John A. Broussard

Thanks for the correction. Gotta read up on it.

JoeWallack

Star Of David Wars III

Revenge Of The [Sic]

JW: Arise Lord Vater

Eusebius: Yes, Master

JW: The Charge Against You:


JW:
The Charge against Eusebius by Skeptics is that the above means that Eusebius thought it was acceptable, if necessary, to Lie in order to promote belief in Jesus. Note that Eusebius does not Explicitly say, "It's acceptable, if necessary, to Lie in order to promote belief in Jesus." He doesn't even mention "Jesus" in the above. Therefore, one must decide if Eusebius is Guilty of the Charge based on the Implications of the above.

Note that in Order to Convict Eusebius of Lying for Jesus one needn't prove that Eusebius Actively Promoted Lying for Jesus whenever Possible. A much lesser Standard could be used of proving that Eusebius Tolerated Lying for Jesus, if Necessary, under the Circumstances.

The more General Eusebius' Satements above are, the Stronger the implication that they would cover Eusebius tolerating Lying for Jesus. The more Specific and Limited Eusebius' Statements are above, the more Doubt there is as to the implication that they would cover Eusebius tolerating Lying for Jesus.

The first part of Eusebius' quote has General comments:

"That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach."

"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."

The last part of Eusebius' quote has Specific comments:

"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."

So, What is Eusebius' main Point here? Where's the Emphasis? The overall point is that using Figurative language to ascribe human qualities to a divine god is acceptable because of the general comments that falsehood Can contribute to a good result. The Key is trying to determine Where Eusebius draws the Line between the General damage done by Lying and at the same time the benefit it can cause by helping to achieve a desired result. Following are the Possible Ranges of Eusebius' meaning:

1) In General Lying is Tolerable if it helps achieve a Good result.

2) There may be Exceptions where Lying is Tolerable depending on the Specific Nature of the Lie, the potential Harm of the Specific Lie, and the potential Benefit of the Lie.

In order to convict Eusebius of Promoting Lying for Jesus you have to Prove that Eusebius meant 1). In order to defend Eusebius you have to Prove that Eusebius meant 2).

Here's Famed Skeptic, Richard Carrier, for the Prosecution, making a case that Eusebius had a General meaning here:

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


JW:
For the Defense we have Believer Roger Pearse. Excuse me, a flock of owls just flew in the window, "Who, who, who." Shew you stupid owls. Pearse, the Believer, makes the case that Eusebius had a Specific, Limited meaning here (surprise):


JW:
Looking at the Context of the Work in General and the Specific area of the excerpt can help determine if Eusebius' excerpt had a General or Specific and Limited meaning:

First, the General Intent of the Work:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eu...e_01_book1.htm


JW:
Eusebius is making a Point that his work will be based on Logic and Reasoning. This would seem to support that the excerpt in question was not intended to be taken Generally (Okay to Lie in General to promote belief in Jesus).

Second, the Background for the Specific excerpt:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eu..._12_book12.htm


JW:
The background for the specific area that the excerpt is from indicates that:

1) Children are used as an example of an audience for a Fable but the audience is expanded to all those with lesser capacity.

2) "So Plato writes. And among the Hebrews also it is the custom to teach the histories of the inspired Scriptures to those of infantine souls in a very simple way just like any fables". This is the Key to deciding how General or Speciifc and Limited Eusebius' meaning was. "teach the histories of the inspired Scriptures". Is Eusebius' meaning Limited to a Religious context, only the actual Scripture, or is it Expanded in whole or in part to supposed History behind the Scripture (non-Scriptural)?

1. If the meaning is primarily Interpreting existing Scripture than Eusebius has more of a Specific and Limited meaning.

2. If the meaning is primarily Changing existing Scripture than Eusebius has more of a General meaning.

3. If the meaning is primarily Changing or at least Inventing the supposed History claimed to support Scripture than Eusebius has more of a General meaning.

3) Children should be Indoctrinated in anticipation for what they should believe as adults.

4) Fables should be carefully controlled based on communication with "The Holy Spirit".

Juwry, you've heard the Evidence, what say you?



Joseph

TRIAL, n.
A formal inquiry designed to prove and put upon record the blameless characters of judges, advocates and jurors. In order to effect this purpose it is necessary to supply a contrast in the person of one who is called the defendant, the prisoner, or the accused. If the contrast is made sufficiently clear this person is made to undergo such an affliction as will give the virtuous gentlemen a comfortable sense of their immunity, added to that of their worth. In our day the accused is usually a human being, or a socialist, but in mediaeval times, animals, fishes, reptiles and insects were brought to trial. A beast that had taken human life, or practiced sorcery, was duly arrested, tried and, if condemned, put to death by the public executioner. Insects ravaging grain fields, orchards or vineyards were cited to appeal by counsel before a civil tribunal, and after testimony, argument and condemnation, if they continued in contumaciam the matter was taken to a high ecclesiastical court, where they were solemnly excommunicated and anathematized. In a street of Toledo, some pigs that had wickedly run between the viceroy's legs, upsetting him, were arrested on a warrant, tried and punished. In Naples an ass was condemned to be burned at the stake, but the sentence appears not to have been executed. D'Addosio relates from the court records many trials of pigs, bulls, horses, cocks, dogs, goats, etc., greatly, it is believed, to the betterment of their conduct and morals. In 1451 a suit was brought against the leeches infesting some ponds about Berne, and the Bishop of Lausanne, instructed by the faculty of Heidelberg University, directed that some of "the aquatic worms" be brought before the local magistracy. This was done and the leeches, both present and absent, were ordered to leave the places that they had infested within three days on pain of incurring "the malediction of God." In the voluminous records of this cause celebre nothing is found to show whether the offenders braved the punishment, or departed forthwith out of that inhospitable jurisdiction.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

JoeWallack

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.

And indeed, this part granted to be true, it is fitting to interpret the mind of the reading. If I at least grasp the meaning of the word, we should not find that it is opposite to the things said by Matthew: Late on the sabbath the savior was raised. For the [statement]: And having risen up early on the first day of the week, according to Mark, we will read with a pause. And after the [statement]: And having risen up, we will place a comma. And we will divide the meaning of those things that are said following. Then, on the one hand, the [statement]: Having risen up, might be upon that of Matthew: Late on the sabbath, for then he was raised. On the other hand, that which follows we might join together with the things said after that, which gives rise to other meanings: For early on the first day of the sabbath he appeared to Mary Magdalene."


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 Jeff 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."

Philo bears witness to facts very much like those here described and then adds the following account: "Everywhere in the world is this race found. For it was fitting that both Greek and Barbarian should share in what is perfectly good. But the race particularly abounds in Egypt, in each of its so-called nomes, and especially about Alexandria. The best men from every quarter emigrate, as if to a colony of the Therapeut''s fatherland, to a certain very suitable spot which lies above the lake Maria upon a low hill excellently situated on account of its security and the mildness of the atmosphere" And then a little further on, after describing the kind of houses which they had, he speaks as follows concerning their churches, which were scattered about here and there: "In each house there is a sacred apartment which is called a sanctuary and monastery, where, quite alone, they perform the mysteries of the religious life. They bring nothing into it, neither drink nor food, nor any of the other things which contribute to the necessities of the body, but only the laws, and the inspired oracles of the prophets, and hymns and such other things as augment and makeperfect their knowledge and piety." And after some other matters he says: "The whole interval, from morning to evening, is for them a time of exercise. For they read the holy Scriptures, and explain the philosophy of their fathers in an allegorical manner, regarding the written words as symbols of hidden truth which is communicated in obscure figures. They have also writings of ancient men, who were the founders of their sect, and who left many monuments of the allegorical method. These they use as models, and imitate their principles." These things seem to have been stated by a man who had heard them expounding their sacred writings. But it is highly probable that the works of the ancients, which he says they had, were the Gospels and the writings of the apostles, and probably some expositions of the ancient prophets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in many others of Paul's Epistles. Then again he writes as follows concerning the new psalms which they composed: "So that they not only spend their time in meditation, but they also compose songs and hymns to God in every variety of metre and melody, though they divide them, of course, into measures of more than common solemnity." The same book contains an account of many other things, but it seemed necessary to select those facts which exhibit the characteristics of the ecclesiastical mode of life. But if any one thinks that what has been said is not peculiar to the Gospel polity, but that it can be applied to others besides those mentioned, let him be convinced by the subsequent words of the same author, in which, if he is unprejudiced, he will find undisputed testimony on this subject. Philo's words are as follows: "Having laid down temperance as a sort of foundation in the soul, they build upon it the other virtues. None of them may take food or drink before sunset, since they regard philosophizing as a work worthy of the light, but attention to the wants of the body as proper only in the darkness, and therefore assign the day to the former, but to the latter a small portion of the night. But some, in whom a great desire for knowledge dwells, forget to take food for three days; and some are so delighted and feast so luxuriously upon wisdom, which furnishes doctrines richly and without stint, that they abstain even twice as long as this, and are accustomed, after six days, scarcely to take necessary food." These statements of Philo we regard as referring clearly and indisputably to those of our communion. But if after these things any one still obstinately persists in denying the reference, let him renounce his incredulity and be convinced by yet more striking examples, which are to be found nowhere else than in the evangelical religion of the Christians. For they say that there were women also with those of whom we are speaking, and that the most of them were aged virgins who had preserved their chastity, not out of necessity, as some of the priestesses among the Greeks, but rather by their own choice, through zeal and a desire for wisdom. And that in their earnest desire to live with it as their companion they paid no attention to the pleasures of the body, seeking not mortal but immortal progeny, which only the pious soul is able to bear of itself. Then after a little he adds still more emphatically: "They expound the Sacred Scriptures figuratively by means of allegories. For the whole law seems to these men to resemble a living organism, of which the spoken words constitute the body, while the hidden sense stored up within the words constitutes the soul. This hidden meaning has first been particularly studied by this sect, which sees, revealed as in a mirror of names, the surpassing beauties of the thoughts." Why is it necessary to add to these things their meetings and the respective occupations of the men and of the women during those meetings, and the practices which are even to the present day habitually observed by us, especially such as we are accustomed to observe at the feast of the Saviour's passion, with fasting and night watching and study of the divine Word. These things the above-mentioned author has related in his own work, indicating a mode of life which has been preserved to the present time by us alone, recording especially the vigils kept in connection with the great festival, and the exercises performed during those vigils, and the hymns customarily recited by us, and describing how, while one sings regularly in time, the others listen in silence, and join in chanting only the close of the hymns; and how, on the days referred to they sleep on the ground on beds of straw, and to use his own words, "taste no wine at all, nor any flesh, but water is their only drink, and therelish with their bread is salt and hyssop." In addition to this Philo describes the order of dignities which ists among those who carry on the services of the church, mentioning the diaconate, and the office of bishop, which takes the precedence over all the others. But whosoever desires a more accurate knowledge of these matters may get it from the history already cited. But that Philo, when he wrote these things, had in view the first heralds of the Gospel and the customs handed down from the beginning by the apostles, is clear to every one."


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 Jeff Gibson's Mr. Doherty, or just Likely?



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

mountainman

It is reasonably certain, however that is not the problem.
The problem is the understanding of the implications of
this assessment.

The implications are that christianity is a fourth century
literature-technology based power structure incorported
at an empire-wide level with effect from the Council of
Nicaea.



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes

Roger Pearse

I don't feel any urge to go over this libel again -- indeed this thread seems like a troll to me.

Less than that, I think. If you read it closely, he said he would only recount the unedifying stuff where it showed that the church deserved the persecution it got.

As Lightfoot said long ago, that he tells us explicitly what he is doing shows that he is honest. Bear in mind that doing otherwise about living people in a tyranny was probably suicidal...

That work is an example of the genre of panegyric, tho.

Cameron and Hall in their recent edition of the Vita Constantini point out that ancient writers living under a tyranny waited until the guy was safely dead. Eusebius is not doing this, and so is walking in uncharted waters, and writing about people who (unlike himself) had the ear of the emperor.

For the benefit of the new reader, all these accusations are more or less fraudulent, usually manufactured for political or religious reasons (including anti-Hapsburg propaganda in the 1850's), and for the sole purpose of ignoring the testimony in his works.

I've gone through this libel here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

The integrity of Eusebius as a theological romancer is not in
question here whatsoever, however his integrity as an historian
is certainly suspect, and has not been favorably assessed by
scholarship in the last 200 years.

He was a mercanery literacist in the employ of Constantine,
and wrote theological romantic literature, and a false history
of the new and strange ROMAN not HELLENIC religion, when
it first appeared on the planet in the fourth century, and no
earlier.

The pinacle of his testimony was his (Constantine-sponsored)
fraudulent interpolation and perversion of Josephus, in the TF,
in order to provide Roger Pearce and other christians literary
evidence for the inference that christians existed before the
supreme imperial mafia thug Constantine, BASILICA MAN,
created his new and strange ROMAN not HELLENIC religion,
in the fourth century, and no earlier.



Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_007.htm

QUOTE for the DAY:
==============

"The wretched Eusebius will have it
that poems in hexameters
are to be found even among them,
and sets up a claim that the study
of logic exists among the Hebrews,
since he has heard among the Hellenes
the word they use for logic."

--- Emperor (360-363 CE) Flavius Claudius Julianus
"Against the Galileans" remains of the 3 books,
excerpted from Cyril of Alexandria,
Contra Julianum (1923)"

JoeWallack

JW:
I think we would all agree that Eusebius was an Advocate for Christianity and therefore Biased. By modern Historian standards Eusebuis was Biased and Stupid. Pointing out that Eusebius reflected the Historian Standards of his time is not a Defense of his Bias and Stupidity. It's a Conviction of it.

Roger, you're pulling a Holding and trying to change the Focus here from the bad scholarship of Eusebius to the bad scholarship of some of Eusebius' detractors. Homily doesn't play that game. This Thread is intended to discuss the Specifics of Eusebius' Bias and try to Measure it's Extent.

I know you posted a link to your site but can you pick out one of the 6 charges against Eusebius here and at least provide a summary/outline here of Defense against the charge? Should be easy for you since you think this Thread is a troll and these Types of charges are libel.



Joseph

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

mountainman

Joe, are you prepared to also discuss it's Implications.
Why would Eusebius, obviously under the sponsorship of Constantine,
have acted in such an irresponsible manner. Why do you think the TF
was created in Josephus. Why did Eusebius write a false history? Do
you have any comments on why he did these things? You need to go
this one further step, because it is important to try and understand
the exact reasons for his bias. What was he setting out to do?



Pete Brown

Doug Shaver

I can never trust anyone who thinks it prudent to assure me of his honesty.

JoeWallack

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."

10. To these epistles there was added the following account in the Syriac language. "After the ascension of Jesus, Judas, who was also called Thomas, sent to him Thaddeus, an apostle, one of the Seventy. When he was come he lodged with Tobias, the son of Tobias. When the report of him got abroad, it was told Abgarus that an apostle of Jesus was come, as he had written him.

11. Thaddeus began then in the power of God to heal every disease and infirmity, insomuch that all wondered. And when Abgarus heard of the great and wonderful things which he did and of the cures which he performed, he began to suspect that he was the one of whom Jesus had written him, saying, 'After I have been taken up I will send to you one of my disciples who will heal you.'

12. Therefore, summoning Tobias, with whom Thaddeus lodged, he said, I have heard that a certain man of power has come and is lodging in your house. Bring him to me. And Tobias coming to Thaddeus said to him, The ruler Abgarus summoned me and told me to bring you to him that you might heal him. And Thaddeus said, I will go, for I have been sent to him with power.

13. Tobias therefore arose early on the following day, and taking Thaddeus came to Abgarus. And when he came, the nobles were present and stood about Abgarus. And immediately upon his entrance a great vision appeared to Abgarus in the countenance of the apostle Thaddeus. When Abgarus saw it he prostrated himself before Thaddeus, while all those who stood about were astonished; for they did not see the vision, which appeared to Abgarus alone.

14. He then asked Thaddeus if he were in truth a disciple of Jesus the Son of God, who had said to him, 'I will send you one of my disciples, who shall heal you and give you life.' And Thaddeus said, Because you have mightily believed in him that sent me, therefore have I been sent unto you. And still further, if you believe in him, the petitions of your heart shall be granted you as you believe.

15. And Abgarus said to him, So much have I believed in him that I wished to take an army and destroy those Jews who crucified him, had I not been deterred from it by reason of the dominion of the Romans. And Thaddeus said, Our Lord has fulfilled the will of his Father, and having fulfilled it has been taken up to his Father. And Abgarus said to him, I too have believed in him and in his Father.

16. And Thaddeus said to him, Therefore I place my hand upon you in his name. And when he had done it, immediately Abgarus was cured of the disease and of the suffering which he had.

17. And Abgarus marvelled, that as he had heard concerning Jesus, so he had received in very deed through his disciple Thaddeus, who healed him without medicines and herbs, and not only him, but also Abdus the son of Abdus, who was afflicted with the gout; for he too came to him and fell at his feet, and having received a benediction by the imposition of his hands, he was healed. The same Thaddeus cured also many other inhabitants of the city, and did wonders and marvelous works, and preachedthe word of God.

18. And afterward Abgarus said, You, O Thaddeus, do these things with the power of God, and we marvel. But, in addition to these things, I pray you to inform me in regard to the coming of Jesus, how he was born; and in regard to his power, by what power he performed those deeds of which I have heard.

19. And Thaddeus said, Now indeed will I keep silence, since I have been sent to proclaim the word publicly. But tomorrow assemble for me all your citizens, and I will preach in their presence and sow among them the word of God, concerning the coming of Jesus, how he was born; and concerning his mission, for what purpose he was sent by the Father; and concerning the power of his works, and the mysteries which he proclaimed in the world, and by what power he did these things; and concerning his new preaching, and his abasement and humiliation, and how he humbled himself, and died and debased his divinity and was crucified, and descended into Hades, and burst the bars which from eternity had not been broken, and raised the dead; for he descended alone, but rose with many, and thus ascended to his Father.

20. Abgarus therefore commanded the citizens to assemble early in the morning to hear the preaching of Thaddeus, and afterward he ordered gold and silver to be given him. But he refused to take it, saying, If we have forsaken that which was our own, how shall we take that which is another's? These things were done in the three hundred and fortieth year."

I have inserted them here in their proper place, translated from the Syriac literally, and I hope to good purpose."


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?



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