Eusebius the Liar? - Pious Fraud Endorsed to Advance Christianity

quote:

---

Well, I believe it speaks to the reliability of the scriptures. I will admit that that is an opinion but I believe it to be a sound opinion.

---

I think this is a misunderstanding of the issue. Calvin was a great defender of the reliability of Scripture, yet he argued that God did not have "passions". Calvin (and other early Reformers) not see a conflict between this and the reliability of Scripture.

I think this is a misunderstanding of what I said. Good for Calvin if he does not believe that the Bible mischaracterizing God doesn't speak to its reliability. I do think it speaks to its reliability, Calvin has his opinion and I have mine.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

Well obviously some do or have in the past. Eusebius himself is an example of that. Of course I wasn't talking about early reformers. I specifically said "I can think of no practicing Christian." I was only giving personal anecdote. Of course I can imagine that there are some somewhere who have the belief that God doesn't really get angry and that the OT is mostly allegory. If you would like to be pedantic, then I guess you win.

---

You are missing the point. Christians leaders of the past and many Christians today believe that the Scripture is reliable and also "have the belief that God doesn't really get angry." This view has NOT been abandoned, and your attempts to dismiss it are incorrect.

quote:

---

I think this is a misunderstanding of what I said. Good for Calvin if he does not believe that the Bible mischaracterizing God doesn't speak to its reliability. I do think it speaks to its reliability, Calvin has his opinion and I have mine.

---

You are welcome to your own opinion, of course.Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't see how anthropomorphisms have any bearing at all on the reliability of Scripture. They certainly do not conflict with Reformed and Evangelical doctrines of authority, reliability, or inerrancy of Scripture. This can be objectively verified by studying the formulations of these doctrines.

I never said they were abandoned. You continue to mischaracterize my argument. I believe it is defensable to say that there is at least a large contingent, if not a majority, of Christians would have a problem with the anger and jealousy of God not being literal.I am not trying to be too nit-picky here but when you claim that I am incorrectly dismissing something based on an assumption I have not made, I am somewhat uncomfortable letting that just slide.To be even more clear, I am very specifically not making an argument from (un)popularity (that the belief of Eusebius is wrong because nobody believes that God doesn't experience anger). I am simply stating that this idea is incompatable with a variety of modern Christian theologies that are popular. These are the same Christians who may rush to Eusebius' defense with respect to the reliability of his early church history and the formation of the canon. That there is a potential conflict here is significant.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

I am simply stating that this idea is incompatable with a variety of modern Christian theologies that are popular.

---

And I am stressing that the idea IS fully compatible with mainstream Evangelical understandings of the reliability of Scripture.

I believe that if God wasn't actually angry when he went around smiting people after the Hebrews built the golden calf than that is theologically significant to that event. If the whole event is an allegory for how we should not worship idols than that is also significant for certain theologies.That you can construct a doctrine where these things remain inerrant could be relevant to the OP in that it relieves Eusebius of the accusation of lying. My followup argument remains that any such doctrine is one that recognizes its basis is that of a fairy tale. It would of course not call it that but I do. If the stories of the OT are only there for people who "need that treatment", then they are plainly just stories, no better than Santa Clause, the boy who cried wolf, the ant and the grasshopper, etc.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Which, I will say it yet again, I have not denied. Would you like to make a point?

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

That you can construct a doctrine where these things remain inerrant could be relevant to the OP in that it relieves Eusebius of the accusation of lying.

---

So far, I see no evidence that Eusebius was lying. All I see is accommodational language, specifically anthropomorphisms, as Dr. A described in Message 11. These are figures of speech, not lies.

quote:

---

My followup argument remains that any such doctrine is one that recognizes its basis is that of a fairy tale.

---

Where did you give a logical, rational argument that the basis of this doctrine is a fairy tale? Using figures of speech does not turn a book into a fairy tale, of course.

Well, no evidence that Eusebius was lying has been presented yet. So far the only thing on the record is Eusebius' endorsement of lying or storytelling at best.We certainly do have some indications that Eusebius weaves some "elaborate tales". To call that "pious fraud" or "pious fairy tales" may be a judgement call. When did the discussion of this doctrine become on topic? People come up with doctrines that are internally consistent all the time. So what? That someone can come up with something as their own belief that can polish mud then that is only evidence of human ingenuity not the correctness of the Bible.As I said in the OP, the straight forward translation of Eusebius' words is "lies". The MOST generous translation is "fictions". It seems like you want to go from "fiction" to "figure of speech" in which the logical train of thought is not obvious to me. There are many stories in the Bible that follow the pattern:1. God is angry or jealous
2. God smites/curses/empowers the Hebrews to commit genocideShow me how #2 makes sense if #1 is a "figure of speech"? Would all the smiting/cursing/genocide also be a "figure of speech"? Would those still happen as a result of a dispassionate God? (pretty scary thought) Or is the whole thing a story with a moral?

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

As I said in the OP, the straight forward translation of Eusebius' words is "lies". The MOST generous translation is "fictions". It seems like you want to go from "fiction" to "figure of speech" in which the logical train of thought is not obvious to me.

---

No, the most generous intent of Eusebius words is accommodational language, anthropomorphisms, figures of speech. This has been well supported in this thread and is a reasonable understanding of his words.

I disagree that it has been supported in this thread. It has been CLAIMED in this thread and thats about it.There has been no evidence of such intent or else I perhaps have missed it and you could kindly link me back to it. Even if you could claim that such a thing is the most generous interpretation of Eusebius you would still have to support why anybody should accept that as the actual intent rather than simply the most harmonious with a particular theology.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

I disagree that it has been supported in this thread. It has been CLAIMED in this thread and thats about it.

---

It was SUPPORTED with quotations from standard Bible reference works in Message 11. In contrast, you have quoted NO scholars in support of your interpretation.

Not only do those quotes fail to mention Eusebius whatsoever, as I said to Dr. A, they also do not address the issue of God's mental characterization while Eusebius directly does. There is a very distinct difference between God's "hands" and his "anger".This thread is about Eusebius and what his intent is with the quoted passage in the OP. If you want to claim that it is an anthropomorphic accommodation, then you are going to have to make the link to the passage in question more explicit than what has been done thus far which is to merely state that such a theological structure exists.I know it exists. Please don't continue to repeat yourself. Please now tie it to Eusebius and the passage in question.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

After stepping away from the computer for a moment I thought that I need to add something. Hopefully you can combine this with my previous post.I am starting from the basis of Eusebius' own words and their subsequent translation. When you say I have quoted no scholars in support of my interpretation, all I am doing is looking at the bald faced words of Eusebius himself. Scholarly interpretation is certainly welcome and perhaps I will try to find something soon regarding the "worst" case that I presented in the OP that seems to be so objectionable.But to say that just because such support hasn't been presented means that we cannot come to our own reasonable conclusions based on the words themselves is IMO irresponsible. The translation that I linked to renders the words as "falsehoods". The words in question are ubiquitously translated as "falsehoods". Where there may be some subtly with respect to the context, history, or culture revealed by sound scholarship it can only be applied in light of the fundamental meaning of the words that Eusebius wrote.Furthermore, to claim that any lack of established scholarship presented means we must accept a demotion of the of "falsehood" to the status of "figure of speech" by default is also illogical. I want to stress that I am not trying to be a jerk and just be combative on this issue for the sake of entertainment or something. I never start topics where I don't have a stake in learning new things but so far I am plainly and honestly unimpressed with what it seems to be a casual acceptance that the anthropomorphism argument is the answer. It could very well be the answer but it is not obvious to me and I don't think anybody has made the case thus far.I really appreciate your involvement, and I hope you can bring something more than just dismissal of my criticism.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson