Through the Bible: Genesis

[whatisthis]

I'm unfamiliar with this site and with this forum, (a total newbie) so I'm going to try a reply just to see if I'm logged in and functional!

[Gail]

You are functional! Welcome! :)

[whatisthis]

I started to reply to this and thought better of it, but I'm unfamiliar enough with this site that I guess I must say something to get back to the main thread. Blessings.

[whatisthis]

I love your claw quote!

[Gail]

Thanks to Annie Lamott. I wonder how many of us have thought that but have not said it out loud?

[Gail]

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk:

What doesn’t make sense to you, makes a lot of sense to me. Let me share with you why I am inclined to believe that the original version of the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew/Aramaic.

There is sufficient evidence from Scripture that many Jews spoke the Aramaic Hebrew dialect, and some Jews also had a knowledge of even classic Hebrew.

Even if we say the original of the Gospel of Matthew was written in the Hebrew or Aramaic language, it doesn't change the fact that Matthew 28: 19 is part of our Bible and that it belongs in the text.

If you were publishing your own translation of Matthew, would you delete Matt. 28: 19?

As far as the Trinity doctrine is concerned, it wouldn't matter. I could easily show strong evidence for the Trinity without the use of Matt. 28: 19 or 1 John 5: 7.

In fact,if you want to, you could throw out one more verse that supports the Trinity. Take your pick.

It won't matter because the true doctrines of the Bible don't rely on two or three verses.

[John317]

Quote:

John: I've seen what you say about this on other Forums by people who teach against the Trinity. It's interesting to me that they find it necessary to take legitimate verses out of the Bible in order to support their views.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Read my previous postings and notice that even the Catholic encyclopedia admits that the early Christian writers did believe that the original version of the Matthew Gospel was written in the Hebrew language/Aramaic dialect.

I think it's likely that Matthew first wrote His Gospel in Aramaic. But Matthew was a highly educated man, and Greek was the common language of that day in the Roman Empire, so it makes sense that Matthew would also have translated it himself into Greek, probably with the assistance of Greek-speaking secretaries.

In any case, if the Gospel was written in Aramaic, we don't have any of the copies, so we're talking here about conjecture rather than known facts.

One of the important facts we have to consider is that all of the copies of Matthew are in the Greek language, and all of them have Matt. 28: 19.

It would be one thing if Matt. 28: 19 contradicted all the rest of the Bible, but it doesn't. It agrees with the rest of the Bible when it comes to the doctrine of the Godhead.

Here's the thing, Nic. I believe the evidence shows that God inspired the prophets and the Scriptures and that He made sure they are reliable. He did not allow Satan to introduce false teaching into our Bibles. However, I do beleive that God did allowe some changes to occur in the ancient manuscripts. That is obvious. But I don't believe any of those changes that God allowed will lead people into false doctrines. I believe the Bible is the pure word of God. Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." I can trust every ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscript of the Old and New Testaments to communicate truth, and if I believe and trust what they say, the Holy Spirit will use them to teach me the truth about God and salvation. I've looked closely at all the variants in the NT muscripts and in the printed Greek texts, and I don't see any that change the basic doctrines of the Bible. Our Bible's are trustworthy, including 1 John 5: 7 (which is probably not part of the original) and Matt. 28: 19 (which almost certainly is).

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: If those who invented the dogma of the Trinity admit this, then we need to consider the possibility that the original Greek manuscripts might have been altered to include the triune baptismal formula with the objective of bolstering the new Trinitarian doctrine.

OK, so consider the possibility. What is your strongest evidence that this occurred? Do you have any actual manuscript evidence that it was altered?

You talk about those who "invented the dogma of the Trinity," as if the Trintiy cannot be found in the Bible, but it can be. If it wasn't, I myself would totally reject it.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: The testimonies of Eusebius, Irenaeus, Origen, Jerome, and Epiphanius are quite compelling to me and should not be ignored.

I'm not suggesting that we ignore what those men said; we should give proper weight to their testimony, but their testimony does not add up to Matt. 28: 19 being taken out of the Bible. All their testimony means is that the Gospel of Matthew may have been originally written in the Hebrew/Aramaic language.

But for the purpose of discussing the Trinity, I would be willing to put Matt. 28: 19 aside, as well as two other verses of your choosing that you feel should be jettisoned from the Bible. It won't matter.

[John317]

Let me second Gail's welcome to you, friend. Join us any time you want to, which I hope will be often.

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: The only way to make an intelligent decision about this issue is to set aside all the human tradition and examine all the available biblical evidence in support of both views.

I'm certainly all for that, Nic. My emphasis would be on "biblical evidence," as opposed to the evidence of the Church Fathers. I would lay the Church Father's completely to the side. They have historal interest but they cannot speak with authority as far as determining doctrine and truth is concerned. Besides, they contradict each other on most issues, and they weren't inspired.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: All experts agree that the dogma of the Trinity was established in the fourth century. This was done by the same power which invented the twin doctrine of Sunday worship.

It's true that the early church took some time to come to clear understanding of the Bible, but this is a necessary part of development. The Adventist church also took a while in order to come to clear understandings of some of its primary doctrines, and we are still learning.

We need to remember that any church or group of people develop their ideas and beliefs in reaction to false teachings. This is what happened in the history of the Christian church.

I do the same thing in reaction to what I hear people say. What people say around me helps me to further define what I believe. Sometimes we don't know for sure what we believe until we read or hear what others are saying. This is kind of what happened to cause the early church to arrive at its beliefs.

It's incorrect to say that the church which developed the Trinity doctrine was the Roman Catholic Church. The Trintiy doctrine was in process of being thought through over a period of centuries, and this was during the time prior to the establishment of the papal system.

The fact that the Roman Catholic Church adopted the doctrine of the Trinity is itself no proof that the Trinity is a false teaching. It would be foolish to reject something merely because it is found in Catholic teachings. They also believe in the Virgin birth of Christ, in the Incarnation and in the Second Coming.

Again, if a doctrine is found in the Bible, we don't reject it simply because the Roman Catholic Church or the Pope himself teaches it.

It's worthy of notice that the SDA view of the Trinity is not identical to the view of the Roman Catholic Church. That's becasue our view is based on the Bible and not on tradition.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: In her writings and in her sermons and talks, Ellen White, the prophet of God, clearly supports the Trinity.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Ellen White never used the term Trinity in her writings.

That's really irrelevant, though, Nic. The Bible also does not use the term. But it also doesn't use the words "Incarnation" and some others which we accept and use. The important thing is not whether the Bible uses a particular term but whether the Bible teaches the concept.

The same with Ellen White. If her writings teach the doctrine of the Trinity as SDAs understand it, it doesn't matter one whit whether or not she used the label, Trinity. The question is, what did she write about it, not whether she did nor did not use a specific word.

Quote:

She did speak about “three great powers of heaven” and “Three Persons in the Godhead,” but these references to a "heavenly trio” can easily be interpreted to include God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the angel Gabriel.

Wow! The angel Gabriel?!!!

Please consider a few quotes from Ellen White on this subject, and see if she is speaking of the angel Gabriel:

"In the name of whom were you baptized? You went down into the water in the name of the three great Worthies in heaven-- the Father, the Son. and the Holy Ghost. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost you were buried with Christ in baptism; and you were raised up out of the water to live in newness of life." Sermons and Talks, vol. 1, page 363 (Manuscript 95, 1906)

NOTE: When have SDAs ever been baptized in the name of the angel Gabriel? When have any Christians ever referred to the angel Gabriel under the name "the Holy Ghost"? Are we buried in baptism in the name of the angel Gabriel? Obviously not.

Also, notice Ellen White's repeated use of the phrase found in Matt. 28: 19.

"Here is where the work of the Holy Ghost comes in, after your baptism. You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You were raised up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of life-- to live a new life. You are born unto God, and you stand under the sanctuion and the power of THE THREE HOLIEST BEINGS IN HEAVEN, who are able to keep you from falling... When I feel oppressed and hardly know how to relate myself toward the work that God has given me to do, I JUST CALL UPON THE THREE GREAT WORTHIES, and say: You know I cannot do this work in my own strength. You must work in me, and by me, and through me, sanctifying my tongue, sanctifying my spirit, sanctifying my words, and bringing me into a position where my spirit shall be susceptible to the movings of the Holy Spirit of God upon my mind and character. And this is the prayer that every one of us may offer." Sermons and Talks, vol. 1, pp. 387-389

NOTE: Is Ellen White here meaning to tell us that the angel Gabriel will sanctify our tongue and sanctify our words? Are we to be made susceptible to the movings of the angel Gabriel-- or to the movings of the third person of the eternal Godhead, the Holy Spirit?

"The prince of the power of evil can only be held in check by the power of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit." Ev. 617.

"We are to co-operate with the three highest powers in heaven-- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,-- and these powers will work through us, making us workers together with God." Ev. 617

"... The Holy Spirit... is as much a person as God is a person..." See Ev. 616.

"The Holy Spirit has a personality, else He could not bear witness to our spirits and with our spirits that we are the children of God. He must also be a divine person, else He could not search out the secrets which lie hidden in the mind of God." Ev. 617

In the book, Upward Look, Ellen White speaks of "the eternal Godhead-- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Here:

Before the disciples shall compass the threshold, there is to be the imprint of the sacred name, baptizing the believers in the name of the threefold powers in the heavenly world. The human mind is impressed in this ceremony, the beginning of the Christian life. It means very much. The work of salvation is not a small matter, but so vast that the highest authorities are taken hold of by the expressed faith of the human agent. The eternal Godhead--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--is involved in the action required to make assurance to the human agent, . . . confederating the heavenly powers with the human that man may become, through heavenly efficiency, partakers of the divine nature and workers together with Christ. {UL 148.4}

What kind of action does Ellen White say the Holy Spirit is involved in?

NOTE: Is Ellen White including the angel Gabriel as part of the eternal Godhead.

Your thoughts?

[Guest]

I started to reply to this and thought better of it, but I'm unfamiliar enough with this site that I guess I must say something to get back to the main thread. Blessings.

Welcome to the forum. I hope you like it.

[Nic Samojluk]

Even if we say the original of the Gospel of Matthew was written in the Hebrew or Aramaic language, it doesn't change the fact that Matthew 28: 19 is part of our Bible and that it belongs in the text.

[Nic Samojluk]

In any case, if the Gospel was written in Aramaic, we don't have any of the copies, so we're talking here about conjecture rather than known facts.

[Nic Samojluk]

Let me second Gail's welcome to you, friend. Join us any time you want to, which I hope will be often.

Yes, I do the same. Welcome to the forum!

[Nic Samojluk]

I'm certainly all for that, Nic. My emphasis would be on "biblical evidence," as opposed to the evidence of the Church Fathers.

[Nic Samojluk]

Please consider a few quotes from Ellen White on this subject, and see if she is speaking of the angel Gabriel:

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: Even if we say the original of the Gospel of Matthew was written in the Hebrew or Aramaic language, it doesn't change the fact that Matthew 28: 19 is part of our Bible and that it belongs in the text.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Of course! The texts which tell us that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh in order to show his power are also part of our Bible, and likewise the texts that tell us that it was king Pharaoh who hardened his heart. Don’t you have to make a choice between the two? How can both be true?

In your thinking, are those Bible statements directly related to Matt. 28: 19? How do they help answer the question about Matt. 28: 19?

Do you believe one of them is a lie?

In the biblical view, both statements in Exodus about Pharaoh are true.

How could they be true? Because Pharoah hardened his own heart by his reaction to God's actions. Therefore, in a sense, God was the ultimate cause of Phaorah's heart being hardened, but it didn't violate Pharaoh's choices. God knew ahead of time what Pharaoh would do, because God knew Pharaoh better than Pharaoh knew his own heart, the same way God knows us.

We don't understand how God does it, but God is able to fulfill His own will without violating human freedom.

In any case, Nic, there's no relationship between these verses in Exodus and Matt. 28: 19.

There's no evidence whatsoever that these statements about the hardening of Pharaoh's heart are not both authentic parts of the Bible.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: The same can be said about the passage which states that God incited David to count Israel and punished him for doing so, and the other text which claims that it was Satan who incited David to count Israel. Don’t we have to make a choice between those two statements? Do I need to cite those texts or can you locate them yourself?

These are well-known passages and have been explained many times not only on this Forum but in Bible Commentaries, including the SDA Bible Commentary.

In order to discuss Matt. 28: 19, it isn't necessary to discuss every verse that you see as presenting some difficulty or complexity. The verse you choose to discuss here aren't even slightly related to what we find in Matt. 28: 19. There's not a bit of evidence to show that they don't belong in the Bible text.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: If you apply the logic to the baptismal formula, you will understand my logic in choosing the many texts which use the baptismal formula which state that people were baptized in the name of Jesus, period. If you add to this the testimony of Eusebius and all the other Patristic writers you’ll get the picture.

Nic, were you baptized "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"?

There's no similarity between the logic you are applying to Matt. 28: 19 and the logic you're applying to the two examples above. You are saying Matt. 28: 19 was made up and added to the text in order to lead people into false beliefs. The other two are simply examples of verses that you find difficult to understand or to harmonize. Those are hardly the same thing, nor do they require the application of the same kind of logic.

Quote:

John3: 17: If you were publishing your own translation of Matthew, would you delete Matt. 28: 19?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I would simply insert a note explaining the opinion of Eusebius and the other Patristic writers.

OK, but that is their "opinion." Should we let other people's "opinions" to persaude us to reject clear statements found in the Bible and in all the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament?

I would have no trouble leaving 1 John 5: 7 out of a translation of the NT. I would put that verse in a foot-note along with an explanation.

But I don't believe anyone who knows the textual evidence would leave out Matt. 28: 19. Why? Because the evidence is overwhelming that it's part of the original. We don't delete parts of the Bible simply on the basis of the opinions of Church Fathers or because we don't like them or if they're hard to explain.

Quote:

John3:17: I could easily show strong evidence for the Trinity without the use of Matt. 28: 19 or 1 John 5: 7.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I believe that you can. Perhaps we should take the time to do that.

We could, yes.

But if you like, we could also meet in person in Loma Linda and study it together.

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17: “In the name of whom were you baptized? You went down into the water in the name of the three great Worthies in heaven-- the Father, the Son. and the Holy Ghost.”

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Would it be blasphemous to suggest that the angel Gabriel is also a great heavenly “Worthy.

Yes, it would certainly be blasphemous to put Gabriel, a creature, on the same level with God the Father and God the Son and in the place of the Holy Spirit.

I cannot imagine Ellen White saying, "when I feel oppressed, I just call upon the three great Worthies in heaven-- the Father, the Son, and the angel Gabriel."

Do you honestly believe this is what Ellen White is saying in Sermons and Talks, Vol. 1, pages 363, 367?

Is she saying Seventh-day Adventists are baptized in the name of the angel Gabriel?

If we use your reasoning, she must be saying this because she speaks of SDAs being "baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Who does she refer to here?

When you were baptized, did the minister baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son , and the angel Gabriel? Or in "the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"?

Who did you believe the minister was referring to when he baptized you in the name of the Holy Spirit?

Do you believe if she was here today, Ellen White would tell us to be "baptized in the name of the angel Gabriel"?

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17: Are we buried in baptism in the name of the angel Gabriel?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: We are buried in the name of Jesus.

Nic, were you baptized by an SDA pastor? Weren't you baptized "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"?

I was not only baptized or buried in the name of Jesus, but in "the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." My wife was baptized in the same name about 1991. About 14 years later, both of our children were also baptized in the same name.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Do not forget that the baptismal formula always names Jesus, including Matthew 28:19 if you choose Eusebius version of said text.

But that's just it: I do not choose Eusebius' version.

Is Eusebius now Scripture?

Was Eusebius inspired?

Why would you insist on holding onto the mere opinion of Eusebius, who supported the pagan Emperor Constantine, and reject the inspired Scriptures?

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17 (quoting Ellen White):

You are born unto God, and you stand under the sanctuion and the power of THE THREE HOLIEST BEINGS IN HEAVEN, who are able to keep you from falling..

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Here are the Holiest beings in heaven: God the Father, Jesus, and Gabriel.

You have to be kidding, Nic.

Both Ellen White and the Bible are clear that the Holy Spirit is not the angel Gabriel.

Ellen White specifically says that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead.

Not only that but she says the Godhead is "eternal," and obviously Gabriel is not eternal since he is a creature.

The angel Gabriel cannot possibly be of the Godhead, simply because Gabriel is not God.

Godhead= deity= God.

Quote:

My view is that Gabriel occupies now the vacant place formerly occupied by Lucifer.

I agree that Gabriel probably now occupies the vacant place formerly occupied by Lucifer, but that doesn't make Gabriel one of the three holiest beings, or one of the three great Worthies, in heaven.

For one thing Ellen White did not call upon Gabriel.

"Call upon"=prayer. Ellen White did not pray to the angel Gabriel.

Can you show evidence that when in heaven, Lucifer was holier than the other angels?

What Bible evidence is there that one angel is holier than another?

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: This is why in the book of Daniel the Holy Spirit is not even mentioned, because Gabriel is Spirit and also Holy,

Daniel 4: 8, 18; 5:11, 14 all speak "the Spirit of the Holy God" that is in Daniel and enables Daniel to understand the kings dream. (See NKJV; Amplified; and the Septuagint.) This is possibly, if not probably, a reference to the Holy Spirit. (For sure it cannot be that Daniel has spirits of false gods in him which help him understand the future.)

If we read all the verses in the Bible which mention the Holy Spirit, do you believe we will conclude that it refers to the angel Gabriel?

For instance, take Ps. 51: 11, where David prays to God that He not "take your holy Spirit from me." Is David there praying that God will not take the angel Gabriel from him?

Is Isaiah 42: 1-- "I have put My Spirit upon Him [Christ]-- a reference to the angel Gabriel? See Jesus' application in Luke 4:18.

Is Joel 2: 28-- "I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh"-- referring to the angel Gabriel?

Is Zech. 4: 6-- "Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts"-- referring to the angel Gabriel?

Was it the angel Gabriel who descended in the form of a dove in Matt. 3: 16? Or was it the Holy Spirit?

Finally, were the disciples filled with the angel Gabriel and did the angel Gabriel give the disciples utterance in Acts 2: 4?

Who is Ellen White speaking of when she says "the heart that is not transformed by the grace of God soon loses the impression of the Holy Spirit"? See PK 519.

And in PK 325: "Throughout the period of probationary time His Spirit is entreating men to accept the gift of life."

Is this the angel Gabriel? How could it be? Is the angel Gabriel omnipresent? Absolutely not. Then I believe you can see that the prophet Ellen White can't possibly be referring to a mere creature.

Quote:

and he performed the sacred task which is the prerogative of the Holy Spirit as stated by Saint Peter in 2 Peter 2: 21: the task of revealing prophecy to Daniel.

God has the prerogative to assign angels to reveal truths to the prophets, as Rev. 1: 1 says. But it would be wrong, because it's contrary to Scripture, to conclude that the angels themselves do these things independent of God's directions or command.

The Bible is clear that God "made His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire." Heb. 1: 7. Who are the angels, including Gabriel? "Are they not ALL ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?" v. 14.

Angels are made to minister [to be servants] to human beings. They are all ministering spirits SENT FORTH by God. Therefore they don't perform their sacred tasks apart from God's directions to them. That is why we do not pray to angels but we pray to God that He send His angels. Ellen White NEVER called upon angels. It would be a sin to pray to or call upon an angel. They are mere creatures. See Rev. 19: 10; 22: 8,9. She called upon God for help, and God sent angels to minister to her. He does the same for us-- but we never are to pray to, or call upon, angels.

But the Bible and Ellen White show that we may call upon the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Ellen White often sang praises to the Holy Spirit, and you can be sure the prophet of God was NOT singing praises to the angel Gabriel. She said all SDAs should sing such praises. She sang, "Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." One does not praise a thing; one praises a person, someONE who can appreciate what is being said or sung.

When or if you sing this, are you thinking of the angel Gabriel or of the Spirit of God who hears you sing and knows your thoughts?

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: Please consider a few quotes from Ellen White on this subject, and see if she is speaking of the angel Gabriel:

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Ellen never specifically equated the Holy Spirit with the angel Gabriel. Does this prove anything?

Not only does Ellen White not specifically equate the Holy Spirit with the angel Gabriel, but she makes specific statements which specifically make it absolutely impossible for the angel Gabriel to be the Holy Spirit.

Just one example:

Do you believe the angel Gabriel-- a mere creature-- could be the third person of "the eternal Godhead"? See Upward Look, p. 148: par. 4.

If you believe so, then explain how you come to that conclusion.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Do you consider Ellen white’s writings on par with the Bible?

No.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Does our church consider Ellen to be the final interpreter of the Bible and the final arbiter over doctrinal issues?

Here's the official beliefs of of our church as regards Ellen White's position and authority:

18. The Gift of Prophecy:

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Why did Ellen repeatedly insist that we need to go to the Bible in our search for doctrinal truth?

Yes, and we certainly do. But by that she definitely did not have in mind that SDAs pay no attention to what she wrote. She said that all SDA homes should have her books and be reading and obeying them.

She said we should first study the Bible because the Bible is the rule of the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. But it would be absurd for any SDA to say that it doesn't matter what Ellen White taught or wrote. The church believes her to have been a genuine prophet of God.

So my primary concern here is that we have a clear understanding of what she taught and what she wrote about the Holy Spirit and about the Godhead. Whether you accept what she says is a different matter, but you should at least know what she believed and wrote. We should have no illusions or misinformation or misunderstandings about that. I'm sure you agree.

You have said she made statements that can be understood to mean that the angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit. I challenge that notion and ask that you show it to be true in light of the quotes I've presented.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: I'm not suggesting that we ignore what those men said; we should give proper weight to their testimony, but their testimony does not add up to Matt. 28: 19 being taken out of the Bible. All their testimony means is that the Gospel of Matthew may have been originally written in the Hebrew/Aramaic language.

Quote:

Nic Ssamojluk: Why would Eusebius misquote Matthew 28:19 in his writings? He quoted said passage by simply using the in the name of Jesus formula.

It could very well be that Eusebius did not quote it exactly but rather was alluding to it, realizing that his readers were well acquainted with the exact words. This occurs in the New Testament itself. For instance, see Mark 1: 2.

You neglect to report the fact that Eusebius does quote Matt. 28:19 five times exactly as we find it in the KJV. It is true, though, that Eusedius also appears to cite the verse elsewhere in different words, but it could very well be that he is not quoting it exactly but rather alluding to it. Also, some people believe the sources where Eusebius quotes the Trinitarian Formula are probably not genuine, although there is no concensus on this point.

Within Eusebius writings it is found in three forms.

Form 1. "Go disciple ye all the nations" (7 times)

Form 2. "Go disciple ye all the nations in my name" (17 times)

Form 3. The traditional form, or Textus Receptus, KJV (5 times)

Of the three forms, "Form 2" is found most often. Seventeen times Eusebius quotes Matthew in this second form. Seven times it is found in "Form 1," and then five times in "Form 3."

Eusebius lived from 260-340 A.D. He quoted it the same as in Matt. 28: 19 two times in Contra Marcellumm; once in the Letter to Caesarea; once in the Theology of the Church; and once in Theophania.

[Nic Samojluk]

In your thinking, are those Bible statements directly related to Matt. 28: 19? How do they help answer the question about Matt. 28: 19?