Eusebius-Life of John, the Apostle and the variuos Bishops - 65. HI,
I HAVE GOT THE FULL BOOK OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY BY EUSEBIUS:- http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xvii.html
PLEASE STUDY THIS AND IF YOU FIND SOME THING INTERESTING THAT I HAVE NOT DEALT WITH, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. EUSEBIUS SEEMS TO BE HONEST BUT AROUND 325A.D., PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SPIRITUALLY BLINDED SO MUCH SO THAT THEY DECLARED CHRIST AND NOT JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS. THAT IS UTTER NON-SENSE AS CHRIST STAND FOR HIS WORD THAT TOOK THE FLESH IN THE NAME OF JESUS AND LIVED AMONG US. SO, JESUS DIED AND NOT CHRIST. EUSEBIUS WAS PRESENT WHEN THEY FORMULATED THIS NON-SENSE NICENE CREED THAT MAKES NO SENSE. SO, THESE MESSIANIC JEWS ALTERED THE NEW TESTAMEN TO ALIGN IT WITH THEIR FAVOURITE WRITTEN TORAH, THE OLD CLOTH FULL OF HOLES GOOD FOR NOTHING. MESSIANIC JEWS KILLED THOSE GENTILE APOSTLES WHO MOCKED THE ROTTEN WRITTEN TORAH, THE OLD TESTAMENT FULFILLING MATT.12.V43-45 MAKING THE SITUATION WORSE THAN THAT UNDER THE HYPOCRITE TEMPLE PRIESTS.
HTTP://WWW.CCEL.ORG/CCEL/SCHAFF/NPNF201.III.VIII.XXII.HTML
CHAPTER XXII.—Ignatius, the Second Bishop of Antioch.
AT this time Ignatius was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first. We cannot doubt that the earliest tradition made Evodius first bishop of Antioch, for otherwise we could not explain the insertion of his name before the great name of Ignatius. The tendency would be, of course, to connect Ignatius directly with the apostles, and to make him the first bishop. This tendency is seen in Athanasius and Chrysostom, who do not mention Evodius at all, where, however, it is said that Evodius was ordained by Peter, a corruption as Peter never ordained any but just blessed them, and Ignatius by Paul. The fact that the name of Evodius appears here shows that the tradition that he was the first bishop seemed to the author too old and too strong to be set aside. Origen is an indirect witness to the episcopacy of Evodius, since he makes Ignatius the second, and not the first, bishop of Antioch. As to the respective dates of the early bishops of Antioch, we know nothing certain. Symeon likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first. Jesus had no brother in flesh.
CHAPTER XXIII.—Narrative Concerning John the Apostle.
1. AT that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and serving them with His Word and not governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island.
2. And that he was still alive at that time That is, at the beginning of the reign of Trajan. may be established by the testimony of two witnesses. They should be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria. The test of a mans trustworthiness in Eusebius mind—and not in his alone—was his orthodoxy. Irenæus has always been looked upon as orthodox, and so was Clement, in the early Church, which reckoned him among the saints. His name, however, was omitted in the Martyrology issued by Clement VIII., on the ground that his orthodoxy was open to suspicion.
3. The former in the second book of his work Against Heresies, writes as follows: And all the elders that associated with John the Worker and not disciple of our anointed Elder Brother Christ Jesus and not the Lord of the antichrists in Asia bear witness that John delivered it to them. For he remained among them until the time of Trajan. It is in this immediate connection that Irenæus makes the extraordinary assertion, founding it upon the testimony of those who were with John in Asia, that Christ lived to the age of forty or fifty years. A statement occurring in connection with such a palpably false report might well fall under suspicion; but the fact of Johns continuance at Ephesus until the time of Trajan is supported by other passages, and there is no reason to doubt it. Irenæus himself repeats the statement as a well-known fact, in III. 3, 4. It may also be said that the opinion as to Christs age is founded upon subjective grounds upon a mistaken interpretation of John viii. 56, 57, rather than upon external testimony, and that the testimony (which itself may have been only the result of a subjective opinion) is dragged in only for the sake of confirming a view already adopted.
Loading...
8:47Who are the Gnostics of living God?- Replaced s...by nijjhar18,378 views
Link to this comment:
All Comments (0)