mountainman

Dear Johnny Skeptic,

My dear chap dont you know that Eusebius writes so well and is so authoritative that he could not possibly be wrong about these important historical details concerning the first three centuries immediately prior to the time we know he was authoring them (ie: c.312 to 324 CE). Eusebius has unimpeachable credibility with respect to christian origins, since he is the only one who saw fit to preserve them.

Finally, the dating for this is derived from intense paleographic (ie: handwriting) assessment perhaps by the vast minds of experts perhaps a century or more ago, and should be disregarded. Every other document you cited above on your list (ie: the greek NT codices) are all at least fourth century. Perhaps the more appropriate title of this thread should therefore be "The early fourth century is the earliest evidence on that list. Why should early fourth century evidence be considered credible?



Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

That's is what Justin Martyr thought Marcio taught.

mountainman

Dear aa5874,

That is what we are told by the anti-semitic Eusebius in respect of what Justin Martyr thought Marcion taught. The reporter on the spot was the anti-semitic Eusebius. But we all know he was an anti-semitic bastard himself. The problem is that we have no choice (except one) other than to believe him.

Best wishes,


Pete

andrewcriddle

That should be Andrew Criddle

aa5874

An investigator becomes extremely alert when a person of interest is found to be lying.

In his attempt to conceal the truth, he has inadvertently revealed it.