| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Bible Believer" |
| Date: |
16 Feb 2007 11:17:09 AM |
| Object: |
Divine Manifestation of our Lord, by Eusebius |
The Theophania, or Divine Manifestation of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea
(c. 265 - 340)
Translated and Edited from an ancient manuscript
recently discovered by Samuel Lee Lee's Preliminary
Disseration on the Theophania
"But the things which took place afterwards, did our Saviour,
from his foreknowledge as THE WORD or GOD, foretell should
come to pass, by means of those which are (now) before us.
For He named the whole Jewish people, the children of
the City; and the Temple, He styled their House. And thus
He testified, that they should, on their own wicked account,
bear the vengeance thus to be inflicted. And, it is right we
should wonder at the fulfilment of this prediction, since at
no time did this place undergo such an entire desolation
as this was. He pointed out moreover, the cause of their
desolation when He said, 'If thou hadst known, even in this
day, the things of thy peace:' intimating too His own coming,
which should be for the peace of the whole world. But, when
ye shall see it reduced by armies, know ye that which comes
upon it, to be a final and full desolation and destruction.
He designates the desolation of Jerusalem, by the destruction
of the Temple, and the laying aside of those services which
were, according to the law of Moses, formerly performed
within it. The manner moreover of the captivity, points out
the war, of which He spoke; 'For (said He) there shall be
(great) tribulation upon the land, and great wrath upon
this people: and they shall fall by the edge of the sword'.
We can learn too, from the writings of Flavius Josephus,
how these things took place in their localities, and how
those, which had been foretold by our Saviour, were, in
fact, fulfilled. On this account He said, 'Let those who are
in its borders not enter into it, since these are the days of
vengeance, that all may be fulfilled which has been written'.
Any one therefore, who desires it, may learn the results of
these things from the writings of Josephus." - Eusebius
####################################
I will only add that we can note how he shows us how
Jesus tied the peace of the whole world, to the phrase,
"thy peace", which was tied to (from that same time
as the Lord said it) "this day".
It was about peace within us, not outside and around us.
They wanted a worldly kingdom. Jesus did not offer them
one and that is why they rejected Him and crucified Him.
He flat out denied a physical kingdom and told them that
it is within and could not be pointed to, nor seen with
the eye.
Luke 17:20-21
20) Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when
the kingdom of God would come, He answered them
and said, 'The kingdom of God does NOT come with
observation'.
21) Nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’.
For indeed, the kingdom of God is WITHIN you.
What Jesus preached regarding the "outside and around us",
was war and desolation for the Temple, Jerusalem and Judea,
so that "all may be fulfilled, which has been written".
Luke 21:20-22
20) But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies,
then know that its desolation is near.
21) Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,
let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not
those who are in the country enter her.
22) For THESE are the days of vengeance, that ALL things
which are written may be fulfilled.
And note that Eusebius tied this destruction to what Jesus
said about "His coming".
So while many quote Eusebius and others out of context,
thinking they have proved that he/they was/were Futurists,
this proves you shouldn't take that for granted. And while
many claim that there were no (I don't like using this name),
"church fathers" that believed that Christ had returned in
70 AD, that claim is patently false, as I have just proved
with a quote by the same man that the Futurists try to
claim believed that Christ's return was yet future to him,
in the 3rd/4th century.
I hope this information was a blessing to you all! :)
--
Hope for a physical kingdom is to deny Christ's words.
He dispelled that idea in Luke 17:20-21 and He never
said, "But later it will be", nor can Jesus be quoted
anywhere in Scripture saying that it will be physical.
Reading other passages that you think say it will be,
is not to refute this statement, but rather, it is to
pit the Bible against itself and an Apostle against
his Lord, since it would be a contradiction!
I would not want to be in that position!
The Bible is the inerrant word of the living God!
If you don't believe the Bible, don't tell me that
you are a Christian. I won't believe you. To make
that claim, is to be a heretic who does not know God.
.
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Divine Manifestation of our Lord, by Eusebius |
16 Feb 2007 01:11:14 PM |
|
|
"Bible Believer" <> wrote in message ...
The Theophania, or Divine Manifestation of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea
(c. 265 - 340)
Translated and Edited from an ancient manuscript
recently discovered by Samuel Lee Lee's Preliminary
Disseration on the Theophania
Isn't Eusebius the guy who also said -
History of the Church, 3, 3 - These then are the works attributed to Peter,
of which I have recognized only one espistle as AUTHENTIC AND ACCEPTED BY
THE EARLY FATHERS.
Oh, let me guess, as normal you pick what parts of Eusebius you like and
ignore the rest!!
Smile.
.
|
|
|
| User: "gatekeeper" |
|
| Title: Re: Divine Manifestation of our Lord, by Eusebius |
16 Feb 2007 01:28:15 PM |
|
|
On Feb 16, 12:11 pm, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"Bible Believer" <> wrote in message ...
The Theophania, or Divine Manifestation of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea
(c. 265 - 340)
Translated and Edited from an ancient manuscript
recently discovered by Samuel Lee Lee's Preliminary
Disseration on the Theophania
Isn't Eusebius the guy who also said -
History of the Church, 3, 3 - These then are the works attributed to Peter,
of which I have recognized only one espistle as AUTHENTIC AND ACCEPTED BY
THE EARLY FATHERS.
Oh, let me guess, as normal you pick what parts of Eusebius you like and
ignore the rest!!
Smile.
Still poking with your stick I see! Smile :)
Lost contact with you on the thread the other day, I had to go pay
some bills, So I hope this finds you doing well and not condemned by
anyone! :)
The Eastgate is open, the King is in Residence!
Whosoever will, may come in!
Gatekeeper
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Divine Manifestation of our Lord, by Eusebius |
16 Feb 2007 06:55:11 PM |
|
|
"gatekeeper" <> wrote in message
Oh, let me guess, as normal you pick what parts of Eusebius you like and
ignore the rest!!
Smile.
Still poking with your stick I see! Smile :)
No stick involved. Just like to point out, how they pick out what they want,
and ignore all the rest!!
Davey knows Jesus returned in 70AD, but after that, he does not have a clue,
as to what any of it means.
Smile.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Believer" |
|
| Title: Re: Divine Manifestation of our Lord, by Eusebius |
16 Feb 2007 04:23:15 PM |
|
|
On 16 Feb 2007 11:28:15 -0800, "gatekeeper"
<gatekeeper.eastgate@hotmail.com> claimed:
On Feb 16, 12:11 pm, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"Bible Believer" <> wrote in message ...
The Theophania, or Divine Manifestation of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea
(c. 265 - 340)
Translated and Edited from an ancient manuscript
recently discovered by Samuel Lee Lee's Preliminary
Disseration on the Theophania
Isn't Eusebius the guy who also said -
History of the Church, 3, 3 - These then are the works attributed to Peter,
of which I have recognized only one espistle as AUTHENTIC AND ACCEPTED BY
THE EARLY FATHERS.
Oh, let me guess, as normal you pick what parts of Eusebius you like and
ignore the rest!!
Smile.
Still poking with your stick I see! Smile :)
Lost contact with you on the thread the other day, I had to go pay
some bills, So I hope this finds you doing well and not condemned by
anyone! :)
These people just aren't too bright, are they? :)
--
Hope for a physical kingdom is to deny Christ's words.
He dispelled that idea in Luke 17:20-21 and He never
said, "But later it will be", nor can Jesus be quoted
anywhere in Scripture saying that it will be physical.
Reading other passages that you think say it will be,
is not to refute this statement, but rather, it is to
pit the Bible against itself and an Apostle against
his Lord, since it would be a contradiction!
I would not want to be in that position!
The Bible is the inerrant word of the living God!
If you don't believe the Bible, don't tell me that
you are a Christian. I won't believe you. To make
that claim, is to be a heretic who does not know God.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LiamToo" |
|
| Title: Re: Divine Manifestation of our Lord, by Eusebius |
16 Feb 2007 03:21:01 PM |
|
|
On Feb 16, 1:11 pm, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
"Bible Believer" <> wrote in message ...
The Theophania, or Divine Manifestation of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea
(c. 265 - 340)
Translated and Edited from an ancient manuscript
recently discovered by Samuel Lee Lee's Preliminary
Disseration on the Theophania
Isn't Eusebius the guy who also said -
History of the Church, 3, 3 - These then are the works
attributed to Peter, of which I have recognized only one
espistle as AUTHENTIC AND ACCEPTED BY
THE EARLY FATHERS.
History of the Church 3,3:1 (265 - 340 AD) - "One epistle of Peter,
that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the
ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed
work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not
belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it
has been used with the other Scriptures."
Then in 382, Damasus approved the 2nd Epistle and was finally included
in the New Testament canon, through the recommendation of the great
Church scholar, Origen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Divine Manifestation of our Lord, by Eusebius |
16 Feb 2007 05:40:07 PM |
|
|
"LiamToo" <> wrote in message
Isn't Eusebius the guy who also said -
History of the Church, 3, 3 - These then are the works
attributed to Peter, of which I have recognized only one
espistle as AUTHENTIC AND ACCEPTED BY
THE EARLY FATHERS.
History of the Church 3,3:1 (265 - 340 AD) - "One epistle of Peter,
that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the
ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed
work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not
belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it
has been used with the other Scriptures."
How much more testimony do you need. DOES NOT BELONG TO THE CANON!!
Then in 382, Damasus approved the 2nd Epistle and was finally included
in the New Testament canon, through the recommendation of the great
Church scholar, Origen.
So who was it?? Origen or Jerome??
No one denies that it was accepted after the Council of Nicea!!
See people started to question the apostolic succession of Paul, and the
church responded by including the fake in the bible.
Tell us, clown, can you find anyone before 325AD who says it was authentic??
Listen while on the subject of Jerome.
According to the catholic encylopedia he did not believe the Septuagint as
inspired!!
Do you agree with that?? Or like all catho_licks you pick and choose!!
Smile.
Jerome -
Until about 391-2, he considered the Septuagint translation as inspired. But
the progress of his Hebraistic studies and his intercourse with the rabbis
made him give up that idea, and he recognized as inspired the original text
only.
How about the apocrypha??
What did he say there??
Jerome was born near Aquileia, lived in Rome for a time, and spent most of
his later life in Syria and Palestine. He was no doubt the most learned
churchman of his times, and was commissioned by the bishop of Rome to
produce an authoritative Latin version (the Vulgate). In his Preface to the
Old Testament historical books he gives his list, which includes only the
Hebrew books, and he relegates all of the others of the Septuagint to the
"Apocrypha." These books are to be read, he says, "for the edification of
the people, but not as authority for the confirmation of doctrine."
WOW!!
I guess you catho_licks do pick and choose!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "LiamToo" |
|
| Title: Re: Divine Manifestation of our Lord, by Eusebius |
21 Feb 2007 12:41:26 PM |
|
|
On Feb 16, 5:40 pm, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
So who was it?? Origen or Jerome??
Jerome.
No one denies that it was accepted after the Council of Nicea!!
See people started to question the apostolic succession
of Paul, and the church responded by including the fake in the bible.
Tell us, clown, can you find anyone before 325AD who says
it was authentic??
Yep, Theophilus of Antioch in 180AD. The Epistle formed part of the
ancient Itala. This proves that the Second Epistle of Peter existed
and even had a certain amount of authority.
I guess you catho_licks do pick and choose!!
Yes, it's our Bible. You can use it if you like, but don't complain
how we formed it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LiamToo" |
|
| Title: Re: Divine Manifestation of our Lord, by Eusebius |
16 Feb 2007 03:47:10 PM |
|
|
On Feb 16, 1:11 pm, "Zadok" <nob...@accesswave.ca> wrote:
Isn't Eusebius the guy who also said -
History of the Church, 3, 3 - These then are the works
attributed to Peter, of which I have recognized only one
espistle as AUTHENTIC AND ACCEPTED BY
THE EARLY FATHERS.
History of the Church 3,3:1 (265 - 340 AD) - "One epistle of Peter,
that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the
ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed
work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not
belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it
has been used with the other Scriptures."
Then in 382, Damasus approved the 2nd Epistle and was finally included
in the New Testament canon, through the recommendation of the great
Church scholar, Jerome.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
