Eusebius-Further proofs of the crook Messianic Jew
- Uploaded by Nijjhar on Feb 7, 2010
- Views: 1820
Eusebius-Further proofs of the crook Messianic Jews blindness - 41. Espistles if the Word of God cannot belong to any one else but to God. Christ Jesus did not preach His own Gospel but of our Father. We all glorify our Father and not ourselves. HI,
I HAVE GOT THE FULL BOOK OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY BY EUSEBIUS:-
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.iv.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.
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine
CHAPTER IV.â€”The First Successors of the Apostles.
The identity of the author of the third Gospel and of the Acts is now admitted by all parties. See the various Commentaries and New Testament Introductions; and upon the sources of the Acts, compare especially WeizsÃ¤ckers Apost. Zeitalter, p. 182 sqq., and Weiss Einleitung, p. 569 sq. which he 137composed not from the accounts of others, but from what he had seen himself.
8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Lukes Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, according to my Gospel.615615 Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8. Eusebius uses the expression Ï†Î±Ïƒá½·, they say, which seems to imply that the interpretation was a common one in his day. Schaff (Ch. Hist. I. p. 649) says that Origen also thus interpreted the passages in Romans and Timothy referred to, but he gives no references, and I have not been able to find in Origens works anything to confirm the statement. Indeed, in commenting upon the passages in the Epistle to the Romans he takes the words my Gospel to refer to the gospel preached by Paul, not to the Gospel written by Luke. It is true, however, that in the passage from his Commentary on Matthew, quoted by Eusebius in VI. 25, below, Origen does suppose Paul to refer to Luke and his Gospel in 2 Cor. viii. 18. The interpretation of the words according to my Gospel, which Eusebius represents as common in his day, is adopted also by Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 7), but is a gross exegetical blunder. Paul never uses the word Îµá½Î±Î³Î³á½³Î»Î¹Î¿Î½ in such a sense, nor is it used by any New Testament writer to designate the gospel record, or any one of the written Gospels. It is used always in the general sense of glad tidings, or to denote the scheme of salvation, or the substance of the gospel revelation. Eusebius is not the first to connect Lukes Gospel with Paul. The Muratorian Fragment speaks of Lukes connection with Paul, and IrenÃ¦us (III. 1. 1, quoted below in V. 8. Â§2) says directly that Luke recorded the Gospel preached by Paul. Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. IV. 5) tells us that Lukes form of the Gospel is usually ascribed to Paul, and in the same work, IV. 2, he lays down the principle that the preaching of the disciples of the apostles needs the authority of the apostles themselves, and it is in accord with this principle that so much stress was laid by the early Church upon the connection of Mark with Peter and of Luke with Paul. In chap. 24 Eusebius refers again to Lukes relation to Paul in connection with his Gospel, and so, too, Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 25. The Pauline nature of the Gospel has always been emphasized, and still is by the majority of scholars. This must not be carried so far, however, as to imply that Luke drew his materials from Paul; for Paul himself was not an eye-witness, and Luke expressly states in his preface the causes which induced him to write, and the sources from which he derived his material. The influence of Paul is seen in Lukes standpoint, and in his general spiritâ€”his Gospel is the Gospel of universal salvation.