Eusebius the Liar? - Pious Fraud Endorsed to Advance Christianity

i would like to know what bearing any of this has on the bibleLets say Eusebius deliberately lied in some of his own writings...how does that affect the writings of the Apostles?

You make it sound as if this discredits the cannon somehow.
Did any of his own writings make it into the cannon? Just becasue Euseubius went against his own beliefs...such as the trinity which years earlier he wrote strongly against... doesnt mean that the history he wrote was deliberately false. well if you consider that he was opposed to the trinity doctrine, you would be naive to conclude that he held a strong influence over the church at all. The trinity doctrine went ahead even though he had stated that Jesus and God could not be the same. It would appear that Eusebius was more influenced by other leading bishops for he put his name to the Nicean creed even though he had previous written against such a notion.btw, i dont support the early church fathers in the slightest, but i recognize that their writings are important to understanding how christianity went so wrong. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

I dont see it that way.He had not hand in the actual writing of the NT, so credible or not, he was not involved in it. He did not write anything claiming inspiration, so his writings are much like any other historical writing...information presented from his own point of view.... not immune to errors, deliberate or otherwise. i think most historians fall into that category, dont they? Has there ever been a 100% accurate historian? Most historians get their information from existing souces, so if the existing source is slighly wrong, then so will be the historian relaying the information.Its like the internet today. People (and i have fallen into this trap myself) search for information, they find it at one site and copy it over to another. The same errors get relayed over and over again. i agree on that point. He went against his own writings...obviously he was influenced by those in authority and he probably didnt want to loose his position as bishop.

i believe you've gone off topic.

well it doesnt really work like that. Evidence of canonicity was not dependent upon men who lived 300 years after the fact.The RCC may claim responsibility for the canon but the opposite is true, because the canon, including the list of books making up the NT was settled long before they made their official list.The testimony of later noninspired catalogers is valuable only as an acknowledgment of the Bible canon, which God’s spirit had authorized. the point about the trinity was that he was not all that influencial at all. He wrote 'against' the trinity teaching, yet he was influenced by the church to write in favor of it. So how influencial was he really? Certainly not when it came to teaching and doctrine.All he really did was write an account of the history of the church as it was in his day. Perhaps he was asked to do this or perhaps he took the initiative himself....it certainly doesnt prove that he held influence over the church. yeah i agreebut this has no bearing on the NT writings that had existed for 3 centuries before he lived thats because there are a number of 4th century catalogs of the NT that date prior to the council who approved the canon and these agree almost exactly with our present canon.the RCC church hold no authority over what already existed among the christian congregations...they may have assumed responsibility for it, but the fact is that it had been in existence prior to their formation.