LATIN TEXT: “ ea quae nobis ab ipsis fuerunt scripta, nos scilicet nihil posse Nicaenae fidei adjicere, ne brevissimum quidem, excepta Spiritus sancti glorificatione, propterea quod majores nostri ( cursim ) hujus partis ( meminerint ), nondum tunc de Spiritu mota quaestione...” - (258:2; [Col. 949-950;] “Epistola CCL VIII,” “Epiphanio Episcopo,” EPISTOLARUM CLASSIS II., MPG.)

GREEK TEXT: “...ὅτι οὐδὲν δυνάμεθα τῇ κατὰ Νίκαιαν πίστει προστιθέναι ἡμεῖς, οὐδὲ τὸ βραχύτατον, πλὴν τῆς εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον δοξολογίας, διὰ τὸ ἐν ( παραδρομῇ ) τοὺς Πατέρας ἡμῶν τούτου τοῦ μέρους ( ἐπιμνησθῆναι )· οὔπω τοῦ κατ' αὐτὸ ζητήματος τότε κεκινημένου...” - (Letter 258:2; “ΕΠΙΦΑΝΙΩ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΩ,” MPG.)

BASIL OF CAESAREA (circa. 330-379 C.E.): “...EXCEPT THE DOXOLOGY ADDRESSED TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, BECAUSE THIS POINT SLIPPED THE MEMORY OF OUR FATHERS SINCE THE DEBATE ON THIS SUBJECT HAD NOT YET BEEN STIRRED...” - (Letter 258:2; [Courtonne, 3.101-02] Quoted in: “The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381,” By Richard P. C. Hanson, 2005.)

It appears that in the translation below, they forgot to mention or translate the words concerning Gk., ( ἐπιμνησθῆναι ) “...memory...” or Ltn., ( meminerint ) “ remember...”.

Or perhaps, as Basil says, it too: “...slipped [the] memory...” of the Translators to write about this point concerning the divinity or consubstantiality of the holy spirit “...slipp[ing] by [the] memory...” of those at the Council of Nicea!

BASIL OF CAESAREA (circa. 330-379 C.E.): “ answer to their letters to me, that it is impossible for me to make even the slightest addition to the Nicene Creed, except the ascription of Glory to the Holy Ghost, because our Fathers treated this point cursorily, no question having at that time arisen concerning the Spirit. As to the additions it is proposed to make to that Creed, concerning the incarnation of our Lord, I have neither tested nor accepted them, as being beyond my comprehension.[3135] I know well that, if once we begin to interfere with the simplicity of the Creed, we shall embark on interminable discussion, contradiction ever leading us on and on, and shall but disturb the souls of simpler folk by the introduction of new phrases[3136]...” - (Chapter 2, Letter 258, “To Epiphanius the bishop,” ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA , Translated by Blomfield Jackson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1895.)
[FOOTNOTE 3135]: The Ben. note remarks “Cum nonnulli formulæ Nicenæ aliquid de Incarnatione adderent ad comprimendos Apollinaristas, id Basilius nec examinaverat,” etc. I rather understand the present προσυφαίνομενα to refer to the proposals of Innocent to Palladius.
[FOOTNOTE 3136]: Yet Basil will admit an addition which he holds warranted, in the case of the glorification of the Spirit, and would doubtless have acquiesced in the necessity of the additions finally victorious in 451.


  1. So what is Basil saying? What is the meaning he is trying to convey in his letter? Basil supported the Nicene Creed and opposed Arianism (which the Watchtower supports). Basil believed Jesus was God (Jehovah). And, if you know the history of St. Basil, you will know that he championed the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This is all historical fact, and anyone can access his works online and see for themselves that Basil was Christian (Trinitarian). So what is the point of the above quotations? Are you trying to make him out to be a confused? Are you trying to make him contradictory to himself and to the Christian Church? What is your point?

  2. A simple comparison with the original unamended Creed made at Nicea 325 C.E., with the additions added to it at Constantinople 381 C.E., (approx. two years after Basil's death), shows unmistakably how over the intervening 56 years beliefs had indeed changed in regard to the holy spirit. One party, (the pro ὁμοούσιον faction), had gained both the political backing necessary, (curried favor with the then Emperor), and gained the ascendancy over all other Christians effectively, and then literally forced their viewpoint upon all other Christians at the point of, and by means of the Emperor's sword.

    In saying that you may believe whatever you want about the history of the Tri{3}nity doctrine. I trace it's origin back to the apostate heretic Tertullian, under the demonic inspiration of Montanus, the false prophet and cult leader of Tertullian's beloved: "NEW PROPHECY".


Post a Comment