Freethought & Rationalism Archive

08-27-2003, 12:27 PM

Well joedad, you might be a sceptic but you are a very gullable one. That Eusebius was a forger is a sceptic myth that has been thrashed out on these boards. And he was not the source for the edicts, he merely quotes them. And he doesn't quote one on crucifixion as far as I recall (nor did I say he did). I suppose you got the Eusebius was a forger from the same source that misled you on Augustine starting burning. Why not read some history instead of anti-Christian propaganda?

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto · 08-27-2003, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
Well joedad, you might be a sceptic but you are a very gullable one. That Eusebius was a forger is a sceptic myth that has been thrashed out on these boards. And he was not the source for the edicts, he merely quotes them. And he doesn't quote one on crucifixion as far as I recall (nor did I say he did). I suppose you got the Eusebius was a forger from the same source that misled you on Augustine starting burning. Why not read some history instead of anti-Christian propaganda?

Yours

Bede

Yes, Eusebius the Liar has been thrashed out on these boards, and you and Roger Pearse have failed to make a convincing case for Eusebius the poor misunderstood champion of truth.

08-27-2003, 01:06 PM

Toto, your memory deceives you. We found that Eusebius quoted Plato saying parables were OK for teaching. That was the end of the Eusebius is a liar case and it failed.

Sorry to have to remind you.

B

Toto · 08-27-2003, 02:52 PM

Hi Bede - who is this "we" you refer to (paleface?)

I think the thread you are talking about is here:

Josephus passage

I posted this:

As for Eusebius, considered by most historians an unreliable source, see Richard Carrier's assessment here.

Quote:

Eusebius is also infamous for saying that it was necessary to lie for the cause of Christianity. In his Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31, listing the ideas Plato supposedly got from Moses, he includes the idea:

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.

. . .

Regarding Eusebius' use of this and other passages in book 12, Edwin Hamilton Gifford says "In Books X-XII Eusebius argues that the Greeks had borrowed from the older theology and philosophy of the Hebrews, dwelling especially on the supposed dependence of Plato upon Moses." (Introduction, Preparation for the Gospel, 1903). So in a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing.

This summary by Richard Carrier was never refuted.

On page 3 of that thread, "Alexis Comnenus" (remember him?) says

Quote:

It seems that I made a mistake and accept what Mr Carrier says about the chapter headings forming part of the original text. This is highly unusual (I know of no other document where it is the case and an ancient table of contents is also exceptional) but I am sure Mr Carrier has checked.

The entire thread says everything, so I will not repeat it. Eusebius did much more than approve of parables - he endorsed outright fiction.

08-27-2003, 03:31 PM

Wrong again Toto. As Alexis (

) and others pointed out, Carrier mistranslated falsehood for parable as is evidenced by the standard translations of Plato. Hence he was wrong to cite this as evidence of Eusebius saying lying was OK. Eusebius did not say this and the idea he was a great forger is an anti-Christian myth that really should be put to bed now so as not to confuse folk like joedad.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto · 08-27-2003, 03:47 PM

Wrong yet again, Alexis, er Bede - "parable" was Pearse's weasel word for what is usually translated as "fiction."

Bill Snedden · 08-27-2003, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
joedad,

On magic, you have misunderstood me. Very many Christians do use magic and the amulet I mentioned was certainly manufactured and utilised by them. However, this does not make that magic either licit or part of religious observance. The church turned a blind eye to a good deal of stuff but the lines were always clear - if you thought that the important thing was the ritual/amulet itself rather than God's grace, then you were off piste.

Hehehe...reminds me of my Catholic school days.

We used to receive sacramentals (religious objects) quite regularly as part of our catechism and religious instruction. One day it would be Miraculous Medals, another day Green or Brown Scapulars. Anyway, the nuns thought it was important for us to understand the proper use of such objects and one day we had a filmstrip (always popular in Catholic school) to assist in the lesson.

I'll never forget when, in the filmstrip, a young lad was driving pell mell down the highway and one of his friends objects that he's driving too fast. The driver rejoins, "Don't worry, my St. Christopher medal will protect us!"

Needless to say, that was an improper use of the sacramental, as Sister felt obliged to inform us after we stopped laughing.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

08-27-2003, 04:15 PM

Toto<edit>. Eusebius is refering to the Bible. He is a Christian and it is inconcievable that he would consider the Bible contained lies or falsehoods therefore he cannot mean lie or falsehood in this context.

End of discussion <edit>.

B

Toto · 08-27-2003, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
Toto<edit>. Eusebius is refering to the Bible. He is a Christian and it is inconcievable that he would consider the Bible contained lies or falsehoods therefore he cannot mean lie or falsehood in this context.

End of discussion<edit>.

B

You have stooped to the level of personal abuse and name calling. And you misspelled "inconceivable". I win.

I invite the readers of this thread to read the prior thread and decide. There are in fact Christians who are not fundamentalists, who think that the Bible contains fiction ("falsehoods") in the service of a higher good.

08-29-2003, 02:48 AM

Toto,

You can't claim victory in an argument you've lost.

Neither can you claim that Eusebius thinks the bible contains fictions mean that he is a forger and liar. That is how this started with joedad resurrecting this legend. There is no evidence that Eusebius was a forger or liar and you should now admit this. While it was impolite to use nasty words about you, you are bloody infuriating at times with your refusal to admit defeat when the argument has completely gone against you.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

08-27-2003, 03:31 PM	#25
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Wrong again Toto. As Alexis () and others pointed out, Carrier mistranslated falsehood for parable as is evidenced by the standard translations of Plato. Hence he was wrong to cite this as evidence of Eusebius saying lying was OK. Eusebius did not say this and the idea he was a great forger is an anti-Christian myth that really should be put to bed now so as not to confuse folk like joedad. Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-27-2003, 12:27 PM	#21
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Well joedad, you might be a sceptic but you are a very gullable one. That Eusebius was a forger is a sceptic myth that has been thrashed out on these boards. And he was not the source for the edicts, he merely quotes them. And he doesn't quote one on crucifixion as far as I recall (nor did I say he did). I suppose you got the Eusebius was a forger from the same source that misled you on Augustine starting burning. Why not read some history instead of anti-Christian propaganda? Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

08-27-2003, 01:06 PM	#23
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Toto, your memory deceives you. We found that Eusebius quoted Plato saying parables were OK for teaching. That was the end of the Eusebius is a liar case and it failed. Sorry to have to remind you. B

08-27-2003, 03:47 PM	#26
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Wrong yet again, Alexis, er Bede - "parable" was Pearse's weasel word for what is usually translated as "fiction."

08-27-2003, 04:15 PM	#28
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Toto<edit>. Eusebius is refering to the Bible. He is a Christian and it is inconcievable that he would consider the Bible contained lies or falsehoods therefore he cannot mean lie or falsehood in this context. End of discussion <edit>. B

08-29-2003, 02:48 AM	#30
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Toto, You can't claim victory in an argument you've lost. Neither can you claim that Eusebius thinks the bible contains fictions mean that he is a forger and liar. That is how this started with joedad resurrecting this legend. There is no evidence that Eusebius was a forger or liar and you should now admit this. While it was impolite to use nasty words about you, you are bloody infuriating at times with your refusal to admit defeat when the argument has completely gone against you. Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.