Was Eusebius A Truth Challenged Advocate For Jesus? - The Argument Resurrected

[JoeWallack]

JW:
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:

FRDB Archives

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."


Joseph

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

Is Palestinian Terrorism Good For Israel?

[GakuseiDon]

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.

Okay; however you then quote Eusebius writing the following:

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."

I'm not trying to be clever, but the implication is that Eusebius, by quoting Plato, was honestly confessing to something. What do you think he meant, and why do you think he wrote that?

I'll also note that Roger Pearse looked into these issues about Eusebius here: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/euseb ... e_liar.htm. Pearse suggested that "fiction" might be a better translation than "falsehood", which fits the idea about using allegories and stories to point to a greater truth.

I wonder if Plato, Origen, Eusebius and many other early writers like Plutarch and the pagan poets have used this to 'walk back' some of the more ridiculous stories in pagan myths and both the Old and New Testaments: "oh, those old stories are not true literally, but they are true at some deeper metaphysical level. As long as there is a beneficial result of those stories, all is good." I don't see it necessarily casting a cloud over his writings concerning more mundane matters.

[JoeWallack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irU_RWDLwBU

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.

Okay; however you then quote Eusebius writing the following:

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."

I'm not trying to be clever, but the implication is that Eusebius, by quoting Plato, was honestly confessing to something. What do you think he meant, and why do you think he wrote that?

I'll also note that Roger Pearse looked into these issues about Eusebius here: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/euseb ... e_liar.htm. Pearse suggested that "fiction" might be a better translation than "falsehood", which fits the idea about using allegories and stories to point to a greater truth.

I wonder if Plato, Origen, Eusebius and many other early writers like Plutarch and the pagan poets have used this to 'walk back' some of the more ridiculous stories in pagan myths and both the Old and New Testaments: "oh, those old stories are not true literally, but they are true at some deeper metaphysical level. As long as there is a beneficial result of those stories, all is good." I don't see it necessarily casting a cloud over his writings concerning more mundane matters.

JW:
Well God Damn GD, you are asking the right person. Just like they say cops have the best dope, so too Counter-Missionaries have the best Apologies. Here, I don't see any good defense for Eusebius. Everything indicates an end justifies the means attitude (the opposite of The Torah's "Justice, justice shall thout follow"). If Eusebias was primarily arguing that it's okay to use allegory/figurative, it's something no one would object to, hence no argument would be needed. All related evidence supports the understanding that Eusebs is justifying lying here:

• 1) The likely meaning of what he wrote.
  
  2) The likely meaning of what Plato wrote that Eusebius referred to.
  
  3) The forthcoming lengthy list here of Eusebius being Truth-challenged.
  
  4) The general observation that Church Fathers though it okay to Lie for Jesus.
  
  5) Authority convicted of lying = Richard Carrier (credibility high).
  
  6) Lack of authority defending = Pearse (Apologist, credibility low). Note that for most of history it would have been very bad for your health to publicly accuse Eusebius of lying. It wasn't until relatively modern times that Gibbons felt free to point out the obvious. Also note that the main Internet Christian writers have generally not defended Eusebius, leaving it to Pearse.

I'm not especially interested in Pearse's apology. It's just standard Apologetics. Change (here, raise) the standard of evidence for lying so that if there is one related example that is less than lying, such as invoking allegory/figurative, posture that you can not conclude lying is likely. Homily don't play that game. You can try to import Pearse's argument here if you like. Don't cost nothing. But I'm not going to do that for you. I've said many times to the Newbies here that if you merely take the opposite side of Pearse's positions you will immediately become one of the better posters here.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

[GakuseiDon]

So far your example of Eusebius being a big liar is him saying that the Old Testament contains many falsehoods. I'll look forward to your further examples.

Pearse's excellent and informative website has a link to Lightfoot's comments about the reliability of Eusebius:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/euseb ... htfoot.htm

Under the second head the most vital question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with his materials or not ? The sarcasm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is well known...

Moreover, Eusebius is generally careful not only to collect the best evidence accessible, but also to distinguish between different kinds of evidence...

The general sincerity and good faith of the historian seem therefore to be assured. But his intellectual qualifications for his task were in many respects defective. His credulity indeed has frequently been much exaggerated. “Undoubtedly he relates many incidents which may seem to us incredible, but, when he does so, he gives the evidence on which they are recommended to him. At one time it is the express testimony of some well-known writer, at another a general belief, at another an old tradition, at another his own observation (v. 7, vi. 9, vii. 17, 18)”...

A far more serious drawback to his value as a historian is the loose and uncritical spirit in which he sometimes deals with his materials. This shews itself in diverse ways. (a) He is not always to be trusted in his discrimination of genuine and spurious documents...

So Eusebius sounds, at best, too uncritical towards his sources. At worst? We shall see from your forthcoming lengthy list!

[GakuseiDon]

If Eusebias was primarily arguing that it's okay to use allegory/figurative, it's something no one would object to, hence no argument would be needed.

It'd depend on what he is arguing and why, wouldn't it? Pearse's website has Eusebius of Caesarea's Praeparatio Evangelica in full. Book 12 can be found here: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/euseb ... book12.htm

You can see that Eusebius is heavily using Plato to justify what can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures as well as Christianity as a whole. The book starts with:

OUR twelfth Book of the Preparation for the Gospel will now from this point supply what was lacking in the preceding Book in proof of Plato's accordance with the Hebrew Oracles, like the harmony of a well-tuned lyre. We shall begin with a defence of our Faith, that is reviled among the multitude.

Eusebius goes on to generally give long quotes from Plato, followed by his own comment that is usually on one or two lines, explaining the 'harmony' with Hebrew Scriptures or Christianity generally. Below I've reproduced Chapter 31 (containing the key quote) followed by Chapters 32 and 33. I've highlighted Eusebius's comment after his Plato quotes:

CHAPTER XXXI

[PLATO] 100 'But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?

'Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.'

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.

CHAPTER XXXII

[PLATO] 101 'ARE we then agreed as to our former statements?

'About what?

'That every one, man and boy, free and slave, male and female, and the whole city, should never cease from reciting to themselves these charms which we have just described, changed from time to time in some way or other, and presenting every kind of variation, so that the singers may have an insatiable desire for the hymns, and pleasure in them.

'How could there be any doubt that this practice ought to be adopted?'

In the fifth Book also of the Republic he writes to the like effect, saying as follows:

[PLATO] 102 'Do you then know any human occupation, in which the male sex is not superior in all these respects to the female? Or need we waste time by mentioning the art of weaving, and the making of pancakes and preserves, in which the female sex is thought forsooth to be great, and in which their utter inferiority is most ridiculous?

'You say with truth, said he, that the one sex is far surpassed by the other, I might almost say, in everything. Many women, no doubt, are better than many men in many points, but the general truth is as you say.

'No occupation then, my friend, of those who manage the affairs of the state belongs to a woman as woman nor to a man as man; but the natural qualities are found here and there in both sexes alike, and while woman has by nature a share in all pursuits, and man in all, yet woman is in all weaker than man.

'Yes, certainly.

'Are we then to assign all employments to men, and none to women?

'How can we?

'In fact, we shall say, I suppose, that among women also one has a natural gift of healing and another has not, and one is musical and another unmusical?

'Certainly.

'Also one fit for gymnastics and for war, and another unwarlike and with no taste for gymnastics?

'So I suppose.

'Again, one woman is a philosopher, another hates philosophy? And one is high-spirited, another spiritless?

'This too is true.

'So there is one woman fit for a guardian, and another unfit.

Or was not such the nature which we selected as that of men who were fit for guardians?

'Yes, it was such.

'Both woman and man therefore have the same natural fitness for guardianship of the state, except in so far as one is weaker and another stronger.

'So it appears.

'We must then select women also who are of this character to live with men of the same character, and to share in their guardianship, since they are competent, and akin to them in nature.'

With good reason then our Word also admits to its divine instruction and philosophy every class not only of men but also of women, and not only of free men and slaves, but also of Barbarians and Greeks.

CHAPTER XXXIII

[PLATO] 103 'LET us look at it then in this way. Now suppose some one were to praise the breeding of goats, and the animal itself as a fine property; and some one else, having seen goats feeding without a goatherd in cultivated ground and doing mischief, should find fault with them, and on seeing any kind of cattle without a keeper or with bad keepers, should in this case blame them, do we think that such a man's censure would convey any just blame whatever?

'How should it? '

Also after a few sentences:

'And what would you say of one who praises or blames any kind of community, which ought naturally to have a ruler, and which with his aid is useful, whereas the critic had never seen it in its rightful association with a ruler, but always without rule, or with bad rulers? Do we suppose that observers such as these could pronounce any useful censure or praise on communities of this kind?

'How could they?'

If then among us also it should appear that some without any president and ruler, or with evil rulers, were doing evil, one ought not to find fault with our whole school, but rather to admire our religious constitution from the conduct of those who follow it rightly.

Of course Eusebius may still be a big liar, and I do look forward to your examples, but I just don't see a strong case to be made coming from the key quote. It's undoubtedly an apologetic defence of what is in the Old Testament, but it seems to be coming from a place of honesty rather than dishonesty.

[JoeWallack]

JW:

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."


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

Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Question

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."



Joseph

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

Is Palestinian Terrorism Good For Israel?

[JoeWallack]

If Eusebias was primarily arguing that it's okay to use allegory/figurative, it's something no one would object to, hence no argument would be needed.

It'd depend on what he is arguing and why, wouldn't it? Pearse's website has Eusebius of Caesarea's Praeparatio Evangelica in full. Book 12 can be found here: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/euseb ... book12.htm

You can see that Eusebius is heavily using Plato to justify what can be found in the Hebrew Scriptures as well as Christianity as a whole. The book starts with:

OUR twelfth Book of the Preparation for the Gospel will now from this point supply what was lacking in the preceding Book in proof of Plato's accordance with the Hebrew Oracles, like the harmony of a well-tuned lyre. We shall begin with a defence of our Faith, that is reviled among the multitude.

Eusebius goes on to generally give long quotes from Plato, followed by his own comment that is usually on one or two lines, explaining the 'harmony' with Hebrew Scriptures or Christianity generally. Below I've reproduced Chapter 31 (containing the key quote) followed by Chapters 32 and 33. I've highlighted Eusebius's comment after his Plato quotes:

[Examples]...

Of course Eusebius may still be a big liar, and I do look forward to your examples, but I just don't see a strong case to be made coming from the key quote. It's undoubtedly an apologetic defence of what is in the Old Testament, but it seems to be coming from a place of honesty rather than dishonesty.

JW:
You should follow the advice of Carrier here. When arguing, instead of using a Strawman for your opponent's argument, use an Ironman (the best argument of your opponent). Eusebius is trying to support the General statement with the examples and not Verse-vices. So you need to deal primarily with the general statement. Which starts with the Chapter Heading:

"That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment"

Pearse confesses that this heading is in most of the early Manuscripts. It's generally thought unclear if Eusebius wrote the chapter headings, someone else did based on Eusebius' related notes or a subsequent copyist/editor did without seeing anything but the text. At a minimum, it's evidence that the earliest commentators on what Eusebius wrote thought he was arguing that it was okay to lie. Pearse also confesses that the primary meaning of the offending Greek word is "lie".

As far as substituting "fiction" for "falsehood" you would have to look at the underlying Greek to see if that would even work grammatically. Besides "lying" being the most common meaning the other big problem for an Apology is the entire theme of the offending paragraph is about deception. Substitute "fiction" for "lying" just gives a meaning of deceiving people by having them think fiction is not fiction. There's a word for that. Peter, you still have that razor?


Joseph

"From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but also of humankind.[45]" - Eusebius, Gibbon or Godfrey?

[JoeWallack]

JW:

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."


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

Josephus and Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Question

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 here (at least recently):

Is it okay to expand your HorLizons and Lie for the entire Trinity? (Matthew 28:19)

28

19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: (ASV)

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/ca ... t2819.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.


Joseph

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

Is Palestinian Terrorism Good For Israel?

[GakuseiDon]

Eusebius is trying to support the General statement with the examples and not Verse-vices. So you need to deal primarily with the general statement.

I'm dealing with the whole passage, in context with what Eusebius is doing throughout the whole book, rather than just analysing the first line. Eusebius tells us what he is doing at the start of that book. I gave the quote above, but I'll repeat it here:

OUR twelfth Book of the Preparation for the Gospel will now from this point supply what was lacking in the preceding Book in proof of Plato's accordance with the Hebrew Oracles, like the harmony of a well-tuned lyre. We shall begin with a defence of our Faith, that is reviled among the multitude.

Eusebius is giving "a defence of [his] Faith", by using quotes from Plato. "Plato tells us" was in some ways an ancient equivalent to the modern "science tells us", which is used to support everything from miracle hair-growth formula, to what science actually tells us. You won't be surprised to learn that modern religious scholars have determined that ancient holy books like the Bible and the Quran are not only in harmony with Science, they pre-date and predict Science!

Similarly, early Christian apologists claimed that the Bible was in harmony with ancient Greek philosophical beliefs, and in fact the Greeks got their best ideas from the Hebrew Scriptures. That book of Eusebius's is a great example. You can see him give quotes from Plato, and then use each of them to validate a particular Christian belief. I gave three examples from that book above. But I'd recommend people to have a read through the whole book (link to Pearse's website that contains Eusebius's writings above), to see what Eusebius is doing.

In this case, the Christian belief to which he is giving a defence is:

"Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction."

I can see nothing other than Eusebius validating the use of allegory in the Bible. That Christians claimed that the Bible contains allegorical truths as well as literal truths can be found in earlier writers like Origen, who wrote: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm

But, that our meaning may be ascertained by the facts themselves, let us examine the passages of Scripture. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars— the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil?...

The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically...

Seriously: what exactly do you think Eusebius means by "Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction"? Is he lying? If so, what is he lying about?

"That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment"

Yes, that statement, taken by itself and removed from context, could be taken to mean that Eusebius thought Plato believed that it is okay to tell falsehoods in the service of providing a greater good, and that he subsequently believed he had freedom to lie in his books in the service of Christianity. But surely you have to admit that reading is divorced from the comment Eusebius gives at the end? Why does Eusebius end up with his comment about the Hebrew Scriptures? If you look at the book, you can see it is part of a pattern: give a quote from Plato, and show how it validates some part of Christian belief. What relationship, if any, do you see between the first statement (chapter heading) and Eusebius's concluding statement?

[JoeWallack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s7_WbiR79E

Eusebius is trying to support the General statement with the examples and not Verse-vices. So you need to deal primarily with the general statement.

I'm dealing with the whole passage, in context with what Eusebius is doing throughout the whole book, rather than just analysing the first line. Eusebius tells us what he is doing at the start of that book. I gave the quote above, but I'll repeat it here:

OUR twelfth Book of the Preparation for the Gospel will now from this point supply what was lacking in the preceding Book in proof of Plato's accordance with the Hebrew Oracles, like the harmony of a well-tuned lyre. We shall begin with a defence of our Faith, that is reviled among the multitude.

Eusebius is giving "a defence of [his] Faith", by using quotes from Plato. "Plato tells us" was in some ways an ancient equivalent to the modern "science tells us", which is used to support everything from miracle hair-growth formula, to what science actually tells us. You won't be surprised to learn that modern religious scholars have determined that ancient holy books like the Bible and the Quran are not only in harmony with Science, they pre-date and predict Science!

Similarly, early Christian apologists claimed that the Bible was in harmony with ancient Greek philosophical beliefs, and in fact the Greeks got their best ideas from the Hebrew Scriptures. That book of Eusebius's is a great example. You can see him give quotes from Plato, and then use each of them to validate a particular Christian belief. I gave three examples from that book above. But I'd recommend people to have a read through the whole book (link to Pearse's website that contains Eusebius's writings above), to see what Eusebius is doing.

In this case, the Christian belief to which he is giving a defence is:

"Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction."

I can see nothing other than Eusebius validating the use of allegory in the Bible. That Christians claimed that the Bible contains allegorical truths as well as literal truths can be found in earlier writers like Origen, who wrote: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm

But, that our meaning may be ascertained by the facts themselves, let us examine the passages of Scripture. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars— the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil?...

The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically...

Seriously: what exactly do you think Eusebius means by "Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction"? Is he lying? If so, what is he lying about?

"That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment"

Yes, that statement, taken by itself and removed from context, could be taken to mean that Eusebius thought Plato believed that it is okay to tell falsehoods in the service of providing a greater good, and that he subsequently believed he had freedom to lie in his books in the service of Christianity. But surely you have to admit that reading is divorced from the comment Eusebius gives at the end? Why does Eusebius end up with his comment about the Hebrew Scriptures? If you look at the book, you can see it is part of a pattern: give a quote from Plato, and show how it validates some part of Christian belief. What relationship, if any, do you see between the first statement (chapter heading) and Eusebius's concluding statement?

JW:
Again, here is the Chapter heading:

"That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment"

The straight forward meaning is that it's okay to lie (with whatever qualifications the context indicates).

The first sentence of the Chapter gives the conclusion of the Chapter (quite appropo for Eusebius):

"But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?"

Everything here is consistent with deception in the context of the end justifies the means:

• 1) Multiple use of the word lying.
  
  2) It's for the good of the target.
  
  3) If it's the best way to convince then use it.
  
  4) If it makes the target do good then it's justified.

Let's get in some overall qualifications before getting back to the context using allegory/figurative deceptively. Note that the context of this Thread is Lying for Jesus. Note that the context of Example 1 is Lying for Jesus. So there is already significant qualification to the claim of Eusebius saying it's okay to lie. It's not a general claim of his and he's not implying it's also okay to lie for personal gain or harm of another.

The start of Book 12 is not helping you:

OUR twelfth Book of the Preparation for the Gospel will now from this point supply what was lacking in the preceding Book in proof of Plato's accordance with the Hebrew Oracles, like the harmony of a well-tuned lyre. We shall begin with a defence of our Faith, that is reviled among the multitude.

[PLATO] 1 'It would be another question therefore whether one is right or wrong in finding fault with the constitutions of Lacedaemon and Crete: perhaps, however, I should be better able than either of you to tell what most people say of them. For if your laws are even moderately well framed, one of the best of them must be a law allowing none of the young to inquire what is right or wrong in them, but bidding all with one Yoice and one mouth to agree that everything is well settled by the appointment of the gods; and if any one says otherwise, they must not endure to listen to him at all. But if an old man observes any fault in your laws, he may discuss such subjects with a ruler and one of his own age, no young man being present.'

'What you enjoin, Stranger, is perfectly right.'

With good reason then the Hebrew Scriptures at an earlier time require faith before either the understanding or examination of the sacred writings, where it says, 'If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not understand,' 2 and again, 'I believed, and therefore have I spoken.' 3

For which cause also among us those who are newly admitted and in an immature condition, as if infants in soul, have the reading of the sacred Scriptures imparted to them in a very simple way, with the injunction that they must believe what is brought forward as words of God. But those who are in a more advanced condition, and as it were grown grey in mind, are permitted to dive into the deeps, and test the meaning of the words: and these the Hebrews were wont to name 'Deuterotists,' as being interpreters and expounders of the meaning of the Scriptures.

Joseph

Is Palestinian Terrorism Good For Israel?