Created Monday, June 13, 2005

Chapter 28: Those who first advanced the Heresy of Artemon; their Manner of Life, and how they dared to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures

Related Articles

But this is not how it is today. When one speaks of the trinity, it has a precise singular definition that most churches adhere to, alhtough I do occasionally find that some trinitarians do vary slightly on their particular version or understanding of it. But Eusebius says that all and everyone at that time believed in the trinity. This is misleading as that word could mean many things and I believe that Eusebius uses this ambiguity to put a spin on this belief leading all readers to believe there was a unity of belief among all the churches and early church writers when this was clearly not hte case as one can easily see if they read some of the many writers I quite on the subject. Eusebius was being a bit dishonest as I see it. And this is not the only instance or subject in which he does so.

What is really surprising was the Euseius had been a follow of the ideas of Arius and the Arian school of thought that said Jesus was not the Father. He had initially even persuaded the Roman Emperor that this was the teaching to go along with. The Emperor, Constantine by name, wanted to unite the Christian world and make convenient political use of that vast block of political support. I suspect that Constantine received more political support from the Athanasian supporters at some point and switched from Arianism to Athanasianism. In addition, thought there were as many who supported some sort of Arianism as did Athanasius, the Athanasians were much more united in their agreement than were the Arians. Arians disagreed on little points and were not united in their disagreements with the Athnasians. So Constantine no doubt saw the greater unity of the Athanasian supporters as being more politically advantageous in his efforts to geth htem all behind him. Eusebius fell out of favor briefly but was allows back, having apparently went along with this political move, and wrote his glowing history of the Christian Church up to this point where Constantine was ruler and a little afterward.

So Eusebius is sort of a hypocrite when he favors the Athanasian version of the trinity when he knows full well that he once believed in the Arian version of the trinity. And he switch, I believe, not because one side was more convincing than than the other but because one side won out politically over the other. Worldly Politics was now in control of the Christian religion and to some degree it would remain that way right down to this very day as I will show in other articles.

As you read along, I will point out what Eusebius ignores. But what I find equally interesting in his writing is what the so-called heretics are promoting. It is quite sound and logical and actually keeps coming up again and again by different writers, who are always branded as heretics. They are not deserving of the label given them but they as in good company for even Jesus was said to have a demon and teach incorrectly, which of course would make him a heretic. Not only that, but he was accused of being a sinner, given to wine ang gluttony and who knows what else. So little wonder that those who speak up for truth often find themselves receiving the same accusations as were leveled against Jesus. So read on and see what you think. [{My commnets will be in brackets and color like this in this work of Eusebius.}]

Chapter 28: Those who first advanced the Heresy of Artemon; their Manner of Life, and how they dared to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures

In a laborious work by one of these writers against the heresy of Artemon, which Paul of Samosata attempted to revive again in our day, there is an account appropriate to the history which we are now examining.

[{ As even Eusebius admits here, this came up before and was being revived again. He doesn't mention some of the others who also taught similarly. The Arian school had as many believers as the Athanasian school did. The trinity advocating Jesus as being the Father had no more believers than those who said Jesus was distinct and separate from the Father. Eusebius neglects to mention this. }]

For he criticises, as a late innovation, the above-mentioned heresy which teaches that the Saviour was a mere man, because they were attempting to magnify it as ancient? Having given in his work many other arguments in refutation of their blasphemous falsehood, he adds the following words:

"For they say that all the early teachers and the apostles received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter, but that from his successor, Zephyrinus, the truth had been corrupted. And what they say might be plausible, if first of all the Divine Scriptures did not contradict them. And there are writings of certain brethren older than the times of Victor, which they wrote in behalf of the truth against the heathen, and against the heresies which existed in their day. I refer to Justin and Miltiades and Tatian and Clement and many others, in all of whose works Christ is spoken of as God. For who does not know the works of Irenaeus and of Melito and of others which teach that Christ is God and man? And how many psalms and hymns, written by the faithful brethren from the beginning, celebrate Christ the Word of God, speaking of him as Divine. How then since the opinion held by the Church has been preached for so many years, can its preaching have been delayed as they affirm, until the times of Victor? And how is it that they are not ashamed to speak thus falsely of Victor, knowing well that he cut off from communion Theodotus, the cobbler, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, and the first to declare that Christ is mere man? For if Victor agreed with their opinions, as their slander affirms, how came he to cast out Theodotus, the inventor of this heresy?"

[{ Oh, there is a lot here to cover. 1st, Eusebius says they were trying to claim this teaching was ancient, meaning back to the days of Jesus, I assume. Indeed, it did go back that far. More in a minute. 2nd, he says these so-called heretics claimed that the apostles and early teachers taught what they did. Indeed, I believe this is the case even though Eusebius does not. And Victor does seem to be the turning point in this matter. Terteullian names Praxeas as the creator of this heresy who was in the church of Rome in the time of Victor. Eusebius doesn't mention this and Terteullian had been around before Eusebius and was a well known prolific writer, and further, Eusebius makes ample mention of him in other parts of his (Eusebius') history of the church so there is no excuse for Eusebius neglecting the work of Terteullian's Against Praxeas.

Eusebius admits the possibility of this heretic teaching existing from the beginning had not the scriptures contradicted them. But as I point out in my trinity articles, the scriptures do not contradict these so-called heretics. They actually support them and further, do not ever even mention the name "trinity!" Eusebius then mentions 4 names, 3 of which I quote on my site under topics of the trinity, Justin, Tatian, and Clement as well as many others as he goes on to say. They all agree that Christ was not the father but was the Father's son, separate and distinct from the Father.

Eusebius avoids noting this point, which was one of the main points of contention, along with the other one which he is addessing, that of Chirst being divine and both man and God. I'll get to that. Eusebius asks how it was that the church did not, until this time, begin teaching something not previously existing? I'll be happy to answer.

If you have read the other early writer sections that expose the error of the Athanasian trinity, then you know that all those early writer saw Jesus as distinct and separate from the Father. But as Greek philosophy and its many specualtive terms and ideas, for which there was no Hebrew equivalent or precedent, began to creep into the Christian faith and begin to be used and used to specualte further whic the Bible does not allow, then terms began to lose meaning or have meaning distorted until no one was sure what the truth was anymore. They began to assume Greek thoughts and theories as truth and squeeze the Bible into those ideas. Before long, the only thing being debated were Greek words, terms, and definitions with the Bible pushed completely out of the picture. Once the Bible has been put out of the way, you can argue whatever you want and this is what happened at the time of Victor, also known as Victorianus, and onward.

Eusebius says that Theodotus was the 1st to start this Arian heresy of Christ being a mere man. I declare that Theodotus was right here, too, regardless of whether the rest of his teaching was right or not. But I also dispute that he was the first. Arianists were correct in declaring this had been the teaching from the beginning till Victor and Praxeas. Christ had to be a mere man in order to be a proper equal corresponding sacrifice for the sins of Adam. Adam was a perfect man that sinned and Jesus had his own blood shed to balance out this manly sin. He had to be a man to pay for the sins of man. Further, if he were a God, how could what he suffered really be significant for how hard is it for a God to be tested or even hurt or killed.

The stumbling block is that how could Christ have been said to be divine, or lay claim to all the authority he had and the miracles he performed. That is so easy to answer that I should not have to even address it but due to the profound amount of ignorance, I do have to answer it. But did you not know that other men had raised people from the dead before Jesus did? Remember Elijah and Elisha? Did they not bring people back to life again? Does this mean they are Gods because they did so? No!!! God can give His power to any man. Of course, Jesus was not just any man. He had formerly been the son of God in heaven and had created everything we know and see in the universe, being the 1st born and only-begotten of God.

But the scriptures make it clear that Christ had been in heaven but left heaven, completely emptied himself of his heavenly form, glory, and status of that existense and came to earth through a woman as a man, absolutely a man in every way so that he could be offered as a compensating sacrifice for Adam's sin. Notice the scripture:

Philippians 2:5 For let this mind be in you which also was in Christ Jesus, 6 who subsisting in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, having become in the likeness of men 8 and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, having become obedient until death, even the death of a cross. 9 Because of this also God highly exalted Him and gave Him a name above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus "every knee should bow," of heavenly ones, and earthly ones, and ones under the earth, 11 and "every tongue should confess" that Jesus Christ is "Lord," to the glory of God the Father. [Isa. 45:23]

Yes, Jesus humbled himself, all right. Boy, what a humbling. From heavenly first born, only-begotten spirit son of God to a mere man. What a come down. but he was absolutely willing to do this so that he might offer himself legitimatley in sacrifice for Adam's and all out sins, sins of men, not Gods. As a result of this remarkable sacrifice, God exalted him to a place even greater than that which he had before in heaven. Now he had two great accomplishments and titles to his name. His glory is exceedingly high and great now. Yes he is divine and lord of heaven and earth. He hd been given authority even while on earth but he had to prove faithful all the way to and through death in order to fully receive all the glory and honor given him by the Father. And that death had to be the death and sacrifice of a man, not a God.

Now while all the early writers admitted Jesus was not the Father, they did declare that Jesus was both God and man. But what they do not clarify is how and why this is so. Jesus was both man and God. He was fully a man. But he, as a man, like Elijah or Elisha, carried the authority of God, and though was had given up his spirit existense in heaven and become a man, still had his origins in heaven and was due to return there after his sacrifice. He was still God in that he carried hte power and authority of God as even the demons he encountered recognized him as the son of God. But the son of God was fully a man and flesh or he would not have qualified as a legitimate sacrifice for the sins of Adam, who was also a man of flesh and blood.

Gods and angels can materialize as humans, but they can also dissolve their bodies and come and go as they please. They could escape at will or ascend into the heavens as the angel who appeared to Samson's parents did. So if Jesus wree really God merely clothed with a human body, he could have fled in the spirit and cheated his death sentence and even his suffering. He would have merely been acting while on the cross. But Jesus was fully tested by being a man, fully in the flesh, susceptible to suffering, temptation, and death. But since he willingly suffered brutally, and having no escape and being vulnerable to giving in or faling prey to weakness, still resisted and died faithfully without having sinned. So the sacrifice was that of a man who had no sin and whose blood could truly cleanse us from our sins.

Note what the Apostle John said about this:

1 John 4:2 By this know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. 3 And every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not from God; and this is the antichrist which you heard is coming, and now is already in the world.

Are you paying attention? Did you see what is in black and white, so to speak. Jesus came in the flesh. John could not be more clear. Jesus was flesh. Not half spirit, half flesh! Not spirit clothed in flesh! He was flesh! He was stuck in the flesh with no escape. He would live and die and obey or not in the flesh. He would be tested in the flesh just as Adam was. He had to pass the test in the flesh without cheating. Anyone who says he was not flesh is not from God and is an antichrist. So if Eusebius would like to address the scriptures, he would be hard pressed to refute these who say that Jesus was merely a man. He was indeed a man of flesh. But Bible, the word of God, makes that absolutely clear. Though he had the authority and power of God, he would not have the spiritual body he once had until he had suffered and died in the flesh. And he was fully dead for 3 days before being brought back to life as a spirit who then would be clothed with flesh at times and could dissolve it when he wished or appear in it when he wished.

I believe this pretty well answers those stupid objections dishonesty presented by Eusebius, who refrains from actually discussing the scriptures and principles involved in this dispute. But I have not held back those issues. Forgive me as I have addressed these subjects previously in other articles and might be boring some with my repetition, but some might not have read those other articles so I repeat them here just in case. }]

So much in regard to Victor. His bishopric lasted ten years, and Zephyrinus was appointed his successor about the ninth year of the reign of Severus. The author of the above-mentioned book, concerning the founder of this heresy, narrates another event which occurred in the time of Zephyrinus, using these words: "I will remind many of the brethren of a fact which took place in our time, which, had it happened in Sodom, might, I think, have proved a warning to them. There was a certain confessor, Natalius, not long ago, but in our own day. This man was deceived at one time by Asclepiodotus and another Theodotus, a money-changer. Both of them were disciples of Theodotus, the cobbler, who, as I have said, was the first person excommunicated by Victor, bishop at that time, on account of this sentiment, or rather senselessness.

Natalius was persuaded by them to allow himself to be chosen bishop of this heresy with a salary, to be paid by them, of one hundred and fifty denarii a month. When he had thus connected himself with them, he was warned oftentimes by the Lord through visions. For the compassionate God and our Lord Jesus Christ was not willing that a witness of his own sufferings, being cast out of the Church, should perish. But as he paid little regard to the visions, because he was ensnared by the first position among them and by that shameful covetousness which destroys a great many, he was scourged by holy angels, and punished severely through the entire night. Thereupon having risen in the morning, he put on sackcloth and covered himself with ashes, and with great haste and tears he fell down before Zephyrinus, the bishop, rolling at the feet not only of the clergy, but also of the laity; and he moved with his tears the compassionate Church of the merciful Christ. And though he used much supplication, and showed the welts of the stripes which he had received, yet scarcely was he taken back into communion."

[{ This passage is rather interesting. I believe the Theodotus was engaged with the Phrygian heresy and Montanus. Natalius took up with them, evidently. They were truly heretics as regards the false phony gifts of the spirit with their frenzied ecstasy trance that they went into. But that does not invalidate the Arian trinity arguments. But God may not have been pleased with righteousness mixing company with lawlessness and so Natalius was warned, so we are told, and came back to the regular flock, though it is not clear whether he also renounced Arianism or not. We are told the flock had only grudginly taken him back. Was he holding out on this point? It does not say. I'll leave it at that. }]

We will add from the same writer some other extracts concerning them, which run as follows:

"They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it. And as being of the earth and speaking of the earth, and as ignorant of him who cometh from above, they forsake the holy writings of God to devote themselves to geometry. Euclid is laboriously measured by some of them; and Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; and Galen, perhaps, by some is even worshipped. But that those who use the arts of unbelievers for their heretical opinions and adulterate the simple faith of the Divine Scriptures by the craft of the godless, are far from the faith, what need is there to say?

[{ I find this one of the most amazing passages in all the ancient early church writings. The church had been thoroughly polluted with Plato and his lingon and jargon and yet they criticize the use of Aristotle and the like. They object to the syllogistic logic of Aristotle being used. Was it Aristotle they object to, or the use of logic. I would strongly suggest they object to the logic for the Athanasian trinity makes no sense or logic and in fact defies any sort of attempt to employ logic and this is where I believe the early church went seriously wrong. They fell for Plato instead of Aristitle, who actually would have helped them and made their ideas better.

Interestingly enough, these so-called heretics embraced Euclid's geometric math, also based strongly on logic, and were even aquainted with Galen, himself a once brilliant physician of Roman citizenship. They seem to heavily favor logic and sensibleness, practical science and the like. The insanity and lack of reason behind the Athanasian trinity was unbearable to them and as well it should be. And as you can see, many Christians feared the solid sciences and yet heartily embraced Plato who was full of crap in many instances and lacking the solid logic that Aristotle maintained. I, myself, maintain that logic and a pure scientific method are very useful to a Christian in carefulll examining why he believes something or not. Funny, but Christianity has not changed much frmo then till now. Logic is still hated and science still feared because some have misused science and have not remained true to true scientific principles and methods.

Eusebius refers to the "simple faith" but the trinity he suggests is by no means simple or logical. And of course, because Aritotle, Theophrastus, and Galen were not Christians, they were automatically evil. What great logic. Isn't it ironic that Aristotle would become all the rage among Christians as a later time, known as the Scholasticism movement of about 1200 AD. ??? }]

Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. That I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn. For if any one will collect their respective copies, and compare them one with another, he will find that they differ greatly. Those of Asclepiades, for example, do not agree with those of Theodotus. And many of these can be obtained, because their disciples have assiduously written the corrections, as they call them, that is the corruptions, of each of them. Again, those of Hermophilus do not agree with these, and those of Apollonides are not consistent with themselves. For you can compare those prepared by them at an earlier date with those which they corrupted later, and you will find them widely different. But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs? For they cannot deny the commission of the crime, since the copies have been written by their own hands. For they did not receive such Scriptures from their instructors, nor can they produce any copies from which they were transcribed.

[{ Eusebius complains that the various writers of Arianism had different ideas and could not agree. This much is absolutely true. There were several main schools of thought as could be said of any number of doctrines, even among the "faithful orthodoxy." This no doubt is part of why Constantine favored the Athanasian version as at least they all agreed together on the matter. But their agreements/arguments definitley conflicted with all the early church writers as well as logic and the Bible. Arianism was divided but so was the orthodoxy of the mainstream.

As to the complaint that later disciples corrupted and changed the writings of earlier heretics, why these things had been done among the loyal orthodox mainstream church writers as well. So how can this be held against the so-called heretics. In fact, all the teachings of the Aspotles and Jesus had been corupted. The devil had managed to corrupt everything and this trinity fight is just one more example of that.

And in all the accusations and insults leveled by Eusebius, not once does he actually bring the Bible into this matter to resolve anything. He simply supots authority because it is authority and not because the arguments are just or logical. So he loses this fight by default. }]

But some of them have not thought it worth while to corrupt them, but simply deny the law and the prophets, and thus through their lawless and impious teaching under pretense of grace, have sunk to the lowest depths of perdition."

[{ I love this dirty tactic Eusebius employs. It is a common tactic of many dishonest scientists as well. They take those of a certain group and voice arguing for something, and they link them up with other unrelated groups who are much less credible or even infamous. They claim these so-called heretics of Arianism deny the law and the prophets which is the greatest lie and distortion. Arianists constantly point to the scirptures and implore Athanasians to employ logic and resonableness in discerning this doctrine. So in my eyes, Eusebius disgraces himself to sinking this low. He does a good job in many parts of his history, but fails so miserably here. It taints a work that was, in many parts, was quite useful and filled a need. What a shame!
But Eusebius is just towing the "party line" so that his "comrads" will not get upset. Who knows, he may not have believed a word he wrote, given his former beliefs on the matter. But what he writes must stand as representing him in they eyes of God. }]

Let this suffice for these things.

This ends the writings of Eusebius in this article.

The Trinity Page

Back to Top