Eusebius

6th century Syriac portrait of St. Eusebius of Caesarea from the he Rabbula or Rabula Gospels in Florence, produced in 586.

Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea

Eusebius of Caesarea was born around 260/265 and died 339/340). He was also known as Eusebius Pamphili, a Roman historian and Christian polemicist of Greek descent. He was a scholar of the Biblical canon and is regarded as an extremely well learned Christian of his time. He became the bishop of Caesarea Maritima about 314. He wrote Demonstrations of the Gospel, Preparations for the Gospel, and On Discrepancies between the Gospels, studies of the Biblical text. He also produced the Ecclesiastical History, On the Life of Pamphilus and the Chronicle and On the Martyrs.

Falsehoods

He followed much of the teachings of Origen and would have opposed Calvin, since he held that men were sinners by their own free choice and not by the necessity of their natures. The nature of the limitations and consequences of that choice are worthy of discussion. When you make one choice that may limit or remove other choices.

The historian Edward Gibbon refers to Eusebius as the 'gravest of the ecclesiastical historians' He also suggests that Eusebius was more concerned with the passing political concerns of his time than his duty as a reliable historian.

In a chapter heading of Praeparatio evangelica, Book XII, Chapter 31 Eusebius wrote:

"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."

The whole Chapter XXXI is summed up in a Table of Content's description:

"That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy
for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment."

But Eusebius also wrote in the introduction to Chapter 5 of Book 11 of his Demonstratio evangelica:

"Now the type of teaching Christ gave His disciples is utterly opposed to their inventing falsehoods." Demonstratio evangelica Int, 5, p. XI, Eusebius Pamphilii of Caesarea.

When Eusebius was writing about those who accuse the followers of Christ of fabricating the story of Christ he pens in ink longer narrative:

"I ask you how these pupils of a base and shifty master, who had seen His end, discussed with one another how they should invent a story about Him which would hang together?... What speech shall we suppose was made at their covenant? Perhaps it was something like this":

"Let us now (b) make this our business. We will tell the same falsehoods, and invent stories that will benefit nobody, neither ourselves, nor those we deceive, nor him who is deified by our lies. And we will extend our lies not only to men of our own race, but go forth to all men, and fill the whole world with our fabrications about him. And then let us lay down laws for all the nations in direct opposition to the opinions they have held for ages about their ancestral gods. Let us bid the Romans first of all not to worship the gods (c) their forefathers recognized. Let us pass over into Greece, and oppose the teaching of their wise men. Let us not neglect the Egyptians, but declare war on their gods, not going back to Moses' deeds against them of old time for our weapons, but arraying against them our Master's death, to scare them;54 so we will destroy the faith in the gods which from immemorial time has gone forth to all men, not by words and argument, but by the power of our Master Crucified.

"Let us go to other foreign lands, and overturn all their (d) institutions. None of us must fail in zeal; for it is no petty contest that we dare, and no common prizes lie before us—but most likely the punishments inflicted according to the laws of each land: bonds, of course, torture, imprisonment, fire and sword, and wild beasts. We must greet them all with enthusiasm, and meet evil bravely, having our Master as our model. For what (115) could be finer than to make both gods and men our enemies for no reason at all, and to have no enjoyment of any kind, to have no profit of our dear ones, to make no money, to have no hope of anything good at all, but just to be deceived and to deceive without aim or object? This is our prize, to go straight in the teeth of all the nations, to war on the gods that have been acknowledged by them all for ages, to say that our Master, who (was crucified) 55 before our very eyes was God, and to represent Him as God's Son, for Whom we are ready to die, though we know we have learned from Him nothing either true or useful. Yes, that is the reason we must (b) honour Him the more—His utter uselessness to us—we must strain every nerve to glorify His name, undergo all insults and punishments, and welcome every form of death for the sake of a lie. Perhaps truth is the same thing as evil, and falsehood must then be the opposite of evil. So let us say that He raised the dead, cleansed lepers, drove out daemons, and did many other marvellous works, knowing all the time that He did nothing of the kind, while we invent everything for ourselves, and deceive those we can. And suppose we convince nobody, at any rate we shall have the satisfaction of (c) drawing down upon ourselves, in return for our inventions, the retribution for our deceit."

Eusebius was also quite the preterist seeing the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, the ceasing of the Mosaic worship, and the subjection of the whole Jewish race to its enemies as the proofs that the times had come already which had been spoken of in prophecy.

"The Holy Scriptures foretell that there will be unmistakable signs of the Coming of Christ. Now there were among the Hebrews three outstanding offices of dignity, which made the nation famous, firstly the kingship, secondly that of prophet, and lastly the high priesthood. The prophecies said that the abolition and complete destruction of all these three together would be the sign of the presence of the Christ. And that the proofs that the times had come, would lie in the ceasing of the Mosaic worship, the desolation of Jerusalem and its Temple, and the subjection of the whole Jewish race to its enemies...The holy oracles foretold that all these changes, which had not been made in the days of the prophets of old, would take place at the coming of the Christ, which I will presently shew to have been fulfilled as never before in accordance with the predictions."

Eusebius the Arian

To Eusebius Christ is God but is seen by him as a ray of that eternal light. He appears to limit Christ in a way that expressly distinguishes the Son as distinct from Father in that a ray of the sun would also be distinct from its source the sun but not entirely the sun. He seems intent upon emphasizing the difference of the persons of would become known as the Trinity and maintaining a subordination of the Son who is the Logos, or Word, or product of God.

He appears to do the same type of thing with the his view of the Holy Spirit and its relationship within the that newly defined Trinity. These similar views seem to be traceable to Origen. These ideologies would also get him into trouble with the new doctrinal Church that would be established by Constantine. With an influx of many new Bishops who were not entirely immune to the temptations of the error of Balaam nor fully in conformity with the Son of Man, His Holy Spirit and therefore the Father their verbal doctrine would be etched or carved out in the mind of man would. It would find itself opposed to any form of Arianism with a confrontational spirit of contempt.

Alexander of Alexandria sought to excommunicate Eusebius as a heretic until Eusebius submitted himself and agreed to the Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicea in 325.

Love me, love my doctrine!

When an intellectual expression of what you think you believe about the Truth becomes the center of your faith you have entered the realm of idolatry.

Eusebius, as an admirer of Origen, was reproached by Eustathius for deviating from the Nicene faith. Eusebius prevailed and Eustathius was deposed at a synod in Antioch. Eustathius was exiled because of his orthodoxy concerning his faith in the Nicene Creed while the Arians held political power and the ear of Constantine. His followers in Antioch formed a separate community by the name of "Eustathians" and refused to acknowledge the bishops set over them by the Arian coalition.

This debate over the nature of the Trinity was more about denominationalism, the doctrinalism of ideologues, and power over what should be a free assembly than the Doctrine of Jesus. The loyalty to groups and leaders, councils and creeds would soon begin to interfere with obedience to the decrees of Christ and in their unforgiveness the Holy Spirit would by stifled until they becameStiffnecked.

We were warned about it by Pail:

1 Corinthians 1:12 "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas;" and I of Christ. 13 "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

1 Corinthians 3:3 "For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. 8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

However, Athanasius of Alexandria became a more powerful opponent and in 334 he was summoned before a synod in Caesarea (which he refused to attend). In the following year, he was again summoned before a synod in Tyre at which Eusebius of Caesarea presided. Athanasius, foreseeing the result, went to Constantinople to bring his cause before the Emperor. Constantine called the bishops to his court, among them Eusebius. Athanasius was condemned and exiled at the end of 335. Eusebius remained in the Emperor's favour throughout this time and more than once was exonerated with the explicit approval of the Emperor Constantine. After the Emperor's death (ad 337), Eusebius wrote the Life of Constantine, an important historical work because of eyewitness accounts and the use of primary sources.

Eusebius writings and praise of Constantine kept him in the favor of his benefactor the Emperor Constantine.

He was called to present this new creed of the church to the attendees of the First Council of Nicea.

Later a more anti-Arian creed from Palestine would become the basis for the finalized Nicene Creed.

"According to Eusebius of Caesarea, the word homoousios was inserted in the Nicene Creed solely by the personal order of Constantine. But this statement is highly problematic. It is very difficult to explain the seeming paradoxical fact that this word, along with the explanation given by Constantine, was accepted by the "Arian" Eusebius, whereas it has left no traces at all in the works of his opponents, the leaders of the anti-Arian party such as Alexander of Alexandria, Ossius of Cordova, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Eustathius of Antioch, who are usually considered Constantine's theological advisers and the strongest supporters of the council. Neither before nor during Constantine's time is there any evidence of a normal, well-established Christian use of the term homoousios in its strictly Trinitarian meaning. Having once excluded any relationship of the Nicene homoousios with the Christian tradition, it becomes legitimate to propose a new explanation, based on an analysis of two pagan documents which have so far never been taken into account. The main thesis of this paper is that homoousios came straight from Constantine's Hermetic background. As can be clearly seen in the Poimandres, and even more clearly in an inscription mentioned exclusively in the Theosophia, in the theological language of Egyptian paganism the word homoousios meant that the Nous-Father and the Logos-Son, who are two distinct beings, share the same perfection of the divine nature."

All scripture

When we see the phrase "All scripture" in the Bible that did not mean the Bible because it did not exist yet. The fact is the word scripture was just the Greek word "graphe" which meant "writings" referring to "All writings".

It is divine revelation by the Holy Spirit that ultimately reveals the truth and not the private interpretation of the reader. Constantine hired Eusebius to produce the first 50 Bibles. They had a much different view of Jesus than many modern Christians. Constantine had brought in a huge faction of Christians who replaced true repentance with a watered-down view. These new Christians occupied many of the councils we see forming after 300 A.D..

The Historian

The Church historian Eusebius wrote,

A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover...But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world...But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him.[2][3]

Here is what Eusebius records that Polycrates wrote:

"We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumeneia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said 'We ought to obey God rather than man'...I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus."

The vision

It appears that Eusebius perpetuated the myth of the vision of Constantine concerning his defeat of the superior forces of his rival Maxentius at the battle of Milvian Bridge on October 28 in the year 312 A.D.. We are told that on the 27 of October with the armies preparing for battle, Constantine had a vision. But there seems to be no evidence of this vision that supposedly led him to fight under the protection of the Christian God before 325. Certainly the details of that vision, however, differ between the sources reporting the vision.

But the more disturbing contradiction is the absence of this divine vision from any other source for more than a decade.

Lactantius, who had been an advisor to the Roman Emperor Constantine, states in the De mortibus persecutorum (On the Deaths of the Persecutors) that, in the night before the battle, Constantine was commanded in a dream to "delineate the heavenly sign on the shields of his soldiers". Supposedly he followed the commands of his dream and marked the shields with a sign "denoting Christ" described as a "staurogram", or a Latin cross with its upper end rounded in a P-like fashion. But there is no real evidence that Constantine ever used that sign, or even the better known Chi-Rho sign described by Eusebius. Eusebius seems to have began to tell this story after a feast that took place in 324 A.D..

The Latin text De mortibus persecutorum contains an early account of the 28 October 312 Battle of the Milvian Bridge written by Lactantius probably in 313, the year following the battle. Lactantius does not mention a vision in the sky but describes a revelatory dream on the eve of battle.[51] Eusebius's work of that time, his Church History, also makes no mention of the vision.[49] The Arch of Constantine, constructed in AD 315, neither depicts a vision nor any Christian insignia in its depiction of the battle.

In his posthumous biography of Constantine, Eusebius agrees with Lactantius that Constantine received instructions in a dream to apply a Christian symbol as a device to his soldiers' shields, but unlike Lactantius and subsequent Christian tradition, Eusebius does not date the events to October 312 and does not connect Constantine's vision and dream-vision with the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. Eusebius also specifically recounts a vision of a cross in the sky with the words, in hoc signo vinces while, Lactantius describes a dream in which Constantine is instructed to paint the chi-rho on the shields of his army.

To make the soldiers repaint their shields and armor just before going into a battle against a superior force would not easily be forgotten. In fact it would have swept the nation could not have been kept secret.

There is no real evidence of the truth of this story etched in the Arco di Costantino (The Arch of Constantine).

The arch was commissioned by the Roman Senate to commemorate Constantine's victory over Maxentius at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in AD 312. It was dedicated to the emperor Constantine the Great on 315. in this elaborate stone account of the battle their are pagan gods, shields and armor but no Christian symbols, no cross, no Chi Rho'

The arch spans the Via Triumphalis, the route taken by victorious military leaders when they entered the city in a triumphal procession but makes no testimony of this vision nor any Christian symbol.

Hired Eusebius

Constantine hired Eusebius to produce the first 50 Bibles. The persecution of the early Christians by some emperors was nothing compared to the persecution of Christians and others that this unholy alliance of Church and State would eventually create.

Constantine is responsible for directing Eusebius to put together what became the Creed and the Bible. But if he lied about the vision then many of his other choices come into question.

The Doctrines

The Holy Spirit of the Early Church just like Early Israel and Abraham and Adam, Seth, Noah and Shem were guided by the ruach hakodesha which reveals itself to individuals in their heart and mind. That Spirit is the key to understanding of the development of the Church and the Kingdom of God.

Man made Doctrines have evolved, but the truth has not. The doctrines of Christ were the doctrines of truth. No one should teach a new doctrine. No one should require people to believe one man over another. The truth that is right before the people should be sufficient. But facts may allow people to let go of believes and set them down as a lie for they have already received falsehoods as truth.

We think each person should decide for themselves but how can they when their minds are already contaminated by preconceived and implanted notions.

If you need help:

Or want to help others:

Join The Living Network of The Companies of Ten
The Living Network | Join Local group | About | Purpose | Guidelines | Network Removal
Contact Minister | Fractal Network | Audacity of Hope | Network Links

About the author

• 

  Brother Gregory
  White Rock

Subscribe

HELP US at His Holy Church spread the word by SUBSCRIBING to many of our CHANNELS and the Network.
The more subscribers will give us more opportunity to reach out to others and build the network as Christ commanded.

Join the network.
Most important is to become a part of the Living Network which is not dependent upon the internet but seeks to form The bands of a free society.
You can do this by joining the local email group on the network and helping one another in a network of Tens.

His Holy Church - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/user/hisholychurch

Bitchute channel will often include material that would be censored.
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/o6xa17ZTh2KG/

Rumble Channel gregory144
https://rumble.com/user/gregory144

To read more go to "His Holy Church" (HHC) https://www.hisholychurch.org/

Brother Gregory in the wilderness.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJSw6O7_-vA4dweVpMPEXRA

About the author, Brother Gregory
https://hisholychurch.org/author.php

PreparingU - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9hTUK8R89ElcXVgUjWoOXQ

Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/HisHolyChurch