The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Do you consider Bishop Eusebius’s account to be reliable?
No, really not.
The reason why because his account had created many controversies.
Eusebius has been known as the official historian of the church. He participated in the Council of Nice in 314, organized by Roman Emperor Constantine to revise the religious or historic documents that would end up being in the Bible.
So Eusebius based most of his comments on personal opinions and other historic document's interpretations. It is difficult to say that he did the proper research and had reliable sources. During the Nicea Council, a group of Bishops decided what documents had to be part of the Bible and which not, based on their own criteria. That is not a good indicator of the validity of the documents included, even less we can consider those as sacred.
Generally speaking, the United States intervened in Latin American countries in the early 1900s to "<span>c. protect American lives and investments," since the Us was concerned about European encroachment in the region. </span>
During the 1600s and 1700s, Prussian kings built a strong nation by <u>industry</u>. :)
C: disease would kill ideas before they even spread
a. Attendees are hoping to talk about reversal of the protectionist trade barriers.
b. They are motivated by the sustenance for a wider constitutional convention
c. They hope that more states would be represented and that their delegates authorized to examine wider areas<span>.</span>