Time to resurrect (I tell you the Truth, I never believed in any type of resurrection until I saw John (Travolta) in Pulp Fiction) ye olde Thread from Ye Old FRDB Forum. The Young Wolf's link here to FRDB appears to go now to wherever the hell Jesus has been for the last two thousand years. The New Deal now has a link to the FRDB archives for all you Truth-speakers here:
I previously inventoried a list of Eusebius' whatever the opposite of accomplishments is in the historical truth category. Modern discoveries and improved Bible scholarship continue to add to the list. So, for your ecclesiasstical edificial entertainment, I hereby restart The List.
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.
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
The Formation of the New Testament Canon (2000)
"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."
"Remember Jerry, it's not a Lie if you really believe it's true." - George Costanza
Is Palestinian Terrorism Good For Israel?