bible verses changed to support trinity

[Der Alte]

I haven't read anywhere by anyone that Eusebius was an Arian. Your quote merely confirms what I said that prior to the council of nicea he worte a letter in support of retaining arias in his office. your quote is saying that he was on their side on the issue of retaining Arias in his office. It does not say Eusebius was on their side on every issue. it doesn't say he believed like they did.

Shall, we read the quote again? Particularly what I have highlighted, “The Arians soon found that for all practical purposes Eusebius was on their side. . . A portion of this letter has been preserved in the Acts of the second Council of Nicæa, where it was cited to prove that Eusebius was a heretic.” This clearly shows that Eusebius had Arian leanings. Leanings which could account for the way he quoted Mt 28:18, either 18, 20, or 25 times. Nobody agrees how many times.

Eusebius of Cæsarea
Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, the "Father of Church History"; b. about 260; d. before 341.

Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, excommunicate Arius about the year 320. The Arians soon found that for all practical purposes Eusebius was on their side. He wrote to Alexander charging him with misrepresenting the teaching of the Arians and so giving them cause "to attack and misrepresent whatever they please" (see below). A portion of this letter has been preserved in the Acts of the second Council of Nicæa, where it was cited to prove that Eusebius was a heretic. He also took part in a synod of Syrian bishops who decided that Arius should be restored to his former position, but on his side he was to obey his bishop and continually entreat peace and communion with him (Soz., H. E., I, 15).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm
​

​

I have never read anywhere by anyone that eusebius omitted the tiratic formula in matthew 28:19 because he was Arian. What I have read by trinitarians as to why he left it out is this. that he forgot. That he was using a short hand, thatit wasn't relevant to what he was talking about. Things like that.

The reason you haven’t seen it may be because you are not interested in the truth, your only aim is to find something, anything, written by anybody, which trashes the Trinity and supports your presuppositions. And while Eusebius did have Arian leanings, your claim is that it was only after the Nicæan council, that Eusebius quoted the Triadic formula in Mt 28:19. The truth is that Eusebius submitted to the council a proposed creed which included, “as our Lord also said, when he sent his disciples to preach: Go and teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

So it is very evident the Nicæan council did not influence Eusebius to include the Triadic formula but Eusebius influenced the council. It is very evident that Eusebius omitted the Triadic formula in his writings, not because it was not in the manuscripts, but for some other reason. Quite possibly because it did not relate to whatever point he was trying to make when he referred to Mt 28:19, since he knew the verse with the Triadic formula before the council issued their decrees.

The Creed of Eusebius of Caesarea, which he presented to the council, and which some suppose to have suggested the creed finally adopted.

(Found in his Epistle to his diocese; vide: St. Athanasius and Theodoret.)

We believe in one only God, Father Almighty, Creator of things visible and invisible; and in the Lord Jesus Christ, for he is the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, life of life, his only Son, the first-born of all creatures, begotten of the Father before all time, by whom also everything was created, who became flesh for our redemption, who lived and suffered amongst men, rose again the third day, returned to the Father, and will come again one day in his glory to judge the quick and the dead. We believe also in the Holy Ghost We believe that each of these three is and subsists; the Father truly as Father, the Son truly as Son, the Holy Ghost truly as Holy Ghost; as our Lord also said, when he sent his disciples to preach: Go and teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-10.htm#P522_112870​

​

Nothing in Your quote of Origen ," by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" says or implys that it came from the book of Matthew. my quote says the first part of matthew is in three places of his works and always without the triatic formula. I haven't the time to find search for it in his works, I'll rely on what Conybeare said it says.

Well your quote is a lie! If you can’t back it up from the primary sources yourself, it isn’t worth diddly. Conybeare is a liar, as I have proved. Do you have the 100+ year old book written by Conybeare? Or are you relying on 2d and 3rd hand quotes, most of which I have proven to be false? Your attitude quite evidently is if some frothing at the mouth, raging, anti-Trinitarian, posts something on the internet, then it must be true. And if it is challenged, with facts, you don’t have time to even look for the truth. You are more than willing to believe some clown you don’t know, supposedly quoting stuff from books you have never seen or heard of, for no other reason than it supports your false teachings.

Now lets see if what you said is true, “Nothing in Your quote of Origen,’by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ says or implys that it came from the book of Matthew.”

In the Acts of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit was given by the imposition of the apostles' hands in baptism. From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit.​

Can you see what I highlighted, “baptism . . by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?” Let’s see if that is good enough for you or if you are a blatant hypocrite? All we have to do is compare this to your argument concerning Justin, below. Although nothing in the passage cited states or implies that Justin is referring to Matt 298:19, you say, "that daily some [of you] are becoming disciples in the name of Christ," is an echo of matthew 28:19.” Hypocricy, one standard for you and a different standard for others.

Conybeare says clement sited a passage from a gnostic heretic containing the tiratic baptismal formula . you say I should find it in his works and show you. I don't have time. I will rely here on Conybeare.

That’s right you have time to search for and copy stuff that trashes the Trinity, because it supports your assumptions, but you don’t have time to look for the truth. And you are misquoting me here. I said I searched in all of Clements known writings and the title listed in your quote, “Excerta cap. 76, ed. Sylb.,” does not exist. And I searched Clements writings, the phrase you quoted does not exist in any of them! In other words the entire quote is a lie straight from the pits of hell and that is what you are relying on.

4."In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited, but from a gnostic heretic named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text, but as follows:

‘And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.’"- Excerta cap. 76, ed. Sylb. page 287, quote from Conybeare

No you are not relying on Conybeare, because you have never seen anything he wrote. You are depending on the clown at lightbearer.org that posted that stuff on his website. Some unknown somebody that I have shown to be a liar several times already. You have time to find this kind of garbage on the internet, but you don’t have time to verify any of it or look for the truth.

Justin Martyr did not write in english, greek I suppose. It appears that you have a different translation of his work than the one i cited. The article i quoted is asserting that this portion of "dialogue with trypho" as you quoted it "that daily some [of you] are becoming disciples in the name of Christ," is an echo of matthew 28:19. Being made disciples in the name of his christ sounds like "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.’", the Eusebian quote of matthew 28:19 . It doesn/t sound like our current reading of Matthew 28:19.

The reason why my quote from Justin is different than yours is because I quoted from the primary source, you did not! You quoted 3d hand from a website, which was supposedly quoting “The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics” (ERE), which, in turn, was supposedly quoting Justin. So you don’t have any first hand knowledge what either the ERE or Justin said. I note that you did not address the direct quote from Justin I posted which shows he did know the Triadic formula in Matthew 28:19. Just in case you get a sudden desire for the truth, here is what Justin actually said, clearly linking baptism to the Triadic formula. And it is a lot closer than the quote you posted before. And the only place he could have gotten that is Mt 28:19. I provided the links before, but as always you are not interested in the truth.

The First Apology of Justin

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.​

And just FYI here is how Eusebius quoted Mt 28:19, four different ways in one set of writings, “Theophania”

Eusebius Theophania Book V 17 Go ye and make disciples of all peoples in my name, and teach them every thing which I have commanded you.

Book V 46 "Go ye and make disciples of all the peoples.....

Book V 49 Go and make disciples of all nations in my name."

Book III 4 "Go and teach all peoples."

Book IV 8 “After his resurrection from the dead, all of them together, as was commanded them, went to Galilee, as he told them. But when they saw him some of them worshipt him, but others doubted. But he drew near, gazed on them and said, All power in heaven and on earth is given to me of my father. Go ye and make disciples of all peoples, and baptise them in the name of Father and Son and Holy Ghost. And teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you always even to the end of the world."

ibid“, that they should go around and make disciples of all nations.

http://www.godglorified.com/Conybeare.htm
​

​

 

[Der Alte]

I haven't read anywhere by anyone that Eusebius was an Arian.

Well then, you are in luck here are several historical quotes which depict Eusebius as an Arian. And note particularly “The Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council” referred to in my previous post. Eusebius was an Arian, ample reason why he might have omitted the Triadic formula from Matt 28:19 when he quoted or referred to it.

Also you might find of interest my next post which cites 26 early church fathers who quote Matt 28:19 essentially as it appears in our Bibles. And from my own research, at least fourteen (14) of those are from 67 to 215 years before Nicaea.

Testimonies of the Ancients Against Eusebius

Athanasius- Treatise on the Synods of Ariminum and Selucia

"Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, writing to Euphration the bishop, did not fear to say openly that Christ is not true God."

Jerome, in his Epistle to Ctesiphon against the Pelagians
"He did this in the name of the holy martyr Pamphilus, that he might designate with the name of the martyr Pamphilus the first of the six books in defense of Origen which were written by Eusebius of Caesarea, whom every one knows to have been an Arian."

Jerome in his Second Book against Rufinius

"As soon as he leaves the harbor he runs his ship aground. For, quoting from the Apology of Pamphilus the Martyr (which we have proved to be the work of Eusebius, prince of Arians),"

Theodoritus, in his Interpretation of the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, speaking of the Arians, writes as follows:

"If not even this is sufficient to persuade them, it at least behooves them to believe Eusebius of Palestine, whom they call the chief advocate of their own doctrines."

From the Acts of the Seventh Oecumenical Council.

"For who of the faithful ones in the Church, and who of those who have obtained a knowledge of true doctrine, does not know that Eusebius Pamphili has given himself over to false ways of thinking, and has become of the same opinion and of the same mind with those who follow after the opinions of Arius? In all his historical books he calls the Son and Word of God a creature, a servant, and to be adored as second in rank. But if any speaking in his defense say that he subscribed in the council, we may admit that that is true; but while with his lips he has respected the truth, in his heart he is far from it, as all his writings and epistles go to show. But if from time to time, on account of circumstances or from different causes, he has become confused or has changed around, sometimes praising those who hold to the doctrines of Arius, and at other times reigning the truth, he shows himself to be, according to James the brother of our Lord, a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways; and let him not think that he shall receive anything of the Lord.
* * *
For if He who is is one, it is plain that everything has been made by Him and after Him. But if He who is is not the only one, but there was also a Son existing, how did He who is beget him who was existing? For thus those existing would be two.' These things then Eusebius wrote to the illustrious Alexander; but there are also other epistles of his directed to the same holy man, in which are found various blasphemies in defense of the followers of Arius. So also, in writing to the bishop Euphration, he blasphemes most openly; his letter begins thus: `I return to my Lord all thanks'; and farther on: `For we do not say that the Son was with the Father, but that the Father was before the Son. But the Son of God himself, knowing well that he was greater than all, and knowing that he was other than the Father, and less than and subject to Him, very piously teaches this to us also when he says, "The Father who sent me is greater than I."' And farther on: `Since the Son also is himself God, but not true God.' So then from these writings of his he shows that he holds to the doctrines of Arius and his followers. And with this rebellious heresy of theirs the inventors of that Arian madness hold to one nature in hypostatic union, and affirm that our Lord took upon himself a body without soul, in his scheme of redemption, affirming that the divine nature supplied the purposes and movements of the soul: that, as Gregory the Divine says, they may ascribe suffering to the Deity; and it is evident that those who ascribe suffering to the Deity are Patripassians. Those who share in this heresy do not allow images, as the impious Severus did not, and Peter Cnapheus, and Philoxenus of Hierapolis, and all their followers, the many-headed yet headless hydra. So then Eusebius, who belongs to this faction, as has been shown from his epistles and historical writings, as a Patripassian rejected the image of Christ," etc.

Photius, in his 144th Epistle to Constantine

"That Eusebius (whether slave or friend of Pamphilus I know not) was carried off by Arianism, his books loudly proclaim. And he, feeling repentance as he pretends, and against his will, confesses to his infirmity; although by his repentance he rather shows that he has not repented. . . .But that from the beginning he inwardly cherished the Arian doctrines, and that up to the end of his life he did not cease following them, many know, and it is easy to gather it from many sources; but that he shared also in the infirmity of Origen, namely, the error with regard to the common resurrection of us all, is to most persons unknown. But if thou thyself examine carefully his books, thou shalt see that he was none the less truly overcome by that deadly disease than he was by the Arian madness."

Joannes Zonaras, in his Third Volume, in which he relates the Deeds of Constantine.

"Even Eusebius Pamphili, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, was at that time one of those who upheld the doctrines of Arius. He is said to have afterwards withdrawn from the opinion of Arius, and to have become of like mind with those who hold that the Son is coëqual and of the same nature with the Father, and to have been received into communion by the holy Fathers. Moreover, in the Acts of the first Synod, he is found to have defended the faithful. These things are found thus narrated by some; but he makes them to appear doubtful by certain things which he is seen to have written in his Ecclesiastical History. For in many places in the above-mentioned work he seems to be following after Arius.
* * *
These and other things show that Eusebius agreed with Arian doctrines, unless some one say that they were written before his conversion."

Suidas, from Sophronius.

"Eusebius Pamphili, a devotee of the Arian heresy, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, a man zealous in the study of the holy Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus the martyr a most careful investigator of sacred literature, has published many books, among which are the following."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-03.htm#P449_282059
​

​

 

[Der Alte]

As promised here are 26 quotes from the early church fathers quoting Matt 28:19 as it appears in our Bibles. From my own research fourteen (14) of ECF quotes dating from more than 67 years to more than 218 years before the Nicaean council. You will notice that every one of these is a direct quote from the primary source, not 2d and 3d hand quotes from some unknown anti-Trinitarian’s website.

I understand that while you do have ample time to search the internet for anti-Trinitarian websites, you are just too busy to do any real, honest, research yourself. So I have done the legwork for you.

Therefore, when you quote one of those blasphemous anti-Trinitarian sites, you are so fond of, trying to prove that the Triadic formula was added to the gospel of Matthew by the evil Constantine and the Nicaean council, here is first hand evidence that they are lying. You can believe the truth or continue to believe the proven lies spewed out by anti-Trinitarian websites.

1. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians [30-107 a.d.], a disciple of John. [218 + years before Nicaea]

Chapter IX.-The Old Testament is Good: the New Testament is Better

"Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." All then are good together, the law, the prophets, the apostles, the whole company [of others] that have believed through them: only if we love one another.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-20.htm#P1941_328407

2. Irenaeus Against Heresies Book III [a.d. 120-202.], a student of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. [123 + years before Nicaea]

That is the Spirit of whom the Lord declares, "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you."308 And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God,309 He said to them," Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."310

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859

3. Tertullian The Prescription Against Heretics.1 [a.d. 145-220]. [105 + years before Nicaea]

Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to "go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost."203

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-24.htm#P3125_1133921

3a. Tertullian-On Baptism. [105 + years before Nicaea]

For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "Go," He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-49.htm#P11705_3290478

4. The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus. - Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical. (c.170-c.236). [89 + years before Nicaea]

The Father's Word, therefore, knowing the economy (disposition) and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."265 And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/TOC.htm

5. The Treatises of Cyprian -Treatise XII.1 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews. [c.200-258] [67 + years before Nicaea]

And He laid His right hand upon me, and said, Fear not; I am the first and the last, and He that liveth and was dead; and, lo, I am living for evermore289 and I have the keys of death and of hell."290 Likewise in the Gospel, the Lord after His resurrection says to His disciples: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-122.htm#P7907_2659601

6. Origen de Principiis Book I] [c.185-c.254] [71+ years before Nicaea]

From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-45.htm#P6244_1101010

7. The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations.1
Chapter VII.-Concerning Baptism. [120 AD] [205 years before Nicaea]

1. And concerning baptism,73 thus baptize ye:74 Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,75 in living water.76 2. But if thou have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou3canst not in cold, in warm. 3. But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice77 upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4. But before the baptism let the 4 baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but thou shalt order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-36.htm#P4972_1856878

8. Constitutions of the Holy Apostles1 Book II. Of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. [Late 2d to early 3d century] [100 + years before Nicaea]

Let the presbyters be esteemed by you to represent us the apostles, and let them be the teachers of divine knowledge; since our Lord, when He sent us, said, "Go ye, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-41.htm#P5323_1937285

9. Life and Conduct of the Holy Women Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca [mid 3d century] [75 years before Nicaea]

XIV. Therefore the great Paul straightway taking her hand, went into the house of Philotheus, and baptised her in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-21.htm#P5160_662828

10. Tatian - The Diatessaron [ca 175] [150 years before Nicaea]

Then said Jesus unto them, I have been given all authority in heaven 5 and earth; and as my Father hath sent me, so I also send you. Go now into 6 all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and 7 baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto 8 the end of the world.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html

At the seventh Council of Carthage in 256 [69 years before Nicaea], a bishop named Vincentius of Thibaris said, "We have assuredly the rule of truth which the Lord by His divine precept commanded to His apostles, saying, 'Go ye, lay on hands in My name, expel demons.' And in another place: "Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'" Vincentius' second quotation is from Matthew 28:19. Despite attempts by some interpreters to connect the first quotation to Matthew 10:8, the references to going, laying on hands, expelling demons, and doing so in My name add up to a reference to Mark 16:15- 18, especially when placed side-by-side with the parallel passage from Matthew

http://www.waynecoc.org/MarkTwo.html

Seventh Council of Carthage - Concerning the Baptism of Heretics. The Judgment of Eighty-Seven Bishops on the Baptism of Heretics. 256 a.d. [69 years before Nicaea]

11. Lucius of Castra Galbae said: Since the Lord in His Gospel said, "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt should have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out of doors, and to be trodden under foot of men." And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, "All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

12. Munnulus of Girba said: The truth of our Mother6 the Catholic Church, brethren, hath always remained and still remains with us, and even especially in the Trinity of baptism, as our Lord says, "Go ye and baptize the nations, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

13. Euchratius of Thenae said: God and our Lord Jesus Christ, teaching the apostles with His own mouth, has entirely completed our faith, and the grace of baptism, and the rule of the ecclesiastical law, saying: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

14. Vincentius of Thibaris said: We know that heretics are worse than Gentiles. If, therefore, being converted, they should wish to come to the Lord, we have assuredly the rule of truth which the Lord by His divine precept commanded to His apostles, saying, "Go ye, lay on hands in my name, expel demons." And in another place: "Go ye and teach the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-124.htm

A website that lists, and links, 26 occurrences of the Matt 28:19 Triadic formula, in the early church fathers.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/matthew28.html

This is a tragic misstatement of the facts. Wierwille makes it sound as though Eusebius always read Matthew 28:19 as "baptizing them in my name" because that is how the text of his day read. Yet that is certainly not true. In the first place, of the 18 times that Eusebius is thought to use the phrase "in my name" as a reference to Matthew 28:19, he never once used the word "baptizing" in connection with it.42 So Wierwille has misquoted Eusebius by adding the word "baptizing" to his phrase "in my name." Secondly, and most importantly, Wierwille failed to mention that in addition to the 18 times Eusebius used the phrase "in my name," in four other passages he quoted Matthew 28:19 expressly using the trinitarian formula.43 This shows beyond question that Eusebius' copy of Matthew's Gospel contained the trinitarian words. Eusebius not only knew of but even appealed to the trinitarian formula in discussing the Trinity in his controversy with Marcellus. It is true that he most frequently used the more convenient phrase, "in my name," but Johannes Lindblom has observed that he does so "when the interest is centered on the mission to the nations." However, when the issue under discussion "is concerned about some aspect of the teaching on baptism or the Trinity," he is careful to cite the full form: "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.""

http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/rsr_jcwdsway.htm

Gregory Thaumaturgus -A Declaration of Faith.1 (c.213-270). [“perfect Trinity” 55+ years before Nicaea]

There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is His subsistent Wisdom and Power and Eternal Image:2 perfect Begetter of the perfect Begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, Only of the Only,3 God of God, Image and Likeness of Deity, Efficient Word,4 Wisdom comprehensive5 of the constitution of all things, and Power formative6 of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal and Eternal of Eternal.7 And there is One Holy Spirit, having His subsistence8 from God, and being made manifest9 by the Son, to wit to men:10 Image11 of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect;12 Life, the Cause of the living; Holy Fount; Sanctity, the Supplier, or Leader,13 of Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. 14 Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude15 in the Trinity;16 nor anything superinduced,17 as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son;18 but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abideth ever.19

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-06/anf06-06.htm#P248_29577
​

​

 

[jessedance]

Dr;
the alternate readings of matthew 28:19 in Theophanies by Eusebius are the resullt of a copiest substituting the syriac version of that verse in place of what Eusebius said, and a syriac translator garbling the text in translating it. In one place too Eusbebius divides up the scripture and comments inbetween the two halves of the scripture.
Here is more of what Conybeare said about the different readings of matthew 28:19 found in Eusebius's Theophanies ;

17. "Who, of those that ever existed, is the mortal man, ... who bore all this preeminence... and could effect so much, that he should be preached throughout the whole earth? and, that his name should fill the hearing and tongues of every people upon the face of the whole earth? But this no man has done except our Saviuor alone, who said to his disciples by word and fulfilled it by deed: "Go and teach all peoples." [The Greek is given below in Nr. 20. It adds έν τω όνόματί μου which must here have stood in the original. Here we catch the Syriac translator in the act of garbling his text.]

24. Nr. 18 of the above testimonies breaks the harmony of the other citations. The Syriac translator, obliged to render so long a consecutive passage from the Gospels, has merely availed himself of his Syriac Vulgate; and copied out from it the entire five verses. Those familiar with Armenia or Syriac versions know how common was this device of saving labour. At first sight the comment upon this citation when it speaks of the "mystery of cleansing," seems to involve the presence of βαππίζοντεc in the original Greek; but the definition which immediately follows of this cleansing, as being written as being "by the mystery of his doctrine," precludes the idea that the writer had in view the cleansing by the water of baptism, and rather suggest the exorcism at use of the name which preceded baptism, and were specially a "cleansing by his power" from the pollution of demons.​

​

​

​

23. The evidence of these later writings of Eusebius emphasises by contrast the form of text preserved in the rest of his works. He seems to have found in the codices of Caesarea the following form of text:
​

πορενθέντες μαθητύσατε πάντα τά έθνη έν τώ όνόματί μον, διδάcκοντεc αύτούc τηρεϊν πάντα όcα ένετειλάμην ύμϊν.
​

Go disciple ye all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.
​

In passages 8 and 9, έν τώ όνόματί μον has perhaps been removed after έθνη by a scribe who resented so unusual a reading. [There is a footnote here that appears to be in both Latin and Greek] Both passages occur at the very beginning of the treaties, and so caught the eye of the casual reader. Few can ever have methodically perused so long and learned a work, and therefore the work of correction went no further. It is worthy to note that in the Greek fragment of the Theophany given in Migne P. G. vol. 24, col. 629 the context involves that verse 19 as well as 18 should have been cited. Verse 18 however stands alone. Verse 19 must have been left out by a copyist..​

http://www.godglorified.com/Conybeare.htm
​

This web site has the full quote of what conybeare said in "Zeitschrift fur Neutestamentlich Wissenschaft
1901, pages 275-288"​

 

[jessedance]

Der Alter;
I agree that the triatic formula for baptism is of a very early origin. Most probably it had worked its way into the gospel of Matthew in some manuscripts that were familiar to church leaders in Rome. Eusebius, who had access to the library started by Origen , and then by Pamphilius (under whom Eusebius learned) is said to have been the greatest library of its day. All eusebiuses quotes of matthew 28:19 are obviously cited from manuscripts of the word of God that were in that library. Manuscripts that predate anything available today.
It is only after Eusebius went to Rome that the tratic formula form of matthew 28:19 was used by him in three places.

21. 22. In the Greek controversial works of Eusebius Mat 28,19 is cited fully twice, viz. in the Contra Marcellum Ancyranum, p. 3, C: and De Ecclesiastica Theologia 5, p. 174, a. In both passages we have the textus receptus, and the context also implies it.
23. In a third passage, De Eccles. Theol. 3, p. 159 d, it is cited, but only as far as the word έθνη . The author of these treaties which were written sometime after 336, and before 340, had the textus receptus before him, at least in the two passages.
24. The only evidence which remains is that of the letter, addressed by Eusebius after the council of Nicea, to his church of Caesarea. In this at the end of his baptismal creed, after the words πιcτεύομεν καί είc έν πνεύμα άγιον , is introduced a citation of Mt 28,19 in its usual form. This letter has only come down to us through the medium of Socrates the historian (I, 8, 38, p.23), who perhaps took it from the work of Sabinus. There is hardly reason to suspect an interpolation.

http://www.godglorified.com/Conybeare.htm
Incidently the source of the information you had that Eusebius wrote the triatic formula in his works before the council of nicea is from this letter to his church in which he cites the triatic formula. which sorta makes both our statements true. only the writings of his that we have available that contain the triatic formula were written after the council of nicea. If he did write the triatic formula at the council or immediatly preceeding it , the essential point is that he only quoted it after he went to rome which is concurrent in time with his trip to the council of nicea.

 

[Starcrystal]

1 Cor 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
So Jesus is subjected to the one that put all things under him. Who put all things under Jesus? Who gave Jesus his authority? Who made Jesus Lord and Christ?
Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
God made Jesus our lord and christ.

LetsBeLogical

Jesus was in God as God before his incarnation, and when he took on human form God "made" him lord and Christ. These verses and Rev 3:12 in no way negate the fact that Jesus was pre-existant, or that he is equal qith God as God. When God took on the form of a man, Jesus, in his human form could say "My Father, and My God," because while Jesus was man & God he was limited, while in Spirit God still was and always was omnipresent, & omnipotent. But then consider Hebrews 1:8 where it says of the Son, "Thy throne, O GOD is for ever and ever..." Yes, Jesus is God. As he said to the disciples when they asked Jesus to show them the Father: "If you have seen me you have seen the Father."

 

[jessedance]

der alter;
the quote of clement is appended in stromateis book 8 , # 76 its on page 285 of the pdf copy of Conybeares work on matthew 28:19 . can't copy and paste it. but this cite has a short cut link to it.http://www.godglorified.com/Conybeare.htm. It is an appendage to his stromateis book 8 which isnt in the translations we have of stromaties because it is an appendage of his to his work. like a foot note except i think its in the margin. Dr. P. M. Barnham collected all of Clement's new testament citations form clement's works. and is quoted by conybeare as believing that 'in the name of' was added to what theodosius said. any way wish i could cut and paste but its in pdf.

 

[jessedance]

The truth is that Eusebius submitted to the council a proposed creed which included, "as our Lord also said, when he sent his disciples to preach: Go and teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

So it is very evident the Nicæan council did not influence Eusebius to include the Triadic formula but Eusebius influenced the council.

you say that eusebius, an arian influenced the council to include the triatic formula, and you say that eusebius left the triatic fomula out of his prior wirttings because he was arian. I don't see your logic here. To put it more succicntly;

"Eusebius was an Arian, ample reason why he might have omitted the Triadic formula."........."Eusebius influenced the council".... "to include the Triadic formula "

These two assertions of yours seem at odds with one another.

if eusebius is an arian that can't explain his both using the tiratic formula and not using the triatic formula. one or the other possibly but not both.

 

[Der Alte]

you say that eusebius, an arian influenced the council to include the triatic formula, and you say that eusebius left the triatic fomula out of his prior wirttings because he was arian. I don't see your logic here. To put it more succicntly;

"Eusebius was an Arian, ample reason why he might have omitted the Triadic formula."........."Eusebius influenced the council".... " to include the Triadic formula."

These two assertions of yours seem at odds with one another.

if eusebius is an arian that can't explain his both using the tiratic formula and not using the triatic formula. one or the other possibly but not both.

I only cited the historical evidence and summarized what it said. The evidence reveals that Eusebius was an Arian. I cannot get inside his mind and know why he did or did not do what history tells us he did. I can think of some plausible reasons. The nature of Jesus was not formalized until Nicaea, which had opened the way for heresies such as the Arians. Perhaps when Eusebius saw that Arius and his followers were in the minority he decided to get on the majority side. This would also explain why he only quoted the Triadic formula after the council because to do or say anything which contradicted the decrees of the council could get a person, excommunicated. Which the seventh Ecuminical Council did.

The historical facts remain, Eusebius was an Arian or had very strong Arian leanings. He did submit a proposed creed, which included the Triadic formula in Matt 28:19, to the Nicaean council before they completed their deliberations and issued their decisions.

 

[Der Alte]

I agree that the triatic formula for baptism is of a very early origin. Most probably it had worked its way into the gospel of Matthew in some manuscripts that were familiar to church leaders in Rome.

You simply will not admit you are wrong and turn loose of your prejudices and presuppositions, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. You do not have one shred of evidence but you continue to insist that the verse was changed. Please note this one quote from Ignatius who was a disciple of John who wrote the Gospel, Revelation, and the three epistles. This epistle was written some time before 107 a.d. when Ignatius died. Note Ignatius places the Triadic formula, “in the Gospel.” This is one of the earliest, if not the very earliest, witness we have of the Triadic formula, in Matt 28:19, outside the scriptures. Other than Eusebius’ quotations in the fourth century we have no extant writings of the early church showing any other form for Matt 28:19 and as has been stated many times before there is absolutely no manuscript showing Matthew 28, without the Triadic formula.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians

Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation of the Gentiles," have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying, ] "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-20.htm#P1941_328407
​

​

Eusebius, who had access to the library started by Origen , and then by Pamphilius (under whom Eusebius learned) is said to have been the greatest library of its day. All eusebiuses quotes of matthew 28:19 are obviously cited from manuscripts of the word of God that were in that library. Manuscripts that predate anything available today.

It is not obvious at all! That is simply your presupposition. Do you have any evidence at all, anything which indicates what manuscripts or writings this library might have contained? Can you produce any proof that the manuscripts available to Eusebius did not have the triadic formula? I have already shown that the words “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” were in the Gospel before 107 a.d. and that Eusebius was an Arian which is an excellent reason he did not quote any Trinitarian passages.

It is only after Eusebius went to Rome that the tratic formula form of matthew 28:19 was used by him in three places.

Already addressed this. Once the decrees of the Nicaean council were formalized then it became an anethematizing and excommunicable offense to write or teach against those decrees. After the major discussion five bishops would not sign the accords. More discussions were held and 3 of them agreed to sign. Two bishops, Arius who began the heresy named after him Arianism, and one other bishop did not sign the accords. Both were dismissed from their bishopricks and banished.

 

[jessedance]

DER ALTER;

A. Fraudulent forgeries of Ignatius:

1. 
   [*]The real Ignatius, lived about 110 AD. A total of 15 letters were allegedly written by Ignatius. We take the view that all 15 of Ignatius's letters are forgeries. The fact that neither Eusebius (300 AD) nor Jerome (495 AD) make reference to the first 8 Ignatian letters (Tarsians, Antiochians, Hero, Philippians, Maria to Ignatius, Mary, 1st. St. John, 2nd St. John, Virgin Mary) makes it likely that they were composed as late as 300-500 AD. It is this reason that all scholars reject these first 8 letters as forgeries. Some scholars, however accept that the "7 Ignatian letters" are genuine. These 7 Ignatian letters are: Polycarp, Ephesians, Magnesians, Philadelphians, Romans, Smyrnaeans, Trallians. We feel these scholars are in error and that even the 7 Ignatian letters are forgeries. (We have colour coded the quotes below.)
   [*]We take the view that all of Ignatius' writings are forgeries and unreliable. There are fifteen books attributed to Ignatius. Eight are surely forgeries and spurious. Seven are considered by some as genuine, although many scholars also believe they are all forgeries. Again, we view all Ignatius' writings as forgeries. They purport to be written by Ignatius, who lived about 110 AD. We believe it is clear, however, that they are all no earlier than 220 AD, more likely 250 AD. Although they are forgeries, they do represent the views of the author in time of 250 AD. We see a clear change from the Bible pattern, from a plurality of Elders (also called bishops) , deacons and saints, to a single Bishop who ruled the congregations and under him were a plurality of elders, then deacons and saints. At this point in history, congregations were still autonomous and independent, but we also see the seeds of development for the Papal system, where one man rules over all churches world wide which first occurred in 606 AD.

1. http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-forgeries-250AD.htm

the authenticity of the epistle to the philadelphians is in dispute. Something written that long ago I doubt either one of us can prove one way or the other.

Eusebius of Caesarea (c.263 - c.339) was the Bishop of Palestine and the principal of a school of theology there. It was Eusebius of Caesarea that delivered Constantine's eulogy and wrote the Life of Constantine and the history of the first four centuries of the Catholic Church. Eusebius of Caesarea was also considered an Arian and gave refuge to Arius and was said to have been excommunicated but taken back into the graces and finally accepted the doctrinal position of the Council of Nicaea. In an effort to move the council proceeding to conpletion, Constantine signed the Nicean Creed, demanding that the Arians on the council sign it also. Eusebius of Nicodemia signed it, then disclaimed that signature. Eusebius of Caesarea, who Arius had regarded as a chief supporter, claimed that the Nicean Creed was based on his creed, although it took a stand against Arius. Eusebius of Caesarea is considered by many to have been Arian and is usually referred to as the Arian biographer of Constantine. A quick look at his writings in his Ecclesiastic History, which is published in the links below show that he is in fact quite orthodox and holds to the true catholic position.

http://latter-rain.com/eccles/euseb.htm
These guys are trinitarians who said this. they say he was orthodox.

 

[jessedance]

But then consider Hebrews 1:8 where it says of the Son, "Thy throne, O GOD is for ever and ever..." Yes, Jesus is God. As he said to the disciples when they asked Jesus to show them the Father: "If you have seen me you have seen the Father."

heb 1:8 is a quote of psalms 45:6 vs. 7 of that psalm says "Thou hast loved righteousness and hatest wickedness, Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee, Oil of joy above thy companions. "YLT
So the God(elohim) in vs. 7 of the god (elohim) in vs. 6 annoints the god (elohim) of vs. 6 above his companinons that means the god (elohim) in vs. 6 has companions or fellow gods (elohim) which would be us. so to conclude that Jesus is god because of vs. 6 would neccesitate that all the companions of Jesus, that would be us, are likewise gods (elohim) which is what jesus said, "Ye are gods "(elohims)

 

[Starcrystal]

Jessedance,
heb 1:8 is a quote of psalms 45:6 vs. 7 of that psalm says "Thou hast loved righteousness and hatest wickedness, Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee, Oil of joy above thy companions. "YLT
So the God(elohim) in vs. 7 of the god (elohim) in vs. 6 annoints the god (elohim) of vs. 6 above his companinons that means the god (elohim) in vs. 6 has companions or fellow gods (elohim) which would be us. so to conclude that Jesus is god because of vs. 6 would neccesitate that all the companions of Jesus, that would be us, are likewise gods (elohim) which is what jesus said, "Ye are gods "(elohims)

Why do the "companions" (Or "fellows" in KJV) have to be us? They could be angels. They could be everything that lives ~ material & nonmaterial.
I think a full understanding of the "Ye are gods." passage would be in order. but I just have no time for this because of work. I know some people have twisted these verses to create the "little gods" teaching which is nothing but witchcraft under another name.

 

[jessedance]

der alter;
You have stated that one possible reason that the tiratic formula was left out of matthew 28:19 is that it wasn't relevant to what he was talking about. But this cannot be because,

eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form:

​

‘Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.’​

http://www.focus-search.com/shc/matt2819.html

If what you say is true that would mean that eusebius would have stoped his quote at 'make disciples of all the nations, His quote of matthew 28:19 continues on at that point in 18 citations of his in different works always with 'in my name, teahcing them to observe al things whatsoever I commanded you."
I allso pointed out the reason for the slightly diffeernt readings in theopanies. mainly copiest errors. It not probable at all that he would cite matthew 28:19 that many times in various different works and fail to inserrt 'baptise them in the name of the farther son and holy ghost" in between 'go ye and make disciples of all nations" and "teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you" the latter quote being vs 20. It is not logical to believe that eusebius left the triatic foumula out of it every time and substituted "in my name" for "baptise in the name of the father son and holy ghost",
Your other explanation that he left the triatic formula out because he was an arian is not held by any one other than you. No scholar would dare assert that.
so you have as yet to offer any reasonable expantion for the eusebian quotes of matthew 28:19 that omit the triatic formula.imo
​

 

[LetsBeLogical]

Starcrystal

Thanks for the reply.

Jesus was in God as God before his incarnation, and when he took on human form God "made" him lord and Christ. These verses and Rev 3:12 in no way negate the fact that Jesus was pre-existant, or that he is equal qith God as God. When God took on the form of a man, Jesus, in his human form could say "My Father, and My God," because while Jesus was man & God he was limited, while in Spirit God still was and always was omnipresent, & omnipotent

.

No one is doubting that Jesus existed prior to becoming a man. However, in Revelation 3:12 Jesus is no longer a man so how do you explain him calling God "my god" 4 times?

But then consider Hebrews 1:8 where it says of the Son, "Thy throne, O GOD is for ever and ever..." Yes, Jesus is God. As he said to the disciples when they asked Jesus to show them the Father: "If you have seen me you have seen the Father."

I think I have explained this before but am not sure if it was to you or not. I'm glad you mentioned Hebrews 1:8. Please however read verse 9 and notice where it says "therefore God, your God". The father just said that he was the God of Jesus! Literally translated it would say "God, the God of you".

LetsBeLogical

 

[jessedance]

.

No one is doubting that Jesus existed prior to becoming a man.

LetsBeLogical

I do.

 

[LetsBeLogical]

I do.

Why is that? You dont believe Jesus existed in heaven before becoming a man?

LetsBeLogical

 

[jessedance]

I believe Jesus is the new creation of God , the second or last adam to replace the first adam (us). god in effect gave up on the first adam and decided to make a new creation. which we have part in by becoming new creations IN Christ Jesus who is the new creation of god.

orinthians II 5:17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;

ASV.
Obviously Jesus isn't the first-born of animal or plant creation or the first adam but of the new creation.

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

ASV
A woman has no seed she has eggs. men have seed. so how didMary have seed? not from Joseph but from god.

Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man. [/QUOTE'KJV
Hebrew frequently uses the past tense for the future as a means of showing the certainty of it. the new thing that god created was Mary's seed. god created a new seed or sperma in greek and created it in her womb thus making god , who actually created the seed, his father. Since the seed originated in Mary's womb it could be said that it was 'her seed' as gen 3:15 expalins it.
Incidently , my pastor did a study of which bibles have the fewest trinitarian interpolations of sciripture in them and he found by examining how each translation translateds the scirputre most used to support tirnity that the asv was the best. I have found this to be true, however it isnlt always ture just usualy.

 

[LetsBeLogical]

jessedance

There are too many verses that state otherwise. Infact how would you explain John 1:1, Rev 3:14, and John 8:58 just to name a few if Jesus didnt exist before becoming man?

LetsBeLogical

 

[Natfarnz]

Are Christians here seriously suggesting that Tertullian/Martyr believed in the Trinity as Christians do today?