Vinnie

http://www.vincentsapone.com/writing...seusebius.html

Vinnie

S.C.Carlson

Not in toto. However, it may be worthwhile to determine to what extent Eusebius accurately quoted Papias and/or inserted his own commentary into the middle or end of the quote.

Stephen

Vinnie

Agreed. One step before the other.

There is also the issue of where Papias comments begin and the elder's end.

V.

mountainman

There is the distinct possibility that there were later
"embellishers" both of "the stories" and of "the doctrine".
For example, Philip of Side.

Or Eusebius invented Irenaeus wholesale.

Eusebius was marshalling an army of references to
Constantine's new and strange "Roman religious order"
from his desk, in the fourth century, c.312-324 CE.

IMO Eusebius (under some relationship to Constantine which
must include coersion) not only invented other heretical
schisms, but also the texts purported to have been
written by Celsus -- anti-christian dogma. Such was
the cleverness of the Constantine/Eusebius propaganda.

We've been though this. Papias, Heggesipus, Clement.
All the prenicene bishops --- Eusebian literary profiles.

The works of Porphyry at the opening of the fourth century
were in all likelihood the basis for many of Eusebius' works.
IMO Eusebius forged Porphyry's "Against the Christians"
after the death of Porphyry, so that Constantine in 325 CE
could edict for the destruction of Porphyry's Critique of
Books, which is substantial. See Roger's new pages on
the works of Porphyry.


Other examples include the second Ammonius Saccas, one of the
"early fathers" of the neopythagorean school, whom Eusebius
attempts to "paint as a christian".

The majority of ancient historians therefore there was one
Ammonias Sacas, the neopythagorean, and then there perhaps
was another -- a second man of the exact same name - who
is referred to by Eusebius.

We now know that the regime associated with the rise of
christianity under Constantine with effect from the Council
of Nicaea, when the eastern empire was summoned to see
"the fear of God" face to face, perpetuated itself.

The non-existence of the works of Porphyry, and many
other works lost (including those recovered via Arabian
scholars), is by edicts by "the christian regime", commencing
with Constantine himself, for their destruction by fire.

Eusebius writes Celsus' and Porphyry's anti-christian polemic.
Constantine, is today assessed as "an emminent theological
mind" of his time, and could well have contributed to this, in
a sponsorial fashion, and intellectual martialling of texts.


Conclusion

In the weakest argument it is certainly not impossible that
Eusebius fabricated these small-minded references to dear
old father Papias.

In the strongest argument, Constantine invented christianity,
a new ROman religious order. Not greek, not hellenic, not
Egyptian, Hermetic, Persian. It was Roman for gods' sake.

It was time the professional rulers of the empire had a new
religion, suitably bolstered by the hardware of hundreds of
basilicas, and the technology of the glossy greek bibles,
bound for the very first time on the planet Earth, in 330 CE
by the supreme imperial mafia thug dictator, and emminent
christian theologian, and proselyter, Constantine, bull neck
himself.

It is notable that there is so little evidence for any of the
theories of either the historical jesus or the mythical jesus.

In fact, a theory based upon a fourth century fictional jesus
essentially predicts that there should not be found any
earlier citations to "anything christian" from the scientific
and/or archeological fields. Any pre-nicene citation of
christianity will potentially refute the theory. (YES, for
those Popperians, the theory is falsifiable).

The theory itself is able to cite emperor Julian, c362 CE:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine,
by making full use of that part of the soul
which loves fable and is childish and foolish,
it has induced men to believe
that the monstrous tale is truth.

Emperor Julian

Interested parties should note that (IMO) Julian's
reference to the fabrication of the Galilaeans is
not simply a reference to the ([u]N E W[/b])appearance
of the NT literature, but of the entire set of literature
and propaganda issues forth in the rule of Constantine,
mainly via the desk of the Minister of Propaganda, Eusebius.

More information in a draft specifications for the package referred to
by Julian as "the fabrication of the Galilaeans".

mountainman

Did Eusebius' fabricate "the christian Ammonius Saccas"?

HeretiKc

Did Eusebius write the Vedas?

JoeWallack

JW:
Done:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=127635

The Inventory so far:

Tell Me Lies Tell Me Sweet Litlle 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.


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 <edit> 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 finally, 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.

6. "Abgarus, ruler of Edessa, to Jesus the excellent Saviour who has appeared in the country of Jerusalem, greeting. I have heard the reports of you and of your cures as performed by you without medicines or herbs. For it is said that you make the blind to see and the lame to walk, that you cleanse lepers and castest out impure spirits and demons, and that you heal those afflicted with lingering disease, and raisest the dead."

7. And having heard all these things concerning you, I have concluded that one of two things must be true: either you are God, and having come down from heaven you do these things, or else you, who does these things, are the Son of God.

8. I have therefore written to you to ask you that you would take the trouble to come to me and heal the disease which I have. For I have heard that the Jews are murmuring against you and are plotting to injure you. But I have a very small yet noble city which is great enough for us both."

The answer of Jesus to the ruler Abgarus by the courier Ananias.

9. "Blessed are you who hast believed in me without having seen me. For it is written concerning me, that they who have seen me will not believe in me, and that they who have not seen me will believe and be saved. But in regard to what you have written me, that I should come to you, it is necessary for me to fulfill all things here for which I have been sent, and after I have fulfilled them thus to be taken up again to him that sent me. But after I have been taken up I will send to you one of my disciples, that he may heal your disease and give life to you and yours."


JW:Scooby?

Scooby: Yikes!

JW:
Maybe Peter should present a posthumous award here to Eusebius for not only Lying but Manufacturing the evidence to Lie about!

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 <edit Gibson's Mr. Doherty, or just Likely?

The basic problem with Eusebius which is symptomatic of the history of Christian Bible scholarship including the Christians here is that they are Christians First and scholars second. Therefore their scholarship is Biased. Eusebius is essentially like that modern Vestment advisor who sells you on The Four stocks he selected at the start of his Ministry a year ago whose value went up to the sky but doesn't tell you about the four other stocks he also selected who have been damned for eternity down in Hell. Eusebius is an Advocate for Christianity, not a Judge. Therefore, we need to Discount everything he says.

Most illustrative of this above is the Marinus letter. Even though the subject, the original resurrection story of the original Gospel, was the most important textual issue Eusebius could possibly have dealt with he makes it clear that the textual issue is Secondary to Biblical Inerrancy and Tradition. He is willing to consider Textual solutions that would avoid contradictions (backwards).

For that matter the whole issue of trying to use Eusebius' witness as evidence that Canonical Mark is based on a Mark, interpreter of Peter, is backwards. We know, for the reasons I have given, Discrediting of Peter, Natural/Historical witness, highly Structured narrative and oh yeah, the consensus of Christian authority that it is Unlikely that Papias referred to Canonical Mark. So rather than trying to use Eusebius as evidence here for identification of Canonical Mark we should be looking at it the other way. We can Conclude Eusebius Misidentified what Papias wrote as Canonical Mark, which will be the next item added to the above Inventory and another reason to doubt other things that Eusebius wrote.

Another backwards element to Vinnie's effarts here is that rather than Papias being evidence of an early dating of Canonical Mark, it is actually evidence of a late dating. In the early first century Papias was still not familiar with our Canonical Mark. Quick, PM PM.



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