Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I assume you both accept the apologetic attempts to excuse or explain away Eusebius' tendency to include only those things that support his preferred view of the doctrine and exclude those that cast any doubt on it. These two excerpts of his have been variously interpreted and used to conclude Eusebius was not averse to lying or misrepresenting material. This:
'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.'
Actually this quote is from Plato's The Laws II, 663 d 6 - e 4.
Quote:
and This:
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.
What Eusebius is referring to are the Hebrew Scriptures anthropomorphical passages referring to God with human attributes to make Him more understandable for those who need this mode of instruction.
Here is the complete context from Eusebius's Praeparatio Evangelica, Book XII
CHAPTER XXXI
PLATO ‘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 ‘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?’
Paul or the former Saul probably had some sun stroke on the road to Damascus. I believe he destroyed Christianity to please his Roman masters who perverted the faith....and turned it into some sort of political control thing. When he said to submit to the government because God had installed them..... was an out right lie. God does not install corrupt or even just governments. Paul sucked up to the state....where Jesus defied the state.
I assume you both accept the apologetic attempts to excuse or explain away Eusebius' tendency to include only those things that support his preferred view of the doctrine and exclude those that cast any doubt on it. These two excerpts of his have been variously interpreted and used to conclude Eusebius was not averse to lying or misrepresenting material. This:
'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.'
and This:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Your attempt to refute the Canonicity of the Books of the New Testament by attempting to discredit what Eusebius' said is futile. As already stated, the Muratorian Fragment which is dated to 170-200 AD. lists 21 of the 27 New Testament Books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pastorALly
What Eusebius is referring to are the Hebrew Scriptures anthropomorphical passages referring to God with human attributes to make Him more understandable for those who need this mode of instruction.
That would be a "Yes" then!!?? OK . . . you are entitled to your interpretation.
a few things you Paul bashers might want to consider.
1. Paul's writting were written BEFORE the gospels were, so why if he(Paul ) was false did not one of the Lords deciples in their writtings not tell everyone that Paul was a lunitic.
2. Not only do you bring Pauls writtings into question you also bring Lukes wrttings into question, thus the Gospel of Luke becomes suspect and if Lukes Gospel is suspect then what can be said of the other Gospels? What you have conveniently done is make the WHOLE Gospel of Jesus Christ suspect, but that is probably the aim for most of the Paul bashers anyway.
3. Peter and the boys gave Paul the right hand of fellowship and if Paul was a false teacher Peter and the boys take part in Pauls sin because of giving Paul the right hand of fellowship. Thus again making everything Peter and the boys wrote suspect. But again that is probably the aim of the Paul bashers.
Where does the division come from in Christianity? Does it come from the teachings of Paul? Are the New Testament christians followers of Paul? Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law of Moses but to fulfil it and that the pharisees were teaching the doctrines of men, in place of/along side of the law of Moses.
Were the 12 apostles hand picked by Jesus and did they need to be eye witnesses of his baptism and resurrection? Does Pauls conversion seem to be similar to the experience of what a lot of Christians term false prophets - eg, Mohummad, Ellen White, Joseph Smith?
Are there any Messianic Jews here, what do you think about the teachings of Paul?
Christianity is not the only religion that has subGroups or denominations.
Judaism has several.
Islam is littered with divisions; Shia, Sunni, Sufi, Qur'anists, Twelvers, Black Muslims (also subDivided into Nation of Islam, 5%, etc.) and even non-denominational Muslims to name but a few.
In all cases subGroups of religion have traditional, emotional and organizational origins.
The principle divisions of Christianity are Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant. Historically these divisions resulted from political disagreement. Control issues dictated the divisions - who is in charge, who will define the method and meaning of worship and where does the money go when collected.
Protestant divisions in Europe are more closely related to political and national boundaries. Kings and emperors battled with one another for control of populations often using protestant beliefs to justify their reign or legalize punishment. The practice continued into the twentieth century when the atheist administrations of totalitarian governments (Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia and Japan) used religion in a negative way to suppress ethnic groups and political dissent.
In America, Protestant divisions began as an expression of tradition and personal experience. In the latter half of the twentieth century primary factors influencing Protestantism changed to social acceptance, financial opportunity and celebrity. Many experts now agree that Protestantism is experiencing a period of rapid decline because evangelism does not focus on Christ as much as it focuses upon venue, celebrity and franchise.
Division is not unique to Christianity.
and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...
The Bible is the Word of God. That refers to each and every Book of the Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament. Paul was appointed by God to be an apostle to the Gentiles whether you understand that or not. The problem is not with the Bible, the problem is not with the apostle Paul. The problem is with you. The fact that the Bible accurately records the opinions of Paul or others when given, in no way negates the fact that the Bible is God's Word. Whether you like it or not, Paul was allowed to express an opinion. You are either very confused or you are purposely attempting to discredit the Bible.
Peter was appointed by G-d as Apostle to the Gentiles...And only Peter...
Paul or the former Saul probably had some sun stroke on the road to Damascus. I believe he destroyed Christianity to please his Roman masters who perverted the faith....and turned it into some sort of political control thing.
No, Saul did not have a sunstroke on the road to Damascus. Luke records in Acts 9:7 that the men who were with Saul heard the voice which spoke to Saul although they did not understand what the voice was saying as per Acts 22:9.
Luke also records that Ananias was told by God that Paul was a chosen instrument of His (Acts 9:15).
While Luke interviewed eyewitnesses and used other sources for his gospel account and for the Book of Acts, he did so under the guidance of God the Holy Spirit which means that what he wrote is true and accurate.
Quote:
When he said to submit to the government because God had installed them..... was an out right lie. God does not install corrupt or even just governments. Paul sucked up to the state....where Jesus defied the state.
That simply is not true.
It was God who raised up Pharaoh.
Ex. 9:16 "But, indeed, for this reason I have raised you up, in order to show you My power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth.
It was God that appointed king Saul as the first king of Israel, and then David after him.
The Book of Daniel emphasizes God's sovereign authority over Gentile nations, and how He establishes and deposes kings and empires to serve His purpose. King Nebuchadnezzar had to learn this the hard way. God had raised Nebuchadnezzar as king of Babylon and God removed Nebuchadnezzar's sovereignty from him. In interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream for him (see Daniel chapter 5) Daniel explained that Nebuchadnezzar was to be driven from man by God and dwell among the beasts until he recognized that God was ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows authority on whomever He wishes.
We read of Jesus' conversation with Pilate,
John 19:10 So Pilate said to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" 11]Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."
God does indeed give authority to those who are in power.
Peter was appointed by G-d as Apostle to the Gentiles...And only Peter...
I had misread what you said in post #366. I thought you had written that Paul was appointed by God as apostle to the Gentiles. But you actually said that it was Peter who was appointed as apostle to the Gentiles as you are saying here.
While it is true that Peter was sent to the house of Cornelius who was a Roman Centurion to give him the gospel, the resurrected Jesus told Saul/Paul that He was sending him (Paul) to the Gentiles as stated in Acts 26:17.
Acts 26:16 'But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; 17]rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you,
a few things you Paul bashers might want to consider.
1. Paul's writting were written BEFORE the gospels were, so why if he(Paul ) was false did not one of the Lords deciples in their writtings not tell everyone that Paul was a lunitic.
2. Not only do you bring Pauls writtings into question you also bring Lukes wrttings into question, thus the Gospel of Luke becomes suspect and if Lukes Gospel is suspect then what can be said of the other Gospels? What you have conveniently done is make the WHOLE Gospel of Jesus Christ suspect, but that is probably the aim for most of the Paul bashers anyway.
3. Peter and the boys gave Paul the right hand of fellowship and if Paul was a false teacher Peter and the boys take part in Pauls sin because of giving Paul the right hand of fellowship. Thus again making everything Peter and the boys wrote suspect. But again that is probably the aim of the Paul bashers.
Dear Pneuma, According to the teachings of Yeshua, no one was supposed to touch the tares (son of the evil one) (until the end of the age (Mt 13:38-40), less the wheat is damaged (Mt 13:28-29). One of the signs of the time, which we are now in, is it is now open season on the Tares.
The writings of Luke are definitely in question. As to their unknown real authorship, the fact that they are not first person accounts (Mt 18:16)(Dt 19:15), that the self professed apostle and prophet Paul, was probably a major contributor, makes them ineligible to settle any matter. Paul's self proclamations of apostleship, and spokesman for God is "not true", according to the testimony of Yeshua in John 5:31. The aim for the "Paul bashers" is to get at the truth and establish the true foundation of the true church, which is the heeding of the testimony of Yeshua (Mt 7:24), and not the nailing it to the cross. As for the other gospels, they must meet the requirements that Yeshua gave, Mt 18:16 & Dt 19:15, plus they must meet what he declared "Scripture" Is 8:20.
According to church tradition, poor Peter was called a hypocrite by Paul, which was recorded by Paul's associate, the writer of Acts. According to Paul's associate the supposed writer of Luke, whose information was noted in Luke 1:2, that everything was second hand, was that Peter would be sifted as wheat by the devil. No, I don't think Paul was on Peter's gift list. As for fellowship, Paul was simply given a message to deliver to the Gentiles. He was later actually run out of town under the protection of 2 cohorts of Roman soldiers, and given no support from Peter, James, or any apostle. What was given to Paul, per his associate's writings, was an opinion of James, which was to be delivered by Paul, as any good postman would do, without claiming apostleship, to be delivered to the Gentiles. Apparently Paul didn't agree with the opinion, because his followers seem to have disregarded the opinion contained in text which James wrote. Hanging on to Paul's gospel of Grace, is like hanging on to a thin reed. Hanging on to the Pope, who claims the keys of David (Is 22:22), as the foundation of the church, is like hanging onto a peg nailed into a firm place, which will give way. (Is 22:25)
[b] The writings of Luke are definitely in question. As to their unknown real authorship, the fact that they are not first person accounts (Mt 18:16)(Dt 19:15), that the self professed apostle and prophet Paul, was probably a major contributor, makes them ineligible to settle any matter.
Luke was with Paul during Paul's first imprisonment in Rome, 61-63 AD. (Col 4:14 and Philem. 24)
Concerning sources beyond Paul, who although not one of the 12, was certainly a local Jew
during the ministry of Jesus and knew much about it even before his conversion,
let's take a look at Luke's sources.
In the prologue he says "many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the things that have been fulfilled among us".. Those many would be more than only
the authors of the first two gospels. He says he "followed up all things carefully from the very first", investigated his sources to their very fountainhead. "Even as they whom from the beginning were the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have handed them down to us".. the Latin word that is used to translate this last expression is the root word for "tradition". Luke's primary source is the oral tradition handed down by the Apostles. From Acts 21:17 Luke remained with Paul during his two year imprisonment in Palestine. During this time he gathered up the oral tradition from original sources. His forst two chapters on the birth and childhood of Jesus seem to be indebted either directly or indeirectly to the Blessed Virgin Mary herself. Now, Luke's gospel and the Acts of the Apostles form two sections of what is really one single literary work. This is clear from the first verses of each book which serve as brief introductions. The unity of authorship of both Books is clear, and most of the observations which are made by way of introduction to one section of
this larger work are equally true of the other. Since the Acts was written at Rome in the year 63 or 64 AD, the Third Gospel must have been written before that date.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
