Eusebius Question

[corrgc]

Greetings friends in Christ!

I have started reading Eusebius’ History of the Church and find it fascinating. However I’ve already come across a couple of his assertions that I had not heard before. Such as:

The manifestations of God in the Old Testament times was actually Jesus - such as the person Jacob wrestled with

The Cephas that Paul criticized for his hipocracy (Galations) is not Peter the apostle - but another Cephas

Jesus wrote (or dictated) a letter to a King in another country acknowledging his faith, and promising to send a healer

Does Eusebius indeed represent a unified Patristic teaching? Should I read the book as simply representing one bishop’s opinions, and not necessarily historical fact?

Finally for those who have read this book, did you find it enlightening and spiritually beneficial?

Thanks for your opinions!

Sincerely in Christ!
Corrgc

 

[awalt]

Greetings!

The Early Church Fathers are not infallible in everything they teach. The role of their writings is to confirm Church teaching that is doctirnally correct, to see how early in Christianity it occurred. Some ECF teachings are in fact heretical (not saying Eusebius’ teachings here are).

I have been taught don’t read ECF to **learn **Church teaching, as some of it is not; read ECF to **confirm **Church teaching.

Hope that helps!

 

[Hesychios]

I have been taught don’t read ECF to **learn **Church teaching, as some of it is not; read ECF to **confirm **Church teaching.

Hope that helps!

That’s odd, it means you must cherry pick what to accept or not, like proof-texting.

Any Protestant can do likewise, we might just as well stop telling them to read the fathers.

Naturally the Fathers will not agree on every issue all of the time, it requires discernment and reference to Conciliar decrees. But if all we do is put the blinders on and see what we want to see, this will leave us ill-prepared to meet legitimate challenges from sincere, open-minded students.

 

[Epistemes]

I’ve found you have to take Eusebius with a grain of salt, which is unfortunate considering he’s the closest Christian historian to the original events. For instance, he makes occassional reference to the apocryphal Acts of Peter, which, if you’ve read the Acts of Peter then you can understand why it’s apocryphal (e.g., talking dogs?) Because of this, it becomes hard to distinguish between hearsay and fact, but Eusebius is virtually unlimited in describing all of the purported traditions circulating during his time. Definitely gives the 21st century Christian a keyhole peek into what was going on then.