The Gospel of Early Christianity
(Part 2)
Compiled and Presented by Don R. Hender
In part 2 of the Gospel of Early Christianity
it is proposed that we take a break from that Gospel as taken from the
presentation of such in the Ecclesiasical History of Bishop Eusebius of
Caesarea and turn for the time to that event of history which seems to have
set upon the table of Christianity the very determination of the nature of
God and that nature of Christ's Dispensation just spoken of into an eventual
'Creed' developed over time by the mind, philosophy and innovation of man.
We have just well established from the writings of Bishop Eusebius his
understanding of God the Father, Our Father in Heaven and that of Jesus Christ
- Jehovah and that dispenstion or 'oikonomia' set upon our Saviour and Lord
Jesus Christ by the Father beginning from the pre-existence to the Second
Coming of the Lord as per the vision of Daniel the prophet. Thus hopefully
we have a grasp upon who Jesus Christ is and what his 'dispensation' or
role all envolves in being our Redeemer and King.
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and
not after Christ." ~ Colossians 2:8
It was Jesus Christ himself in his instructions to the boy prophet Joseph
Smith who said of the various churches of Joseph day that 'their creeds were
an abomination in his sight, that those professors were all corupt; that
"they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they
teach for the doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness,
but they deny the power thereof."' These 'creeds' of Traditional Christianity
are not consistant with that Gospel of Jesus Christ which we have so far
extracted from the writings of Bishop Eusebius in his day and time. And what
was going to happen that would change this would be such events of developing
these 'abominal creed' by the mixing of the innovations and philosophies of
men as emposed upon the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In this second
part of the Early Christion Gospel of Jesus Christ, we will attempt to
present an understanding just how this did come about.
A Historical Background Concerning the Theological Philosophies
of God as Innovated by the Learnings of Men
Well before the birth of Jesus Christ, and therefore that fulness of Gospel
understanding which his ministry did bring into the World, there were the
developing Philosophies of the workings of the Minds of Men. Such 'high'
learning of theological philosophy began due to two sets of circumstance.
First the world had been solidified by such as Alexander the Great and second,
thus the high learning of the philosophers of the Greeks were set upon the
known nations of the earth, particularly those which the Hellenistic Kingdom
did preside over up to and included by such as Alexandria of Egypt, and even
down to and including by the processes of aboption of the subsequent Roman
Emphirer of the time of Christ and the sugsequent centuries follow.
Now such as the great philosopher Plato lived some 428/427 BC - 348/347 BC,
well before the day and age and truths spoken of by and revealed through the
life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Plato never knew of Jesus Christ nor did
he much consider the concepts of the Hebrew God in so developing his own
philosophical basis of God. Aristotle was a student of Plato who lived
384 BC - 322 BC. He it was who was techer of Alexander the Great. Alexander
the Great lived 20/21 July 356 - 10/11 June 323 BC and round about 336 BC,
after Philip's death, Alexander inherited the strong kingdom and experienced
army of the Greeks. Armed such and with the unbridaled mind of youth by 334
BC Alexander invaded Persian-ruled Asia Minor and in a series of decisive battle
Alexander overthrew the Persian King Darius III and conquered the entirety
of the Persian Empire ruling from Egypt to Persia to Greece. Alexander's
great established Kingdom was upon Alexander's death, divided betwen Alexanders
three sons. And the Greek philogophical taught lead forth in the high learning
of men.
All this concerning the estabishment of the Hellenistic Empire occured well
before the coming birth of Jesus Christ. But the Philosophical foundations
of the civilized world were laid and even when the Greek Empire fell to
Roman, the philosophy and learning of the Greeks prevailed on and were studied
and esteemed of men even the western centers of Christian learning and of
Christian ministers and leaders did so come to study and learn and become
endoctrinated in the high philosophical thoughts of the great Greek Philosophers.
Now there are any number of scholarly writters who have published concerning
this infiltration of Greek Philosophy in to Traditional Christiantity
thought, so rather than to draw solely upon them I'd like to list a
representative internet connective resourse list to them and their writtings:
Why
Early Christianity Adopted Greek Philosophy, by Noel B. Reynolds
The
Introduction of Philosophy into Early Christianity by Daniel W. Graham and James L. Siebach
The Influence of Greek
Philosophy On the Development of Christian Theology by J. W. Jepson, D. Min.
Christianity
And Greek Philosophy - by B. F. Cocker, D.D.
The
Greek Philosopher's Search for the Meaning of Life Illuminated by the
Divine Revelation of Christian Theology
Now this short list does give but a random short list of the topic of the
relationship between Greek Philosophy and Christianity. Some consider that
the Greek Philosophy was a providencial preparation for the coming
Christianity and therefore provided much benefit and needed structure, others
will point out that in their consideration that the Greek Philosophy of men
hundreds of years before and apart from Christ and Christianity did but
corrupt the truth of Christian Gospel. Yet in exactly what it was certainly
not all in agreement. But for sure there is a relationship betwix the
two, no denying it, for better or worse. In this presentation it has been
selected to present what is considered to be a very central portrayal of
what the Early Christian Gospel was, using Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea as the
prime authority, often from his period written Ecclesiastical History of the
Church and what from that through the process of such as the development of
the Nicene Creed which introduced elements of Greek Philosophy and innovations
of men did evolve into being in that 'finished' creed.
From an LDS perspective, such creeds have been denounced by the voice of Christ
as spoken and revealed to man of our day and time. From what was as such as
presented as Bishop Eusebius' understanding of the Gospel of Christ to what
it would become as such a result of the development of such a Greek Philosophically
influenced and also so influenced by the innovations of man is now where this
text will turn.
Depending upon your source and 'authority' Bishop Eusebius is given to be
any thing and any where from being the entitled 'Father of the Nicene Creed'
to being one of the absolute foes of it. Upon the adoption of Christianity
as the state Church of the Roman Empire by Emperor Constantine, think of his
conversion, his intenting and underlying purpose as you may; Constantine proposed
to unify the then divided into factions often by regions of the various
'parish churches' of Christianity into one unified by doctrine Christian
Religion of the State.
Pending upon whose and which account one may read, Constantine selects
Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea as 'the' or one of the leading scholarly leaders
of the faith to speak either the enuageral or primarly address on the
central day of the Council to set out a proposed central theme of common
belief. As per Bishop Eusebius' own words, it was to such standard simple belief
from that which he considered to be acceptable to all of the faith as it was
but the considered baptismal theme of belief he thought that they might all
be able to concluded upon. After all it was the purpose and intent of the
senode to come to such foundational agreement. To this end I will present
a letter written by Bishop Eusebius concerning the events of the Nicene
Council in a two columnar manner, one column containing Bishop Eusebius'
text and the other a place for commentary, facts and scriptural reference.
Now the letter of Bishop Eusebius was written shortly after the conclusion
of the Nicene Council. In that council there had seem to be a matter of
agreement upon a basic statement of belief so negociated between the majority
of the attending Bishops. Yet Bishop Eusebius found by some means that what
had been that matter of agreement was actually already being departed from by
any number of the Bishops and their particular groups. As a result of the
Council such as Bishop Arius, who would not agree had been expelled, he being
one of the more extreme detractors from agreement. But now Bishop Eusebius
found himself in a position that he had to communicate to his congregation
that in fact the whole of the senode's bargined agreement was in fact not as
had been agreed upon, as
others had regressed from being acceptable to the agreement as so stated and
worked out before the Emperor Constantine. Here now is that letter:
|
[NOTE: A number of 'subjective translations of Bishop
Eusebius' letter have 'forced' the translation to fit their own theology
and ability to tout Bishop Eusebius as one of the 'Founding Fathers' of
the Nicene Creed as it stands today. He is NOT and their translation is
neither objective or truthful. We've been reading and presenting Bishop
Eusebius' 'true mind set' on the matter of the Father and the Son as being
two separate beings and their relationships to each other found in his
Ecclesiastical History of the Church. The following
translation is one which is about as objective and truthful as they come.
Just be aware that there are those who purposefully misrepresent Bishop
Eusebius of Ceasarea in many different ways depending upon their own
subjective theological intents and skews.]
|
"What was transacted concerning ecclesiastical faith at the Great Council
assembled at Nicaea you have probably learned, Beloved, from other sources,
rumour being wont to precede the accurate account of what is doing. But lest in
such reports the circumstances of the case have been misrepresented, we have
been obliged to transmit to you, first, the formula of faith presented by
ourselves; and next, the second, which the Fathers put forth with some additions
to our words. Our own paper, then, which was read in the presence of our most
pious Emperor, and declared to be good and unexceptionable, ran thus:-
|
Bishop Eusebius has already caught wind that what was tentatively agreed
upon was already being inaccurately and misrepresntedly dissembled and
renaged upon. Thus Bishop Eusebius wanted to give a correct account as to
what did occur for his congregation to understand by first giving what
was actually first presented by him at the council, then what was in
fact added to it and finally the agreements as to what it did mean in
a proper agreed upon interpretation of the basic statement of faith.
How often have business men sat down to come to an agreement and then
seemly verbally agreed only to find out later in the written context of
the agreement and the interpretation of it, is was not at all what had
been actually agreed upon during the meeting? This was the situation
which Bishop Eusebius seemed to have found himself and his party in.
|
"`As we have received from the Bishops who preceded us, and in our first
catechisings, and when we received the Holy Layer, and as we have learned from
the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in the presbytery, and in
the Episcopate itself, so believing also at the time present, we report to you
our faith, and it is this:-
|
Bishop Eusebius' intent was to make the basic statement of faith as simple,
standard and acceptable to everyone as possible. What could be more generally
acceptable than what had been taught and accepted by the Bishops before as
had is the basic 'manuel' or 'catechisings' of the church so based in
and learn directly from the Scriptures and so taught in the presbytery
and in the Episcopate itself? And all would so generally agree to it and
accept it - BUT - with just a little tweeking to add what would allow
them to eventually 'sneak in' their own particular flavoring of the oh so
basic doctrine of the church.
|
"`We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible
and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God,
Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten,
first-born of every
creature, before all the ages [Col. 1:15], begotten from the
Father, by whom also all things
were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and
suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will
come again in glory to judge quick and dead, And we believe also in One Holy
Ghost; believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and
the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord,
sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, Go, teach all nations,
baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we
think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death,
anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our
heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in
truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able
by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been
our belief and preaching.'
|
In Bishop Eusebius' presented statement of faith, that is said to be from a
prescribed 'baptismal text' of statement of faith and agreement common in
the church, and with what we know of Bishop Eusebius' gospel understanding
concerning the Father and Son and the Dispensaton of Jesus Christ, we are
able to disect this statement of belief into some recognizable conponents.
First it presents the existence of God the Father. Second it presents the
Son Jesus Christ and a very short 'mission' or 'dispensation' statement of
the Son from being with the Father in the pre-existence as the 'first-born'
of every creature, to the Son's participation role in the creation then to
his central role of providing for the salvation of man, to the resurrection,
to even his Second Coming to judge the quick and the dead. And then
Thrid he briefly inserts the belief in the Holy Ghost. And he gives a
summary of the three separate and distinct members of the Godhead, Father,
Son and Holy Ghost.
To this Eusebius ads the charge to the Apostles to take the gospel to all
the earth baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost. And isn't that the baptismal prayer? Then it ends with
testimony and committment with an order of dismissing those who do not
accept the truth of this basic Gospel. Then there is an additional witness
to the truth of this statement of beief before God and Christ etc. All in all
it is quite the compact statement which included the central mision of the
central figure of the Gospel Plan of Redeption. In fact there is nothing in
Bishop Eusebius statement of faith that we could not ourselves accept given
the proper and correct interpretation of it. |
"On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for contradiction
appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it
comprised most orthodox statements. He confessed, moreover, that such were his
own sentiments; and he advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its
articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the single word, `One in
substance' (omoousioj) [homoousios/homoiousios],
which, moreover, he interpreted as not in the sense of the affections of
bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father, in the way of division,
or any severance; for that the immaterial and intellectual and incorporeal
nature could not be the subject of any corporeal affection, but that it
became us to conceive of such things in
a divine and ineffable manner. And such were the theological remarks of our most
wise and most religious Emperor; but they, with a view to the addition of `One
in substance,' drew up the following formula:
|
So well was the statement of faith which Bishop Eusebius had prepared
that none could be found in objection. Yet my some means those of the
school of Greek Philosophy now had an addition to be made which they
did by way of the Emperor suggesting it. This is the 'omoousioj'
addition. And yet another altaration was also in the works which would
cut out such imformation concerning one of the very critical componant
parts of the assigned 'mission' or 'dispensation' of the Lord Jesus
Christ.
Of these matters Bishop Eusebius was drawn into but the meaning and
intent of the addition, most being as concerned about the cutting
short his statement concerning the whole of the misssion of the Savior
which included his presence with the Father in the pre-existence
performing as a separate and distinct entitiy. Concerning the matter
of 'omoousioj' Bishop Eusebius came to a verbal agreement with the
Bishops that while it could refer to the fact that the Son was from
the Father as being his offspring and like Father like son and thus
incorporeal and not other wise more of being the same as the father,
they both being two separate and diferent corporeal beings. With
this agreement the revised statement of belief was presented as
edited out and added to.
|
The Greek Philosophical Concept of God - OUSIA
We need to interupt Bishop Eusebius letter and
its direct analysis at this point for here in is markedly the departure from
the Biblical God of Scripture and the adjunct of the meta-physical make up
of the ancient determined nature of God according to Greek Philosophy which
was innovated hundreds of years before the birth of Christ but indeed thousands
upon thousands of years after the fact of the pre-existence where God the Father
and the Son stood together and side by side orchestrated the temporal creation
of heaven and earth, the Father commanding and the Son performing as has been
set out by Bishop Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History of the Church which
we have already covered in Part 1 of this determination of the Early Christain
Church's Gospel truth.
When the Emperor Constintine, according to the account of Bishop Eusebius,
interjected that the addition of the term 'homoosios/homoiousios' be added,
Constantine, for whatever purpose, cause or from whatever source, was
inserting into the statement of faith in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy
Ghost the long debated and ill understood Greek Philosophical debate as to
the very meta-physical nature of the 'being' - 'ousia' of God which was not
taken from Scripture or the faith and belief of the Bible of the Children of
Israel but rather from the pages of the Greek Philosophers. Which 'Philosophers'
were not even masters of the field of physics to know of such matters of
the actual break down of matter, element, atom, and so on to all the verious
rudimenty component levels. No wonder the Philosophical determined 'ousia'
concept of God is scoffed at by the advanced meta-physical scientists of
today with such as their sarcasticly attributed 'god-element' discovery
paralleled to the 'ousia' of the being of God.
The Greek Philosophical conception of God was that there was such a pure
state of 'being'/'ousia', mistranslated into latin as subsatance or essence
which was in that pure state of perfection of which God was constituded of.
Without any such temporal or physical attribute as 'body', 'parts', or
'passions' or any such corruptable natural temporal matter whatsoever.
The Ancient Greek noun 'ousia' is formed on the 'feminine' present participle of (to be) which seems to
parallel the concept of (I AM) and it is analogous to the English participle
'being'. Not in the sense of spirit being or human - being, but merely in the
sense of 'existing'. Attempting to fit a sqaure peg into a round hole seems
to fit just what it was or is that those who attempt/attempted to force the
God of Israel, particularly Jesus/Jehovah, into the compartmentalized pigeonhole
of narrowly mentally contrived god of the men who formed Greek Philosophy.
Some 'mental geniuses' with their own subjective intent have even gone so far
as to the extreme to determine of them ownselves that 'since was
feminine' in language form, then God is actually female or feminine too
rather than male. Talk about a 'designer god' to fit a personally determined
contrivance of one's own god.
And while it seems to be obvious that the Greek Philosophical determination
of 'God' which was being formulatd by those who lived and died without much
consideration of the Biblical Hebrew God, living hundreds of years before the
earthly coming of Christ and thousands upon thousands of year after the
pre-existence events of Christ with the Father and the actual temporal
cration; that is those such as Plato, Aristotle and the rest, indeed 'they'
ought not be those to force upon the 'actual and real' Biblical God, by way
of those of the age of the Nicene Creed into the meta-physical 'ousia' of
Greek philosophy. Many if not most of
the 'learned' Bishops of the west were often well schooled in and had an
understanding of Greek Philosophy and the Greek Philosophical view of God.
It seems obvious that Bishop Alexander of Alexandrea, who postulated or build
upon the concept of 'three gods in one' in order to fit God the Father,
the Son Jesus/Jehovah Christ and the Holy Ghost into that one perfect God
essence or substance was certainly one such Bishop. His commitment to the
Greek Philosophical concept of God, the 'ousia' of God and there being but
one such pure and perfect substance, essesence or even 'being' of God force
him to innovate and contrive that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were but
one and the same God, God being only one.
In so forcing God, the Father, Son and even the Holy Ghost into the innovation
of the men of Greek Philosophy concerning their concept of God, God was
striped of form, body, parts, and passions and though the Hebrew scriptures
spoke of the anger, mercy, love, hatred, etc. of God; and also spoke of the
eyes, ears, hands, face, fingers, etc. of God; and that men were actually
the children and even 'offspring' of God created in the image of God, these
things did the concept of the Greek Philosophical god necessity take away
from God. Gods children and parenthood was taken away, God's glorified and
Celestial Body was taken away, God's kindness, love, mercy, anger, hatred
toward sin and so forth were all taken away and so on.
Whatever did not fit the Greek Philosophical model of the 'ousia' of God was
removed from God. And God was forced into the compartmentalized pigeon hole
of the human mind determined god of Greek Philosophy.
And worst of all a clear understanding of the 'oikonomia', that is the
dispensational mission bestowed upon Jehvoah by the Father was deminished and
all but lost from the concept of Jesus/Jehovah creating all things in
concert and under the direct command and direction of the Father as explained
by Bishop Eusebius to various stages and function performed by the Son as
directed by the Father in being the Intercessor, Mediator, Advocate between
man and God the Father as well as being the only means given by the Father
by which men may return to God as effected by the act of the atonement,
resurrection and final judgement of man before that God of Heaven, our Heavenly
Father.
Sir Isaac Newton's assessment of it puts it well. Did Jesus Christ send his Apostles
forth to preach of the debatable metaphysics of the nature of God to the
unlearned common people, their wives, and their children? Or rather were
the principles of Christian living as taught by Jesus and as he deliverd in
the Sermon on the Mount as being the true message of God. Were the Apostles to
preach faith, repentance, baptism and living by the guidance of the Spirit of
God. Or were they to spend there effort to determine the mystery of the
nature of the existence of God? Clearly the important message of the Gospel
of Jesus Christ was in the living of the Gospel according to the laws,
commandments, principles and ordinances of that Gospel of Jesus Christ and
not to be that of a Philosophical and Scientific debate over the
metaphysics of God.
Even Constantine identified the dilemma of it as he admonished the central
two who seemed to have started it, Bishop Alexander and Arius: "When you, Alexander, demanded of the presbyters what opinion they
severally maintained respecting a certain passage in the Divine law, or rather,
I should say, that you asked them something connected with an unprofitable
question, then you, Arius, inconsiderately insisted on what ought never to
have been conceived at all, or if conceived, should have been buried in profound
silence. Hence it was that a dissension arose between you, fellowship was
withdrawn, and the holy people, rent into diverse parties, no longer preserved
the unity of the one body. Now, therefore, do ye both exhibit an equal degree
of forbearance, and receive the advice which your fellow-servant righteously
gives. What then is this advise? It was wrong in the first instance to propose
such questions as these, or to reply to them when propounded. For those points
of discussion which are enjoined by the authority of no law, but rather
suggested by the contentious spirit which is fostered by misused leisure, even
though they may be intended merely as an intellectual exercise, ought certainly
to be confined to the region of our own thoughts, and not hastily produced in
the popular assemblies, nor unadvisedly intrusted to the general ear. For how
very few are there able either accurately to comprehend, or adequately to
explain subjects so sublime and abstruse in their nature? Or, granting that one
were fully competent for this, how many people will he convince? Or, who, again,
in dealing with questions of such subtle nicety as these, con secure himself
against a dangerous declension from the truth? It is incumbent therefore on us
in these cases to be sparing of our words, lest, in case we ourselves are unable,
through the feebleness of our matural faculties, give a clear explanation of
the subject before us, or, on the other hand, in case the slowness of our
hearers' understanding disables them from arriving at an accurate apprehension
of what we say, from one or other of these causes the people be reduced to the
alternative either of blasphemy or schism."
In short the question of the meta-physical nature of God accroding to
Greek Philosophy of 'ousia' ought not have ever reached the floor of Nicaea.
It never ought to have been a part of the basic belief agreed upon as the
basic creed of Christianity. Even today they who still support it cannot
explain it but state that it is a mystery without capable human comprehension.
The acceptance and the living of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not dependent
upon it. In fact it only tends to be divisive and a tool of schism, when
and where there should be the unity of the faith in Christ, it has divided
it. We now return to covering the the letter of Bishop Eusebius which
details the events of the Nicene Council and what was concluded upon there.
We restart with the altared formula of the creed which then contained the
concept of 'homo - ousios(ousia)' sourced from out of Gree Philosophy.
|
"`We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and
invisible:- And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the
Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the Substance [ousios/homoiousios] of
the Father; God from God,
Light from Light, very God from very God, begotten, not made,
One in substance [homoousios]
with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things
in earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was
made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and
cometh to judge quick and dead.
"`And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say, "Once He was not," and "Before
His generation He was not," and "He came to be from nothing," or those who
pretend that the Son of God is "Of other subsistence or substance [ousios]," or
"created," or "alterable," or "mutable," the Catholic Church anathematizes.'
[It may be noted that the original meaning in Greek of
'ousia/ousios' is 'being' as in 'existing' which would match well with the
concept of 'I AM' that is 'I EXIST'. The various Latin or Roman
translations which have been used are those of 'substance', 'essence' and
even 'subsistence' which is more to actually 'existing' in the 'being'
sense. The Catholic seems to like the translation of 'essence' as it seems
to place God as being less of a God of 'form' and more of a God without
any type of embodiment limits at all. This also tends to make of God less
of a personal God whom one may commune with even though throughout most
every Christian Church including the Catholic Chruch images of God as a
man with shape and form prominantly are present. Even a number of visual
images are in the Catholic Church which show Father, Son and Holy Ghost
as three distinct and separte men, persona, people or beings. Just look up
Father, Son and Holy Ghost 'images search' on the internet.]
|
Now herein the 'talking points' of the original presented by Bishop Eusebius
have been changed. As the 'dispensation' of Jesus Christ from his being the
first born in the spirit of all creatures as taught by Paul, the
Pre-existence selection,
empowerment, and his having taken part in the creation in concert with the
Father as presented by John; all this is lost. And rather the insertion of
the concept of 'substance/ousia' is interjected and that the Son is One in
substance with the Father. As one reads the one and compares the other one
might readily notice that what has been changed is significant for indeed it
now becomes more of a matter of 'interpretation'. This Eusebius will take
note of and seek for a proper acceptable interpretation.
Even in the Gospel today we understand that the basic essential matter,
material or spirit of 'intelligence' is that which is requesite from which
even God and all of God's children are from. This 'intelligence' can be
interpreted and defined as the fundamental 'subsatance' or 'ousia' as it
may be defined and interpreted. But in a progression of eternal progression
neither God, Jesus Christ or man remains in the that state of 'being' merely
intelligence or intelligences. There is a progression, the first 'step' of
which has been removed when Paul's scriptural statement was removed that
Christ was the first born of every creature, that is Jesus/Jehovah was the
first-born son of God the Father in the spirit, that birth of combining of
intelligence to the 'spirit body'. And herein did the Nicene Creed begin to
take from God our Heavenly Father that divine parenthood of us all, as we all
are the spirit children of God, Christ being the First-born.
And further, though Eusebius will get a alternate interpretation from the
Bishops at Nicaea, the making of Father and Son as one 'ousia'[homoousios]
'being' has been laid to the benefit of Bishop Alexander's concept of the
'doctrine of the trinity'.
|
"On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in
what sense they introduced `of the substance of the Father,' and `one in
substance with the Father.' Accordingly questions and explanations took place,
and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they
professed that the phrase 'of the
substance' was indicative of the Son's being indeed from the Father, yet
without being as if a part of Him. And with this
understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine,
teaching, as it did, that the Son was
from the Father, not, however, a part of His substance. On this
account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term
`One in substance,' peace being the
object which we set before us, and steadfastness in the orthodox view.
In the same way we also admitted `begotten, not made'; since the Council
alleged that `made' was an appellative
common to the other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the
Son had no likeness. Wherefore, said they, He
was not a work resembling the things which through Him came to be, but was of
a substance which is too high for the level of any work, and which the Divine
oracles teach to have been generated [begotten] from the Father, the
mode of generation being inscrutable and incalculable to every generated
nature. And so, too, on examination there are grounds for saying that
the Son is `one in substance' with the
Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is
not such by division of substance, or by severance; no, nor by any affection,
or alteration, or changing of the Father's substance and power (since from
all such the ingenerate nature of the Father is alien), but because
`one in substance with the Father' suggests that
the Son of God bears no resemblance to
the generated creatures, but that to His Father alone who begat Him
is He in every way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence
and substance, but from the Father.
|
Now when the Emperor Constantine had requested the inclusion of the Greek
Philosophical terminology of 'ousia' in 'homoousios/homoiousios' Bishop
Eusebius had immediate obtained the assurance of Constantine that it was
his sense and meaning that the Father and Son were not the 'same being' and
that the 'likeness or sameness' did not infringe on the fact that the Father
and Son were two separate entities as to intelligence and their corporeal
natures as Father and Son. And when they who had edited the formula to include
the concept of 'homoousios' in the manner and form that they did, Eusebius
again sought an assurance as to the exact interpretation intended, that it
did not mean to make of the two separate entities of Father and Son as being
but one and the same being. And this he obtained their word on that is was
that the Son came from the Father 'without being as if a part of Him.' That is
'the Son was from the Father, not, however, as part of His substance'. Eusebius
knew that son as any son did come from his father by the form of birth, and
he had their prior commitment to the first formula which referenced
scripture that Jesus/Jehovah was the first born of every creature in spirit
as applicable to the pre-existence even though the edited formula did not
now include that reference from the teachings of Paul.
Certainly Bishop had his suspicsions as it was such a 'oneness' which he
was aware that Bishop Alexander needed for his proposed doctrine of his
trinity. But as Bishop Eusebius puts it, 'peace being the object which we
set before us' and because there was one such possible acceptable
interpretation of 'one in substance' for the sake of achieving a unity of the
faith, Bishop Eusebius and those with him agreed with the formula based upon
the 'gauranteed interpretation' which all the other Bishops did likewise
agree to according to Eusebius' detailed explanation as presented here in
his letter at the left.
|
"To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared well to assent; since we
were aware that, even among the ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops
and writers have used the term `one in substance' in their theological teaching
concerning the Father and Son. So much, then, be said concerning the faith which
was published; to which all of us assented, not without inquiry, but according
to the specified senses, mentioned before the most religious Emperor himself,
and justified by the fore-mentioned considerations. And as to the anathematism
published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain us, because it
forbade to use words not in Scripture, from which almost all the confusion and
disorder of the Church have come. Since, then, no divinely inspired Scripture
has used the phrases, `out of nothing' and `once He was not,' and the rest which
follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them; to which also we
assented as a good decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use
these terms. Moreover, to anathematize `Before His generation He was not' did
not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all that the Son of God was
before the generation according to the flesh. Nay, our most religious Emperor
did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in being even according to His
divine generation which is before all ages, since even before he was generated
in energy, He was in virtue with the Father ingenerately, the Father being
always Father, as King always and Saviour always, having all things in virtue,
and being always in the same respects and in the same way. This we have been
forced to transmit to you, Beloved, as making clear to you the deliberation of
our inquiry and assent, and how reasonably we resisted even to the last minute,
as long as we were offended at statements which differed from our own, but
received without contention what no longer pained us, as soon as, on a candid
examination of the sense of the words, they appeared to us to coincide with what
we ourselves have professed in the faith which we have already
published."
[Note: Among that which was 'already published' was that very Ecclesiastical
History of the Church which in the first part we have been reviewing and
studying. And from that we can readily see that that Gospel which Eusebius
did publish therein was consistant with the letter of Bishop Eusebius in which
he gives his first hand account of all his, Bishop Eusebius', presentations
and explanations and agreements which he states were reached upon the part of
all the Bishops while still at the council of Nicaea. And that 'creed' which
later evolved under such other interpretations than that given by Bishop
Eusebius in his letter and which was confirmed in the council of 381 AD are
those false Greek Philosophical applications of the nature of God and the
false Doctrine of the Trinity proposed by Bishop Alexander and supported
by such as Athanasius.]
|
And so the 'edited' formula was accepted under these conditions of agreed
explanations accepted by all. Bishop at the point of the said such agreement
had no idea that there were those who were lying about the agreed accepted
explanation who would after the fact of agreement turn from their 'word' and
intrepret the formula differently. They would denouce that the Father and
Son were separate and begin to teach that they were but one and the same God.
They were not to be men of honor bound by their word of agreement but rather
scoundrals who only sought temporary agreement to later invoc their own
interpretation and intent upon and in the formula as they had altaered it,
leaving out parts and inserting only that which their own minds had
determind God to be like meta-physically. And that was like unto the
Greek Philosophy proposed and written by the ancient Greek Philosophers
relative to their innovative mental determinations of such men as to the
nature of God. And this rather than to be true to that which was taken from
the scriptures of Christianity and of the true God of Israel from the text
of the Bible.
Thus in truth Bishop Eusebius and many other withdrew their support of the
formula as so falsely interpreted. And in concert with the Emperor Constantine
those who did support it that way were exiled such as Athenaius who was so
exiled no less than seven times and deemed an enemy to the cause of orthodox
Christianity. Even Arius, who had been excommunicated was brought back into
the fold. Arius was the student and Alexander was the teacher. Arius knew that
Father and Son were separate and not one as Alexander's doctrine of the
trinity was set forth, though Arius, being student was not well enough schooled
to defend with support evidence and was caught out having to create Christ
meta-physically from his mind in relation to the Father. Since it is the
historians of Athaneius who write what Arius stood for, Arius is villianized
for standing by the fact that the Father and the Son were separate. Even
Eusebius who in his history proclaimed the truth of the Divine Son as God
with God the Father in the pre-existence according to the words of John, has
been demonized by many of the Athaneaian historians as being Arian, which he
indeed was not.
And not until 381 AD, after the deaths of Constantine, Eusebius, Arius and
even Athanasius was ever any such 'creed' agreed to properly and then coming
to the false conclusions which favored Greek Philosophy, Bishop Alexander's
trinity and Athnasius' pursuit of it.
|
Having now processed the letter of Bishop Eusebius wherein he give his
eye witness account of the critical events of the first Nicene Council, and
the result of it. We will now return to the study of the Early Christian
Gospel as contained in Bishop Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History of the Church.
End Part 2
Part 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|