Search related sites

Monday, September 14, 2009

History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST (part 2)

The History of the Development of the Trinity Doctrine
(page 2 of 7)  View Entire File

1 It is no mere coincidence that at this very time (the beginning of Neo-Platonism’s “most potent phase from 200 to 550 A. D.”) the trinity doctrine began to be developed and promoted by “Christian” philosophers who wanted the entire Church to adopt it.

2 TERTULLIAN “was the founder of Latin theology. .... It is his use of the words ‘trinity’ and ‘substance’ for the essence of the Godhead and his developments of that doctrine [for use by Christendom, that is,] in Against Praxeas (ch. 2-3) [written about 215 A. D.] that stands as his greatest contribution to Christian theology.” - Cairns, pp. 122-123. “...he became a Montanist about 202 A. D.” - Cairns, p. 117.

And he remained a Montanist for the rest of his life. The same Roman Church which adopted the “Christian” trinity (starting in 325 A. D. at the Council of Nicaea) also “in 381 [A. D.] declared that the Montanists should be looked upon as pagans.” - Cairns, p. 111.[80] So here we have (as the great influence of Neo-Platonism is really beginning) Tertullian, “a celebrated Christian Church writer ... one of the noted fathers of the Church”;[81] "one of the greatest of the Church Fathers"[82] who belonged to a religious cult (Montanists) which “developed fanatical misinterpretations of scripture."[83] And while a member of that religion (which came to be condemned as pagan[84] by the Church) he allegedly became “the first [about 215 A. D.] to state the theological doctrine of the Trinity” - Cairns, p. 122.

3 We need to understand that even Tertullian’s development of a multiple-person God in the 3rd century A.D. (if that’s actually what he intended)[84] was still not the “orthodox” trinity doctrine that was finally developed and adopted by “the Church” and which is still accepted by nearly all Christendom today! [85, 86, 87, 88]

Among other things Tertullian wrote: “The Father is ... greater [than the Son],” and “There was a time when the Son was not .... Before all things, God was alone.” In fact, the Catholic work Trinitas - A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity explains that, even though later writers used some of Tertullian’s terminology to describe the Trinity, it appears that Tertullian did not use them in that sense: “hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from [Tertullian’s] usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology.”

{Tertullian} therefore proposed to say that God is ‘one substance {substantia in Latin - compares to homoousios in Greek} consisting in three persons {persona}’. The precise meaning of the Latin words substantia and persona is not easy to determine in Tertullian’s usage. {‘In Tertullian substantia could be used in the sense of character or nature [among other things].’ - p. 90, Chadwick.} - p. 89, The Early Church, Prof. Henry Chadwick (trinitarian), 1986 ed., Dorset Press, New York.

4 We find, then, that even many trinitarian historians make statements similar to this:

“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Justin Martyr - died ca. 165 A. D.]: 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 [including, obviously, Tertullian]. 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." [26-26a]

5 Neo-Platonism is notorious for the paganisms it introduced into Christendom. The fruits of this eclectic borrowing by the early church are described by professor Douglas T. Holden:

“Christian theology has become so fused with [pagan] Greek philosophy that it has reared individuals who are a mixture of nine parts Greek thought to one part Christian thought." [90]

6 How familiar this all must sound to God and his faithful angels! God’s prophets throughout the long history of Israel’s existence were constantly condemning this very same form of idolatry in their own land among God’s chosen people.

“The actual society they knew was an uneasy accommodation of Israelite tradition to Canaanite mores and institutions, which were based on nature worship .... [God’s prophets] exposed the falsity of the Canaanized religious cult [of the Israelites] ... in which Yahweh’s name was honored while his nature was outraged. The cult was in all but name the worship of other gods because it sanctioned a way of life abominable to Yahweh."[91, 92]

7 Christendom has followed this very same broad path that leads to destruction! The Apostles valiantly and constantly fought against this syncretistic trend (as we see throughout the New Testament), but after their deaths the Church welcomed it with open arms. - 2 Tim. 4:3-4; Matt. 7:13-23.

The dominance of Rome in Church affairs from Constantine’s time onward also cemented this trend.

“Under the Roman Empire, the educated ... believed that the divine was one, but that it manifested itself in countless ways ... and that it was allowable to give to these various manifestations of the one the names of the many gods of popular belief.” - Encyclopedia Americana, 1944, v. 13, p. 395 (compare 1 Cor. 10:20 and Ex. 23:13.)

“The Romans were the greatest borrowers and most skilled adapters. Their syncretistic tendencies were accentuated by their Greek education and the influence of Greek literature.” - p. 190. And, “according to the monotheistic trend of the age, all deities of all peoples were regarded as but manifestations of the one supreme deity.” - p. 190. And, “A curious evidence of the consciousness of the unity of the divine is afforded by the amalgamation [blending] of different deities into a ‘Theos pantheus’ [‘God All-God’], or ‘Thea pantheus’ [‘Goddess All-God’], which might be regarded either as an abstract conception or a new deity according to the fluidity of pagan theology. Usually one deity was chosen, prominent for his merits in the votary’s estimation, and the epithet ‘pantheus’ (‘all-God’) added to the personal name as representative of the totality of the divine. Thus we find in Latin inscriptions ‘Serapis Pantheus’ ....” - p. 191, The Mystery Religions, S. Angus, Dover Publications, 1975.

8 So it was that Christendom began its adulterous love affair with a pagan-developed trinity doctrine. It was only about a hundred years from the time of Tertullian’s alleged formulation of a foundation for a trinity concept for Christendom until the Roman Church began its official embrace of it at the Coucil of Nicaea in 325 A. D., and all during this time Neo-Platonism was at its strongest, influencing ways of life and thought throughout the Empire. In fact, the pagan Emperor himself, Constantine, who convened the council and forced his final (trinitarian) decision upon the majority of Christian bishops present, had surrounded himself with Neo-Platonists!

“There was a circle of Neo-Platonist philosophers at Constantine’s court; the leading Neo-Platonist, Sopater, grew so influential that the other courtiers plotted to ruin him." [93]

9 As to the climactic act itself, the Nicene Council of 325 A. D., we need to investigate the pressures and the backgrounds of several key men to understand what really happened there. We must learn about the Emperor (Constantine), his chief “Christian” advisor (Bishop Hosius of Cordova), the trinity-pusher (Athanasius of Alexandria), the non-trinitarian defender (Arius) and the leader of the vast majority of Bishops at the Nicene Council (Eusebius of Caesarea).

Back to Page 1

Next Page  (Part 3)

Trinity Index


|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

A so-called trinitarian proof text from the Apologists of the Second Century:

JUSTIN MARTYR,(110 to 165 C.E.): ”Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that WE REASONABLY WORSHIP Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove...” - (ANF Alexander & Donaldson).

The words in capitals don't exist in the Greek text! Proof to follow!

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

Greek text:

JUSTIN MARTYR, ( 110 to 165 C.E. ): ( 13:3 ) XIII 3. τὸν διδάσκαλόν τε τούτων γενόμενον ἡμῖν καὶ εἰς τοῦτο γεννηθέντα Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, τοῦ γενομένου ἐν Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐπὶ χρόνοις Τιβερίου Καίσαρος ἐπιτρόπου, υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντως θεοῦ μαθόντες καὶ ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ ἔχοντες, πνεῦμά τε προφητικὸν ἐν τρίτῃ τάξει ὅτι μετὰ λόγου τιμῶμεν ἀποδείξομεν.

Explanation comming!

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

[Translation 1.] JUSTIN MARTYR, (110 to 165 C.E.): "The (one) [who] came to be our Teacher of these things, and was born for this purpose was Jesus Christ, [who] was hung upon a torture stake by Pontius Pilate, [who] came to be the Procurator in Judea upon [the] times of Tiberius Caesar, a son of the actual-real God we have learned [this one to be] and in second place hold him [to be], [the] prophetic spirit in third rank, after this [we] shall reasonably aid and assit [in] showing proof.” Literal Translation Ap. 1, 13, and notes - by Matt13weedhacker.

More to come!

[ λόγου τιμῶμεν = Literally: "(of) word/reason τιμῶμεν is either "esteem/HONOR/value" or "to aid/assist or help" ]

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

The Greek word for worship does not appear in this verse!

[τιμῶμεν] "honor/value" is the closest thing in this verse, but it does not mean worship. This particular verse is used often by trinitarians.

Justin does say elsewhere he worships or does obeisanse to Jesus, but not the way they portray it!

My own smoother reading trans to come!

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

JUSTIN MARTYR, (110 to 165 C.E.): "The Teacher of us [in] these things, and [who] was born for this [very] purpose was Jesus Christ, [who] was hung upon a torture stake by Pontius Pilate, [who] came to be the Procurator in Judea upon [the] times of Tiberius Caesar, [this one] we have learned [to be] a son of the actual-real God and hold him (ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ) in second place, [and the] prophetic spirit (ἐν τρίτῃ τάξει) in third rank, therefore, after [this] discourse [we shall] aid and assit [in] showing [certain] proof [of this].” A Smoother Paraphrase Translation of Ap. 1, 13, - by Matt13weedhacker.

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

The last sentence is hard to translate, it could be rendered: "of reasonable honor, after [this we shall] give certain proof."
Notice Justin refers to Jesus as: "(ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ) in SECOND (PLACE)[And the] prophetic spirit in THIRD (τάξει) RANK..."

There is no "RANK", [(τάξει)= a Greek military term] in the (CO-EQUAL) trinity of Christendom!

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

(56:3)LVI: 3 “... ὅτι θεὸς ἢ κύριος ἄλλος τίς ἐστιν ἢ λέλεκται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος παρὰ τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων...(56:4)LVI: 4 “...ὅτι ἐστὶ καὶ λέγεται θεὸς καὶ κύριος ἕτερος ὑπὸ τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν ὅλων, ὃς καὶ ἄγγελος καλεῖται, διὰ τὸ ἀγγέλλειν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὅσαπερ βούλεται αὐτοῖς ἀγγεῖλαι ὁ τῶν ὅλων ποιητής, ὑπὲρ ὃν ἄλλος θεὸς οὐκ ἔστι...” - Dialouge of Justin Philosopher and Martyr with Trypho a Jew, Chapter 56;

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

[Translation 2.] (56:3)LVI: 3 “Therefore, is also termed [θεὸς] a (g)od or a (l)ord who is [ἄλλος] (another-numerically-distinct) [who is] termed so from (of) the holy spirit besides the Actual-Real Maker”…(56:4)LVI: 4 …“Therefore, is also termed [ἕτερος] another [θεὸς] (g)od and (l)ord (of a differen't kind and quality) [ὑπὸ] under-neath the Real Maker, who is [οὐκ] not [ἄλλος] (another-numerically-distinct) god [ὑπὲρ] over-and-beyond in comparison to the Real-Actual Maker, who is also called an angel, because [διὰ] through [him] the Actual-Real Maker announces [to] mankind [his] will to them, ..” - Dialouge of Justin Philosopher and Martyr with Trypho a Jew, Chapter 56; - [Translation According to Sense not literal word order by Matt13weedhacker (9/3/10)]

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

Justins Logos was [λέλεκται] "termed" and [καλεῖται] "called" [θεὸς] "a (g)od" in all three cases without the article, compare 1st Cor 8:4-6.

And the Logos was [ἕτερος] (Latin equivalent 'alter')] "another of a differen't kind and quality" who was [ὑπὸ] "under-neath/below" the Real Maker or God!

Perhaps by a (ἕτερος) differen't kind of (θεὸς) he meant he was the "only-begotten/generated god" John 1:18 compared to the Father, who is to Justin the "UN-begotten/generated God."

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

We as Jehovah's Wittnesses say Jesus hold's second place to Jehovah the Almighty, but NOT EQUAL to him. Justin Martyr said:

"For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all;...” 1st Apology Chapter 13; ANF Alexander & Donaldson.

Greek: ( 13:4 ) XIII 4. "ἐνταῦθα γὰρ μανίαν ἡμῶν καταφαίνονται, (δευτέραν χώραν)-(μετὰ) τὸν ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀεὶ ὄντα θεὸν καὶ γεννήτορα τῶν ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπῳ σταυρωθέντι διδόναι ἡμᾶς λέγοντες..."

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

Alexander & Donaldson omitted a word that's in the Greek. The word is significant, and not meaningless. It is given capitals in my translation:

“The reason [γὰρ] therefore, [they] recount, that our mania consists in giving to a man shamefully hung upon a stake of torture - [δευτέραν χώραν] second place [μετὰ] AFTER the Un-changable and Eternal Real God and Generator of all [being]...” - Translation by Matt13weedhacker

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

Another common ANF proof text missusesd by the trinitarians is:

THE PASTOR OF HERMAS ( 160 C.E. ): “The Son of God is older than all His creatures, so that He was a fellow-councilor with the Father in His work of creation: for this reason is He old...” Book: 3; Similitudes; Similitude: 9th; Chapter:12; - Translated by the Rev. F. Crombie, M.A.

Greek text: 2. "ὁ μὲν υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως αὐτοῦ προγενέστερός ἐστιν, ὥστε σύμβουλον αὐτὸν γενέσθαι τῷ πατρὶ τῆς κτίσεως αὐτοῦ· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ παλαιὰ ἡ πέτρα."

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

Note the Greek word (προγενέστερός) "pro-gene-steros". Pro-genesteros literally means "before-born". Other lexicons give the definition "oldest-born" or "eldest-born". "old" or "older-than" is normally the last definition, if given at all.

Lets have another look at this verse with this new perspective, because it is theologically significant!

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

Literal translation according to word order: “The (but) Son (of) the God (of) all (of) the (of) creatures (of) him [προγενέστερός] before-born/oldest-born is, so as to be a fellow/together-councilor (of) him comming to be (to) the Father the creation (of) him. Through this and old/worn out the rock.” - Translated by Matt13weedhacker

“But, the Son (of) the God is [προγενέστερός] oldest-born-before all of his creatures, so he consulted together [ τῷ = Lit., (to) the] with the Father [in] bringing into being the creation of His. Through this [he is] the ancient rock.” - Translated by Matt13weedhacker

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

So far from being an eternal being of equal stature with the Father, it say's he was:

1. "BORN" = a metaphor for "created", also for a beginning and start to life - compare Prov 8:22-31;

2. "BEFORE" = before (his) part in creation, ie: "the FIRST-BORN of all creation" Col 1:15-18;

Just something to think about, and one of the many deliberate miss-translations of the ANF.

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

More trinitarian bias and misstranslation in the ANF:

CLEMENT OF ROME (30-100 c.e.): "Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit." - The Anti-Nicene Fathers Volume One; Edited by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. Chapter 45(b).

Greek text: 2b τὰς διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου. Literally: "the through (of) the spirit (of) holiness." Trnaslated by Matt13weedhacker

Trying to make it look like the spirit is speaking on it's own, but it was just the intermediate agent = (διὰ).

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

This verse is often brought forward as proof that Clement supposedly believed in a trinity:

CLEMENT OF ROME (30-100 c.e.): "Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ?" - The ANF Volume One; Edited by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. Chapter 46:6;

Greek text: "ἢ οὐχὶ ἕνα θεὸν ἔχομεν καὶ ἕνα Χριστὸν καὶ ἓν πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος τὸ ἐκχυθὲν ἐφ ̓ ἡμᾶς; καὶ μία κλῆσις ἐν Χριστῷ..."

To be continued!

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

Here's a more accurate rendering:

"Is [it] not one God we have? And one Christ and [ἓν] IN spirit (of) the undeserved kindness the poured out upon us? And one calling [ἓν] IN (to) Christ?" - Literal translation by Matt13weedhacker

Greek text for comparison: "ἢ οὐχὶ (ἕνα) θεὸν ἔχομεν καὶ (ἕνα) Χριστὸν καὶ (ἓν) πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος τὸ ἐκχυθὲν ἐφ ̓ ἡμᾶς; καὶ (μία) κλῆσις ἐν Χριστῷ..."

To be continued!

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

A more readable trans:

""Is [it] not [ἕνα] one God [that] we have? And [ἕνα] one Christ? Also [ἓν] IN [the] spirit (of) the undeserved kindness [that has been] the poured out upon us? And [μία] one calling [ἓν] IN Christ?" - Translation by Matt13weedhacker

To be continued!

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

Notice the two different Greek words for "one" = (ἕνα) and (μία)and the instrumental preposition (ἓν) = "IN". Lets sum up:

1. (ἕνα)= "One" God
2. (ἕνα)= "One" Christ
3. (ἓν) = "IN" spirit of undeserved kindness
4. (μία)= "One" calling
5. (ἓν) = "IN" Christ

EQUALS = No trinity here!

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

Apart from the one above the only other verse in Clement of Rome that could be twisted to represent a proof text for the trinity doctrine is the following, which is supposed to represent the holy spirit as "living":

"For as God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect" - Translated by J.B. Lightfoot.

Greek text: ζῇ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς καὶ ζῇ ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἥ τε πίστις καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

Lets analyze this text. It specifically states two persons are (ζῇ) "living":

1. ζῇ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς = "The God"
2. ζῇ ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς = "the lord Jesus Christ"

It does NOT specifically say the holy spirit is (ζῇ) "living"! It simply say's: "καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον".In English: "and (the) spirit (the) holy". Notice the two NUETER ARTICLES (τὸ) and (τὸ)! Indicating an "IT" rather than a "WHO"!

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

This verse in 1st Clement Chap 58:1,2; reminds me very much of the clause about the spirit in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

1. Apostles Creed: (Καὶ εἰς το ἅγιον πνεῦμα)
1. Apostles Creed: "and into the holy spirit"
2. Nicene Creed: (Καὶ εἰς το ἅγιον πνεῦμα)
2. Nicene Creed: "and into the holy spirit"

Neither of which teach the holy spirit is "alive" or a "person"! And neither does Clement!

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

As I stated before there is absolutely no other so-called "trinitarian" passages in Clement of Rome first epistle to the Corinthians! There is one passage, once more WRONGLY translated to construe reverence of Jesus Christ, but its a DELIBERATE MISS-TRANSLATION! I will address this at a later date. This is because my Virtual XP in VMware on my main computer is down and being repaired. It has all my detailed files and multiple translations and versions of the Early Church Fathers and my own translations and notes, not to mention my Greek & Hebrew Bible software on it.

We will have a breif, but not in depth look at Polycarp next.

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

APOLOGIES for the shocking spelling and lack of proper editing in my comments. Most of these posted very, very, early in the morning on my side of the world! I noticed some words that should have been modified or deleted in my translations. SORRY!

Elijah said...

Hey, Matt. I've been trying to verify the references in some of your comments for the History post (parts 1 and 2). I've spent hours trying to find some of them and have found several. I was planning to correct them when I finally have finished. However, if you can clear them up, that would be even better.

I have enjoyed what you are doing, but I do want accuracy (Don't worry so much about the spelling, just be sure you have the facts.)

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

Hey thanks for the encouragement!

Thank you for pulling my head in to about accurate references! Your right, I have missed a couple of references. I shall give a recap of the references on History Post (part 2) next.

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker REFERENCES HIST PT 1.
Justin Martyr 1st Apology Chapter 13:3;
Justin Martyr Dialouge With Trypho A Jew Chapter 56:3,4;
Justin Martyr 1st Apology Chapter 13:4;
Shepard Of Hermas Similitudes-or-Parables Book 3; 9th Similitude Chapter 12:2;
Clement Of Rome 1st Epistle to the Corinthians Chapters: 45:2(b); 46:6; 58:2;
English texts: ccel.org or earlychristianwritings.com
Greek: http://khazarar.skeptic.net

Hope these help!

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

I think I know what your going through Elijah. The writings of the ANF is like a dissmal swamp, with mist and fog, with quicksand and thorn bushes at your every turn, which can plunge anyone into disspear when compared to the clear lighted path of truth in God's inspired word. Some of these writers, Irenaeus for instance, has 5 books, some of which go into a hundred plus chapters with paragraphs not verses. It's a long werisome task just reading them, let alone trying to make sense of them! One thing is certain no professed guenuine Christian writer before Tertullian even mentions a "trinitas"!

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

I will try and clear up the references on Hist Pt 1; tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

Polycarp did he consider Jesus to be ALL-MIGHTY GOD?

POLYCARP (69-160 c.e.): “Polycarp, and the presbyters with him, to the Church of God sojourning at Philippi: Mercy to you, and peace from God Almighty, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior, be multiplied.” The Epistle of Polycarp to the Phillipians: Introduction - ANF translated by A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D.

Πολύκαρπος καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῳ πρεσβύτεροι τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παροικούσῃ Φιλίππους· ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη παρὰ θεοῦ παντοκράτορος καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν πληθυνθείη.

To be continued!

Anonymous said...

Matt13weedhacker

Lets examine the first few lines of Polycarps Epistle to the Phillipians:

1. παρὰ θεοῦ παντοκράτορος = "from (of) God ALL-Powerful"
2. καὶ = "and/also"
3. Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν = "(of) Jesus (of) Christ (of) the Saviour (of) us"

God All-Mighty (AND) Jesus Christ = two seperate entities. One of the two is designated seperately as God. Also note no greetings from the holy spirit here!

= NO THREE-IN-ONE-GOD(S)!

Reality said...

Hello Brothers!

I've happily come across you site. I have enjoyed your presentation of the historical development of the Trinity. You've provided some excellent quotes from trinitarian sources (the best type to reach your target audience) I hope you won't mind a constructive observation. Within your "history of the christian 'trinity' pt 2" while discussing the beginning of usage of the word 'homoousios' you state:
"Obviously homoousios, as it was first used within Christendom by Heracleon, did not have the same meaning as later trinitarians made it seem."
Since Heracleon was considered a herectical gnostic ringleader by the apologists Ireneaus & company, (see wikipedia article on Heracleon.), your comment placing Heracleon "within Christendom" could be considered, at best a mistake or at worst a premeditated deception, by our opposers.
I've done a "little" research on the historical development of the Xrstian trinitarian philosophy. so I may send a few research tidbits your way that I think you will find beneficial for your blog or to incorporate into the quote database. Do you have a off-line e-mail where I may send it. Please answer off-line thank you YB

Elijah said...

Thanks, Reality! I appreciate constructive criticism as well as additional material.

I really thought that it would be correct to call Heracleon a part of Christendom (not Christianity), but after your comment, I see your point and have changed the wording.

Elijah said...

P.S., I clicked on your name and found .... nothing. But if you wish, you may contact me through this site: http://jwsandscripture.yuku.com/