BELIEVE IT OR DIE–

[david]

“To enforce the decisions (about the trinity) of the Council of Nicea, Constantine commanded, with the death penalty for disobedience…….”— A History of Christianity Volume 1 1997, Kenneth Scott Latourette

“The day was to come when the Nicene party won out completely and then the emperors, who wished to prevent any more such quarrels, decreed that one who denied the Trinity should be put to death.”-The Church of our Fathers – 1950, pg. 46

An Eyewitness Account :
Michael Servetus Villanovanus burned at the stake for rejecting “the trinity” doctrine 27th of October 1553

“Shortly after twelve o'clock,
a procession started from the town-hall of Geneva
-the chief magistrates of the city,
the clergy in their robes, the Lieutenant Criminel
and other officers on horseback… and in their midst,
with arms bound, in shabby, dirty clothes,
walked a man of middle age, whose intellectual face
bore the marks of long suffering…
Mounting the hill, the field of Champel was reached,
and here on sight eminence was the fateful stake,
with dangling chains and heaping bundles of faggots.
At this sight the poor victim prostrated himself
on the ground in prayer….
'Misericordia, misericordia!
Jesu, thou Son of the eternal God,
have compassion upon me!'
Bound to the stake by the iron chains,
with a chaplet of straw and green twigs covered
with sulphur on his head, with long dark face,
it is said that he looked like the Christ
in whose name he was bound.
Around his waist were tied a large bundle
of manuscript and a thick octavo printed book.
The torch was applied, and as the flames spread
to the straw and sulphur and flashed in his eyes,
there was a piercing cry that struck terror
into the hearts of the bystanders.
The faggots were green, the burning was slow,
and it was long before in a last agony
he cried again,
'Jesu, thou Son of the eternal God,
have mercy on me!'
Thus died in his forty-fourth year,
Michael Servetus Villanovanus,
physician, physiologist, and heretic.
…he remained faithful unto death
to what he believed was the Truth
as revealed in the Bible.”
– The execution scene
as described by Sir William Osler

“The doctrine that Jesus Christ the Son of God was God the son was decreed by worldly and ecclesiastical powers. Men were forced to accept it at the point of the sword or else, Thus, the error of the trinity was propounded to the end that ultimately people believed it to be the truth. Thus Christianity became in essence like Babylonian heathenism, with only a veneer of Christian names.”— Forgers of the Word -1983 Victor Paul Wierwille

“When we look back through the long ages of the reign of the Trinity . . . we shall perceive that few doctrines have produced more unmixed evil.”– (A Statement of Reasons for Not Believing the Doctrine of the Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God and the Person of Christ); by Andrews Norton; 1833

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
“The situation today, where many translations…exists largely because of the amount of money to be gained…” -(The Preservation of the Bible By Faithful Churches)–By Charles V. Turner

On explaining why the NIV translators decided not to include God's name, EDWIN H. PALMER, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote:
“Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it?that is how many have bought it to date?and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.”

$ $ $ $

So, we have money, fear of death. Let's add tradition.
I'll let it go at that.

I was wanting this thread to be about all the reasons people
believe in the trinity, despite the absense of any mention of it
in the Bible.

As far as I can tell, it is largely tradition, but began in fear and popularity and the uniting of a realm and followed with fear of death and the “go with the flow” attitude. Money also played it's part.

Who can add?

[Cult Buster]

David

Quote

I was wanting this thread to be about all the reasons people believe in the trinity, despite the absense of any mention of it in the Bible.

Says who?

1.     Jehovah the Father.

2.     Christ is Jehovah. (John 1:1,  John 20:28)

Jer 23:5-6  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch (Jesus), and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD (Jehovah) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

3.     Jehovah the Holy Spirit.

II Cor 3:17
Now Jehovah is the Spirit; and where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom.  (NWT)  (Even the cult's own bible cannot hide the truth)

Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Joh 1:5  And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not  

[TimothyVI]

Quote (Cult Buster @ May 09 2007,00:03)

David Quote I was wanting this thread to be about all the reasons people believe in the trinity, despite the absense of any mention of it in the Bible. Says who? 1.     Jehovah the Father. 2.     Christ is Jehovah. (John 1:1,  John 20:28) Jer 23:5-6  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch (Jesus), and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD (Jehovah) OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. 3.     Jehovah the Holy Spirit. II Cor 3:17 Now Jehovah is the Spirit; and where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom.  (NWT)  (Even the cult's own bible cannot hide the truth) Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Joh 1:5  And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not

Hi Cultbuster,

1. Jehova the Father.
Absolutely correct. That fact is stated so many times in scriptures that it can not be contested.

2. Christ is Jehovah. (John 1:1, John 20:28).
That statement is incorrect. Regardless of whether you want to translate John 1 as the word was God, or the word was a God, it was still the word. The word did not become Christ until being born of the virgin Mary and becoming the only begotten Son of God.

3. Jehovah the Holy Spirit.
Correct. Jehova is spirit, and Jehova is Holy.
So it stands to reason that Jehova is the Holy Spirit.

What does any of that have to do with a trinity?

Tim

[TimothyVI]

Quote (Cult Buster @ May 09 2007,00:03)

Mat 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

I have already stated that I do not believe that Jesus even commanded that since none of his desciples did it.
They all baptized in the name of Jesus as they were told to.

Mat.28:19 was a corruption just as 1 Jn 5:7-8, added to the NT to help support the trinity doctrine. Nowhere throughout the entire rest of the NT does any of the desciples of Jesus either baptize in that manner or teach to baptize in that manner. They must have been pretty brazen, or totally rebellious, to completely disregard a command of their master and saviour Jesus, which was to baptize people in His name.

Tim

[Tim2]

Tim VI,

Are there any manuscripts that don't contain Matthew 28:19?

Tim

[Adam Pastor]

Eusebius of Caesarea … quotes Matt 28.19 around 20 times BEFORE the Council of Nicea without any mention of the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.
In one of his writings he does an exegesis on Matthew 28:19 simply quoting it “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations in my name“!

So it appears that he at least had a manuscript with verse 19 quite different from what we have today!

[TimothyVI]

Quote (Tim2 @ May 09 2007,03:44)

Tim VI, Are there any manuscripts that don't contain Matthew 28:19? Tim

Hi Tim2,

I don't know if there are any manuscripts that do not contain Matthew 28:19 or not. But htere are manuscripts that contain Matthew 29:19 without the trinity formula for baptism.

I have seen a copy of Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew gospel which says to baptize in “my name”. This manuscript is said to predate other Greek manuscripts. I haven't researched the authenticity of this manuscript though.

Eusibius contends that Matthew 28:19 originally did not contain the triune formula at all, but rather stated, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”
Granted, Eusibius was only a historian, but much of what we know was gleaned from his writings.

I know that I do not need to site all of the other scholars that say that in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost was added to Matthew 28:19. You are well read and have seen those studies as well as have I.
I can understand why those that want to prove the trinity theory need something to hang on to for proof. Even if it is fabricated.

Tim

[942767]

Quote (david @ May 08 2007,19:37)

“To enforce the decisions (about the trinity) of the Council of Nicea, Constantine commanded, with the death penalty for disobedience…….”— A History of Christianity Volume 1 1997, Kenneth Scott Latourette “The day was to come when the Nicene party won out completely and then the emperors, who wished to prevent any more such quarrels, decreed that one who denied the Trinity should be put to death.”-The Church of our Fathers – 1950, pg. 46 An Eyewitness Account : Michael Servetus Villanovanus burned at the stake for rejecting “the trinity” doctrine 27th of October 1553 “Shortly after twelve o'clock, a procession started from the town-hall of Geneva -the chief magistrates of the city, the clergy in their robes, the Lieutenant Criminel and other officers on horseback… and in their midst, with arms bound, in shabby, dirty clothes, walked a man of middle age, whose intellectual face bore the marks of long suffering… Mounting the hill, the field of Champel was reached, and here on sight eminence was the fateful stake, with dangling chains and heaping bundles of faggots. At this sight the poor victim prostrated himself on the ground in prayer…. 'Misericordia, misericordia! Jesu, thou Son of the eternal God, have compassion upon me!' Bound to the stake by the iron chains, with a chaplet of straw and green twigs covered with sulphur on his head, with long dark face, it is said that he looked like the Christ in whose name he was bound. Around his waist were tied a large bundle of manuscript and a thick octavo printed book. The torch was applied, and as the flames spread to the straw and sulphur and flashed in his eyes, there was a piercing cry that struck terror into the hearts of the bystanders. The faggots were green, the burning was slow, and it was long before in a last agony he cried again, 'Jesu, thou Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me!' Thus died in his forty-fourth year, Michael Servetus Villanovanus, physician, physiologist, and heretic. …he remained faithful unto death to what he believed was the Truth as revealed in the Bible.” – The execution scene as described by Sir William Osler “The doctrine that Jesus Christ the Son of God was God the son was decreed by worldly and ecclesiastical powers.  Men were forced to accept it at the point of the sword or else, Thus, the error of the trinity was propounded to the end that ultimately people believed it to be the truth. Thus Christianity became in essence  like Babylonian heathenism, with only a veneer of Christian names.”— Forgers of the Word -1983 Victor Paul Wierwille “When we look back through the long ages of the reign of the Trinity . . . we shall perceive that few doctrines have produced more unmixed evil.”– (A Statement of Reasons  for Not Believing the Doctrine  of the Trinitarians Concerning the Nature of God  and the Person of Christ); by Andrews Norton; 1833 $ $ $ $  $ $ $ $ “The situation today, where many translations…exists largely because of the amount of money to be gained…” -(The Preservation of the Bible By Faithful Churches)–By Charles V. Turner On explaining why the NIV translators decided not to include God's name, EDWIN H. PALMER, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote: “Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it?that is how many have bought it to date?and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.” $ $ $ $ So, we have money, fear of death.  Let's add tradition. I'll let it go at that. I was wanting this thread to be about all the reasons people believe in the trinity, despite the absense of any mention of it in the Bible. As far as I can tell, it is largely tradition, but began in fear and popularity and the uniting of a realm and followed with fear of death and the “go with the flow” attitude.  Money also played it's part.   Who can add?

Hi David:

And today, that which is considered by most mainstream Christianity will tell you that unless you believe the doctrine of the Trinity you cannot be a member of their church.

And some Tinitarians will even go so far as to tell you that unless you believe that doctrine you cannot be saved.

I believe that many succumb to their lies simply to go along with the crowd not because they believe the doctrine.  Well, they can not even explain it so how can any one believe it.

As for me, I can not lie to some one and tell them that I believe some thing when I don't even if they decide to burn me at the stake.

There is One God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. (1 Ti 2:5)

Thanks for your post, and God Bless.

[NickHassan]

Hi AP,
Rev 19
13He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Should that be IT too?

[Tim2]

Quote (TimothyVI @ May 09 2007,11:20)

Quote (Tim2 @ May 09 2007,03:44) Tim VI, Are there any manuscripts that don't contain Matthew 28:19? Tim Hi Tim2, I don't know if there are any manuscripts that do not contain Matthew 28:19 or not. But htere are manuscripts that contain Matthew 29:19 without the trinity formula for baptism. I have seen a copy of Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew gospel which says to baptize in “my name”. This manuscript is said to predate other Greek manuscripts. I haven't researched the authenticity of this manuscript though. Eusibius contends that Matthew 28:19 originally did not contain the triune formula at all, but rather stated, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”   Granted, Eusibius was only a historian, but much of what we know was gleaned from his writings. I know that I do not need to site all of the other scholars that say that in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost was added to Matthew 28:19. You are well read and have seen those studies as well as have I. I can understand why those that want to prove the trinity theory need something to hang on to for proof. Even if it is fabricated. Tim

Actually TimVI I'm not well read. I haven't read any scholars who argue that Matthew 28:19 was changed. But I do know that Eusebius was a heretic who was opposed by Athanasius.

Can you tell me more about this Hebrew gospel of Matthew?

Tim

[TimothyVI]

Quote (Tim2 @ May 09 2007,15:18)

Quote (TimothyVI @ May 09 2007,11:20) Quote (Tim2 @ May 09 2007,03:44) Tim VI, Are there any manuscripts that don't contain Matthew 28:19? Tim Hi Tim2, I don't know if there are any manuscripts that do not contain Matthew 28:19 or not. But htere are manuscripts that contain Matthew 29:19 without the trinity formula for baptism. I have seen a copy of Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew gospel which says to baptize in “my name”. This manuscript is said to predate other Greek manuscripts. I haven't researched the authenticity of this manuscript though. Eusibius contends that Matthew 28:19 originally did not contain the triune formula at all, but rather stated, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”   Granted, Eusibius was only a historian, but much of what we know was gleaned from his writings. I know that I do not need to site all of the other scholars that say that in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost was added to Matthew 28:19. You are well read and have seen those studies as well as have I. I can understand why those that want to prove the trinity theory need something to hang on to for proof. Even if it is fabricated. Tim Actually TimVI I'm not well read.     I haven't read any scholars who argue that Matthew 28:19 was changed.  But I do know that Eusebius was a heretic who was opposed by Athanasius.   Can you tell me more about this Hebrew gospel of Matthew? Tim

Hi Tim2,

I have seen quotes from these scholars before but I just copied and pasted this from another post on this forum.

Please investigate what each of these scholarly sources have to say about Matthew 28:19.

Let me know if you find that any of these are false.

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
“The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the
historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must
be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form changed by
the [Catholic] church.”

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
“It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the exact
words of Jesus, but a later liturgical addition.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to
the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the
second century.”

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
“The Trinity is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural
proofs, The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch in
(AD 180), (The term Trinity) is not found in Scripture.” “The chief
Trinitarian text in the New Testament is the baptismal formula in Matthew
28:19.This late post-resurrection saying, is not found in any other
Gospel or anywhere else in the New Testament, it has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion. Eusebius,s text (“in my name” rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian
formula is now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does
not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of Jesus. It is
doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from
early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal
usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic)
Church's teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit.”

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
“Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian
order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New Testament knows
only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5;
Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13-15), which still occurs even in the
second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs
only in Matt. 28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and
Justin, Apol. 1:61.Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of
the formula is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such
formulas the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be
disputed.” page 435.

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
“It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the
fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the
(Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive
(Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of
baptizing “in the name of Jesus.”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637,
Under “Baptism,” says:
“Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical
situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early
Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula is foreign to the
mouth of Jesus.”

New Revised Standard Version: In regards to Matthew 28:19.
“Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and
that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in
the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism
performed with the name of the Trinity.”

James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this
statement: “It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so far as the
fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the
(Catholic) liturgical usage established later in the primitive
(Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of
baptizing “in the name of Jesus.” Acts 1:5.

Tom Harpur:
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his “For
Christ's sake,” page 103 informs us of these facts: “All but the
most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of
this command [Triune part of Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The
formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and
we know from the evidence available that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words (“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”) baptism was “into” or “in” the name of Jesus alone.
It is argued that the verse originally read “baptizing them in
My Name” and then was changed to work in the [later
Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by
German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth
century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship
as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published:
“The Church of the first days (AD 33) did not observe this
world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The
command to baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late
doctrinal addition.
”

The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: “The command to baptize into the
threefold name is a late doctrinal addition. Instead of the words
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-“into My Name.”

Theology of the New Testament:
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic
Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact that the verse
Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to very plainly. “As
to the rite of baptism, it was normally consummated as a bath in
which the one receiving baptism completely submerged, and if
possible in flowing water as the allusions of Acts 8:36, Heb. 10:22,
Barn. 11:11 permit us to gather, and as Did. 7:1-3 specifically
says. According to the last passage, [the apocryphal Catholic
Didache] suffices in case of the need if water is three times poured
on the head. The one baptizing names over the one being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” later changed to the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church:
By Dr. Stuart G. Hall 1992, pages 20 and 21. Professor Stuart G.
Hall was the former Chair of Ecclesiastical History at King's
College, London England. Dr. Hall makes the factual statement that
Catholic Trinitarian Baptism was not the original form of Christian
Baptism, rather the original was Jesus name baptism. “In the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” although those
words were not used, as they later are, as a formula. Not all
baptisms fitted this rule.” Dr Hall further, states: “More common
and perhaps more ancient was the simple, “In the name of the Lord
Jesus or, Jesus Christ.” This practice was known among Marcionites
and Orthodox; it is certainly the subject of controversy in Rome and
Africa about 254, as the anonymous tract De rebaptismate (“On
rebaptism”) shows.”

The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1,
Prolegomena 1:
The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes
Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. “There is
little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle
of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline
Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem
is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to
Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the
analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.

The Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. 1923, New
Testament Studies Number 5:
The Lord's Command To Baptize An Historical Critical Investigation.
By Bernard Henry Cuneo page 27. “The passages in Acts and the
Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the earliest
form as baptism in the name of the Lord.” Also we find. “Is it
possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ
commanded his disciples to baptize in the trine form? Had Christ
given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church would have
followed him, and we should have some trace of this obedience in the
New Testament. No such trace can be found. The only explanation of
this silence, according to the anti-traditional view, is this the
short christological (Jesus Name) formula was (the) original, and
the longer trine formula was a later development.”

A History of The Christian Church:
1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History
at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again
declared. “With the early disciples generally baptism was “in the
name of Jesus Christ.” There is no mention of baptism in the name of
the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed
to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the
original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the
practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the
Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century
retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least,
baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular,
certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257).”

Tim

[TimothyVI]

Quote (Tim2 @ May 09 2007,15:18)

But I do know that Eusebius was a heretic who was opposed by Athanasius.   Tim

Hi Tim2,

You said “But I do know that Eusebius was a heretic who was opposed by Athanasius. “
Really? Here is what other people have said about Eusebius:

“Eusebius of Caesarea, to whom we are indebted for the preservation of so many contemporary works of antiquity, many of which must have perished had he not collected and edited them” (Robert Roberts, Good Company, vol. III, page 10).
“Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time… worked untiringly for the acceptance of the pure word of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles. Eusebius…relies throughout only upon ancient manuscripts, and always openly confesses the truth when he cannot find sufficient testimony” (E. K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug 1923; Fraternal Visitor, June 1924).
“Eusebius Pamphilius, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, a man of vast reading and erudition, and one who has acquired immortal fame by his labors in ecclesiastical history, and in other branches of theological learning.” Ch. ii, 9… till about 40 years of age he lived in great intimacy with the martyr Pamphilius, a learned and devout man of Caesarea, and founder of an extensive library there, from which Eusebius derived his vast store of learning. Eusebius was an impartial historian, and had access to the best helps for composing a correct history which his age afforded” (J. L. Mosheim, editorial footnote).
“Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history of the New Testament” (Dr. Westcott, General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, page 108).
“The most important writer in the first quarter of the fourth century was Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius was a man of little originality or independent judgement. But he was widely read in the Greek Christian literature of the second and third centuries, the bulk of which has now irretrievably perished, and subsequent ages owe a deep debt to his honest, if somewhat confused, and at time not a little prejudice, erudition” (Peake's Bible Commentary, 1929,page 596).
“Some hundred works, several of them very lengthy, are either directly cited or referred to as read (by Eusebius). In many instances he would read an entire treatise for the sake of one or two historical notices, and must have searched many others without finding anything to serve his purpose… Under the second head the most vital question if the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with his material or not? The sarcasm of GIBBON (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is well known… the passages to which Gibbon refers do not bear out his imputation…Eusebius contents himself with condemning these sins… in general terms, without entering into details…but it leaves no imputation on his honesty” (Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature).
“Eusebius was an impartial historian, and had access to the best helps for composing a correct history which his age afforded.” (J. L. Mosheim: an editoral note).
“Of the patristic witnesses to the text of the New Testament as it stood in the Greek MSS, from about 300-340, none is so important as Eusebius of Caesarea, for he lived in the greatest Christian library of that age, that namely which Origen and Pamphilus had collected. It is no exaggeration to say that from this single collection of manuscripts at Caesarea derives the larger part of the surviving ante-Nicene literature. In his library, Eusebius must have habitually handled codices of the Gospels older by two hundred years than the earliest of the great uncials that we have now in our libraries” (The Hibbert Journal, October., 1902).

Tim

[david]

I forgot about this thread.

[Author]

Posts