cataway
Well-Known Member
if ya would read the bible you would see that Jesus is the son of God
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!
- Thread starter Oeste
- Start date
Hi @tigger2
While your point is well taken and I agree, the problem is that God the Father is, historically, of a class of beings called "Gods", he is the "God of Gods" and "Lord of Lords" If he is one of a class, then this rule works against capitalizing when using "God" in a sentence. It is a rule that is dependent upon historical context.
For example, in the Dead Sea Scroll 1QM, 4Q491-496 Col 17:6-8 The translator Capitalizes both God and Gods who are there thusly : “He will send eternal support to the company of his redeemed by the power of the majestic angel of the authority of Michael. By eternal light He shall joyfully light up the covenant of Israel–peace and blessing for the lot of God–to exalt the authority of Michael among the Gods and the dominion of Israel among all flesh."
Similarly, in the Jewish pseudoepigraph from the Parthian Hymns, the class of beings called "Gods", the capitalization is correct. The text reads regarding heaven after the judgment and resurrection : "That is the day when he will reveal his form, the beneficent Father, the Lord of the Aeons of Light. He will show his radiant shape and brilliant, glorious form to all the Gods who shall dwell there. Canto VI c Huvidagman FROM THE PARTHIAN HYMN-CYCLES
The point is that these translators are perfectly correct to use the capital form when speaking of God or Gods. It is, as I said, a rule that is dependent upon historical context.
I honestly don't care which way you want to render the Noun "God" or god", We only got into this discussion because @cataway was trying correct a comment and wanted to insert his personal preference of "a god". I supposed it was an important issue to cataway. It is not important to me unless it is important to a correct historical reference. Please, Feel free to write it either way you want and I think I will understand your basic point.
Clear
τωτωσινεω
Last edited:
Hello Clear...
Where it gets murky is defining three “persons” in a godhead, (a description never found in scripture) when individually they are not called “persons” but “God”.
If the Father is God, and the son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then we have three gods....not one. This is polytheism in a thin disguise. We reject the trinity as an apostate and blasphemous doctrine.
It’s quite simple really. Jesus warned about the “tares” that would be sown “while men were sleeping”. Now whether that means the apostles sleeping in death, or it means that the church itself was spiritually asleep, the devil sowed a counterfeit form of Christianity at this opportune time. From that apostate church came all manner of false doctrines because a pagan Roman Emperor sought to consolidate his religiously divided empire with one “Universal” (Catholic”) religion....one that was basically a fusion of weakened Christianity and pagan Roman sun worship. It was a fake. Constantine himself was a worshipper of Zeus his whole life.
There is not even a hint of trinitarianism in Biblical Judaism, so there is still no hint of it in early Biblical Christianity. (By “early” I mean whilst the apostles were still alive) It was “hatched” by an apostate church and imposed as Biblical truth, when it was no such thing. Christendom is a product of this apostasy. Its doctrines are so old and firmly entrenched that people cannot see beyond them.
Paul mentioned that there was someone acting as a “restraint” against that looming apostasy that was “already at work” even then. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12) So once that restraint was “out of the way” the “man of lawlessness” (church leaders who allowed this apostasy to prevail) would succeed in thoroughly corrupting the church. Her history attests to the truth of that prophesy.
Where it gets murky is defining three “persons” in a godhead, (a description never found in scripture) when individually they are not called “persons” but “God”.
If the Father is God, and the son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then we have three gods....not one. This is polytheism in a thin disguise. We reject the trinity as an apostate and blasphemous doctrine.
It’s quite simple really. Jesus warned about the “tares” that would be sown “while men were sleeping”. Now whether that means the apostles sleeping in death, or it means that the church itself was spiritually asleep, the devil sowed a counterfeit form of Christianity at this opportune time. From that apostate church came all manner of false doctrines because a pagan Roman Emperor sought to consolidate his religiously divided empire with one “Universal” (Catholic”) religion....one that was basically a fusion of weakened Christianity and pagan Roman sun worship. It was a fake. Constantine himself was a worshipper of Zeus his whole life.
There is not even a hint of trinitarianism in Biblical Judaism, so there is still no hint of it in early Biblical Christianity. (By “early” I mean whilst the apostles were still alive) It was “hatched” by an apostate church and imposed as Biblical truth, when it was no such thing. Christendom is a product of this apostasy. Its doctrines are so old and firmly entrenched that people cannot see beyond them.
Paul mentioned that there was someone acting as a “restraint” against that looming apostasy that was “already at work” even then. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12) So once that restraint was “out of the way” the “man of lawlessness” (church leaders who allowed this apostasy to prevail) would succeed in thoroughly corrupting the church. Her history attests to the truth of that prophesy.
TiggerII
Active Member
ps. 136:2 and Dan. 11:36 - "God of gods" - - - Deut. 10:17 and Ps. 136:3 - "Lord of lords"
TiggerII
Active Member
Early Creeds and writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) - part A
Here is the highly significant credal statement of St. Clement of Rome (ca. 90 A.D.): “Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace (which was poured out upon us) and one calling in Christ?” - 1 Clement 46:6 (see original Greek text).
Clement lists four things, and only one of them (the first listed, of course) is God, and, in fact, God cannot be Christ, the Spirit, or the Calling which are all listed in addition to God!
Now notice this admission by a trinitarian scholar and church historian:
Besides Scripture and tradition one finds at the end of the second century another entity of FUNDAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE for the doctrine of the church, namely the creed .... One of the oldest creeds to be canonized in a particular church was the old Roman baptismal creed, which is generally designated as Romanum (R) .... an early form of this confession read as follows:
I believe in God, the Father, the Almighty;
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord,
And in the Holy Ghost, the holy church, the resurrection of the flesh.
In this form the old Roman confession probably originated not later than the middle of the second century. ....
More or less similar creeds were extant in most of the Christian congregations of the West .... Later the wording of R became generally accepted in the West.
The same trinitarian authority also admits that the East (the original home of Judaism and Christianity) had a slightly different form. The original Eastern Creed, he tells us, read as follows:
I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, of whom everything is,
and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, through whom everything is,
and in the Holy Ghost.
.... Hence the formula of faith was intended primarily for the instruction of candidates for baptism. This leads to a further point, namely, that the creed functioned as a formal summary of the Christian faith. It was the criterion of faith upon which catechetical instruction was based. - pp. 33-35, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernhard Lohse (trinitarian), Fortress Press (trinitarian), 1985.
An early Eastern Creed, which is dated variously between 280 A.D and 350 A.D., and “originated probably in Antioch” translates as:
We believe and baptize in one unbegotten only true Almighty God, the Father of the Christ.... And [we believe and baptize in] the Lord Jesus the Christ, His only-begotten Son, the firstborn of all creation... And we [believe and] baptize in the Holy Spirit, that is, the Paraclete, which acted in all the holy ones from the beginning... - from Greek text of “The Creed of the Apostolical Constitutions” on p. 39, Vol. II, The Creeds of Christendom, Schaff (trinitarian), Baker Book House (trinitarian), 1998 reprint.
Please notice that this first “summary of the Christian faith” of all Christians one hundred years after the death of Jesus affirms one God only: the Father only! There is no greater testimony (and no further evidence required) that the Christians of the first two centuries did not believe in nor teach a multiple-person God!
However, since there appear to be trinitarian quotes found in the existing manuscripts of the early Christian Fathers, we need to know more about them.
[My original study of 'Creeds' has a few pages of ways the writings of the Fathers were corrupted by later trinitarian copyists.]
Even more important is the redefinition by later trinitarians of “a god” (theos - a term used in Scripture for angels and even certain men who REPRESENTED God into “God” (ho theos - a term used in Scripture for the only true Most High God). Even the following respected trinitarian reference work reluctantly admits this:
“It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Christian theologians of the second and third centuries, even theologians of the rank of Origen ... came to see the Logos [the Word, Christ] as a god of second rank.” - The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publ., 1987, Vol. 9, p. 15.
But when trinitarian translators find Jesus called theos (“a god”) in these earliest writings, they often translate it as “God” instead!
So, after more than 1600 years of trinitarian dominance, redefinition, rewording, and selective translating, it should not be surprising that the trinitarian translations of the existing copies of the manuscripts of those early Christian writers will at times appear trinitarian. (See the sections on Origen and Hippolytus below for examples.)
What would be very surprising would be, given the above conditions, that there would be any support for a non-trinitarian doctrine still left in modern trinitarian translations of the writings of these earliest Christians!
We can see from the very early creeds quoted above that the churches of that time were not trinitarian. Now let's see if any of that truth still remains in the trinitarian-reworked letters of the Apostolic Fathers and the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
Trinitarian scholar, minister, and missionary, H. R. Boer admits: The very first Christians to really discuss Jesus’ relationship to God in their writings were the Apologists.
“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.” - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.
Other respected scholars agree.
“Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father.” - pp. 112-113, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity (trinitarian), 1977; and p. 114, The History of Christianity, A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.
“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.
Alvan Lamson is especially straightforward:
“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ... Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.” - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.
TiggerII
Active Member
Early Christian Writings - Part B
Clement of Rome
(wrote c. 96 A.D.)
[In the early days of Christianity] one believed in the Father, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but no tie was available to unite them together. They were mentioned separately. Prayers were addressed, for example, to the Father who ‘alone,’ according to Clement of Rome, ‘was God.’ - Revue d’ Histoire et de Litterature Religieuses (Review of History and of Religious Literature), May-June, 1906, pp. 222, 223.
Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture.” - 59:2-4, The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot and Harmer.
Justin Martyr
(c. 100-165 A.D.)
"God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after him are created and corruptible {Justin has just concurred that the world was begotten by God} .... take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say this is the Cause of all." - The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) 1:197 (‘Dialogue’).
But,
"Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten" - ANF 1:170 (‘Apology’).
"And thus do we also, since our persuasion by the Word, stand aloof from them (i.e., the demons), and follow the only unbegotten God through His Son" - ANF 1:167 (‘Apology’).
Respected church historian, Robert M. Grant, likewise notes:
“[Justin] ... identifies the God whom Christians worship as ‘most true and Father of justice.... And he goes on to speak of reverencing and worshiping ‘the Son who came from him and taught us these things, and the army of other good angels who follow and resemble him, as well as the prophetic spirit.’” - p. 59 [quoting from “The First Apology of Justin,” Ch. VI]. “This is why Justin could place the ‘army of angels’ ahead of the ‘prophetic spirit,’ as we have seen: for him the Spirit was not ... personal [in fact Grant calls the Spirit ‘it’ - p. 63].” - p. 62, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, The Westminster Press, 1988.
Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world but, nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father. - p. 110, Boer, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.
“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]” - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.
Justin Martyr’s ‘Apology’ and ‘Dialogue {With Trypho}’ “are preserved but in a single ms (Cod. Paris, 450, A.D. 1364)” - Britannica, 14th ed.
Irenaeus
(c. 140-203 A.D.)
‘But there is only one God, the Creator ... He it is ... whom Christ reveals .... He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: through His Word, who is His Son, through Him He is revealed.’ - pp. 110, 111, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans, 1976. (Ellipses were provided by Boer. Irenaeus quote by Boer is from ANF, 1:406.)
“... neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme .... the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; it is incumbent on us to follow ... their testimonies to this effect.” (ANF, 1:422, ‘Against Heresies’)
“For faith, which has respect to our Master, endures unchangeably, assuring us that there is but one true God, and that we should truly love Him for ever, seeing that He alone is our Father.” (ANF, 1:399-400, ‘Against Heresies’)
Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies” exists today in full only in a single Latin translation from the original Greek language. It is thus not surprising that trinitarian-supporting “evidence” may be found in the single trinitarian-recopied, trinitarian-translated, trinitarian-redefined manuscript available today. But certainly this respected early Christian writer whom today's trinitarian scholars “credit” with the very “formulation” of the trinity doctrine would not have made the many clear non-trinitarian statements recorded above if he had really believed in or taught a trinity (or “Binity”)! Obviously the many trinitarians who handled (and mishandled) Irenaeus’ writing down through the centuries could (and did) change some non-trinitarian thoughts into trinitarian thoughts.* But they would certainly never change trinitarian thoughts into non-trinitarian thoughts. Therefore, those many non-trinitarian concepts still remaining must be Irenaeus’ original teaching (as a study of the very first Creeds of this time also proves)!
______________
* The very trinitarian translators of ANF wrote in their Introductory Note to Irenaeus’ Against Heresies: “The text [of Against Heresies] ... is often most uncertain. .... After the text has been settled according to the best judgment [trinitarian, of course] which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenaeus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. .... And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural retranslation [trinitarian, of course] into Greek, in order to have some inkling of what the author wrote. .... We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess [trinitarian, of course] can only be made as to the probable meaning.” - ANF 1:311-312. Obviously, if a trinitarian, even a scrupulously honest trinitarian, makes a “conjectural retranslation” or a “guess ... as to the probable meaning,” it will be a trinitarian guess or “conjectural retranslation”!
Clement of Rome
(wrote c. 96 A.D.)
[In the early days of Christianity] one believed in the Father, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but no tie was available to unite them together. They were mentioned separately. Prayers were addressed, for example, to the Father who ‘alone,’ according to Clement of Rome, ‘was God.’ - Revue d’ Histoire et de Litterature Religieuses (Review of History and of Religious Literature), May-June, 1906, pp. 222, 223.
Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture.” - 59:2-4, The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot and Harmer.
Justin Martyr
(c. 100-165 A.D.)
"God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after him are created and corruptible {Justin has just concurred that the world was begotten by God} .... take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say this is the Cause of all." - The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) 1:197 (‘Dialogue’).
But,
"Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten" - ANF 1:170 (‘Apology’).
"And thus do we also, since our persuasion by the Word, stand aloof from them (i.e., the demons), and follow the only unbegotten God through His Son" - ANF 1:167 (‘Apology’).
Respected church historian, Robert M. Grant, likewise notes:
“[Justin] ... identifies the God whom Christians worship as ‘most true and Father of justice.... And he goes on to speak of reverencing and worshiping ‘the Son who came from him and taught us these things, and the army of other good angels who follow and resemble him, as well as the prophetic spirit.’” - p. 59 [quoting from “The First Apology of Justin,” Ch. VI]. “This is why Justin could place the ‘army of angels’ ahead of the ‘prophetic spirit,’ as we have seen: for him the Spirit was not ... personal [in fact Grant calls the Spirit ‘it’ - p. 63].” - p. 62, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, The Westminster Press, 1988.
Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world but, nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father. - p. 110, Boer, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.
“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]” - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.
Justin Martyr’s ‘Apology’ and ‘Dialogue {With Trypho}’ “are preserved but in a single ms (Cod. Paris, 450, A.D. 1364)” - Britannica, 14th ed.
Irenaeus
(c. 140-203 A.D.)
‘But there is only one God, the Creator ... He it is ... whom Christ reveals .... He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: through His Word, who is His Son, through Him He is revealed.’ - pp. 110, 111, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans, 1976. (Ellipses were provided by Boer. Irenaeus quote by Boer is from ANF, 1:406.)
“... neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme .... the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; it is incumbent on us to follow ... their testimonies to this effect.” (ANF, 1:422, ‘Against Heresies’)
“For faith, which has respect to our Master, endures unchangeably, assuring us that there is but one true God, and that we should truly love Him for ever, seeing that He alone is our Father.” (ANF, 1:399-400, ‘Against Heresies’)
Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies” exists today in full only in a single Latin translation from the original Greek language. It is thus not surprising that trinitarian-supporting “evidence” may be found in the single trinitarian-recopied, trinitarian-translated, trinitarian-redefined manuscript available today. But certainly this respected early Christian writer whom today's trinitarian scholars “credit” with the very “formulation” of the trinity doctrine would not have made the many clear non-trinitarian statements recorded above if he had really believed in or taught a trinity (or “Binity”)! Obviously the many trinitarians who handled (and mishandled) Irenaeus’ writing down through the centuries could (and did) change some non-trinitarian thoughts into trinitarian thoughts.* But they would certainly never change trinitarian thoughts into non-trinitarian thoughts. Therefore, those many non-trinitarian concepts still remaining must be Irenaeus’ original teaching (as a study of the very first Creeds of this time also proves)!
______________
* The very trinitarian translators of ANF wrote in their Introductory Note to Irenaeus’ Against Heresies: “The text [of Against Heresies] ... is often most uncertain. .... After the text has been settled according to the best judgment [trinitarian, of course] which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenaeus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. .... And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural retranslation [trinitarian, of course] into Greek, in order to have some inkling of what the author wrote. .... We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess [trinitarian, of course] can only be made as to the probable meaning.” - ANF 1:311-312. Obviously, if a trinitarian, even a scrupulously honest trinitarian, makes a “conjectural retranslation” or a “guess ... as to the probable meaning,” it will be a trinitarian guess or “conjectural retranslation”!
TiggerII
Active Member
Early Christian writings - Part C
Origen
(c. 185-254 A. D.)
Origen actually taught:
The agent of redemption as of all creation is the Divine Logos {‘the Word’} or Son of God, who is the perfect image or reflection of the eternal Father. Though a being distinct, derivative, and subordinate. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.
Origen believed that
‘the Son can be divine only in a lesser sense than the Father; the Son is theos (god), but only the Father is autotheos (Absolute God, God in Himself).’ - p. 1009, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (trinitarian), ed. F. L. Cross (trinitarian), Oxford University Press, 1990 printing.
Ardent trinitarian Murray J. Harris likewise admits:
‘Origen, too, drew a sharp distinction between theos and ho theos. As theos, the Son is not only distinct from ('numerically distinct') but also inferior to the Father who is ho theos and autotheos (i.e. God in an absolute sense).’ - p. 36, Jesus as God, Baker Book House (trinitarian), 1992.
The trinitarian The Encyclopedia of Religion says:
“Origen himself will downgrade the Logos [‘downgraded’ in relation to God only] in calling it ‘second god’ (Against Celsus, 5.39, 6.61, etc.) or again in writing ‘god’ (theos) without the article, whereas he calls the Father ho theos, ‘the God’ [with the article].” - p. 15, Vol. 9, Macmillan Publ., 1987.
In fact, Origen specifically commented on John 1:1c which modern English-speaking trinitarians most often translate as: “And the Word was God.” Yes, Origen, whose knowledge of NT Greek (“the language of the New Testament was his mother tongue”) was probably greater than any other Bible scholar (and certainly quantum levels above the speculations of any modern scholar), shows us that this verse should be properly rendered: “And the Word was a god.” ! - ANF, 10:323.
Remember, this man is not only the best expert on NT Greek, but his great honesty and Christian character are not questioned even by his severest opponents!
Trinitarian Latourette also says that “Origen held that God is one, and is the Father” - p. 49, Christianity Through the Ages, Harper ChapelBook, 1965.
Trinitarian Bernhard Lohse also concedes that Origen taught
that ‘the Son was a creature of the Father, thus strictly subordinating the Son to the Father’ and, ‘Origen is therefore able to designate the Son as a creature created by the Father.’ - pp. 46, 252, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Fortress Press (trinitarian), 1985.
For example, Origen writes:
The agent of redemption as of all creation is the Divine Logos {‘the Word’} or Son of God, who is the perfect image or reflection of the eternal Father. Though a being distinct, derivative, and subordinate. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.
Origen writes:
there are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power. - ANF 10:321-322.
Yes, Origen calls the Son of God a created angel, the highest of the angels, the Angel of God. He calls Jesus, the Word:
“the Angel of God who came into the world for the salvation of men”- p. 568, vol. 4, ANF.
Like Irenaeus (and most, if not all, Ante-Nicene Fathers), Origen considered “Wisdom” speaking at Prov. 8:22-30 to be Christ, the Son of God. He wrote:
“we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon:
‘The Lord {“YHWH” in the ancient Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts} created me {Wisdom, ‘the only-begotten Son of God’} - the beginning {see Rev. 3:14} of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth.’ {Prov. 8:22-25}
He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: ‘who is the first-born of every creature.’ {Col. 1:15} - ANF 4:246, ‘De Principiis.’
So once again we find clear non-trinitarian statements in Origen's writings.
It’s obviously not unexpected that the trinitarian re-copyists, translators, and re-definers would have caused original non-trinitarian statements to now read as trinitarian statements, but they certainly would never have allowed any non-trinitarian changes or additions to Origen's work! These non-trinitarian statements that still remain, therefore, must be original. Certainly Origen did not teach a trinity (or binity) even though trinitarian scholars have “credited” him with formulating the trinity doctrine!
De Principiis, the foremost treatise on systematic theology in the ancient Church, has survived in the main only in Rufinus'* largely emended Latin translation. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm, 1945.
_________________________________________
* “RUFINUS ... (c. 345-410), monk, historian and translator .... He also studied for several years in Alexandria under Didymus the Blind [St. Didymus, a staunch Nicene trinitarian - p. 402], and was deeply influenced by his Origenism [Didymus tried to ‘prove’ that Origen had taught a trinity doctrine in his De Principiis - p. 1010] .... [Rufinus’] free translation of Origen’s De Principiis, the only complete text now surviving, was intended to vindicate Origen’s [‘trinitarian’] orthodoxy, and involved Rufinus in bitter controversy with his former friend, St. Jerome, who criticized the tendentious character of his rendering.” - p.1207, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Revised, 1990 printing, Oxford University Press.
“It is much to be regretted that the original Greek of the De Principiis has for the most part perished. We possess it chiefly in a Latin translation by Rufinus. And there can be no doubt that he often took great liberties with his author. So much was this felt to be the case, that [Roman Catholic “Saint”] Jerome [342-420 A.D.] undertook a new translation of the work; but only small portions of his version have reached our day [for obvious reasons]. He strongly accuses Rufinus of unfaithfulness as an interpreter, while he also inveighs bitterly against Origen himself, as having departed from the Catholic Faith, specially in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity.” - ANF, 4:233.
In other words, Rufinus did not translate literally, but, instead, intentionally changed (or ‘corrected’) De Principiis so as to make people believe that Origen had taught the trinity! And this is the text that has been used by trinitarians ever since to “prove” that Origen taught the trinity! Furthermore, the famed trinitarian St. Jerome (ca. 400 A.D.) who accused Rufinus of dishonestly mistranslating Origen’s work noted with great bitterness that Origen DID NOT TEACH THE TRINITY!!!!
To illustrate Rufinus’ corruption of Origen’s original Greek text we have a few pages of Book IV of Origen’s De Principiis still existing in the original Greek. Here are two passages of the Greek with Rufinus’ Latin “translation” of them beneath as published in the trinitarian The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, pp. 362, 363, Eerdmans Publ.:
Origen’s Original Greek
“through the Word who was in the beginning with God, illuminated the ministers of truth, the prophets and apostles”
and,
“the (doctrines) belonging to God and His only-begotten Son are necessarily laid down as primary”
Rufinus’ Latin Translation
“through the power of His only-begotten Word, who was in the beginning God with God, enlightened the ministers of truth, the prophets and apostles”
and,
“Accordingly, it is of God, i.e. of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that these men, filled with the Divine Spirit, chiefly treat”
To Be Continued
Origen
(c. 185-254 A. D.)
Origen actually taught:
The agent of redemption as of all creation is the Divine Logos {‘the Word’} or Son of God, who is the perfect image or reflection of the eternal Father. Though a being distinct, derivative, and subordinate. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.
Origen believed that
‘the Son can be divine only in a lesser sense than the Father; the Son is theos (god), but only the Father is autotheos (Absolute God, God in Himself).’ - p. 1009, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (trinitarian), ed. F. L. Cross (trinitarian), Oxford University Press, 1990 printing.
Ardent trinitarian Murray J. Harris likewise admits:
‘Origen, too, drew a sharp distinction between theos and ho theos. As theos, the Son is not only distinct from ('numerically distinct') but also inferior to the Father who is ho theos and autotheos (i.e. God in an absolute sense).’ - p. 36, Jesus as God, Baker Book House (trinitarian), 1992.
The trinitarian The Encyclopedia of Religion says:
“Origen himself will downgrade the Logos [‘downgraded’ in relation to God only] in calling it ‘second god’ (Against Celsus, 5.39, 6.61, etc.) or again in writing ‘god’ (theos) without the article, whereas he calls the Father ho theos, ‘the God’ [with the article].” - p. 15, Vol. 9, Macmillan Publ., 1987.
In fact, Origen specifically commented on John 1:1c which modern English-speaking trinitarians most often translate as: “And the Word was God.” Yes, Origen, whose knowledge of NT Greek (“the language of the New Testament was his mother tongue”) was probably greater than any other Bible scholar (and certainly quantum levels above the speculations of any modern scholar), shows us that this verse should be properly rendered: “And the Word was a god.” ! - ANF, 10:323.
Remember, this man is not only the best expert on NT Greek, but his great honesty and Christian character are not questioned even by his severest opponents!
Trinitarian Latourette also says that “Origen held that God is one, and is the Father” - p. 49, Christianity Through the Ages, Harper ChapelBook, 1965.
Trinitarian Bernhard Lohse also concedes that Origen taught
that ‘the Son was a creature of the Father, thus strictly subordinating the Son to the Father’ and, ‘Origen is therefore able to designate the Son as a creature created by the Father.’ - pp. 46, 252, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Fortress Press (trinitarian), 1985.
For example, Origen writes:
The agent of redemption as of all creation is the Divine Logos {‘the Word’} or Son of God, who is the perfect image or reflection of the eternal Father. Though a being distinct, derivative, and subordinate. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.
Origen writes:
there are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power. - ANF 10:321-322.
Yes, Origen calls the Son of God a created angel, the highest of the angels, the Angel of God. He calls Jesus, the Word:
“the Angel of God who came into the world for the salvation of men”- p. 568, vol. 4, ANF.
Like Irenaeus (and most, if not all, Ante-Nicene Fathers), Origen considered “Wisdom” speaking at Prov. 8:22-30 to be Christ, the Son of God. He wrote:
“we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon:
‘The Lord {“YHWH” in the ancient Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts} created me {Wisdom, ‘the only-begotten Son of God’} - the beginning {see Rev. 3:14} of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth.’ {Prov. 8:22-25}
He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: ‘who is the first-born of every creature.’ {Col. 1:15} - ANF 4:246, ‘De Principiis.’
So once again we find clear non-trinitarian statements in Origen's writings.
It’s obviously not unexpected that the trinitarian re-copyists, translators, and re-definers would have caused original non-trinitarian statements to now read as trinitarian statements, but they certainly would never have allowed any non-trinitarian changes or additions to Origen's work! These non-trinitarian statements that still remain, therefore, must be original. Certainly Origen did not teach a trinity (or binity) even though trinitarian scholars have “credited” him with formulating the trinity doctrine!
De Principiis, the foremost treatise on systematic theology in the ancient Church, has survived in the main only in Rufinus'* largely emended Latin translation. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm, 1945.
_________________________________________
* “RUFINUS ... (c. 345-410), monk, historian and translator .... He also studied for several years in Alexandria under Didymus the Blind [St. Didymus, a staunch Nicene trinitarian - p. 402], and was deeply influenced by his Origenism [Didymus tried to ‘prove’ that Origen had taught a trinity doctrine in his De Principiis - p. 1010] .... [Rufinus’] free translation of Origen’s De Principiis, the only complete text now surviving, was intended to vindicate Origen’s [‘trinitarian’] orthodoxy, and involved Rufinus in bitter controversy with his former friend, St. Jerome, who criticized the tendentious character of his rendering.” - p.1207, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Revised, 1990 printing, Oxford University Press.
“It is much to be regretted that the original Greek of the De Principiis has for the most part perished. We possess it chiefly in a Latin translation by Rufinus. And there can be no doubt that he often took great liberties with his author. So much was this felt to be the case, that [Roman Catholic “Saint”] Jerome [342-420 A.D.] undertook a new translation of the work; but only small portions of his version have reached our day [for obvious reasons]. He strongly accuses Rufinus of unfaithfulness as an interpreter, while he also inveighs bitterly against Origen himself, as having departed from the Catholic Faith, specially in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity.” - ANF, 4:233.
In other words, Rufinus did not translate literally, but, instead, intentionally changed (or ‘corrected’) De Principiis so as to make people believe that Origen had taught the trinity! And this is the text that has been used by trinitarians ever since to “prove” that Origen taught the trinity! Furthermore, the famed trinitarian St. Jerome (ca. 400 A.D.) who accused Rufinus of dishonestly mistranslating Origen’s work noted with great bitterness that Origen DID NOT TEACH THE TRINITY!!!!
To illustrate Rufinus’ corruption of Origen’s original Greek text we have a few pages of Book IV of Origen’s De Principiis still existing in the original Greek. Here are two passages of the Greek with Rufinus’ Latin “translation” of them beneath as published in the trinitarian The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, pp. 362, 363, Eerdmans Publ.:
Origen’s Original Greek
“through the Word who was in the beginning with God, illuminated the ministers of truth, the prophets and apostles”
and,
“the (doctrines) belonging to God and His only-begotten Son are necessarily laid down as primary”
Rufinus’ Latin Translation
“through the power of His only-begotten Word, who was in the beginning God with God, enlightened the ministers of truth, the prophets and apostles”
and,
“Accordingly, it is of God, i.e. of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that these men, filled with the Divine Spirit, chiefly treat”
To Be Continued
Last edited by a moderator:
POST ONE OF TWO
I think this is a good example of my point. One may write "God of Gods", or "God of gods", or "god of Gods" or "god of gods" and it does not affect the ANCIENT writers theology but (usually), is a reflection of the modern translators bias or care in translating. While I personally don't care whether "God" or "Gods" are capitalized or not (since it doesn't affect my theology) but rather it affects the bias of the writer (anciently all greek was Caps). However, I do wonder if one did a study, whether the historians of early literature would translate "Gods" primarily capitalized, while translators of biblical text may not. (I don't know, and don't care enough to take the time to see if there is a pattern or not...). I say this because the early Judeo-Christian movement and their literature was more henotheistic than later Judeo-Christian movements in their trinity theories.
THE CLASS OF BEINGS WORTHY OF BEING CALLED "GODS".
@tigger2 said : “"God" (meaning the Almighty) is used as a proper noun when capitalized in English. However, when it is used as one of a class, it is a common noun.’ (Post #158)
I like the base concept that Jesus is “one of a class” of beings that is worthy of being called “Gods”.
While the various Christian theists will argue as to what being a “God” means, still, it is a step toward understanding early Christian worldviews to at least define Jesus as a “God”. While some individuals will argue that this means he is a manifestation of THE GOD and others will downplay the importance of designation by pointing out that the designation of “God” may be applied to judges and to Moses and to other men, still, the TYPE of God Jesus is, places him in a category of Godhood that is beyond any other mortal man both in his singular and superlative characteristics and in the amount of honor, adoration and reverence due to this man/God.
JESUS AS A MEMBER OF THE "CLASS" OF BEINGS CALLED "GOD" IS WORTHY OF HONOR, ADORATION AND REVERENCE.
The amount and type of accomplishments of the Messiah Jesus as a God demonstrate he is a God that is different than mankind who are variously called “Gods”.
For examples
1) The Great, Eternal, cosmic plan to Educate Spirits and the Messiahs role in accomplishing this great, eternal, cosmic plan
The early Judeo-Christians’ concept of the Messiah being a pre-eminently intelligent being, full of grace and intelligence who was chosen by God to be his “right hand” and colleague in administering a great eternal, cosmic plan of tutoring the spirits of mankind in moral and social laws that are designed to (ultimately) prepare them to live in a social heaven in harmony and joy for ever make him worthy of being in the class of being we call a “God”.
No mortal man was able to do what this specific God has done.
2) The Messiah as one who was chosen for his role from the beginning (The Lamb slain from the Foundation of the world)
Enoch describes the choosing of a Messiah/Savior who would serve as an important part of accomplishing this plan, saying “At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the head of days,, 3 even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. 5 All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him: they shall glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. 6 For this purpose he became the Chosen One…”
His ability and willingness to become the chosen Messiah and Savior of mankind is also something No mortal man was able to do as this specific God has done.
3) The Messiah as creator, under the direction of God, the Father.
The early texts describe this pre-eminent, God-like colleague as having created the earth under the direction of the Father, “...the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the knowledge…" 1 Clement 59:2-3 In his appellation as the “word” (logos) of God, the Messiah is in the beginning with God and is described as “Lord (owner) of the whole world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness…” The Epistle of Barnabas 5:5
His accomplishment of the creation of the material worlds is something no mortal man was able to do as this specific God, Jesus has done.
4) The Messiah as an administrator in the Old Testament era.
As a co-administrator of the plan, He is also referred to as “The Right arm” of God (much as we refer to a “right hand man” of a superior) in his early role of teaching mankind the two, great, eternal principles of both Justice and mercy.. Thus in teaching mankind the concept of Justice (as well as the inadequacy of using this principle without mercy) the Prophet Enoch is told “ Come and I will show you the right hand of the Omnipresent one,....3...as it is written, ‘He made his glorious arm go at the right hand of Moses.” If we skip ahead many generations through the various stories of Israel and their challenges with Polytheism, and difficulties remaining true to God as their religion underwent multiple evolutions (which various prophets attempt to reform), at some point God promises to remember them despite their faults. (read further)
While even the great prophets are worthy of honor and lived superlative lives and played profoundly important roles in the carrying out of the Fathers plan, no other prophet or other man in history played such an integral role in the Fathers plan as has this God, the messiah Jesus.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
I think this is a good example of my point. One may write "God of Gods", or "God of gods", or "god of Gods" or "god of gods" and it does not affect the ANCIENT writers theology but (usually), is a reflection of the modern translators bias or care in translating. While I personally don't care whether "God" or "Gods" are capitalized or not (since it doesn't affect my theology) but rather it affects the bias of the writer (anciently all greek was Caps). However, I do wonder if one did a study, whether the historians of early literature would translate "Gods" primarily capitalized, while translators of biblical text may not. (I don't know, and don't care enough to take the time to see if there is a pattern or not...). I say this because the early Judeo-Christian movement and their literature was more henotheistic than later Judeo-Christian movements in their trinity theories.
THE CLASS OF BEINGS WORTHY OF BEING CALLED "GODS".
@tigger2 said : “"God" (meaning the Almighty) is used as a proper noun when capitalized in English. However, when it is used as one of a class, it is a common noun.’ (Post #158)
I like the base concept that Jesus is “one of a class” of beings that is worthy of being called “Gods”.
While the various Christian theists will argue as to what being a “God” means, still, it is a step toward understanding early Christian worldviews to at least define Jesus as a “God”. While some individuals will argue that this means he is a manifestation of THE GOD and others will downplay the importance of designation by pointing out that the designation of “God” may be applied to judges and to Moses and to other men, still, the TYPE of God Jesus is, places him in a category of Godhood that is beyond any other mortal man both in his singular and superlative characteristics and in the amount of honor, adoration and reverence due to this man/God.
JESUS AS A MEMBER OF THE "CLASS" OF BEINGS CALLED "GOD" IS WORTHY OF HONOR, ADORATION AND REVERENCE.
The amount and type of accomplishments of the Messiah Jesus as a God demonstrate he is a God that is different than mankind who are variously called “Gods”.
For examples
1) The Great, Eternal, cosmic plan to Educate Spirits and the Messiahs role in accomplishing this great, eternal, cosmic plan
The early Judeo-Christians’ concept of the Messiah being a pre-eminently intelligent being, full of grace and intelligence who was chosen by God to be his “right hand” and colleague in administering a great eternal, cosmic plan of tutoring the spirits of mankind in moral and social laws that are designed to (ultimately) prepare them to live in a social heaven in harmony and joy for ever make him worthy of being in the class of being we call a “God”.
No mortal man was able to do what this specific God has done.
2) The Messiah as one who was chosen for his role from the beginning (The Lamb slain from the Foundation of the world)
Enoch describes the choosing of a Messiah/Savior who would serve as an important part of accomplishing this plan, saying “At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the head of days,, 3 even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. 4 He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. 5 All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him: they shall glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. 6 For this purpose he became the Chosen One…”
His ability and willingness to become the chosen Messiah and Savior of mankind is also something No mortal man was able to do as this specific God has done.
3) The Messiah as creator, under the direction of God, the Father.
The early texts describe this pre-eminent, God-like colleague as having created the earth under the direction of the Father, “...the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, through whom he called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the knowledge…" 1 Clement 59:2-3 In his appellation as the “word” (logos) of God, the Messiah is in the beginning with God and is described as “Lord (owner) of the whole world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness…” The Epistle of Barnabas 5:5
His accomplishment of the creation of the material worlds is something no mortal man was able to do as this specific God, Jesus has done.
4) The Messiah as an administrator in the Old Testament era.
As a co-administrator of the plan, He is also referred to as “The Right arm” of God (much as we refer to a “right hand man” of a superior) in his early role of teaching mankind the two, great, eternal principles of both Justice and mercy.. Thus in teaching mankind the concept of Justice (as well as the inadequacy of using this principle without mercy) the Prophet Enoch is told “ Come and I will show you the right hand of the Omnipresent one,....3...as it is written, ‘He made his glorious arm go at the right hand of Moses.” If we skip ahead many generations through the various stories of Israel and their challenges with Polytheism, and difficulties remaining true to God as their religion underwent multiple evolutions (which various prophets attempt to reform), at some point God promises to remember them despite their faults. (read further)
While even the great prophets are worthy of honor and lived superlative lives and played profoundly important roles in the carrying out of the Fathers plan, no other prophet or other man in history played such an integral role in the Fathers plan as has this God, the messiah Jesus.
POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
POST TWO OF TWO
5) The Messiah as Jesus who was promised to Israel and the rest of the world
In the early texts he was to come to the Jews in the meridian of time, not because they were deserving of it, but to fulfill promises to their forefathers : “And I bore their bitterness because of humility; that I might save my nation and instruct it. 13 and that I might not nullify the promises to the patriarchs, to whom I was promised for the salvation of their offspring. “ Odes of Solomon #31: vs11-13
No other man served, nor could have served in the role of the Worlds promised Messiah as this God has done.
6) The Messiah as the first to accomplish a resurrection
The Messiah was seen as one who opened the door to resurrection as he is the first to be resurrected by God, his Father. Thus the early Synagogal prayer says of God, “ You have loosed the boundary of death, You who are the Maker of life for the dead, through Jesus Christ, our hope! Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - #3:1 (aposCon 7.34.1-8) ;
No other man in history died and resurrected and manifested himself after death in glory as has this God has done.
7) The Messiah as the one who freed the dead from Hades at the first resurrection
The decensus literature also speaks of his role among the dead who had never had the gospel preached to them) and his decensus into Hades to free the captives (during the three days after his death and before his resurrection). Bartholomews text relates it thusly : "Tell me, Lord, where you went from the cross.” And Jesus answered: “Blessed are you Bartholomew, my beloved, because you saw this mystery. And now I will tell you everything you ask me. “When I vanished from the cross, I went to the underworld to bring up Adam and all the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. …and I shattered the iron bars....And I brought out all the patriarchs and came again to the cross.” Bartholomew chapt one
The same story is related by the Odes of Solomon thusly : “ And he who knew and exalted me is the Most High in all his perfection. 8 And he glorified me by his kindness, and raised my understanding to the height of truth. 9 And from there he gave me the way of his paths, and I opened the doors which were closed. 10 And I shattered the bars of iron,....11 And nothing appeared closed to me, because I was the opening of everything. 12 And I went toward all my bondsmen in order to loose them; that I might not abandon anyone bound or binding. 13 And I gave my knowledge generously, and my resurrection through my love. 14 And I sowed my fruits in hearts, and transformed them through myself. 15 then they received my blessing and lived, and they were gathered to me and were saved. Odes of Solomon #17:3,6-15;
Matt 27: 52 tells us that at Jesus’ resurrection from the Dead, “The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people." The Sons of Simeon, (of early Christian literature) who had died, were among those who were resurrected at the time Jesus resurrected and they describe this occurrence of Jesus’ entry into Hades and the freeing of those who were being taught by prior prophets who had also died. (Gospel of Nicodemus)
No other man in history accomplished the decensus and freed the spirits from hades at the time of the resurrection as has this God.
8) The role of the Messiah in the gradual gathering of Israel toward the Gospel.
The prophet Enoch is told that, in the latter days that the messiah will be delivered in his return and his people Israel will be gathered from all quarters of the world, from among the Gentiles and other nations, toward the New Covenant (the New Testament covenant where Mercy balances Justice) and, at some point, they will recognize their Messiah and be gathered toward this standard. This is described thusly “...then the Holy One blessed be he, will at once remember his own righteousness, merit, mercy, and grace, and, for his own sake, will deliver his great arm, and his own righteousness will support him, as it is written,... 8...For my own sake, for the sake of my own merit and righteousness, I shall deliver my arm, and by it save my sons from among the gentiles…he, will reveal his great arm in the world, and show it to the gentiles: ... At once Israel shall be saved from among the gentiles and the Messiah shall appear to them and bring them up to Jerusalem with great joy. Moreover, the kingdom of Israel, gathered from the four quarters of the world, shall eat with the Messiah, and the gentiles shall eat with them, as it is written, “The Lord bares his holy arm In the sight of all the nations, And all the ends of the earth shall see The salvation of our God” 3rd Enoch 48:1,6-10 (compare .” Isa 52:10)
Other texts make this same wonderful promise to Israel : For example, the Patriarch Asher tells his sons “You will be scattered to the four corners of the earth; in the dispersion you shall be regarded as worthless, like useless water,” And, speaking of the Messiah, the promise is made that “He will save Israel and all the nations,. Tell these things, my children, to your children, so that they will not disobey him. For I know that you will be throughly disobedient, that you will be thoroughly irreligious, heeding not God’s Law but human commandments, being corrupted by evil. For this reason, you will be scattered like Dan and Gad, my brothers, you shall not know your own lands, tribe, or language. But he will gather you in faith through his compassion and on account of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Asher 7:3-7
No other man will play the specific pivotal role in the ultimate Gathering of Israel as this God will play. No other many could do this.
9) The Messiah as both Judge and Heir to this Kingdom of his Fathers
In this early Judeo-Christian model, the messiah takes on the role of a central administrator, as heir of this kingdom of individuals who gathered toward the principles he taught. Thus, after the Judgement it is said of the Messiah that “You [God] appointed him as Your firstborn son. There is none like him, as a prince and ruler in all Your inhabited world […] the crown of the heavens and glory of the clouds You have placed on him […] and the angel of Your peace in his congregation. …You gave him righteous statutes, as a father gives a son…..” 4q369 Frag.1 Col. 1
The merciful attitude of the Messiah as Judge :
“Jesus said to him: “Bartholomew, the Father named me Christ, that I might come down on earth and anoint with the oil of life, everyone who came to me. And he called me Jesus, that I might heal every sin of the ignorant and give to men the truth of God. Bartholomew CH IV
No other man will be given to be a Judge nor specific heir to the kingship in the Kingdom of God the father as this God is given.
THE GOD JESUS IS WORTHY OF A DEGREE OF HONOR, ADORATION AND REVERENCE
My point is that whether one believes the nature of Jesus’ Godship is that of a manifestation of the Father such as in strict 3=1 trinitarianism, or whether they believe Jesus Godship is that of a lessor God such as in 3=3 henotheistic trinitarianism, or whether they believe he is the Word who was “a God” with the Father and is a lessor God, he is still a God that is worthy of honor, reverence and adoration for the type and amount of his accomplishments done for mankind.
I believe that the early Judeo-Christian textual model of the Messiah and his central role in administrating the plan of God the Father is what makes this Messiah character so incredibly, uniquely, honorable among all existence. I do not think the modern descriptions and interpretations of him are any more rational or logical or demonstrate better why the Messiah is worthy of honor than the early descriptions of him and what he accomplished.
In any case, and whatever the beliefs of others are, I hope you have a good spiritual journey in coming to your own models as to What and Who the Messiah is.
Clear
τωφιτωειω
5) The Messiah as Jesus who was promised to Israel and the rest of the world
In the early texts he was to come to the Jews in the meridian of time, not because they were deserving of it, but to fulfill promises to their forefathers : “And I bore their bitterness because of humility; that I might save my nation and instruct it. 13 and that I might not nullify the promises to the patriarchs, to whom I was promised for the salvation of their offspring. “ Odes of Solomon #31: vs11-13
No other man served, nor could have served in the role of the Worlds promised Messiah as this God has done.
6) The Messiah as the first to accomplish a resurrection
The Messiah was seen as one who opened the door to resurrection as he is the first to be resurrected by God, his Father. Thus the early Synagogal prayer says of God, “ You have loosed the boundary of death, You who are the Maker of life for the dead, through Jesus Christ, our hope! Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - #3:1 (aposCon 7.34.1-8) ;
No other man in history died and resurrected and manifested himself after death in glory as has this God has done.
7) The Messiah as the one who freed the dead from Hades at the first resurrection
The decensus literature also speaks of his role among the dead who had never had the gospel preached to them) and his decensus into Hades to free the captives (during the three days after his death and before his resurrection). Bartholomews text relates it thusly : "Tell me, Lord, where you went from the cross.” And Jesus answered: “Blessed are you Bartholomew, my beloved, because you saw this mystery. And now I will tell you everything you ask me. “When I vanished from the cross, I went to the underworld to bring up Adam and all the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. …and I shattered the iron bars....And I brought out all the patriarchs and came again to the cross.” Bartholomew chapt one
The same story is related by the Odes of Solomon thusly : “ And he who knew and exalted me is the Most High in all his perfection. 8 And he glorified me by his kindness, and raised my understanding to the height of truth. 9 And from there he gave me the way of his paths, and I opened the doors which were closed. 10 And I shattered the bars of iron,....11 And nothing appeared closed to me, because I was the opening of everything. 12 And I went toward all my bondsmen in order to loose them; that I might not abandon anyone bound or binding. 13 And I gave my knowledge generously, and my resurrection through my love. 14 And I sowed my fruits in hearts, and transformed them through myself. 15 then they received my blessing and lived, and they were gathered to me and were saved. Odes of Solomon #17:3,6-15;
Matt 27: 52 tells us that at Jesus’ resurrection from the Dead, “The tombs broke open, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After Jesus’ resurrection, when they had come out of the tombs, they entered the holy city and appeared to many people." The Sons of Simeon, (of early Christian literature) who had died, were among those who were resurrected at the time Jesus resurrected and they describe this occurrence of Jesus’ entry into Hades and the freeing of those who were being taught by prior prophets who had also died. (Gospel of Nicodemus)
No other man in history accomplished the decensus and freed the spirits from hades at the time of the resurrection as has this God.
8) The role of the Messiah in the gradual gathering of Israel toward the Gospel.
The prophet Enoch is told that, in the latter days that the messiah will be delivered in his return and his people Israel will be gathered from all quarters of the world, from among the Gentiles and other nations, toward the New Covenant (the New Testament covenant where Mercy balances Justice) and, at some point, they will recognize their Messiah and be gathered toward this standard. This is described thusly “...then the Holy One blessed be he, will at once remember his own righteousness, merit, mercy, and grace, and, for his own sake, will deliver his great arm, and his own righteousness will support him, as it is written,... 8...For my own sake, for the sake of my own merit and righteousness, I shall deliver my arm, and by it save my sons from among the gentiles…he, will reveal his great arm in the world, and show it to the gentiles: ... At once Israel shall be saved from among the gentiles and the Messiah shall appear to them and bring them up to Jerusalem with great joy. Moreover, the kingdom of Israel, gathered from the four quarters of the world, shall eat with the Messiah, and the gentiles shall eat with them, as it is written, “The Lord bares his holy arm In the sight of all the nations, And all the ends of the earth shall see The salvation of our God” 3rd Enoch 48:1,6-10 (compare .” Isa 52:10)
Other texts make this same wonderful promise to Israel : For example, the Patriarch Asher tells his sons “You will be scattered to the four corners of the earth; in the dispersion you shall be regarded as worthless, like useless water,” And, speaking of the Messiah, the promise is made that “He will save Israel and all the nations,. Tell these things, my children, to your children, so that they will not disobey him. For I know that you will be throughly disobedient, that you will be thoroughly irreligious, heeding not God’s Law but human commandments, being corrupted by evil. For this reason, you will be scattered like Dan and Gad, my brothers, you shall not know your own lands, tribe, or language. But he will gather you in faith through his compassion and on account of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Asher 7:3-7
No other man will play the specific pivotal role in the ultimate Gathering of Israel as this God will play. No other many could do this.
9) The Messiah as both Judge and Heir to this Kingdom of his Fathers
In this early Judeo-Christian model, the messiah takes on the role of a central administrator, as heir of this kingdom of individuals who gathered toward the principles he taught. Thus, after the Judgement it is said of the Messiah that “You [God] appointed him as Your firstborn son. There is none like him, as a prince and ruler in all Your inhabited world […] the crown of the heavens and glory of the clouds You have placed on him […] and the angel of Your peace in his congregation. …You gave him righteous statutes, as a father gives a son…..” 4q369 Frag.1 Col. 1
The merciful attitude of the Messiah as Judge :
“Jesus said to him: “Bartholomew, the Father named me Christ, that I might come down on earth and anoint with the oil of life, everyone who came to me. And he called me Jesus, that I might heal every sin of the ignorant and give to men the truth of God. Bartholomew CH IV
No other man will be given to be a Judge nor specific heir to the kingship in the Kingdom of God the father as this God is given.
THE GOD JESUS IS WORTHY OF A DEGREE OF HONOR, ADORATION AND REVERENCE
My point is that whether one believes the nature of Jesus’ Godship is that of a manifestation of the Father such as in strict 3=1 trinitarianism, or whether they believe Jesus Godship is that of a lessor God such as in 3=3 henotheistic trinitarianism, or whether they believe he is the Word who was “a God” with the Father and is a lessor God, he is still a God that is worthy of honor, reverence and adoration for the type and amount of his accomplishments done for mankind.
I believe that the early Judeo-Christian textual model of the Messiah and his central role in administrating the plan of God the Father is what makes this Messiah character so incredibly, uniquely, honorable among all existence. I do not think the modern descriptions and interpretations of him are any more rational or logical or demonstrate better why the Messiah is worthy of honor than the early descriptions of him and what he accomplished.
In any case, and whatever the beliefs of others are, I hope you have a good spiritual journey in coming to your own models as to What and Who the Messiah is.
Clear
τωφιτωειω
SLPCCC
Active Member
You are ignoring the point. The point is that the WTS is dishonest. Here is another quote to highlight what I'm saying.
In their book, they quote part of E. W. Hopkins to support their argument about the Trinity saying,
- “The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics.”
They partially quote Hopkins hiding the part where he also says,
- The church ... also believed with the first simple Christians that Jesus Christ was God on earth." (Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins, p339
A few pages before p. 339 on p. 336 it reads,
- "The beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity appears already in John."
So the point is that it is deceitful to partially quote persons and scholars in order to gain or retain members. They even add words to the bible to deceive. All who are true Christians should take note of this. The Truth does not need the help of the deceiver.
Hi @SLPCCC and @tigger2
While I actually did not intend to join this thread, I just thought I would make a minor point regarding E.W. Hopkins and the use of his quote by the Jehovahs Witnesses.
I am not Jehovahs Witness and disagree with much of their theological theories but see a bit of disconnect in your comments in post #170.
1) THE 3 STATEMENTS APPLY TO DIFFERENT ERAS AND DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS
I actually agree with E.W. Hopkins that the FINAL "orthodox" definition of the trinity WAS affected to some extent by Political considerations rather than being a purely religious definition.
This statement tells us that it has to do with "the final" definition of the trinity by the specific group that created that specific definition. The statement is not claiming to be one of the various early definitions of the early Christian movement, rather it refers to a later stage of development of a specific christian movement.
However, when hopkins refers to the principle believed by "the first simple Christians that Jesus Christ was God on earth", this basic statement, while true, does not change the political effects of the later definitions of any specific Christian movement generated and adopted in a later age that became increasingly affected by politics and other issues (e.g. the simple early roman congregation and its evolution into a religious / political / financial institution of later ages) The two statements do not necessarily apply to the same era, nor to the same religion, nor to the same organization within that religion.
2) LATER CREEDS REPRESENT THE THEOLOGY OF THEIR CREATORS
Also, though the doctrine of the basic trinity (that there are three individuals referred to in the writer of Johns text) is present throughout the New Testament text, the text still isn't unequivocally clear on the nature of the relationship of God the Father, the Son/Messiah/Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Even this point that there is a group of three important individuals in a "trinity' of some sort, doesn't tell us specifically about the nature of the individuals. These truths still don't negate the fact that in later Christian movements that came up with their personal "creeds" and their personal "definitions" were still affected by politics and issues of the age in which the various later creeds were generated and adopted by those specific groups.
Also, any specific Jewish or Christian religious group is welcome to come up with any creed they want, but this doesn't affect the rest of the Jews or Christians. It only applies to the group creating and adopting the Creed. If tomorrow, the "Church of the flying Pizza" creates a creed that says "We believe Jesus was an alien from the planet zydoo" and calls it "The Orthodox Christian Creed", then I, as a christian feel no obligation to automatically adopt someone else's Creed. The same applies to any early christian Creed, whether it is called "orthodox" or not.
In any case, as I said, I do not agree with J.W. theology on many counts, but do not see that this specific quote, as you describe it (I've not studied the original text of E.W. Hopkins), doesn't raise the specific red flag of dishonesty on the part of Jehovahs Witnesses in the context of the other two statements you made.
In any case, I hope your spiritual journeys are wonderful
Clear
τωφιφιειω
Last edited:
TiggerII
Active Member
Early Christian Writings - Part D
Tertullian
(c. 160-220 A.D.)
Tertullian, too, like the other Ante-Nicene Fathers, taught that Prov. 8:22-30 relates the words of the Son of God, Christ (speaking as “Wisdom”):
“‘At first the Lord {Jehovah} created me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works, before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled; moreover, before all the hills did He beget me;’ that is to say, He created and generated me in His own intelligence.” - ANF, 3:601, ‘Against Praxeas’. (Oldest existing manuscripts from 11th century)
And,
Scripture in other passages teaches us of the creation of the individual parts. You have Wisdom {the Son of God} saying, ‘But before the depths was I brought forth,’ in order that you may believe that the depths were also ‘brought forth’ - that is created just as we create sons also, though we ‘bring them forth.’ It matters not whether the depth {like Wisdom itself} was made or born, so that a beginning be accorded to it - ANF, 3:495, ‘Against Hermogenes’. (Oldest existing manuscript from early 11th century)
Of course the eternal, only true, Most High God had no beginning. (Rev. 3:14)
Clement of Alexandria wrote, in a discussion of God:
“This discourse respecting God is most difficult to handle. For since the first principle of everything is difficult to find out, the absolutely first and oldest principle, which is the cause of all other things being and having been, is difficult to exhibit. …. No one can rightly express Him wholly. For on account of His greatness He is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of Him For the One is indivisible.” – pp. 463-4, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF], Eerdmans Publishing, 1989.
Clement, as with most (if not all) of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, also believed and taught that Prov. 8:22-30 presented the words of the Son of God (speaking as “Wisdom”) in his pre-human existence. He wrote:
“Wisdom, which was the first of the creation of God.” (Cf. Rev. 3:14) - ANF 2:465, ‘The Stromata.’
Hippolytus
(c. 160-235 A.D.)
Chapter xxviii - The Doctrine of the Truth
The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval {‘of the same age or duration’} with Himself .... But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them. ....
Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first ....
For simultaneously with His procession from His Progenitor, inasmuch as He is this Progenitor's first-born, He has, as a voice in Himself, the ideas conceived in the Father. And so it was, that when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Logos one by one completed each object of creation, thus pleasing God. .... God, who is the source of all authority, wished that the Logos might render assistance in accomplishing a production of this kind. - ANF, 5:150, 151, ‘The Refutation of All Heresies’.
Against Sabellius, Hippolytus reiterated eloquently the view that the Logos is a prosopon (in Tertullian’s language, ‘person’) distinct from the Father, but created by God for the carrying out of his will. - p. 86, A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker (trinitarian), Scribner’s, 1985 ed.
Theophilus
(c. 115-181 A.D.)
Theophilus, in replying to some charges his non-Christian acquaintance had made, replied in three separate letters. Part of his first reply concerned the “Nature of God” and “The Attributes of God” - Book I, Ch. 3, 4. And yet, during that detailed description of his concept of the Christian God, he never mentioned “three,” “triad,” etc. Instead God is the Father! Since Theophilus is actually defending his concept of the Christian God at that point, that is the place he would have mentioned “Trinity” or a clear description of such an understanding (IF he really had such an understanding)!
Notice how Theophilus does explain his knowledge of God:
"ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. ... He is unbegotten; and He is unchangeable,.... And He is called .... Father, because he is before all things... the Highest, because of His being above all; and Almighty" - ANF 2:90.
...........................................
So how much of the developing new “Knowledge” (speculation) concerning God and the Word found in modern translations of these ancient writers is really the work of the Ante-Nicene Fathers themselves and how much is the work of later trinitarian copyists, trinitarian translators, etc.?
Well, obviously, the trinitarians who handled, copied, and translated these works for over 1500 years would have made trinitarian changes much as they did in many still-existing manuscripts of Scripture itself. But one thing is certain, they would never have made anti-trinitarian changes in those manuscripts, translations, etc. Any objective student should be able to admit that the numerous instances of anti-trinitarian statements concerning God and Christ must have come from the Ante-Nicene Fathers themselves.
............................
Tertullian
(c. 160-220 A.D.)
Tertullian, too, like the other Ante-Nicene Fathers, taught that Prov. 8:22-30 relates the words of the Son of God, Christ (speaking as “Wisdom”):
“‘At first the Lord {Jehovah} created me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works, before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled; moreover, before all the hills did He beget me;’ that is to say, He created and generated me in His own intelligence.” - ANF, 3:601, ‘Against Praxeas’. (Oldest existing manuscripts from 11th century)
And,
Scripture in other passages teaches us of the creation of the individual parts. You have Wisdom {the Son of God} saying, ‘But before the depths was I brought forth,’ in order that you may believe that the depths were also ‘brought forth’ - that is created just as we create sons also, though we ‘bring them forth.’ It matters not whether the depth {like Wisdom itself} was made or born, so that a beginning be accorded to it - ANF, 3:495, ‘Against Hermogenes’. (Oldest existing manuscript from early 11th century)
Of course the eternal, only true, Most High God had no beginning. (Rev. 3:14)
Clement of Alexandria wrote, in a discussion of God:
“This discourse respecting God is most difficult to handle. For since the first principle of everything is difficult to find out, the absolutely first and oldest principle, which is the cause of all other things being and having been, is difficult to exhibit. …. No one can rightly express Him wholly. For on account of His greatness He is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of Him For the One is indivisible.” – pp. 463-4, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF], Eerdmans Publishing, 1989.
Clement, as with most (if not all) of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, also believed and taught that Prov. 8:22-30 presented the words of the Son of God (speaking as “Wisdom”) in his pre-human existence. He wrote:
“Wisdom, which was the first of the creation of God.” (Cf. Rev. 3:14) - ANF 2:465, ‘The Stromata.’
Hippolytus
(c. 160-235 A.D.)
Chapter xxviii - The Doctrine of the Truth
The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval {‘of the same age or duration’} with Himself .... But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them. ....
Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first ....
For simultaneously with His procession from His Progenitor, inasmuch as He is this Progenitor's first-born, He has, as a voice in Himself, the ideas conceived in the Father. And so it was, that when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Logos one by one completed each object of creation, thus pleasing God. .... God, who is the source of all authority, wished that the Logos might render assistance in accomplishing a production of this kind. - ANF, 5:150, 151, ‘The Refutation of All Heresies’.
Against Sabellius, Hippolytus reiterated eloquently the view that the Logos is a prosopon (in Tertullian’s language, ‘person’) distinct from the Father, but created by God for the carrying out of his will. - p. 86, A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker (trinitarian), Scribner’s, 1985 ed.
Theophilus
(c. 115-181 A.D.)
Theophilus, in replying to some charges his non-Christian acquaintance had made, replied in three separate letters. Part of his first reply concerned the “Nature of God” and “The Attributes of God” - Book I, Ch. 3, 4. And yet, during that detailed description of his concept of the Christian God, he never mentioned “three,” “triad,” etc. Instead God is the Father! Since Theophilus is actually defending his concept of the Christian God at that point, that is the place he would have mentioned “Trinity” or a clear description of such an understanding (IF he really had such an understanding)!
Notice how Theophilus does explain his knowledge of God:
"ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. ... He is unbegotten; and He is unchangeable,.... And He is called .... Father, because he is before all things... the Highest, because of His being above all; and Almighty" - ANF 2:90.
...........................................
So how much of the developing new “Knowledge” (speculation) concerning God and the Word found in modern translations of these ancient writers is really the work of the Ante-Nicene Fathers themselves and how much is the work of later trinitarian copyists, trinitarian translators, etc.?
Well, obviously, the trinitarians who handled, copied, and translated these works for over 1500 years would have made trinitarian changes much as they did in many still-existing manuscripts of Scripture itself. But one thing is certain, they would never have made anti-trinitarian changes in those manuscripts, translations, etc. Any objective student should be able to admit that the numerous instances of anti-trinitarian statements concerning God and Christ must have come from the Ante-Nicene Fathers themselves.
............................
SLPCCC
Active Member
The argument that the WTS proposes regarding the Trinity in their publications is that the belief that the early Christians believed that Jesus was God was made up in the 4th century along with the Trinity. My point is not on any political "the FINAL "orthodox" definition of the trinity" made. My point is that the WTS misquote sources to try to prove their argument that the Trinity is false and that the early Christians did not believed that Jesus was God and that it is a fabrication made in the 4th century.
I put the full quotes to show that they did believe that Jesus was God and it was not a creation of the 4th century. By reading the full quotes, it is plain to see the dishonesty in cherry-picking parts a quote and leaving out the parts that actually does not support your claim.
Last edited:
SLPCCC
Active Member
The Watchtower booklet, "Should You Believe in the Trinity" p. 7, says that Clement “called Jesus in his prehuman existence ‘a creature’….He said that the Son ‘is next to the only omnipotent Father’ but not equal to him.”. This assertion is not only erroneous but is quite deceitful, for Clement actually taught the opposite of what the Wty insinuates. Note the following excerpts taken from Clement’s writings which not only reveal the deception of the Society claims, but also the fact that as far back as the second century, the early Church Fathers articulated and defended the concept of the Trinity:
- “…the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God….I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.…There was, then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 202, 468, 574
SLPCCC
Active Member
The Watchtower’s brochure states that Justin Martyr “called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is ‘other than the God who made all things.’ ”. However, far from teaching that Jesus is “a created angel,” Justin Martyr actually taught that Christ is “the Angel of God” who conversed with Moses out of the burning bush and revealed Himself as the Jehovah God saying, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.…I AM WHO I AM.”. Justin Martyr also understood the Scriptural term “first-begotten” of God to mean that Christ is of the same nature as God the Father. Note the following excerpts taken from his writings:
- “For at that juncture, when Moses was ordered to go down into Egypt…our Christ conversed with him under the appearance of fire from a bush….‘And the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers….’…the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets….in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts….Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ: ‘God went up with a shout….’ And Trypho said, ‘…For you utter many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud…and ought to be worshipped.’…And Trypho said, ‘We have heard what you think of these matters.…For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages…this [assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish.’ ”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 184, 212, 213, 219
SLPCCC
Active Member
What you are posting Tigger2 must be coming from the WTS publication because they are not accurate. You said, "So once again we find clear non-trinitarian statements in Origen's writings."
The WTS states in their Trinity book, that Origen taught “‘the Father and Son are two substances…two things as to their essence,’ and that ‘compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light.’ ” While it is true that Origen was not orthodox on all his teachings about the Trinity and was eventually regarded by the Church as a heretic (although this was not on the basis of his view of the Trinity), he did teach certain aspects of the Trinity.
- “This is most clearly pointed out by the Apostle Paul, when demonstrating that the power of the Trinity is one and the same….From which it most clearly follows that there is no difference in the Trinity, but that which is called the gift of the Spirit is made known through the Son, and operated by God the Father….Having made these declarations regarding the Unity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit….And who else is able to save and conduct the soul of man to the God of all things, save God the Word…inasmuch as He was the Word, and was with God, and was God?”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, pp. 255, 604
SLPCCC
Active Member
In his writings, Tertullian was very explicit in his articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity:
“He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God….so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence—in position, not in nature….and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united.…Thus does He make Him equal to Him.…I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other….they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being….when all the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in, (the Persons of) the Trinity….In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another, I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of Substance—in the way of distinction, not of division. But although I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable (Persons)….”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pp. 34-35, 601, 603, 606-607
SLPCCC
Active Member
The in their book, p. 9, WTS claims that Hippolytus “said that God is ‘the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all,’ who ‘had nothing co-equal [of equal age] with him…But he was One, alone by himself; who willing it, called into being what had no being before,’ such as the created prehuman Jesus.”. Here again, when one examines what Hippolytus actually taught, one uncovers another example where the Society misrepresents the facts. Note the following statements found in Hippolytus’ writings:
- “God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world….Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality….And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods….Thus, then, these too, though they wish it not, fall in with the truth, and admit that one God made all things….For Christ is the God above all…..He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, ‘All things are delivered unto me of my Father.’ He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever….And well has he named Christ the Almighty.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pp. 227, 153, 225
TiggerII
Active Member
Clement of Alexandria wrote, in a discussion of God:
“This discourse respecting God is most difficult to handle. For since the first principle of everything is difficult to find out, the absolutely first and oldest principle, which is the cause of all other things being and having been, is difficult to exhibit. …. No one can rightly express Him wholly. For on account of His greatness He is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of Him For the One is indivisible.” – pp. 463-4, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF], Eerdmans Publishing, 1989.
Clement, as with most (if not all) of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, also believed and taught that Prov. 8:22-30 presented the words of the Son of God (speaking as “Wisdom”) in his pre-human existence. He wrote:
“Wisdom, which was the first of the creation of God.” (Cf. Rev. 3:14) - ANF 2:465, ‘The Stromata.’
SLPCCC
Active Member
The first 9 chapters of Proverbs deal with wisdom personified. To personify is to give something lifeless human-like qualities — like when Emily Dickinson wrote, "Because I could not stop for Death, He kindly stopped for me..." Wisdom is personified in Proverbs chapter 1-9. If you take 8:22 to speak literally about Jesus, you have to assume that Jesus is also a woman who cries in the street.
- Proverbs 8: 1-3 Wisdom calls out in the street, she lifts her voice in the square; in the main concourse she cries aloud, at the city gates she makes her speech:“How long, O simple ones, will you love your simple ways? How long will scoffers delight in their scorn and fools hate knowledge?
Referring Christ to wisdom make no sense. That interpretation not only violates the context of the book of proverbs but also violates the whole of scripture.
Did wisdom have a beginning at Prov. 8:22? That also wouldn’t make sense because that would mean that God didn’t have wisdom until a certain point in time. And who would prudence be?
- Proverbs 8:12 I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence…
Proverbs deal with wisdom personified.
Last edited: