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. I believe this with a perfect Faith as Eusebius was one of the most important Church Fathers of all time for a faith based religion (redundant) whose primary Creedence is to promote faith in Jesus (with Clearwater). Just looking at Eusebius' writings in General is enough to convince this objective and honest writer that it's Likely that Eusebius was willing to Lie in Order to promote Faith in Jesus. Fer instance, when Christians suffer, according to Eusebius, it's normally not because they are Evil but because they are Righteous, and have been chosen for this purpose to be a pious martyr as an example (see Yuri's related thread). On the other hand of God, when Jews suffer, according to Eusebius, it's normally not because they are Righteous but because they are Evil, and have been Chosen for this purpose to be a wicked Martyr as an example of what happens when you reject Jesus.

Therefore, I don't need any Specific Confessions in Eusebius' writings in Order to Convict him of Sin (of Lying for Jesus). I also would not expect Eusebius to Confess in his writings that he was a Liar for Jesus if he was a Liar for Jesus. I also would not expect the Subsequent Church to leave clear evidence in Eusebius' writings that Eusebius was a Liar for Jesus. We've already seen that this Church was Perfectly Willing to Significantly Add to the Ending of the Original Gospel:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=125251

So if they were willing to change the original Gospel it's easy to Believe that they would also be Willing to change/not preserve what Eusebius Originally wrote. I will now introduce a New Rule of Bible scholarship known as "The Wallack Treatment":

Subtle peaces of ancient literature receive a Premium as to weight because the subtlety makes it more Likely to have survived the Editing Filter of a Biased Institution.

For those of you, unlike me, who are still undecided about Eusebius based on the above, and require more information (like evidence) let's consider some 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."


JW:
The key Statements of Eusebius:

"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"

So according to Eusebius the accurate copies of "Mark" as well as most copies of "Mark" have the Short Ending.

Eusebius is the first Patristic evidence of Identifying the Ending of "Mark" as an Issue. Eusebius gives clear and explicit testimony that the Short Ending was likely Original. This evidence is strengthened by the observation that in General Eusebius is considered to be an expert on Manuscripts. On the other hand the Context of Eusebius' evidence here is in response to a question from a single Letter and not from a General Writing for the Church."


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

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.

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

Is it certain that Eusebius was a Truth challenged Advocate for Jesus or just Likely?



Joseph

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

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

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

andrewcriddle

All this seems to imply is that Eusebius left out things which he thought unedifying. (Which is certainly true. His account of Constantine is selective in Constantine's favour for example.)

It certainly doesn't imply positive falsehood. And it is probably mainly relevant to how Eusebius dealt with relatively recent events.

Andrew Criddle

John A. Broussard

My impression of Eusebius, for what that's worth, is that he was no better and no worse than most of the Christian writers of that period.

I also seem to recall that he ended up being a heretic. Not that that means much, since the period was one of heresies all over the place with everyone denouncing everyone esle--something like what happens in this forum.

It took a few years for Christians to decide that they were Christians, and for the powers in charge to enforce the beliefs. So Eusebius probably got the short end of the stick with his orthodox writings preserved, but with most of his unorthodox ones flushed down the Byzantine equivalent of sewers.

Clivedurdle

Just checking Wikipedia, I would say he probably constructed the versions of xianity we have now!

People go on about Constantine, maybe he was more important! He did write the Nicene Creed!

It is possibly all his fault!

steph s.

my favourite piece of shameless lying by eusebius is his story about the fan mail sent by king abgar to jesus, and jesus' reply - 'i'm sorry, i'm busy right now, but i value your custom and someone will be with you as soon as possible'. :thumbs:

"Written evidence of these things is available, taken from the Record Office at Edessa... the most satisfactory course is to listen to the actual letters, which I have extracted from the archives and translated word for word from the Syriac as follows.."

(History of the Church, 1.13)

andrewcriddle

Eusebius' claim to base his account on a Syriac source (One similar to the 'Doctrine of Addai') is presumably true. His claim that his Syriac source is an official document from the Record Office at Edessa is much much more dubious.

Andrew Criddle

Loomis

Gosh, what a wacky character this Eusebius must have been. I wonder if he looked like Robert Culp.

Why on Earth would he think that Deuteronomy 32:8-9 describes a scene where the god in verse 8 is dividing up humanity; and then in verse 9 hands off the nation of Jacob to one of his sons. :rolling:

Please, please, please, Joe; tell us your thoughts on this compelling issue. Inquiring minds want to know.

:notworthy:

John A. Broussard

Let me add an anecdote. From what I recall, Constantine was pretty much convinced that baptism would wipe out all of his sins. Pragmatist that he was, he decided to wait until the very last moment to be baptized, which allowed him to carry on with his sinful ways right up to the that last gasp.

So he kept a baptizer in the next room, at the ready, and his wish was carried out by--guess who--Eusebius.

Now, since Eusebius turned out to be a heretic, maybe the baptism didn't take. From what I've read about Constantine's personal and private life, let us hope that that was indeed the case.

steph s.

and his laboured point that he travelled there to look at them himself. it must've been a long trip, unless he used a photocopy request form. top marks for embellishment, eusie.

Bede

I think you'll find you are getting your Eusebiuses mixed up. The one who baptised Constantine was an Arian but not the same as the historian (who ended up reasonably orthodox).

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason