Solo

Anyone here noticed (marvelled) at Eusebius' drive-by of the Pentecost in H.E. ? This was the Event that proved to the body of disciples that Jesus was the Lord; and that they are 'a nation' (to use E's terminus technicus). This was the sacramental founding of the church. It was a hugely attended happening (given the size of Jerusalem and that noone knew anything like mass baptism was going to happen on that date) : three thousand were converted on the spot of the mass frenzy and after Peter's rousing speech.

And yet the first event of the consecrated body of believers in Jerusalem Eusebius records is that of Stephen's being entrusted with the 'common fund' as a deacon with the other six. This of course is a stretch even if one accepts that there was a central administration of all church assets. Acts 6 does not say it was given to Stephen, and at any rate the fund was established well before (the holding things in common is mentioned in Acts 2 and 4, and of course is the prosecutor's case in the indictment of Sapphira and Ananias by the Holy Spirit, in 5) .

The Divine Event recorded in the 'Divine Scripture' skipped by Eusebius ?

What do people make of it ?

Jiri

dog-on

Should we expect historians to document everything?

aa5874

There is nothing strange here. That is expected when dealing with fiction.

No Church writer claimed they spoke in tongues, had received the Holy Ghost, performed miracles and raised any one from the dead as found in Acts of the Apostles or the Pauline Epistles.

The authors of Acts and the Pauline Epistles appear to have operated in a vacuum.

The Holy Ghost must be a vacuum.

Solo

You would expect the historian of French Revolution to start with the storming of Bastille, and not with the stabbing of Marat by Charlotte Corday, no ?

Perhaps, I am expecting too much.

Jiri

Solo

If you would stop and think for two seconds: Eusebius is giving an account of the church beginnings. The existence of the church is not in question.

The bishop has no problem believing the historicity of a letter sent by Jesus himself to the Toparch of Edessa, promising to send medical care after his ascension. So it is not as though he had a terribly low tolerance for tales of the silly sort.



Eusebius refers to Acts as 'divine scripture' in connection with Stephen.

That's what you believe. Are you saying that Eusebius believed it too ?

Jiri

dog-on

Actually you have brought up an interesting point. My response was flipant, but you are correct that this is a strange ommission.

Would there be any theological reason for Eusebius to ignore it?

aa5874

Eusebius' account is in question, if you would stop and think.


What did Eusebius or any Church writer say about any personal experiences with the Holy Ghost, personal experiences with talking in tongues, personal experiences in performing miracles and prophesying?

Paul, the author of Acts and the HOLY Ghost operated with in a vacuum since no other Church writer wrote about personally receiving the gifts of the Holy Ghost.

Solo

Plenty, I think. But I would like to hear from you and others what you think could have persuaded Eusebius to step over the inaugural event and the first year or two of the church's existence.

Ok, here is one clue. Eusebius says only the Twelve were left in Jerusalem after the great purge (based on Acts 8:1). But when Paul goes to Jerusalem he meets with all sorts of people in the church, and some of them are "false brethern". Then there are the "saints" which do not refer to the "pillars" and then there are some "men from James" who was in Jerusalem visiting Antioch, so it looks like definitely more than twelve people operated a church in Jerusalem after Paul's conversion.

Jiri

aa5874

This does not show that more than twelve people operated a church in Jerusalem , but that there are discrepancies in their stories.[/b]

Both could be wrong or only one could be right.

Huon

I understand "from the days of our Saviour to our own" as "after the disappearance of our Saviour to our own".