We now return you to your regularly scheduled polemics:
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)
http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/ca ... t2819.html
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)
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.textexcavation.com/marcanend ... l#eusebius
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?)
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/euseb ... tm#rebound
"Eusebius HE Book VIII, chapter 2.
Here is the Ante-Nicene Fathers text, from https://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
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."
Ouch! That's gotta hurt (Eusebius' credibility). But as they say, We always hurt the most the ones we love the most.
6) And a recent update inspired by Something Gibson:
Is Eusbius' account of Philo phile of it? Or, when E's Philo was in Rome was he just doing as Romans does?
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."
Note - This a common lie of religions, that famous people of other/competing religions were major witnesses to their religion, extreme either way, arch villain or supporter/sympathizer. In this unholy list we already have Eusebius claiming that Josephus and Philo, perhaps the two most famous Jews of the first century, were both major witnesses and sympathizers to Christianity.
7) And 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]
"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 Ananias the swift courier."
8) An update inspired by my cousin Vinnie. Eusebius scours Papias' voluminous 5 volumes for evidence that Mark wrote "Mark" and preserves for us evidence that Mark did not write "Mark" as evidence that Mark wrote "Mark".
How Ironic is that? And if you are asking what else Papias may have written that Eusebius choose not to preserve, well, God knows.
"Eusebius HE Book III, chapter 39.
14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.
15. "This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.
We have and Eusebius had the following reasons not to think this:
- 1) There are significant contradictions between GMark and the subsequent Gospels.
2) GMark is an entirely connected narrative.
3) GMark has editorial comments.
4) GMark has a primary theme of discrediting Peter.
"Remember Jerry, it's not a Lie if you really believe it's true." - George Costanza
Is Palestinian Terrorism Good For Israel?