jesus the Nazarene, and those that follow, to which it further says: And having heard they fled, and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

For in this [manner] the ending of the gospel according to Mark is circumscribed almost in all the copies. The things that seldom follow, which are extant in some but not in all, may be superfluous, and especially if indeed it holds a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the evangelists. These things therefore someone might say in avoiding and in all ways doing away with a superfluous question."

But someone else, [someone] who dares to set aside nothing at all in any way of the things that are extant in the writing of the gospels, says that the reading is double, as also in many other [passages], and each is to be accepted, not this rather than that, or that than this, as the classification of the faithful and the reverent."


5) Wait, there's more! From our resident Eusebius correspondent:

(Is it True that when you say Nothing you are saying Something and is that a Type of Lie?)

Roger Pearse:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eu...ar.htm#rebound

"Eusebius HE Book VIII, chapter 2.

Here is the Ante-Nicene Fathers text, from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2:

Chapter II. The Destruction of the Churches.
1 All these things were fulfilled in us, when we saw with our own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down to the very foundations, and the Divine and Sacred Scriptures committed to the flames in the midst of the market-places, and the shepherds of the churches basely hidden here and there, and some of them captured ignominiously, and mocked by their enemies. When also, according to another prophetic word, "Contempt was poured out upon rulers, and he caused them to wander in an untrodden and pathless way."
2 But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them, as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment.

3 Hence we shall not mention those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be usefull first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity. Let us therefore proceed to describe briefly the sacred conflicts of the witnesses of the Divine Word."


JW:
Ouch! That's gotta hurt (Eusebius' credibility). But as they say, We always hurt the most the ones we love the most.


6) A a recent update inspired by Something Gibson:

Is Eusbius' account of Philo phile of it? Or, when E's Philo was in Rome was he just doing as Romans does?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm

"CHAPTER 17
Philo's Account of the Ascetics of Egypt

It is also said that Philo in the reign of Claudius became acquainted at Rome with Peter, who was then preaching there. Nor is this indeed improbable, for the work of which we have spoken, and which was composed by him some years later, clearly contains those rules of the Church which are even to this day observed among us. And since he describes as accurately as possible the life of our ascetics, it is clear that he not only knew, but that he also approved, while he venerated and extolled, the apostolic men of his time, who were as it seems of the Hebrew race, and hence observed, after the manner of the Jews, the most of the customs of the ancients. In the work to which he gave the title, On a Contemplative Life or on Suppliants, after affirming in the first place that he will add to those things which he is about to relate nothing contrary to truth or of his own invention, he says that these men were called Therapeut' and the women that were with them Therapeutrides. He then adds the reasons for such a name, explaining it from the fact that they applied remedies and healed the souls of those who came to them, by relieving them like physicians, of evil passions, or from the fact that they served and worshiped the Deity in purity and sincerity. Whether Philo himself gave them this name, employing an epithet well suited to their mode of life, or whether the first of them really called themselves so in the beginning, since the name of Christians was not yet everywhere known, we need not discuss here. He bears witness, however, that first of all they renounce their property. When they begin the philosophical mode of life, he says, they give up their goods to their relatives, and then, renouncing all the cares of life, they go forth beyond the walls and dwell in lonely fields and gardens, knowing well that intercourse with people of a different character is unprofitable and harmful. They did this at that time, as seems probable, under the influence of a spirited and ardent faith, practicing in emulation the prophets' mode of life. For in the Acts of the Apostles, a work universally acknowledged as authentic, it is recorded that all the companions of the apostles sold their possessions and their property and distributed to all according to the necessity of each one, so that no one among them was in want. "For as many as were possessors of lands or houses," as the account says, "sold them and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet, so that distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."


7) And solid evidence that Jesus really existed which is almost certain to return Mr. Doherty to selling life insurance and answer the prayers of many here who were hoping Jesus really would return just so there could be an end to all the MJ vs. HJ vs. BJ Threads here:

Copy of an epistle written by Abgarus the ruler to Jesus, and sent to him at Jerusalem by Ananiasthe swift courier [Jesus' return receipt still extant in Fed-X-tian micrichthys]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm

"5. And all that our Saviour had promised received through him its fulfillment. You have written evidence of these things taken from the archives of Edessa, which was at that time a royal city. For in the public registers there, which contain accounts of ancient times and the acts of Abgarus, these things have been found preserved down to the present time. But there is no better way than to hear the epistles themselves which we have taken from the archives and have literally translated from the Syriac language in the following manner.
Copy of an epistle written by Abgarus the ruler to Jesus, and sent to him at Jerusalem by Ananiasthe swift courier."

8) And now, an update inspired by my cousin Vinnie. Eusebius scours Papias' voluminous 5 volumes for evidence that Mark wrote "Mark" and preserves for us evidence that Mark did not write "Mark" as evidence that Mark wrote "Mark". How Ironic is that? And if you are asking what else Papias may have written that Eusebius choose not to preserve, well, God knows.

"Eusebius HE Book III, chapter 39.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

So, question for everyone here (except for Harvey Dubish):

Is it certain that Eusebius was a Truth challenged Advocate for Jesus, even more prone to Selective quotation, misreadings, and misrepresentations of sources than Gibson's Mr. Doherty, or just Likely?

PS - Pete, why create a sacred cow of Eusebius when you can milk his extant writings for free?



Joseph

"Remember Jerry, it's not a Lie if you really believe it's true." - George Costanza

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

PhilosopherJay

Hi Joe,

Some very good specific points here. Your suggestion that Eusebius had a hand in the ending of Mark is quite interesting. I have suggested Eusebius made revisions in the later part of Acts to get Paul to Rome, but I never considered him playing with Mark. Still, in general, your condemnation of Eusebius' creativity may be considered a bit unjust.

Have you considered the precarious situation that Eusebius was in with Constantine. Here was an emperor as ruthless and Machiavellian as any before him, quite irrational, war-loving, power-mad and willing to double-cross and betray anyone without a moment's hesitiation (similar perhaps to a certain President whom we shall not mention.) Under these circumstances, keeping on his sunny side must have been a well-known prerequisite for staying healthy.

Now, think of this, for all his admiration of Christian martyrs, Eusebius never became one, although he certainly had plenty of opportunity in his long life. Perhaps his exultation of martyrdom reflects his own fear of becoming one. We praise most those who do things we can never do, and those who are what we can never be, except in our dearest dreams.

Keeping these points in mind, we should feel sympathy for poor Eusebius. Was his position not like that of Scheherazade who was forced upon pain of death to continually make up stories to keep her king amused. Was this not like what Eusebius had to do, come up with a history of the Roman Catholic Church that would please Constantine and show him in the best possible light. How difficult this must have been for him, when at any moment, his enemies could point to countless documents showing his history to be false in the highest degree. Is it any wonder that under the circumstances he resorted to forgery and fire to make the evidence come out his way?

We all imagine ourselves being brave and condemn those who in history cower before tyrants. History, unfortunately provides us continually with chances to prove our bravery. Today we live in Rhodes and I see very few jumping.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

JoeWallack

Tell Me Lies Tell Me Sweet Little Lies

JW:
Just to be clear, my own opinion of Eusebius is that he was a lying, cheatin, no-good, low-down, double-dealing, double-Crossing Monssouri scum. For those of you, unlike me, who are still undecided about Eusebius and require more information than just my Holy See So (like evidence) let's consider an Update of Specifics regarding Eusebius' willingness to tell the Truth:


Star Of David Wars III - Revenge Of The [Sic]

JW: Arise Lord Pater.

Eusebius: Yes, Master.

A Summary of the previous charges and convictions against Eusebius:

1) Perhaps the most famous Accusation:

Is it okay to Lie for Jesus?

Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...NTcanon.html#6

"That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach. [As said in Plato's Laws 663e by the Athenian:] 'And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.' [then by Clinias:] 'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.' You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach."


2) A close Second:

Is it okay to Lie that people who weren't for Jesus were for Jesus?

Evangelical Demonstration 3.5, Ecclesiastical History 1.11, and Theophany

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ium.html#cited

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."


3) Third and not discussed at II (at least recently):

Is it okay to expand your HorLizons and Lie for the entire Trinity? (Matthew 28:19)

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics...c/mat2819.html

JW:
I wouldn't believe everything this author has to say but I think a pretty good case can be made that before Nicea Eusebius didn't quote the Trinity in 28:19 and after Nicea he did.


4) (and the cruncher, as the Brits say) discussed here recently:

Is it okay to Lie to Yourself for Jesus?

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...1&page=3&pp=25

Letter To Marinus:

"[Marinus] How is it that in Matthew the savior appears late on the sabbath after he has been raised, but in Mark it is early on the first day of the week?"

[Eusebius] "The solution of this might be twofold. For the one who sets aside the passage itself, the pericope that says this, might say that it is not extant in all the copies of the gospel according to Mark. The accurate ones of the copies, at least, circumscribe the end of the history according to Mark in the words of the young man seen by the women, who said to them: Do not fear. You seek Jesus the Nazarene, and those that follow, to which it further says: And having heard they fled, and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

For in this [manner] the ending of the gospel according to Mark is circumscribed almost in all the copies. The things that seldom follow, which are extant in some but not in all, may be superfluous, and especially if indeed it holds a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the evangelists. These things therefore someone might say in avoiding and in all ways doing away with a superfluous question."

But someone else, [someone] who dares to set aside nothing at all in any way of the things that are extant in the writing of the gospels, says that the reading is double, as also in many other [passages], and each is to be accepted, not this rather than that, or that than this, as the classification of the faithful and the reverent."


5) Wait, there's more! From our resident Eusebius correspondent:

(Is it True that when you say Nothing you are saying Something and is that a Type of Lie?)

Roger Pearse:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eu...ar.htm#rebound

"Eusebius HE Book VIII, chapter 2.

Here is the Ante-Nicene Fathers text, from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2:

Chapter II. The Destruction of the Churches.
1 All these things were fulfilled in us, when we saw with our own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down to the very foundations, and the Divine and Sacred Scriptures committed to the flames in the midst of the market-places, and the shepherds of the churches basely hidden here and there, and some of them captured ignominiously, and mocked by their enemies. When also, according to another prophetic word, "Contempt was poured out upon rulers, and he caused them to wander in an untrodden and pathless way."
2 But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them, as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment.

3 Hence we shall not mention those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be usefull first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity. Let us therefore proceed to describe briefly the sacred conflicts of the witnesses of the Divine Word."


JW:
Ouch! That's gotta hurt (Eusebius' credibility). But as they say, We always hurt the most the ones we love the most.


6) A a recent update inspired by Something Gibson:

Is Eusbius' account of Philo phile of it? Or, when E's Philo was in Rome was he just doing as Romans does?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm

"CHAPTER 17
Philo's Account of the Ascetics of Egypt

It is also said that Philo in the reign of Claudius became acquainted at Rome with Peter, who was then preaching there. Nor is this indeed improbable, for the work of which we have spoken, and which was composed by him some years later, clearly contains those rules of the Church which are even to this day observed among us. And since he describes as accurately as possible the life of our ascetics, it is clear that he not only knew, but that he also approved, while he venerated and extolled, the apostolic men of his time, who were as it seems of the Hebrew race, and hence observed, after the manner of the Jews, the most of the customs of the ancients. In the work to which he gave the title, On a Contemplative Life or on Suppliants, after affirming in the first place that he will add to those things which he is about to relate nothing contrary to truth or of his own invention, he says that these men were called Therapeut' and the women that were with them Therapeutrides. He then adds the reasons for such a name, explaining it from the fact that they applied remedies and healed the souls of those who came to them, by relieving them like physicians, of evil passions, or from the fact that they served and worshiped the Deity in purity and sincerity. Whether Philo himself gave them this name, employing an epithet well suited to their mode of life, or whether the first of them really called themselves so in the beginning, since the name of Christians was not yet everywhere known, we need not discuss here. He bears witness, however, that first of all they renounce their property. When they begin the philosophical mode of life, he says, they give up their goods to their relatives, and then, renouncing all the cares of life, they go forth beyond the walls and dwell in lonely fields and gardens, knowing well that intercourse with people of a different character is unprofitable and harmful. They did this at that time, as seems probable, under the influence of a spirited and ardent faith, practicing in emulation the prophets' mode of life. For in the Acts of the Apostles, a work universally acknowledged as authentic, it is recorded that all the companions of the apostles sold their possessions and their property and distributed to all according to the necessity of each one, so that no one among them was in want. "For as many as were possessors of lands or houses," as the account says, "sold them and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet, so that distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."


7) And solid evidence that Jesus really existed which is almost certain to return Mr. Doherty to selling life insurance and answer the prayers of many here who were hoping Jesus really would return just so there could be an end to all the MJ vs. HJ vs. BJ Threads here:

Copy of an epistle written by Abgarus the ruler to Jesus, and sent to him at Jerusalem by Ananiasthe swift courier [Jesus' return receipt still extant in Fed-X-tian micrichthys]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm

"5. And all that our Saviour had promised received through him its fulfillment. You have written evidence of these things taken from the archives of Edessa, which was at that time a royal city. For in the public registers there, which contain accounts of ancient times and the acts of Abgarus, these things have been found preserved down to the present time. But there is no better way than to hear the epistles themselves which we have taken from the archives and have literally translated from the Syriac language in the following manner.
Copy of an epistle written by Abgarus the ruler to Jesus, and sent to him at Jerusalem by Ananiasthe swift courier."

8) An update inspired by my cousin Vinnie. Eusebius scours Papias' voluminous 5 volumes for evidence that Mark wrote "Mark" and preserves for us evidence that Mark did not write "Mark" as evidence that Mark wrote "Mark". How Ironic is that? And if you are asking what else Papias may have written that Eusebius choose not to preserve, well, God knows.

"Eusebius HE Book III, chapter 39.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

9), or, as my old friend Steve Simion used to say (for no apparent reason), 9! Eusebius Unfaithfully reports the orthodox orthodox Tradition of the authorship circumstances of "Luke" while omitting the merely orthodox Tradition of the authorship circumstances of "Luke" thereby continuing a long Tradition (not of support for the authorship of "Luke" but of being Truth-challenged).

From the companion eHP's lovingly crafted Thread:

The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.

THE PANARION OF EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Translated by Frank Williams

Page 53

JW:
eHP probably wrote this around the middle of the 4th century. An apparent source based on extant (written early 3rd century):

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0504.htm

On the End of the World

Hippolytus

JW:
And the apparent scriptural reference:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=6&version=31

John 6

JW:
Note the key Assertians eHP makes regarding "Luke":

1) "Luke" was an original Disciple of Jesus.

2) "Luke" gave up the Faith.

3) Paul (re)converted "Luke" and made him a follower of Paul.

Oviously this is Contradicted by the orthodox orthodox description of "Luke":

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

Church History (Book III)

Eusebius

Clearly Eusebius is giving a different Tradition than eHP:

1) "Luke" was not an original Disciple of Jesus.

2) "Luke" never gave up the Faith.

3) Paul apparently did not convert "Luke".

And what exactly was Eusebius' source for this? Unknown (kind of says it all).

Regarding "Luke" than who only wrote the most important Gospel for the non-Jews and the only supposed link from the supposed Disciples to the subsequent Church we have the following related issues:

1) Was "Luke" a Disciple of Jesus?

2) Did "Luke" give up the Faith?

3) Did Paul convert "Luke"?

4) We always seem to come back to Marcion. Doubt as to the prologue of "Luke". Point Marcion!

So Why did Eusebius give a Tradition for "Luke" that he apparently had no clear source for and not mention the other Tradition for "Luke" that presumably he had a clear source for (Hippolytus) and is it certain that Eusebius was a Truth challenged Advocate for Jesus, even more prone to Selective quotation, misreadings, and misrepresentations of sources than Gibson's Mr. Doherty, or just Likely? Everybody is welcome to answer except for Harvey Dubish.



Joseph

"Remember Jerry, it's not a Lie if you really believe it's true." - George Costanza

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Toto

Just to highlight that article, which is an, um, absolute gem of apologetic mud slinging.

andrewcriddle

I posted here http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...11#post4722611 what I think is going on with Eusebius and Matthew 28:19.
If I'm right Eusebius gives the Trinitarian form in his late works more to attack the Nicene position than to defend it.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

Tell Me Lies Tell Me Sweet Little Lies

JW:
Just to be clear, my own opinion of Eusebius is that he was a lying, cheatin, no-good, low-down, double-dealing, double-Crossing Monssouri scum. For those of you, unlike me, who are still undecided about Eusebius and require more information than just my Holy See So (like evidence) let's consider an Update of Specifics regarding Eusebius' willingness to tell the Truth:

Star Of David Wars III - Revenge Of The [Sic]

JW: Arise Lord Pater.

Eusebius: Yes, Master.

A Summary of the previous charges and convictions against Eusebius:

1) Perhaps the most famous Accusation:

Is it okay to Lie for Jesus?

Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...NTcanon.html#6

"That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach. [As said in Plato's Laws 663e by the Athenian:] 'And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.' [then by Clinias:] 'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.' You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach."


2) A close Second:

Is it okay to Lie that people who weren't for Jesus were for Jesus?

Evangelical Demonstration 3.5, Ecclesiastical History 1.11, and Theophany

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ium.html#cited

Antiquities 18.3.3. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day."


3) Third and not discussed at II (at least recently):

Is it okay to expand your HorLizons and Lie for the entire Trinity? (Matthew 28:19)

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics...c/mat2819.html

JW:
I wouldn't believe everything this author has to say but I think a pretty good case can be made that before Nicea Eusebius didn't quote the Trinity in 28:19 and after Nicea he did.


4) (and the cruncher, as the Brits say) discussed here recently:

Is it okay to Lie to Yourself for Jesus?

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...1&page=3&pp=25

Letter To Marinus:

"[Marinus] How is it that in Matthew the savior appears late on the sabbath after he has been raised, but in Mark it is early on the first day of the week?"

[Eusebius] "The solution of this might be twofold. For the one who sets aside the passage itself, the pericope that says this, might say that it is not extant in all the copies of the gospel according to Mark. The accurate ones of the copies, at least, circumscribe the end of the history according to Mark in the words of the young man seen by the women, who said to them: Do not fear. You seek Jesus the Nazarene, and those that follow, to which it further says: And having heard they fled, and said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

For in this [manner] the ending of the gospel according to Mark is circumscribed almost in all the copies. The things that seldom follow, which are extant in some but not in all, may be superfluous, and especially if indeed it holds a contradiction to the testimony of the rest of the evangelists. These things therefore someone might say in avoiding and in all ways doing away with a superfluous question."

But someone else, [someone] who dares to set aside nothing at all in any way of the things that are extant in the writing of the gospels, says that the reading is double, as also in many other [passages], and each is to be accepted, not this rather than that, or that than this, as the classification of the faithful and the reverent."


5) Wait, there's more! From our resident Eusebius correspondent:

(Is it True that when you say Nothing you are saying Something and is that a Type of Lie?)

Roger Pearse:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eu...ar.htm#rebound

"Eusebius HE Book VIII, chapter 2.

Here is the Ante-Nicene Fathers text, from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2:

Chapter II. The Destruction of the Churches.
1 All these things were fulfilled in us, when we saw with our own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down to the very foundations, and the Divine and Sacred Scriptures committed to the flames in the midst of the market-places, and the shepherds of the churches basely hidden here and there, and some of them captured ignominiously, and mocked by their enemies. When also, according to another prophetic word, "Contempt was poured out upon rulers, and he caused them to wander in an untrodden and pathless way."
2 But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them, as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment.

3 Hence we shall not mention those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be usefull first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity. Let us therefore proceed to describe briefly the sacred conflicts of the witnesses of the Divine Word."


JW:
Ouch! That's gotta hurt (Eusebius' credibility). But as they say, We always hurt the most the ones we love the most.


6) A a recent update inspired by Something Gibson:

Is Eusbius' account of Philo phile of it? Or, when E's Philo was in Rome was he just doing as Romans does?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm

"CHAPTER 17
Philo's Account of the Ascetics of Egypt

It is also said that Philo in the reign of Claudius became acquainted at Rome with Peter, who was then preaching there. Nor is this indeed improbable, for the work of which we have spoken, and which was composed by him some years later, clearly contains those rules of the Church which are even to this day observed among us. And since he describes as accurately as possible the life of our ascetics, it is clear that he not only knew, but that he also approved, while he venerated and extolled, the apostolic men of his time, who were as it seems of the Hebrew race, and hence observed, after the manner of the Jews, the most of the customs of the ancients. In the work to which he gave the title, On a Contemplative Life or on Suppliants, after affirming in the first place that he will add to those things which he is about to relate nothing contrary to truth or of his own invention, he says that these men were called Therapeut' and the women that were with them Therapeutrides. He then adds the reasons for such a name, explaining it from the fact that they applied remedies and healed the souls of those who came to them, by relieving them like physicians, of evil passions, or from the fact that they served and worshiped the Deity in purity and sincerity. Whether Philo himself gave them this name, employing an epithet well suited to their mode of life, or whether the first of them really called themselves so in the beginning, since the name of Christians was not yet everywhere known, we need not discuss here. He bears witness, however, that first of all they renounce their property. When they begin the philosophical mode of life, he says, they give up their goods to their relatives, and then, renouncing all the cares of life, they go forth beyond the walls and dwell in lonely fields and gardens, knowing well that intercourse with people of a different character is unprofitable and harmful. They did this at that time, as seems probable, under the influence of a spirited and ardent faith, practicing in emulation the prophets' mode of life. For in the Acts of the Apostles, a work universally acknowledged as authentic, it is recorded that all the companions of the apostles sold their possessions and their property and distributed to all according to the necessity of each one, so that no one among them was in want. "For as many as were possessors of lands or houses," as the account says, "sold them and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet, so that distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."


7) And solid evidence that Jesus really existed which is almost certain to return Mr. Doherty to selling life insurance and answer the prayers of many here who were hoping Jesus really would return just so there could be an end to all the MJ vs. HJ vs. BJ Threads here:

Copy of an epistle written by Abgarus the ruler to Jesus, and sent to him at Jerusalem by Ananiasthe swift courier [Jesus' return receipt still extant in Fed-X-tian micrichthys]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm

"5. And all that our Saviour had promised received through him its fulfillment. You have written evidence of these things taken from the archives of Edessa, which was at that time a royal city. For in the public registers there, which contain accounts of ancient times and the acts of Abgarus, these things have been found preserved down to the present time. But there is no better way than to hear the epistles themselves which we have taken from the archives and have literally translated from the Syriac language in the following manner.
Copy of an epistle written by Abgarus the ruler to Jesus, and sent to him at Jerusalem by Ananiasthe swift courier."

8) An update inspired by my cousin Vinnie. Eusebius scours Papias' voluminous 5 volumes for evidence that Mark wrote "Mark" and preserves for us evidence that Mark did not write "Mark" as evidence that Mark wrote "Mark". How Ironic is that? And if you are asking what else Papias may have written that Eusebius choose not to preserve, well, God knows.

"Eusebius HE Book III, chapter 39.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

9), or, as my old friend Steve Simion used to say (for no apparent reason), 9! Eusebius Unfaithfully reports the orthodox orthodox Tradition of the authorship circumstances of "Luke" while omitting the merely orthodox Tradition of the authorship circumstances of "Luke" thereby continuing a long Tradition (not of support for the authorship of "Luke" but of being Truth-challenged).

From the companion eHP's lovingly crafted Thread:

The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.

THE PANARION OF EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Translated by Frank Williams

Page 53

JW:
eHP probably wrote this around the middle of the 4th century. An apparent source based on extant (written early 3rd century):

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0504.htm

On the End of the World

Hippolytus

JW:
And the apparent scriptural reference:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=6&version=31

John 6

JW:
Note the key Assertians eHP makes regarding "Luke":

1) "Luke" was an original Disciple of Jesus.

2) "Luke" gave up the Faith.

3) Paul (re)converted "Luke" and made him a follower of Paul.

Oviously this is Contradicted by the orthodox orthodox description of "Luke":

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

Church History (Book III)

Eusebius

Clearly Eusebius is giving a different Tradition than eHP:

1) "Luke" was not an original Disciple of Jesus.

2) "Luke" never gave up the Faith.

3) Paul apparently did not convert "Luke".

And what exactly was Eusebius' source for this? Unknown (kind of says it all).

Regarding "Luke" than who only wrote the most important Gospel for the non-Jews and the only supposed link from the supposed Disciples to the subsequent Church we have the following related issues:

1) Was "Luke" a Disciple of Jesus?

2) Did "Luke" give up the Faith?

3) Did Paul convert "Luke"?

4) We always seem to come back to Marcion. Doubt as to the prologue of "Luke". Point Marcion!

So Why did Eusebius give a Tradition for "Luke" that he apparently had no clear source for and not mention the other Tradition for "Luke" that presumably he had a clear source for (Hippolytus) and is it certain that Eusebius was a Truth challenged Advocate for Jesus, even more prone to Selective quotation, misreadings, and misrepresentations of sources than Gibson's Mr. Doherty, or just Likely? Everybody is welcome to answer except for Harvey Dubish.

10) (and Kointing). Inspired by the unholy spirit of:

JPHolding new book on the Christ Myth MERGED

JW:
Regarding references to Papias' supposed Oracles of the Lord that help establish it's dating, here is the Philip of Side quote:

http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html#philipside

JW:
In Eusebius' quotes of and references to Oracles of the Lord he never mentions "Hadrian". Apologists assert that this is because Philip of Side mistakenly attributed the Hadrian reference from Quadratus to Papias but as demonstrated in my related post, this is unlikely. Thus it is likely that Papias did mention Hadrian as a dating marker for his work and Eusebius deliberately omitted it.

Yow Hadrian!



Joseph

"Remember Jerry, it's not a Lie if you really believe it's true." - George Costanza

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Huon

The link offered to
Eusebius HE Book VIII, chapter 2
doesn't work.
Look at :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250108.htm

During the reign of Diocletian (284-305), the bishops of Rome were :
St. Caius (283-296)
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)

Of Caius (283-296) Eusebius writes :

Eusebius Church History Book VII Chapter 32.
Caius is also mentioned in the fourth-century "Depositio Episcoporum" therefore not as a martyr.

Of Marcellinus (296-304)
"He was overtaken by the persecution". From this one must obviously conclude that the pope did not suffer martyrdom, otherwise Eusebius would have distinctly stated it.
The Catho Encyclopedy writes this :
Of Marcellus I (308-309)
Between 304 and 308, no official bishop of Rome.
Note that Maxentius changed his mind between 306 and 308. Perhaps he did not approve of bloodshed between lapsed Christians and not-lapsed Christians.

JoeWallack

JW:
Riight. The Catholics keep rewriting their history

JW:
Maybe you have something here regarding Eusebius' report of Of Marcellinus (296-304). Eusebius writes:

We have the following additional evidence that Marcellinus renounced the Faith:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/...pe_Marcellinus

JW:
It appears likely that Marcellinus renounced the Faith and that this is what Eusebius is referring to by "Marcellinus, who was overtaken by the persecution". The subsequent development of Catholic reaction also supports apostasy:

1) Confession of Apostasy.

2) Blotting out of name.

3) Legend of Repentance.

4) Legend of Restoration.

5) Denial of Apostasy.

Eusebius than stands convicted of knowing that Marcellinus went schmad. Is his related report of "overtaken by the persecution" honest for a historian? Do you just need a Key to the Kingdom code to understand what Eusebius meant? Or is Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus who has dishonestly omitted the fact that Marcellinus was Apostate? Everyone is welcome to answer except for Harvey Dubish.

Way to hang in there at the Battle of Tours Huon (even if it was won by German mercenaries). Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.



Joseph

"If England has always been the brain of Europe, on top, sensible and calm, and Germany in the middle, is the heart of Europe, emotional and easily swayed, than France, to the South, are the naughty bits."

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

andrewcriddle

What happened in Rome in the early 300's is very obscure.
Some scholars have suggested that Marcellus and Marcellinus were really the same person.

Andrew Criddle