Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

Author	: Bill Kochman
Publish	: Jan. 1, 2009
Update	: Jun. 9, 2025
Parts	: 08

Synopsis:



Continuing our discussion from part five, while I have used the common phrase the "Great Apostasy" to refer to the 300 year period which followed the age of Jesus and the Apostles, we truly need to wonder if that period of spiritual darkness actually ended with the First Council of Nicaea -- as Roman Catholics and some of their associated churches seem to imply -- or if in fact that same darkness was actually made worse, and even continues until our present day. What do you think?

Furthermore, we must also ask ourselves if it was really the true Church -- that is to say, the one that was established by Christ and His Apostles -- which arose to such great power and influence during the Fourth Century, under the protection of the Roman emperors. Or is it possible that it was in fact something else? That is to say, an impostor church, a false church, which contrary to the teachings of Christ, seriously compromised with the world.

While Christianity, or perhaps more correctly stated, what the so-called Fourth Century "Church Fathers" claimed to be Christianity, became a legally recognized religion with the 313 AD signing of the Edict of Milan by emperors Constantine and Lucinius, it was not until almost seventy years later in 380 AD, and during the reign of Emperor Theodosius I, that it came into full power as the only legitimate religion of the entire Roman Empire. This historical development came about in the following manner:

Through a series of military and political maneuvers -- which you can study elsewhere -- Theodosius I was able to unite the eastern and western portions of the Roman Empire for a time. Following in the footsteps of his predecessors, Constantine I and Lucinius, he promoted a brand of Christianity referred to as "Nicene Christianity", or "Nicene Trinitarianism", within the empire. In 380, shortly after arriving in Constantinople, which was the eastern capital of the Roman Empire, he, along with co-emperors Valentinian II and Gratian, who ruled in the western half of the empire, issued an edict that decreed that "Catholic Christianity", or "Nicene Christianity", which was the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, was now the only legitimate imperial religion. This decree in effect put an end to state support for the traditional pagan religion of the empire. This decree stated the following:

----- Begin Quote -----

It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven shall decide to inflict.

----- End Quote -----

A year later, in 381 AD, Theodosius convoked an ecumenical council at Constantinople, which he used to impose the new "Nicene Orthodoxy" all across the empire. One result of this council was that the Holy Ghost was officially established as the third person of the so-called "Holy Trinity". From that time until his death in 395 AD, Theodosius I worked to stamp out both the remnants of Arianism, as well as all forms of paganism, throughout the Roman Empire. Thus we witness the ungodly marriage of the legal and military might of Rome to a corrupt version of our Christian faith. In coming years and centuries, this Roman church would use its might to kill millions of people who refused to recognize it as the "one true faith", and the so-called "Kingdom of God on Earth", as it clearly viewed itself during the Byzantine period.

Exactly which church is this? What ecclesiastical power swept across all of Europe and the Middle East as a result of the compromise with the oppressive, iron-fisted Roman government? Was it a church which preached God's love and Salvation, or was it one that relied upon persecution, oppression, torture, war and death, in order to force the masses to adhere to its erroneous, heretical doctrines? I think you already know the correct answer.

As is now clearly evident, and as I likewise explain in some of the aforementioned articles, what we in fact see in these historic events, is the birth of a corrupt form of worldly, organized Christianity, under the banner of what eventually became known as the Roman Catholic Church. As a result of the unholy marriage between the might of Rome and these misguided power-hungry, so-called "Church Fathers", which was in direct contradiction to the holy and peaceful teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, who all clearly taught their followers to remain separate from the present wicked world, and to eschew worldly power and riches, the bishop of Rome eventually received the honorary title of "Pope".

This word finds its origin in the Greek word "pappas". As I point out in the series "Pontifex Maximus: Pagan High Priest to Roman Catholic Pope", it might interest you to know that prior to Catholicism becoming the sole, official religion of the Roman Empire, the pagan high priest was called "Pontifex Maximus". In fact, historical records also confirm that even Julius Caesar was a high priest before he eventually became a Roman dictator.

Furthermore, it should also be noted that in my opinion, the "Great Apostasy" never really ended. Why do I say this? Quite simply, because it is this Roman church which introduced such false doctrines as the following to the world, and which to this very day continues to strongly defend them:

    1. Immaculate Conception - Claims that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was born without sin. This is utterly false. See Romans 3:23, Psalm 51:5 and related verses.

    2. Co-Redemptress/Mediatrix - This doctrine claims that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is an equal co-redeemer, and mediator, with Christ. This is utterly false. Please see John 14:6, 1 Timothy 2:15, Act 4:12 and related verses.

    3. Mary, the mother of God - Claims that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is the mother of God. This doctrine is utterly false, because God has no beginning or end, and Jesus is the Son of God, and not the same as God the Father.

    4. The Assumption - Claims that Mary, the mother of Jesus, rose bodily to Heaven. This is utterly false. There is no record of this event anywhere in the Bible.

    5. Infallibility of the Pope - This is utterly false because all men are born in sin with a corrupt, imperfect nature, and make mistakes.

    6. Transubstantiation - Claims that the eucharist bread and wine is transformed into the actual flesh and blood of Christ. This is utterly false, is not found in the Bible, and basically teaches cannibalism, which is prohibited in the Bible.

    7. Water baptism is necessary for Salvation - This is utterly false, as this series, and the Bible, clearly reveal.

    8. Doctrine of the Holy Trinity - This is utterly false, as this series, other BBB articles, and the Bible clearly point out.

    9. Salvation is possible without Christ - This is utterly false, as this series, other BBB articles, and the Bible, clearly point out.

    10. Praying to Mary and the Saints - This is an utterly false practice. Please see 1 Timothy 2:15.

For his part, Eusebius was alarmed and upset by the dangerous changes which were foolishly being made to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the writings of the Apostles, and he clearly expressed his displeasure with the direction that the Church was taking. Sadly, in spite of the fact that he realized that some of the Biblical text was being altered and manipulated, -- such as Matthew 28:19 -- according to some online sources, after he was threatened with excommunication, Eusebius chose instead to submit himself to the church, and even contributed to the Nicene Creed. Eusebius was, after all, a Trinitarian.

At this point, perhaps you may be wondering why we don't just examine the original Gospel manuscripts which were written by the Apostles, so that we can resolve this quite controversial issue, regarding Matthew 28:19, once and for all. Sadly, the simple answer is that all of the original manuscripts ceased to exist many centuries ago. In fact, even by Eusebius' time, none, or probably very few of them, were still in existence. We need to remember that over two hundred years had gone by since the last Apostle had died. All that remained for the most part were copies of copies of their writings, and other fragments. This reality is due primarily to three specific reasons. The first of these reasons is obviously the passage of time. Physical documents, regardless of how well they are composed and preserved, will eventually decay. The second reason concerns the severe persecution which First Century Christians suffered under the Jewish religious elders. This persecution began with the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

While the actual Crucifixion of Christ was carried out by members of the Roman government, it is important to realize that the Jewish elders were the real instigators behind this evil deed. They were intent on making sure that it happened, no matter the cost to themselves. In fact, in their state of delusion, they thought that they were saving themselves by murdering Jesus. The complicity of the Jews in the murder of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is evident by verses such as the following, where we see them plotting against Jesus:

"Then assembled together the CHIEF PRIESTS, AND THE SCRIBES, and the ELDERS OF THE PEOPLE, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might TAKE JESUS BY SUBTILTY, AND KILL HIM. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people."


"Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. And the CHIEF PRIESTS AND SCRIBES SOUGHT HOW THEY MIGHT KILL HIM; for they feared the people."


"And therefore did the JEWS PERSECUTE JESUS, AND SOUGHT TO SLAY HIM, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."


"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the JEWS SOUGHT TO KILL HIM . . . Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? WHY GO YE ABOUT TO KILL ME? The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who GOETH ABOUT TO KILL THEE? . . . Then said some of them of Jerusalem, IS NOT THIS HE, WHOM THEY SEEK TO KILL?"


"I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but YE SEEK TO KILL ME, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now YE SEEK TO KILL ME, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."


"Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore HE THAT DELIVERED ME UNTO THEE HATH THE GREATER SIN. And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar."


". . . My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be DELIVERED TO THE JEWS: but now is my kingdom not from hence."


"And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, WHOM YE SLEW AND HANGED ON A TREE."


Not only did the Jewish religious leaders murder Jesus, but as we also learn from the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, and also from the Epistles, they then proceeded to persecute and kill the Apostles and Disciples as well. Furthermore, as I explain in other articles, we know that the Jewish elders sent spies to infiltrate and divide the First Century Church, and also falsified and distributed many documents, in order to try to sow doctrinal confusion amongst the brethren. It's for this reason that the Apostles issued so many warnings regarding false doctrines, as we saw earlier in this series.

The third main reason why the original manuscripts no longer exist, is because Rome eventually tired of both the Jews, and the Christians, and a wave of persecution began against both. In the case of Jewish rebellion, Rome's solution was rather brutal, direct and swift; and that was the total destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD, which I amply discuss in my lengthy series "Vespasian, Titus and the Fall of Jerusalem". However, in the case of the Christians, Roman persecution against them did not reach its peak until the opening years of the Fourth Century, during the reign of violent Emperor Diocletian.

In his Fourth Century work entitled "Historia Ecclesiae" in Greek, or "Church History" in English, which chronicles the development of the early Christian Church from the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostles during the First Century, up until his own time, in books seven and eight, Eusebius makes mention of the terrible destruction of Christian literature which was occurring at the time. In Book Eight of this ten- book work, he writes the following:

----- Begin Quote -----

"I saw with mine own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and razzed to their foundations, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures consigned to the fire in the open market place" H.E. viii 2

----- End Quote -----

This destruction of the holy manuscripts must have occurred throughout the Roman Empire, in an attempt to wipe out the Christian faith. In that same work, Eusebius also points to the utter destruction of Jerusalem by Roman general, Titus, who was the son of the then reigning emperor, Vespasian, as being God's judgment against the Jews, due to their hand in killing Jesus. He writes:

----- Begin Quote -----

". . . that from that time seditions and wars and mischievous plots followed each other in quick succession, and never ceased in the city and in all Judea until finally the siege of Vespasian overwhelmed them. Thus the divine vengeance overtook the Jews for the crimes which they dared to commit against Christ."

----- End Quote -----

In light of the fact that so many original texts, as written by the Apostles, or at least copies of those manuscripts were destroyed by Diocletian, assuming that the original texts had actually perished long before that time, you may be wondering how it is that we even possess our English Bible today. Where did it originate, and who is responsible for its compilation? In partial response to this important question, in the 1880 Variorum Bible, noted British Bible scholar, and also Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, William Barclay Swete, likewise mentions in the Bible helps section, entitled "Aids To The Student", that Emperor Diocletian was behind the vast destruction of religious texts at that time. He also explains that it was a result of some of those texts nevertheless surviving, as well as through other means, that we have been blessed with our Bible today. Professor Swete wrote in part:

----- Begin Quote -----

"Diocletian in 303 AD ordered all the sacred books to be burnt . . . but enough survived to transmit the text."

"The text of the New Testament rest upon the combined testimony of the streams of documentary evidence -- extant Mss. of the Greek original, ancient versions, and 'patristic' quotations, i.e. passages cited by a succession of ancient Christian writers known as 'The Fathers'."

"The autographs of the New Testament Scriptures were probably lost within a few years after they were written. No early Christian writer appeals to them as still existing . . . men could not anticipate their importance to posterity."

"So extensive are the quotations of the New Testament in the Greek and Latin Christian writers of the first five centuries that it would have been possible, in the event of all the MSS. of the Cannon having perished, to recover nearly the whole of the text from this source alone . . ."

----- End Quote -----

It was probably later copies of those surviving Greek texts, which were then used by noted Dutch scholar and theologian, Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, who in 1516, with the help of printer, and fellow Reformer, John Froben, published the very first non-Latin Vulgate version of the Bible.

As a matter of historical fact, the Latin Vulgate Bible was the creation of the Roman Catholic Church. The Reformers did not trust the Latin Vulgate Bible, and viewed it as being a corrupt version of the Holy Scriptures, because it was based upon several corrupt texts known as the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Alexandrinus. For example, in the Codex Vaticanus, next to the verse Hebrews 1:3, there is a marginal note, written in the Greek language, apparently by one of the scribes, which states "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!".

There is also considerable controversy surrounding the Codex Sinaiticus and a certain Constantin von Tischendorf, who at the behest of the Tsar -- or Czar -- Alexander II of Russia, made several visits over a period of years to the Monastery of Saint Catherine in Egypt. His goal was to search for old manuscripts. This monastery is located at the base of what some people believe to be Mount Sinai. One highly debatable story describes how Tischendorf is said to have found parts of the Codex Sinaiticus thrown in a trash bin, demonstrating that it was viewed as nothing but worthless garbage.

The Latin Vulgate Bible was based in large part upon the work of Fourth Century priest and apologist, Jerome, who in 382 AD was commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the older Latin translations. Rather than use the Septuagint -- or LXX which was a popular Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible which was made by Jews prior to the time of Jesus -- as the foundation for his translation of the Old Testament, Jerome chose to use the Masoretic Text, which is the Hebrew text of the Tanakh or Jewish Bible. It should also be noted that, as with the other codices, over the centuries, there has been some controversy surrounding the accuracy of the Septuagint. At any rate, it's also important to mention that Jerome began his work shortly after Roman Catholicism was declared by Theodosius I to be the official religion of the Roman Empire. It is no surprise then that the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible was compiled in such a way so as to support the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church; which casts even more doubt upon the true form of Matthew 28:19.

Desiderius Erasmus, on the other hand, compiled his Greek New Testament from six or seven partial New Testament manuscripts which were available to him at the time. Erasmus' translation has become known as the "Textus Receptus", or the "Received Text". It's upon this Sixteenth Century text that the beloved Authorized King James Version of the Bible is based. If you are interested in taking a more in-depth look at the history behind the Authorized King James Version of the Bible, please consider reading my two-part article entitled "History of the Authorized King James Bible", as well as the article "The Book of Enoch: Truth Or Heresy?".

But returning to the controversy surrounding Matthew 28:19, personally, I have to agree with Eusebius, and lean towards the belief that the verse may in fact contain spurious text for several reasons. From my own studies of the Bible during the past fifty years, it is quite evident to me that Jesus even speaking in this manner, by referring to the "trinity", is totally out of sync with all of the other things that we find Him saying in the Gospels. Nowhere else does the Lord say "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". What He does say numerous times is exactly what Eusebius writes in his version of the verse. That is to say, "in my name". In fact, a number of years ago, I created a KJV verse list which emphasizes this exact phrase. Please consider the following verses which verify this point:

"And whoso shall receive one such little child IN MY NAME receiveth me."


"For where two or three are gathered together IN MY NAME, there am I in the midst of them."


"But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle IN MY NAME, that can lightly speak evil of me."


"For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink IN MY NAME, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward."


"And these signs shall follow them that believe; IN MY NAME shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;"


"And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child IN MY NAME receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great."


"And whatsoever ye shall ask IN MY NAME, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing IN MY NAME, I will do it."


"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send IN MY NAME, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."


"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father IN MY NAME, he may give it you."


"And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father IN MY NAME, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing IN MY NAME: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father. At that day ye shall ask IN MY NAME: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:"


So why would Jesus say "In my name" so many times, and then just suddenly turn around and say something so different? It just doesn't make sense, and clearly points to manipulation, and corruption, of the Scriptures by someone with an agenda. The triune phrase sticks out as something unusual, which is totally out of place, and which does not flow with the rest of Jesus' comments in the Gospels.

This is not the only reason why I embrace Eusebius' version of Matthew 28:19. Consider this question: If it is true that following His Resurrection, Jesus commanded His Apostles to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", and if the Apostles truly respected Jesus' Power, and the Authority of His word, why did they not do as He had supposedly told them to do? As Jesus clearly states in Luke 6:46:

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"


In other words, just as we don't find the triune phrase being used anywhere else in the four Gospels, neither do we find it being mentioned or used one single time in the Book of Acts, or anywhere in the Epistles, or in the Apocalypse. The triune phrase is only found this one time in Matthew 28:19, and that makes it extremely suspect in my view, and points to it being spurious text. The fact of the matter is that the 1st Century Apostles, who had personally known the Lord, knew that He had explicitly told them on many occasions to do things in His Name, and to ask for things in His Name; and so that is what they did. In answer to Luke 6:46 above, they in fact did do the things that He commanded them to do. They obeyed Jesus to the letter. They were fully aware of the Power that resides in the Name of Jesus Christ, as we can clearly see by the following group of Bible verses:

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."


"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."


"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."


"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"


In looking at the Book of Acts, we find many examples where the First Century Apostles always utilized the phrase "in the name of Jesus", or close derivatives thereof, and never once used the triune phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". If there is any truth at all to the claim that Jesus Christ stated Matthew 28:19 as certain baptismal regenerationists and the Trinitarians like to insist, wouldn't that mean that the Apostles were really acting in direct disobedience to the Lord's order? The only reason why they would not use this phrase, is because Jesus never once told them to use it. So I lean strongly towards the belief that the triune phrase was inserted into Matthew 28:19 long after all of the Apostles were dead.

Please go to part seven for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

Click or Tap Icons to Share! Thank you!

---

---

Please avail yourself of other areas of the BBB Bible website. There are many treasures for you to discover.