166. Another way of looking at this might be summed up by Paul’s words at Gal. 1:8, 9:
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” - NIV, Zondervan, 1985.
“Preaching the Gospel” applies to
“the declaring of all the truths, precepts, promises, and threatenings of Christianity” - p. 266, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publ., 1982.
Appropriately enough, the early English word ‘Gospel’ literally meant “the story concerning God” and in the Bible it can be understood to be “embracing all [Jesus’] teachings” - p. 1281, vol. 2, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Eerdmans Publ., 1984 printing.
So, Paul’s words above certainly (as should be obvious, anyway) include the teaching of exactly who God is and exactly who and what Jesus is.
“Jesus looked up to heaven and said: ‘Father, .... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.’ “ - Jn 17:3, NEB, Cambridge University Press, 1970.
In fact, Paul himself taught that the glorified Lord Jesus in heavenly blazing fire will:
“punish those who do not know God and do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction.” - 2 Thess. 1:7-9, NIV.
So Paul is telling us at Gal. 1:8, 9 above that what he had already taught about (1) God and Jesus and (2) what we must do to inherit eternal life was not to be expanded upon.
It might be worthwhile to see what the majority of members of the highly-respected trinitarian UBS textual committee said when discussing the original text for Romans 9:5:
“nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate ho xristos [‘the Christ’] as [theos: ‘God’ or ‘god’]. In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him God blessed for ever.” - p. 522, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Rev. Bruce M. Metzger, United Bible Societies, 1971.
Well, since Paul would not have taught (of course!) that the one God is three persons, it is clear that that is a gospel other than the one Paul taught!
“even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!”
(Please review HIST INTRODUCTION and Notes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.)
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Note (165.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
165. We find similar expressions to Jefferson’s above by other great geniuses of note: statesmen, scientists, justices, etc. They wrote and spoke against the great blasphemy of the trinity doctrine. For example:
Statesmen: U. S. Presidents John Adams, and John Quincy Adams (and, of course, Thomas Jefferson).
Scientists: Joseph Priestley, Samuel F. Morse, and Sir Isaac Newton. Sir Isaac Newton was voted by modern science historians (as reported in Science Digest) to have the greatest scientific mind of all time.
(“Sir Isaac Newton ... was a devout Christian who contributed many papers through his personal study of theology. In fact, Newton made the Holy Scriptures as much a study that commanded his attention as any field of science to which he had given thought.” - p. 71, One Who Believed, Dr. Robert B. Pamplin, trinitarian author and pastor of Christ Community Church.
* * * *
"What is not as well understood about Newton was his deep devotion to religion--especially the more mystical variety of it. Newton considered himself a deeply devout Christian--though not of the normal sort. He was, in short, a unitarian [one who believes ... that the position of God is not shared by two other "persons," namely Jesus and the Holy Spirit; ... that Jesus is rather an adoptive "Son" of God--as we all have the potential to be--through having lived a Godly life]. Discovery of his unitarianism would have been ruinous for Newton in English society--so he kept his religious beliefs well away from public view.
"In any case, he stood himself before God in great awe--great awe of the One who crafted the universe with such precision. It was this precision that so inspired Newton--that he gave his life to its uncovery for human viewing. Science and mathematics were thus for Newton virtually religious enterprises."
http://www.newgenevacenter.org/09_Biography/09a_In-Depth-Biographies/09a_In-Depth-Biographies.htm
* * * *
Theology and the word of God
When Newton was made a fellow of the College, along with an agreement to embrace the Anglican faith, the Trinity fellowship also required ordination within 8 years. During his studies Newton had come to believe that the central doctrine of the church, the Holy and Undivided Trinity was a pagan corruption imposed on Christianity in the fourth century by Athanasius. Newton was faced with an enormous dilemma. He now felt that, in all consciousness, he could no longer take holy orders. However, to give the reason for this would have led to his immediate expulsion from Cambridge. At that time, and throughout Newton's life, denunciation of the Trinity was illegal. He was by rights a heretic. He sought special dispensation from taking holy orders, something that was eventually granted. It is not clear what reasons he gave for seeking this dispensation but it is unlikely that it was for the genuine reason. In 1710, Newton's successor to the Lucasian Chair, William Whiston, was ejected from his position for advocating Unitarianism, the rejection of the Holy Trinity.
Although these views make Newton a heretic from the perspective of established Christianity, he was in fact a fervent believer in the Bible. Newton's laws of motion contradicted the accepted biblical doctrine in the same way that Galileo's views had. But rather than contradicting the Bible, Newton believed that the Bible was accurate and that it was the interpretation of theologians that was wrong. He continued to study biblical prophecy until his death, being fascinated by its symbols and developing a lexicon of prophetic emblems. He was also intrigued by the architecture of the Jerusalem Temple, believing it to hold the secrets to many unanswered questions of the Bible.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/newton.html
* * * *
Enthralled by the power of mathematics, Newton launched a series of experiments to determine the nature of light and color. He next turned to theology. Not surprisingly, the doctrine of the Trinity captured his attention.
After scouring the Scriptures, he concluded that it [the Trinity Doctrine] was a lie fabricated by the church fathers. In truth, God was one. If Newton was a heretic, he was not a martyr. Comfortable with his Cambridge professorship and eager for a government post, he cautiously concealed his unorthodox beliefs.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/06/01/RV294132.DTL&type=printable
Law: Chief Justice John Marshall and Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes - the two greatest legal minds of the U. S. Supreme Court.
Literature: And in the field of literature we have probably the greatest intellect of all time in John Milton. “He mastered Latin and Greek, and before long he was adept in most European tongues as well as Hebrew.” “It seems likely that Milton, in his time, read just about everything that was ever written in English, Latin, Greek and Italian. (Of course, he had the Bible by heart.)” - pp. 870, 871, The Norton Anthology of English Literature. “His Aereopagitica is, perhaps, the most powerful plea ever written for freedom of the press.” And, “Although Milton wrote only 23 sonnets, he is considered one of the most important sonnet writers in English.” - Britannica Junior.
Milton’s “Paradise Lost is one of the few monumental works of the world.” And, Paradise Regained is “one of the most artistically perfect poems in any language” and “Samson Agonistes is the most powerful drama in the English language after the severe Greek model.” - Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 15, p. 514, 14th ed.
Milton’s major poems “could have been produced only by a writer of genius who also held deeply sincere religious and ethical opinions.” - Encyclopedia International, vol. 12, p. 99, 1966 ed. “...while Milton was...a genuine Christian, believing in the Bible over all the other books in the world, he was at the same time one of the most intrepid of English thinkers and theologians.” - Encyclopedia Britannica. “Theologically, Milton rejected...the dogma of the trinity.... His anti-trinitarian position, set forth explicitly elsewhere, is obscured in Paradise Lost....” - Encyclopedia Americana, p. 138, vol. 19, 1957 ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Statesmen: U. S. Presidents John Adams, and John Quincy Adams (and, of course, Thomas Jefferson).
Scientists: Joseph Priestley, Samuel F. Morse, and Sir Isaac Newton. Sir Isaac Newton was voted by modern science historians (as reported in Science Digest) to have the greatest scientific mind of all time.
(“Sir Isaac Newton ... was a devout Christian who contributed many papers through his personal study of theology. In fact, Newton made the Holy Scriptures as much a study that commanded his attention as any field of science to which he had given thought.” - p. 71, One Who Believed, Dr. Robert B. Pamplin, trinitarian author and pastor of Christ Community Church.
* * * *
"What is not as well understood about Newton was his deep devotion to religion--especially the more mystical variety of it. Newton considered himself a deeply devout Christian--though not of the normal sort. He was, in short, a unitarian [one who believes ... that the position of God is not shared by two other "persons," namely Jesus and the Holy Spirit; ... that Jesus is rather an adoptive "Son" of God--as we all have the potential to be--through having lived a Godly life]. Discovery of his unitarianism would have been ruinous for Newton in English society--so he kept his religious beliefs well away from public view.
"In any case, he stood himself before God in great awe--great awe of the One who crafted the universe with such precision. It was this precision that so inspired Newton--that he gave his life to its uncovery for human viewing. Science and mathematics were thus for Newton virtually religious enterprises."
http://www.newgenevacenter.org/09_Biography/09a_In-Depth-Biographies/09a_In-Depth-Biographies.htm
* * * *
Theology and the word of God
When Newton was made a fellow of the College, along with an agreement to embrace the Anglican faith, the Trinity fellowship also required ordination within 8 years. During his studies Newton had come to believe that the central doctrine of the church, the Holy and Undivided Trinity was a pagan corruption imposed on Christianity in the fourth century by Athanasius. Newton was faced with an enormous dilemma. He now felt that, in all consciousness, he could no longer take holy orders. However, to give the reason for this would have led to his immediate expulsion from Cambridge. At that time, and throughout Newton's life, denunciation of the Trinity was illegal. He was by rights a heretic. He sought special dispensation from taking holy orders, something that was eventually granted. It is not clear what reasons he gave for seeking this dispensation but it is unlikely that it was for the genuine reason. In 1710, Newton's successor to the Lucasian Chair, William Whiston, was ejected from his position for advocating Unitarianism, the rejection of the Holy Trinity.
Although these views make Newton a heretic from the perspective of established Christianity, he was in fact a fervent believer in the Bible. Newton's laws of motion contradicted the accepted biblical doctrine in the same way that Galileo's views had. But rather than contradicting the Bible, Newton believed that the Bible was accurate and that it was the interpretation of theologians that was wrong. He continued to study biblical prophecy until his death, being fascinated by its symbols and developing a lexicon of prophetic emblems. He was also intrigued by the architecture of the Jerusalem Temple, believing it to hold the secrets to many unanswered questions of the Bible.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/newton.html
* * * *
Enthralled by the power of mathematics, Newton launched a series of experiments to determine the nature of light and color. He next turned to theology. Not surprisingly, the doctrine of the Trinity captured his attention.
After scouring the Scriptures, he concluded that it [the Trinity Doctrine] was a lie fabricated by the church fathers. In truth, God was one. If Newton was a heretic, he was not a martyr. Comfortable with his Cambridge professorship and eager for a government post, he cautiously concealed his unorthodox beliefs.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/06/01/RV294132.DTL&type=printable
Law: Chief Justice John Marshall and Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes - the two greatest legal minds of the U. S. Supreme Court.
Literature: And in the field of literature we have probably the greatest intellect of all time in John Milton. “He mastered Latin and Greek, and before long he was adept in most European tongues as well as Hebrew.” “It seems likely that Milton, in his time, read just about everything that was ever written in English, Latin, Greek and Italian. (Of course, he had the Bible by heart.)” - pp. 870, 871, The Norton Anthology of English Literature. “His Aereopagitica is, perhaps, the most powerful plea ever written for freedom of the press.” And, “Although Milton wrote only 23 sonnets, he is considered one of the most important sonnet writers in English.” - Britannica Junior.
Milton’s “Paradise Lost is one of the few monumental works of the world.” And, Paradise Regained is “one of the most artistically perfect poems in any language” and “Samson Agonistes is the most powerful drama in the English language after the severe Greek model.” - Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 15, p. 514, 14th ed.
Milton’s major poems “could have been produced only by a writer of genius who also held deeply sincere religious and ethical opinions.” - Encyclopedia International, vol. 12, p. 99, 1966 ed. “...while Milton was...a genuine Christian, believing in the Bible over all the other books in the world, he was at the same time one of the most intrepid of English thinkers and theologians.” - Encyclopedia Britannica. “Theologically, Milton rejected...the dogma of the trinity.... His anti-trinitarian position, set forth explicitly elsewhere, is obscured in Paradise Lost....” - Encyclopedia Americana, p. 138, vol. 19, 1957 ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (164.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
164. Thomas Jefferson is considered one of the greatest men in history because of his great knowledge, intelligence, honesty and genuine love for his fellow man. “Whether regarded as a patriot, a statesman, or a scholar, he deserves to rank among the greatest men America has ever produced.” - New Standard Encyclopedia, vol. 5, 1952. “History recognizes him as one of the greatest and fairest of men ever to hold public office in the nation.” - p. 196, vol. 8, Britannica Junior, 1956. And in 1997 he was even called “the Man of the Millennium” (see USA Weekend, Feb. 14-16, 1997) - the greatest single individual to live in the last thousand years!
Quotes from The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Koch and Peden, The Modern Library (Random House, Inc.), 1944:
(1) pp. 631-632 - Ltr to John Adams [who shared Jefferson’s views about the trinity] dated Oct. 13, 1813:
“In extracting the pure principles which [Jesus] taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists[55, 56] and Plotinists [73, 74] ... the Eclectics,[66, 67, 68, 69] the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences [substance] [15, 105] and emanations, their Logos and Demiurgos ..., with a long train of etc., etc., etc., or shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists .... The result is ... pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were professed and acted on by the unlettered Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Christians of the first century. Their Platonizing successors, indeed, in after times, in order to legitimate the corruptions which they had incorporated into the doctrines of Jesus, found it necessary to disavow the primitive Christians, who had taken their principles from the mouth of Jesus himself, of his Apostles, and the Fathers cotemporary with them. They excommunicated them as heretics....” [bold-type emphasis added by me - Jefferson’s emphasis underlined.]
(2) pp. 693-694 - Ltr to William Short [close friend], Oct. 31, 1819:
“Plato ... dealing out mysticisms incomprehensible to the human mind, has been deified by certain sects usurping the name of Christians; because in his foggy conceptions, they found a basis of inpenetrable darkness whereon to rear fabrications as delirious, of their own invention. These they fathered blasphemously on Him whom they claimed as their Founder [Jesus], but who would disclaim them with the indignation which their caricatures of His religion so justly excite. ....[Jesus has been defamed by these] artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects, unauthorized by a single word ever uttered by Him....
( E.g. ... [Jesus’] deification ..., His corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the trinity ..., etc.” - [This is Jefferson’s note. - Bracketed information added by me. ])
(3) pp. 703-704 - Ltr to James Smith, Dec. 8, 1822:
“No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened by the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity [one person only] of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus [the three-headed hell hound of classical mythology], with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs....”
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Quotes from The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Koch and Peden, The Modern Library (Random House, Inc.), 1944:
(1) pp. 631-632 - Ltr to John Adams [who shared Jefferson’s views about the trinity] dated Oct. 13, 1813:
“In extracting the pure principles which [Jesus] taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists[55, 56] and Plotinists [73, 74] ... the Eclectics,[66, 67, 68, 69] the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences [substance] [15, 105] and emanations, their Logos and Demiurgos ..., with a long train of etc., etc., etc., or shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists .... The result is ... pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were professed and acted on by the unlettered Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Christians of the first century. Their Platonizing successors, indeed, in after times, in order to legitimate the corruptions which they had incorporated into the doctrines of Jesus, found it necessary to disavow the primitive Christians, who had taken their principles from the mouth of Jesus himself, of his Apostles, and the Fathers cotemporary with them. They excommunicated them as heretics....” [bold-type emphasis added by me - Jefferson’s emphasis underlined.]
(2) pp. 693-694 - Ltr to William Short [close friend], Oct. 31, 1819:
“Plato ... dealing out mysticisms incomprehensible to the human mind, has been deified by certain sects usurping the name of Christians; because in his foggy conceptions, they found a basis of inpenetrable darkness whereon to rear fabrications as delirious, of their own invention. These they fathered blasphemously on Him whom they claimed as their Founder [Jesus], but who would disclaim them with the indignation which their caricatures of His religion so justly excite. ....[Jesus has been defamed by these] artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects, unauthorized by a single word ever uttered by Him....
( E.g. ... [Jesus’] deification ..., His corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the trinity ..., etc.” - [This is Jefferson’s note. - Bracketed information added by me. ])
(3) pp. 703-704 - Ltr to James Smith, Dec. 8, 1822:
“No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened by the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity [one person only] of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus [the three-headed hell hound of classical mythology], with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs....”
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (163.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
163. This is a very common tactic among trinitarian apologists. For example, Walter Martin in his popular The Kingdom of the Cults, 1985 ed., p. 67, implies that those who don’t believe in Jesus’ deity are “non-intellectuals”. And on p. 71 he derides those who present evidence against Jesus’ “deity” as “masquerading as Biblical authorities.” And the booklet published by Seventh-day Adventists, God’s Channel of Truth—Is it the Watchtower?, 1967, pp. 101,102, derides either the scholarship or the honesty (or both) of anti-trinitarian scholars.
Truth cannot be measured by the reputation of the man. Truth can be searched out and displayed by any man. If the matter is properly examined and presented, the facts will speak for themselves. Jehovah’s Witnesses have done this as well as those with great worldly reputations and deserve to be heard on the basis of their results in Bible scholarship. However, if worldly reputation is a necessary requirement before some will listen, see notes [164] and [165].
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Truth cannot be measured by the reputation of the man. Truth can be searched out and displayed by any man. If the matter is properly examined and presented, the facts will speak for themselves. Jehovah’s Witnesses have done this as well as those with great worldly reputations and deserve to be heard on the basis of their results in Bible scholarship. However, if worldly reputation is a necessary requirement before some will listen, see notes [164] and [165].
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (162.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
162. Footnotes from the Roman Catholic The New American Bible, St. Joseph Ed., 1970:
Rev. 2:14-15 - “Like Balaam, the biblical prototype of religious compromisers..., the Nicolaitans in Pergamum and Ephesus accommodated their Christian faith to paganism.” And notice how strongly this was condemned by Jesus: He would come and “fight against them with the sword of my mouth”!
Rev. 2:20 - “The scheming and treacherous Jezebel of old...introduced pagan customs into the religion of Israel [note her fate - 2 Ki. 9:30-37]; this new [’Christian’] Jezebel [or religious ‘harlot’] was doing the same to Christianity.” And, again, notice Jesus’ powerful condemnation of her and of those who aided her - Rev. 2:22 - and of those who listen to and follow her teachings (her “daughters”) - Rev. 2:23.
Now review HIST appendix notes #19, 20 (and #3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16). (Also see the Watchtower for the series “Did the Early Church Teach that God is a Trinity?” - WT issues of 1 Nov. 1991, 1 Feb. 1992, 1 April 1992, and 1 Aug. 1992.)
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Rev. 2:14-15 - “Like Balaam, the biblical prototype of religious compromisers..., the Nicolaitans in Pergamum and Ephesus accommodated their Christian faith to paganism.” And notice how strongly this was condemned by Jesus: He would come and “fight against them with the sword of my mouth”!
Rev. 2:20 - “The scheming and treacherous Jezebel of old...introduced pagan customs into the religion of Israel [note her fate - 2 Ki. 9:30-37]; this new [’Christian’] Jezebel [or religious ‘harlot’] was doing the same to Christianity.” And, again, notice Jesus’ powerful condemnation of her and of those who aided her - Rev. 2:22 - and of those who listen to and follow her teachings (her “daughters”) - Rev. 2:23.
Now review HIST appendix notes #19, 20 (and #3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16). (Also see the Watchtower for the series “Did the Early Church Teach that God is a Trinity?” - WT issues of 1 Nov. 1991, 1 Feb. 1992, 1 April 1992, and 1 Aug. 1992.)
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (161.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
161. The Roman Catholic Bible, The New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition, 1970, states in a footnote about Babylon the Great in Revelation 17:1-6 - “Babylon, a symbolic name (v 5) of Rome, is graphically described as the great harlot.” And in a footnote for Rev. 18:3 this same Catholic Bible states: “Rome is condemned for her lewdness, symbol of idolatry (see note on Rv. 14,4) and for persecuting the church”. - (See footnote #148.) The footnote for Rev. 14:4 noted above in the NAB tells us about God’s chosen 144,000 that they are “pure: ... because they never indulged in any idolatrous practices, which are [figuratively] considered to be adultery and fornication.”
But Babylon the Great cannot simply be the pagan Roman Empire as the Catholic Church believes because, at Rev. 16:19, we find it is still in existence as a world-domineering power at the very end time after the gathering of the armies at Armageddon. The Roman Empire didn’t collapse until shortly after 400 A. D., and it had already been under the influence (“ridden by”) the Roman Church for nearly 100 years by then! So, if Babylon the Great really pictures some great power seated on the seven hills of Rome as Catholic sources tell us, then it cannot be the ancient Roman Empire which died about 1600 years ago! What power has been seated there since the time of Constantine? The seat of the most powerful and most populous religious organization the world has ever seen! What could be a more appropriate symbol for all of worldwide false religion?
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
But Babylon the Great cannot simply be the pagan Roman Empire as the Catholic Church believes because, at Rev. 16:19, we find it is still in existence as a world-domineering power at the very end time after the gathering of the armies at Armageddon. The Roman Empire didn’t collapse until shortly after 400 A. D., and it had already been under the influence (“ridden by”) the Roman Church for nearly 100 years by then! So, if Babylon the Great really pictures some great power seated on the seven hills of Rome as Catholic sources tell us, then it cannot be the ancient Roman Empire which died about 1600 years ago! What power has been seated there since the time of Constantine? The seat of the most powerful and most populous religious organization the world has ever seen! What could be a more appropriate symbol for all of worldwide false religion?
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (156.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
156. “[Cyril of Alexandria] was a great church father, a profound exponent of the Catholic truth, holding a place only a little below that of Athanasius and Augustine.” - Encyclopedia Americana, pp. 371-372, v. 8, 1957 ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (150.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
150. Cairns, p. 135.
This persecution of non-trinitarians has persisted for many centuries:
”She was burned to death in England in 1550. Her name? Joan Bocher. Her crime? The Encyclopædia Britannica (1964) says: “She was condemned for open blasphemy in denying the Trinity, the one offense which all the church had regarded as unforgivable ever since the struggle with Arianism.” – WT ’87 6/15, p.4, The "Blessed Trinity"-Is It in the Bible?
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
This persecution of non-trinitarians has persisted for many centuries:
”She was burned to death in England in 1550. Her name? Joan Bocher. Her crime? The Encyclopædia Britannica (1964) says: “She was condemned for open blasphemy in denying the Trinity, the one offense which all the church had regarded as unforgivable ever since the struggle with Arianism.” – WT ’87 6/15, p.4, The "Blessed Trinity"-Is It in the Bible?
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (148.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
148. “... the Creed of Nicaea became entirely distinctive because of its technical [non-scriptural] language and solemn curses (anathemas).” - p. 159. (This actually began the period of persecution of Christians by “Christians”!) And, “The Council of Nicaea set many precedents. The emperor called it, influenced its decision-making and used his civil power to give its decrees virtually the status of imperial law. The Council introduced a new kind of orthodoxy, which for the first time gave non-Biblical terms critical importance. .... In the long term did the whole church recognize that Nicaea had decisively developed its understanding of the divinity of Christ?
“Nicaea was followed by more than half a century of discord and disorder .... The ‘faith of Nicaea’, as the Creed was commonly called, was for most of the period out of favor with most churchmen.” - p. 160, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, 1977.
“At the Church Council in Nicaea, in 325 A. D., it was officially stated that it was forbidden for Christians to keep the Sabbath, to eat unleavened bread [1 Tim. 4:3] on Pessach (Passover) or to follow any Jewish custom. The Jewish Christians were banned if they did not heed this decree. .... now the root was cut off and the Jews were doomed to endless sufferings by the Church, which grew in power and strength.” - pp. 31-32, ”The Jews! Your Majesty,” Dr. Goran Larsson (trinitarian), Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies and Research, 1987.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
“Nicaea was followed by more than half a century of discord and disorder .... The ‘faith of Nicaea’, as the Creed was commonly called, was for most of the period out of favor with most churchmen.” - p. 160, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, 1977.
“At the Church Council in Nicaea, in 325 A. D., it was officially stated that it was forbidden for Christians to keep the Sabbath, to eat unleavened bread [1 Tim. 4:3] on Pessach (Passover) or to follow any Jewish custom. The Jewish Christians were banned if they did not heed this decree. .... now the root was cut off and the Jews were doomed to endless sufferings by the Church, which grew in power and strength.” - pp. 31-32, ”The Jews! Your Majesty,” Dr. Goran Larsson (trinitarian), Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies and Research, 1987.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (147.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
147. A Short History of the Early Church, Boer, p. 145, Eerdman’s, 1976. (Also see Cairns, pp. 173, 174.)
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (146.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
146. Arianism (although far superior to Trinitarianism) was still not pure Christianity: “Arius believed the Holy Spirit was a person, but not of the same substance as the Father or the Son and in fact inferior to both.” - August 1, 1984 WT, p. 24. Also see September 1, 1984 WT, p. 28.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (143.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
143. A further distinction between Arius and Athanasius was Arius’ dependence upon scriptural authority and Athanasius’ dependence upon paganistic philosophical reasonings and poor scriptural reasoning: “[Arius] had a sharply logical mind and appealed to biblical texts which apparently backed up his argument” - (p. 157). Athanasius insisted on non-biblical language and concepts whereas “Arius could agree to any statement using solely Biblical language.” - (p. 159). And “Athanasius .... used Scripture as inadequately as his contemporaries. He did not refute Arius by rejecting the relevance of Proverbs 8:22 and even quoted Psalm 110:3 (in the Septuagint) to prove [?] that the Son was not a created being.” - p. 165, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, 1977.
Certainly not to be overlooked is Athanasius’ idea of the nature of God and man and their relationship! This man who almost single-handedly finally managed to cause the “Church” to accept a Jesus who was “True God” also taught: “He [Christ] was made man that we might be made God.” - p. 158, A History of Christianity, Latourette, 1953, Harper and Row.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Certainly not to be overlooked is Athanasius’ idea of the nature of God and man and their relationship! This man who almost single-handedly finally managed to cause the “Church” to accept a Jesus who was “True God” also taught: “He [Christ] was made man that we might be made God.” - p. 158, A History of Christianity, Latourette, 1953, Harper and Row.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (142.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
142. “The definition that the Holy Spirit was a distinct divine Person equal in substance to the Father and the Son and not subordinate to them came at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381” - Encyclopedia Britannica, v. 6, p. 22, 1985 ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (141.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
141. “The emergence of Trinitarian speculations in early church theology led to great difficulties in the article about Holy Spirit. For the being-as-person of the Holy Spirit, which is evident in the New Testament as divine power ... could not be clearly grasped.... the Holy Spirit was viewed not as a personal figure but rather as a power.” - The New Encyclopedia Britannica.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (140.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
140. “In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine power” - The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 269, 1976 ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (139.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
139. “The true divinity of the third Person [the Holy Spirit] was asserted ... finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381.” - A Catholic Dictionary.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (138.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
138. “On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the Spirit as a divine energy or power.” - A Catholic Dictionary.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (137.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
137. Gibbon writes of a similar deathbed statement made by Emperor Galerius:
“It is not usually in the language of edicts and manifestos that we should search for the real character of the secret motives of princes; but as these were the words of a dying emperor, his Situation, perhaps, may be admitted as a pledge of his sincerity.” - p. 296, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Dell, 1963.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
“It is not usually in the language of edicts and manifestos that we should search for the real character of the secret motives of princes; but as these were the words of a dying emperor, his Situation, perhaps, may be admitted as a pledge of his sincerity.” - p. 296, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Dell, 1963.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (136.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
136. “The sons of Constantine continued to favor the semi-Arian party, which included a large majority of Eastern bishops; but the Western [Alexandria-influenced] churches generally adhered to the Nicene Creed.” - Encyclopedia Americana, p. 233, v. 2, 1957 ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (135.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
135. The Encyclopedia Britannica notes that the faithful followers of Judaism certainly did not practice celibacy “but Alexander’s conquests brought the Jews into contact with Hindu and Greek mysticism” which probably accounts for the growth of the Essene sect which did sanction celibacy shortly before the Christian era. - Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 94, v. 5, 14th ed.
135a. Yes, the ‘fruits’ of the Nicene Council itself also included the forbidding of a certain food:
“At the Church Council in Nicaea, in 325 A.D., it was officially stated that it was forbidden for Christians ... to eat unleavened bread on Pessach (Passover)....” - ‘The Jews! Your Majesty’, Dr. Goran Larsson (trinitarian), Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies and Research, 1987.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
135a. Yes, the ‘fruits’ of the Nicene Council itself also included the forbidding of a certain food:
“At the Church Council in Nicaea, in 325 A.D., it was officially stated that it was forbidden for Christians ... to eat unleavened bread on Pessach (Passover)....” - ‘The Jews! Your Majesty’, Dr. Goran Larsson (trinitarian), Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies and Research, 1987.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (134.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
134. The History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church traces priestly celibacy to ancient pre-Christian India. - Awake! 5/8/75, p. 28.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (133.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
133. “Former Pope John XXIII, ... said: ‘Ecclesiastical celibacy is not a dogma. The Scriptures do not impose it. It is even easy to effect a change. I take a pen, I sign a decree and, the next day, priests who wish to may get married. But I cannot.’” - How very revealing! And how very similar to the unscriptural addition of the Trinity doctrine by this same organization at the same time in history! The clergy finds the unscriptural pagan trinity addition equally impossible to deny because it has become such a strong tradition! - Jer. 16:19-21; Mark 7:7, 8, 13.
“Former high-ranking Catholic theologian Charles Davis said: ‘The taboo [on clerical marriages] was not Christian in origin; it is a very ancient one in the history of religion. Its introduction ... into Christianity was part of the general shift toward paganism.’” - Awake! 5/8/75, p. 28.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
“Former high-ranking Catholic theologian Charles Davis said: ‘The taboo [on clerical marriages] was not Christian in origin; it is a very ancient one in the history of religion. Its introduction ... into Christianity was part of the general shift toward paganism.’” - Awake! 5/8/75, p. 28.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (130.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
130. “The first pronouncement that celibacy be required for priests was issued in 305 during the Council of Elvira in Spain. ...the Council ruled that all men engaged in performing priestly functions refrain from enjoying the company of women - wives included - else forsake their priesthood.” - p. 279, The Christian Book of Why, by Lutheran professor and minister Dr. John C. McCollister, NY, 1983.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (127.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
127. “[Hosius] powerfully influenced the judgment of the emperor.”- Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 790, v. 11, 14th ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (126.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
126. “There is no doubt that Constantine’s signature to the decrees of the Council was gained by his religious adviser [Hosius].” - Encyclopedia Americana, p. 426, v. 14, 1957 ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (125.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
125. The Ancient World: "Christianity: From Hunted Sect to State Religion" - p. 225, Mankind Publishing Company.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (124.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
124. "The Emperor [and his designee, Hosius] presided over the council and paid its expenses. For the first time the church found itself dominated by the political leadership of the head of state." - Cairns, p. 143.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (122.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
122. "[After the Nicene Council] the large party known as Semi Arians ... carried on the strife against the Nicenes [trinitarians] and especially Athanasius." - p. 359, Encyclopedia Britannica, v. 2, 14th ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (121.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
121. "Later [after the Council] also Eusebius [of Caesarea] sided actively with the Arian faction against ... Athanasius." - An Encyclopedia of Religion, pp. 260-261.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (120.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
120. "Soon after the Nicene Council had concluded its work, the semi-Arians began to assail the creed [which they had been forced to sign earlier]." - Encyclopedia Americana, p. 251, v. 2, 1957 ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (119.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
119. "at the Nicene Council ... there were three parties present: the strict Arians, the semi-Arians and the Alexander-Athanasian party. The latter party, with the help of Constantine and the [7] Western bishops, secured the adoption of a creed which no strict Arian could subscribe to, since it declared that the Son is identical in essence (homoousian) with the Father. The semi-Arians, although they maintained that the Son was not identical in essence, but of similar essence (homoiousian) with the Father, were finally constrained ['to compel, force' - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary] to sign the document." - Encyclopedia Americana, p. 233, v. 2, 1957 ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (118.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
118. "During the Arian controversy [Eusebius of Caesarea] inclined to the doctrine of the subordination of the Son of God. To the charge of heresy [during the Nicene Council] Eusebius replied by renouncing [for the moment] Arius." - Collier's Encyclopedia, v. 9, 1975 ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (117.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
117. "the emperor sustained the trinitarian position [at the Nicene Council]." - The Outline of History, p. 438, v. 1.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (116.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
116. "[The] majority eventually acquiesced in the ruling of the Alexandrians [trinitarians]; yet this result was due ... partly to the pressure of the imperial will. .... We are compelled to the conclusion that in this point, the voting was no criterion of the inward convictions of the council. Accordingly [?] that the Caesarean creed should be modified by the insertion of the Alexandrian [Constantine-proposed trinitarian] passwords ... and by the deletion of certain portions. That he appreciated the import of these alterations, or realized that his revision was virtually the proclamation of a new doctrine [Trinity], is scarcely probable. The creed thus evolved by an artificial unity was no ratification of peace: in fact, it paved the way for a struggle which convulsed the whole empire. For it was the proclamation of the Nicene Creed that first opened the eyes of many bishops to the significance of the problem there treated; and its explanation led the Church to force herself ... into compliance with those principles, annunciated at Nicaea, to which in the year 325, she had pledged herself without genuine assent." - Encyclopedia Britannica, pp. 410-411, v. 16, 14th ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (115.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
115. "The interference with the Church by the temporal power [began] with the control of the Council of Nicaea by Constantine in 325." - p. 19. And, "Constantine at Nicaea in 325 arrogated to himself the right to arbitrate the dispute in the Church, even though he was only the temporal ruler of the Empire." - p. 137, Christianity Through the Centuries, Cairns, 1977.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (114.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
114. "The Nicene creed was ratified by Constantine; and his firm declaration, that those who resisted the divine judgment of the synod [council] must prepare themselves for an immediate exile, annihilated the ... opposition." - p. 380, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon, Dell.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (113.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
113. "The Western [trinitarian] Church was represented by seven delegates [out of 300 attending the council!], the most important of whom was Hosius, Bishop of Cordova who presided over the sittings which continued for about two months .... After much discussion of the doctrines of Arius [and Athanasius], his creed was torn in pieces and he himself [Arius] ejected from the council and the Athanasians succeeded, with the help of Constantine and the [seven] Western bishops." - Encyclopedia Americana, p. 250, v. 2, 1957 ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (112.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
112. "What is certain is ... that he [Eusebius of Caesarea] was sympathetic with Arius in the latter's dispute with the Bishop of Alexandria, and that he was embarrassed by the final recension of his Caesarean creed adopted at Nicaea. Later also Eusebius sided with the Arian faction ... 'his acts.' wrote Neuman, 'are his confession.'" - An Encyclopedia of Religion, pp. 260-261. (Also see Encyclopedia Americana, p. 250, v. 2, 1957.)
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (111.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
111. "The largest party [at the Nicene Council] was led by the gentle scholar and Church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, whose dislike of controversy led him to propose a view that he hoped would be an acceptable compromise .... over two hundred [the Semi-Arians] of those present [about 300] followed his views at first .... His creed [Caesarean Creed] became the basis of the creed that was finally drawn [at Constantine's and Hosius' insistence] at Nicaea, but that one differed from his in its insistence upon the unity of essence or substance of the Father and the Son." - Cairns, p. 144.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (110.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
110. "[Eusebius of Nicomedia, a staunch non-trinitarian Arian] appears to have been agreed with Eusebius of Caesarea in placing Christ above all created beings, the only begotten of the Father, but in refusing to recognize him to be 'of the same essence' with the Father, who is alone in essence and absolute being." - Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 892, v. 8, 14th ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (109.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
109. "A large majority of the bishops of Asia appeared to support or favor his [Arius'] cause; and their measures were conducted by Eusebius of Caesarea, the most learned of the Christian prelates." - The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon, p. 374, Dell (Laurel edition).
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (108.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
108. "The [trinitarians] under the leadership of Athanasius fought for the dogma of the divinity [absolute deity] of the Son (Logos) with the conviction that in it the very essence of the Christian faith was expressed. It must be noted, however, that in attributing divinity [absolute deity] to Jesus Christ, they proceeded on the basis of the question what he must have been in view of their doctrine of salvation and not what the Gospels described him as having been. The same abstract and artificial approach ... was also that of the controversy which followed almost immediately...." - p. 166, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.
Yes, Athanasius and his followers believed Jesus was God simply because they needed him to be God in order to satisfy their own non-scriptural concepts which were based on Neo-Platonic philosophy and paganistic Egyptian traditions:
"Intellectually, Athanasius was a Platonist like Basil ['the Great'], but he was also a populist, as much in sympathy with the ideas of Coptic monks as he was with those of his fellow Alexandrians. He tended, like the monks, to see salvation in terms of salvation from death and destruction by demonic powers, and as his Life of Antony shows, these were stark realities [terrors] to him. The abyss and the river of fire that the soul must cross were as vivid in Egyptian [including, of course, Alexandrian] Christian conscience as similar terrors had been to the beholders of the [ancient pagan Egyptian] Book of the Dead in the tombs of a former age. Heaven, therefore, could be gained only by a soul infused with the power of Christ, and that of necessity must be divine power. Nothing less than God could save." - p. 633, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1989 printing.
Most Christians today would quickly acknowledge the Mormon [LDS] doctrine of 'man becoming God' ("as God is, man may become" - The Gospel Through the Ages, Hunter, pp. 105, 106, Salt Lake City, 1945-1946) as a clearly non-scriptural false doctrine. However, this is said to be the very doctrine that Athanasius and his trinitarian followers desperately wanted to be true. Athanasius wrote and taught: "He [Christ] was made man that we might be made God." - p. 13, Christianity Through the Ages, 1965, Latourette (trinitarian), Harper ChapelBooks (Harper and Row).
So Athanasius (and his few but highly influential trinitarian followers) believed he not only needed a Savior who was God in order to sufficiently combat the terrible demonic powers that would otherwise surely bring about the hideous, unthinkable destiny of men, but, even more importantly, if men were to "become God" as he is said above to have falsely believed, surely the only one able to save them and be King over them would, himself, also have to be God. Hence, the desperate, never-ending drive to promote a false doctrine making Jesus equally God was in turn based on other false and unscriptural doctrines!
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Yes, Athanasius and his followers believed Jesus was God simply because they needed him to be God in order to satisfy their own non-scriptural concepts which were based on Neo-Platonic philosophy and paganistic Egyptian traditions:
"Intellectually, Athanasius was a Platonist like Basil ['the Great'], but he was also a populist, as much in sympathy with the ideas of Coptic monks as he was with those of his fellow Alexandrians. He tended, like the monks, to see salvation in terms of salvation from death and destruction by demonic powers, and as his Life of Antony shows, these were stark realities [terrors] to him. The abyss and the river of fire that the soul must cross were as vivid in Egyptian [including, of course, Alexandrian] Christian conscience as similar terrors had been to the beholders of the [ancient pagan Egyptian] Book of the Dead in the tombs of a former age. Heaven, therefore, could be gained only by a soul infused with the power of Christ, and that of necessity must be divine power. Nothing less than God could save." - p. 633, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1989 printing.
Most Christians today would quickly acknowledge the Mormon [LDS] doctrine of 'man becoming God' ("as God is, man may become" - The Gospel Through the Ages, Hunter, pp. 105, 106, Salt Lake City, 1945-1946) as a clearly non-scriptural false doctrine. However, this is said to be the very doctrine that Athanasius and his trinitarian followers desperately wanted to be true. Athanasius wrote and taught: "He [Christ] was made man that we might be made God." - p. 13, Christianity Through the Ages, 1965, Latourette (trinitarian), Harper ChapelBooks (Harper and Row).
So Athanasius (and his few but highly influential trinitarian followers) believed he not only needed a Savior who was God in order to sufficiently combat the terrible demonic powers that would otherwise surely bring about the hideous, unthinkable destiny of men, but, even more importantly, if men were to "become God" as he is said above to have falsely believed, surely the only one able to save them and be King over them would, himself, also have to be God. Hence, the desperate, never-ending drive to promote a false doctrine making Jesus equally God was in turn based on other false and unscriptural doctrines!
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (107.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
107. "'Consubstantial' (homoousios) had been introduced to Christian theology by Gnostics who believed that the heavenly powers shared in the divine fullness. .... Its use in the Creed of Nicaea must have resulted largely from Constantine's intimidation or overawing persuasion." - pp. 159-160, Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity, 1977.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (106.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
106. "The Emperor himself presided over the critical session [at Nicaea], and it was he who proposed the reconciling word, homoousios (Greek for 'of one essence') to describe Christ's relationship to the Father (though it was probably one of his ecclesiastical advisers, Ossius [Hosius] of Cordova, who suggested it to him)." - Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity, p. 134, 1977.
It is important to note that in the third century (about 50 years earlier) the Council of Antioch condemned the use of the term homoousios in describing the relationship of Jesus to God! It was proclaimed instead that the term heteras ousias ('different essence') must be used in describing Christ's relationship to God!! But, of course, fifty years later at Nicaea the new trinitarians managed to reverse this and institute the previously condemned term (homoousios) as the required term. Those who would disagree with the new reversal of terms were to be persecuted, banished, and their writings burned.
From an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"(Gr. homoousion - from homos, same, and ousia, essence; Lat. consubstantialem, of one essence or substance), the word used by the Council of Nicaea (325) to express the Divinity of Christ. [Note that the trinitarian word is homo (same) ousia not homoi (similar but different) ousia]
....
"The question was brought into discussion by the Council of Antioch (264-272); and the Fathers seem to have rejected Homoousion, even going so far as to propose the phrase heteras ousias, that is, Heteroousion, "of other or different ousia [essence]". Athanasius and Basil give as the reason for this rejection of Homoousion the fact that the Sabellian Paul of Samosata took it to mean "of the same or similar substance". But Hilary says that Paul himself admitted it in the Sabellian sense "of the same substance or person", and thus compelled the council to allow him the prescriptive right to the expression. Now, if we may take Hilary's explanation, it is obvious that when, half a century afterwards, Arius denied the Son to be of the Divine ousia or substance, the situation was exactly reversed. Homoousion directly contradicted the heretic. In the conflicts which ensued, the extreme Arians persisted in the Heteroousion Symbol. But the Semi-Arians were more moderate, and consequently more plausible, in their Homoiousion (of like [similar] substance)." - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
It is important to note that in the third century (about 50 years earlier) the Council of Antioch condemned the use of the term homoousios in describing the relationship of Jesus to God! It was proclaimed instead that the term heteras ousias ('different essence') must be used in describing Christ's relationship to God!! But, of course, fifty years later at Nicaea the new trinitarians managed to reverse this and institute the previously condemned term (homoousios) as the required term. Those who would disagree with the new reversal of terms were to be persecuted, banished, and their writings burned.
From an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"(Gr. homoousion - from homos, same, and ousia, essence; Lat. consubstantialem, of one essence or substance), the word used by the Council of Nicaea (325) to express the Divinity of Christ. [Note that the trinitarian word is homo (same) ousia not homoi (similar but different) ousia]
....
"The question was brought into discussion by the Council of Antioch (264-272); and the Fathers seem to have rejected Homoousion, even going so far as to propose the phrase heteras ousias, that is, Heteroousion, "of other or different ousia [essence]". Athanasius and Basil give as the reason for this rejection of Homoousion the fact that the Sabellian Paul of Samosata took it to mean "of the same or similar substance". But Hilary says that Paul himself admitted it in the Sabellian sense "of the same substance or person", and thus compelled the council to allow him the prescriptive right to the expression. Now, if we may take Hilary's explanation, it is obvious that when, half a century afterwards, Arius denied the Son to be of the Divine ousia or substance, the situation was exactly reversed. Homoousion directly contradicted the heretic. In the conflicts which ensued, the extreme Arians persisted in the Heteroousion Symbol. But the Semi-Arians were more moderate, and consequently more plausible, in their Homoiousion (of like [similar] substance)." - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (105.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
105. "homo ousios: A Greek word meaning 'consubstantial,' 'of the same essence,' or 'substance.' It represents the formula championed by Athanasius (293-373) and adopted by the Nicaean Council (325) to express the relation of the Father and the Son. They are in substance one, numerically identical, indivisible, in contrast to the Arian view [and the Semi-Arian majority view at Nicaea - and the view of all Christian writers of the first two centuries] which subordinated the Son to the Father." - p. 345, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.
Although this is the interpretation that the trinitarians put on this term after the Council, "it hardly expresses the original meaning of this expression: the concept homoousios was not understood in this sense at the time [although Eusebius rightly suspected it might be taught that way by the trinitarians anyway - p. 135, Williston Walker, Hist.]." - p. 55, A Short History of Christian Doctrine by noted trinitarian scholar Bernard Lohse, Fortress Press, 1985. (See note #88.)
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Although this is the interpretation that the trinitarians put on this term after the Council, "it hardly expresses the original meaning of this expression: the concept homoousios was not understood in this sense at the time [although Eusebius rightly suspected it might be taught that way by the trinitarians anyway - p. 135, Williston Walker, Hist.]." - p. 55, A Short History of Christian Doctrine by noted trinitarian scholar Bernard Lohse, Fortress Press, 1985. (See note #88.)
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (104.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
104. Constantine first called the council to convene at Ancyra but then transferred "the council from Ancyra to Nicaea so that he could control the proceedings." - The Early Church, Chadwick, p. 130, Dorset Press, NY, 1986 ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (102.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
102. "Constantine's ecumenism was not a defensive closing of the ranks, like its modern counterpart, but a universal missionary attack launched at a time when he had boldly estimated that the tide was running in Christianity's favor. Moreover ... Constantine (as King James I of England appreciatively noted) was influenced by a political motive." - pp. 224-225, The Ancient World: "Christianity: From Hunted Sect to State Religion," Michael Grant, 1970, Mankind Publishing Company.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (101.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
101. "Constantine was probably attracted to Christianity ... by the political use he could make of it."- Encyclopedia Americana, p. 555, v. 7, 1957.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (100.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
100. Constantine "made a great effort to reconcile [the religious] differences in order to have one uniform and harmonious teaching in the community." - The Outline of History, Wells, p. 438, v. 1.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (99.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
99. "It is true that neither his intellectual nor his moral qualities were such as to earn the title [Constantine the Great]. His claim to greatness rests mainly on the fact that he divined the future which lay before Christianity, and determined to enlist it in the service of his empire...." - Encyclopedia Britannica, p. 298, v. 6, 14th ed.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (98.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
98. "It is likely that Constantine's favoritism to the Church was a matter of expediency. The Church might serve as a new center of unity and save classical culture and the Empire. The fact that he delayed baptism till shortly before his death and kept the position of Pontifex Maximus, chief priest of the pagan state religion, would seem to support this view. Moreover, his execution of the young men who might have had a claim to his throne was not in keeping with the conduct of a sincere Christian." Also, he set apart "the 'Day of the Sun' (Sunday) [the Holy Day of Worship of the Sun God for the followers of Mithras] as a day of rest and worship" for Christians. - p. 134, Cairns. - Also see pp. 130-131, Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity, 1977.
"This is the earliest evidence for the process by which Sunday became not merely the day on which Christians met for worship but also a day of rest, and it is noteworthy that in both law and inscription Constantine's stated motive for introducing this custom is respect for the sun." - The Early Church, p. 128, Chadwick, 1967.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
"This is the earliest evidence for the process by which Sunday became not merely the day on which Christians met for worship but also a day of rest, and it is noteworthy that in both law and inscription Constantine's stated motive for introducing this custom is respect for the sun." - The Early Church, p. 128, Chadwick, 1967.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (97.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
97. "In religious matters, ... he himself [Constantine] was not baptized until he lay on his deathbed .... Moreover, it is probable that he believed that all the monotheists in the empire could be brought eventually to worship a single god in which would be combined the Father-God of the Christians with the Sun-God of the followers of Mithras. The traditional Roman Paganism, of which, as Pontifex Maximus, he remained head, continued to be tolerated, and a modified Emperor-worship encouraged." - Encyclopedia Americana, p. 555, v. 7, 1957.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (96.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
96. "Nevertheless Constantine did not become a thoroughgoing Christian all at once. As his coins show, he passed through a phase of the sun worship [the Persian sun-god, Mithras] which recent emperors had been stressing as the pagan solution to contemporary yearnings." - The Ancient World: "Christianity: From Hunted Sect to State Religion," Michael Grant, p. 223, 1970. - "Michael Grant is universally acknowledged as one of the most eminent scholars of the classical Roman era." - p. 8.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (94.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST"
94. "Before the Council of Nicaea (A D 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, 1977.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (92.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST)"
92. “With the exception of occasional and temporary reforms ... Judah [as a whole] was always idolatrous, always reflecting the fetichism of surrounding nations. The exhortations of such prophets as Elijah, Elisha, ... Isaiah, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, and others, were of no more avail with Judah than with Israel, so that [after finally exhausting the patience of a very patient God] Jerusalem was razed to the ground, the temple destroyed and the people taken captives to Babylonia.” - Encyclopedia Americana, p. 65, v. 16, 1944.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Friday, May 27, 2011
Note (89.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST"
89. “Origen [see #71] tried to express the Christian faith in terms of the prevailing Platonic philosophical ideas of his time. Some of his speculations, for example about the pre-existence of souls and universal salvation, were repudiated by the church, and helped bring about his later condemnation.” - p. 108. “Origen’s ideas were deeply coloured by middle Platonism.” - p. 112, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, 1977.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (88.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST"
88. The very trinitarian New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publ., 1982, p. 1222, admits:
“Irenaeus and Origen share with Tertullian the responsibility for the formulation [of the trinity doctrine] which is still, in the main, that of the Church....” It further admits that “scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity”, but that “theology has constructed the doctrine.” And, “the necessity to formulate the doctrine was thrust upon the church by forces from without.”
But even these three pagan-influenced church writers (who are usually blamed for introducing the elements of the trinity doctrine) taught that Jesus Christ is not equally God (which denies the “essential belief” of the trinity doctrine for 99% of Christendom today)! - See note #26 (Irenaeus); note #85 (Tertullian), and the CREEDS study. And Origen also believed that the Son was not God nor equal to God, but a person who was subordinate to and lesser than God. He wrote: “compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light.” - quoted in Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 7.
Origen also wrote: “The agent of redemption as of all creation is the Divine Logos or Son of God, who is the perfect image or reflection of the eternal Father though a being distinct, derivative, and subordinate.” - An Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 551. 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, ed. F. L. Cross, Oxford University Press, 1990 printing. [Trinitarian Murray J. Harris likewise writes: “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, 1992.] And trinitarian Latourette admits that “Origen held that God is one, and is the Father” - p. 49, Christianity Through the Ages, Harper ChapelBook, 1965.
“It was possible, for instance, for Origen to say 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, by respected trinitarian (Lutheran?) Professor of Church History, Bernard Lohse, 1985, Fortress Press. Lohse also tells us that Origen used the concept of homoousios to describe a unity and harmony of will (p. 46).
In fact, Origen also wrote: “The Father and Son are two substances ... two things as to their essence.” - Should You Believe in the Trinity? - p. 7. So the “unity of ‘substance’” (homoousios) concept which was used by those who later developed the “orthodox” trinity doctrine apparently meant merely a unity of will for Origen.[15] One example of this can be found in Origen De Principiis, Book IV, ch. 1, v. 36: “Everyone who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is a partaker of the same thing. For example, as all eyes participate in the light, so accordingly all eyes which partake of the light are of one nature.” - p. 381, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans Publ., 1989 printing. (“The term Homoousios had begun to become current with Heracleon [c. 160 A.D.] who had claimed that those who worshiped God in spirit and in truth were themselves spirit and ‘of the same nature [homoousios] as the Father.’” - p. 394, note #111, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend, Fortress Press, 1985. Obviously homoousios, as it was used by Heracleon, did not have the same meaning as later trinitarians made it seem.)
Apparently even as early as 268 A.D. this term had begun to have different meanings for a few Christians. Noted scholar (and trinitarian) Robert M. Grant tells us that the Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata,
“seems to have been willing to speak of the Logos [the Word] as homoousios with the Father; this notion too was condemned at the final synod of 268.”
Grant tells us that this very same Council or Synod of 268 A.D. also excommunicated Paul of Samosata! - Augustus to Constantine, p. 218, Harper and Row, 1970.
It would be strange indeed if those Christians who condemned this doctrine believed that homoousios meant what it did for Origen (and other early Christians). They surely would not disagree with the statement that the Word (Logos) was united in will [homoousios] with the Father as Origen and others taught.
Therefore these Christians must have known that the heretical Bishop of Antioch was intending a new meaning that God and the Word were of one substance in a more literal sense that suggested that Jesus was equally God (and they most emphatically denied that new teaching!). At any rate, it is certainly significant that this council so strongly condemned the concept that the Logos was homoousios in any new literal sense with God as late as 268 A.D.!
And as for Origen’s development of the “Eternal Generation” of the Son - it is true that Origen used the term, but it is apparent that it did not mean to him what those later trinitarians used it to mean. Lohse tells us:
“It has thus an entirely different foundation from that of a similar idea found in the later theology of the Trinity.... It is immediately apparent that this second feature [‘eternal generation’] is considerably more problematical than the first.” (p. 47.)
In fact, Origen apparently considered all creation as ‘eternally generated.’
“Did this mean, though, that Logos and world, since each in its different way is coeval [’of the same age or duration’] with God, are therefore equally primordial with God? .... The ‘eternal generation’ of the Logos did not for [Origen] imply that the Logos is God’s equal; being ‘generated’ or ‘begotten’ entailed being secondary - i.e., subordinate.” - p. 93, A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker (trinitarian), Scribners, 4th ed. - See OBGOD study (f. n. #4).
Origen was,
“the greatest and most influential Christian thinker of his age” and, “in the Arian controversy ... one side espoused Origen’s subordinationism, and the other, his idea of the eternal generation of the Logos, while neither seems to have understood what these notions meant in Origen’s system.” - pp. 89, 93, Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, Scribners, 4th ed.
It is ironic that Origen (and the other very early Christian writers) have been “credited” with the beginning of the development of the trinity doctrine. It is clear that he had no such concept, and, in fact, clearly taught that the Word (Logos), Jesus, was separate from, inferior to, and created by God!
The same holds true for the renowned first century A.D. Jewish scholar, Philo. He, too, clearly taught that God was a single person only, the Father and that the Word (Logos) was an angel (or ‘a god’), intermediary between God and man. And yet their teachings have been distorted by early “Christian” philosophers into a trinity-supporting teaching! - See CREEDS and LOGOS studies.
“... it is the influence of Philo’s theological and philosophical model (mediated through Clement and Origen to the bishops who met at the great councils), combined with the very speculative allegorical interpretation of scripture under the influence of Neoplatonism (typical of the outlook in Alexandria), that explains the theological move of the councils from a Jesus who was filled with the Logos to a Christ who was the being [essence] of God.” - J. Harold Ellens, p. 28, Bible Review, Feb. 1997.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
“Irenaeus and Origen share with Tertullian the responsibility for the formulation [of the trinity doctrine] which is still, in the main, that of the Church....” It further admits that “scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity”, but that “theology has constructed the doctrine.” And, “the necessity to formulate the doctrine was thrust upon the church by forces from without.”
But even these three pagan-influenced church writers (who are usually blamed for introducing the elements of the trinity doctrine) taught that Jesus Christ is not equally God (which denies the “essential belief” of the trinity doctrine for 99% of Christendom today)! - See note #26 (Irenaeus); note #85 (Tertullian), and the CREEDS study. And Origen also believed that the Son was not God nor equal to God, but a person who was subordinate to and lesser than God. He wrote: “compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light.” - quoted in Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 7.
Origen also wrote: “The agent of redemption as of all creation is the Divine Logos or Son of God, who is the perfect image or reflection of the eternal Father though a being distinct, derivative, and subordinate.” - An Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 551. 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, ed. F. L. Cross, Oxford University Press, 1990 printing. [Trinitarian Murray J. Harris likewise writes: “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, 1992.] And trinitarian Latourette admits that “Origen held that God is one, and is the Father” - p. 49, Christianity Through the Ages, Harper ChapelBook, 1965.
“It was possible, for instance, for Origen to say 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, by respected trinitarian (Lutheran?) Professor of Church History, Bernard Lohse, 1985, Fortress Press. Lohse also tells us that Origen used the concept of homoousios to describe a unity and harmony of will (p. 46).
In fact, Origen also wrote: “The Father and Son are two substances ... two things as to their essence.” - Should You Believe in the Trinity? - p. 7. So the “unity of ‘substance’” (homoousios) concept which was used by those who later developed the “orthodox” trinity doctrine apparently meant merely a unity of will for Origen.[15] One example of this can be found in Origen De Principiis, Book IV, ch. 1, v. 36: “Everyone who participates in anything, is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is a partaker of the same thing. For example, as all eyes participate in the light, so accordingly all eyes which partake of the light are of one nature.” - p. 381, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans Publ., 1989 printing. (“The term Homoousios had begun to become current with Heracleon [c. 160 A.D.] who had claimed that those who worshiped God in spirit and in truth were themselves spirit and ‘of the same nature [homoousios] as the Father.’” - p. 394, note #111, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend, Fortress Press, 1985. Obviously homoousios, as it was used by Heracleon, did not have the same meaning as later trinitarians made it seem.)
Apparently even as early as 268 A.D. this term had begun to have different meanings for a few Christians. Noted scholar (and trinitarian) Robert M. Grant tells us that the Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata,
“seems to have been willing to speak of the Logos [the Word] as homoousios with the Father; this notion too was condemned at the final synod of 268.”
Grant tells us that this very same Council or Synod of 268 A.D. also excommunicated Paul of Samosata! - Augustus to Constantine, p. 218, Harper and Row, 1970.
It would be strange indeed if those Christians who condemned this doctrine believed that homoousios meant what it did for Origen (and other early Christians). They surely would not disagree with the statement that the Word (Logos) was united in will [homoousios] with the Father as Origen and others taught.
Therefore these Christians must have known that the heretical Bishop of Antioch was intending a new meaning that God and the Word were of one substance in a more literal sense that suggested that Jesus was equally God (and they most emphatically denied that new teaching!). At any rate, it is certainly significant that this council so strongly condemned the concept that the Logos was homoousios in any new literal sense with God as late as 268 A.D.!
And as for Origen’s development of the “Eternal Generation” of the Son - it is true that Origen used the term, but it is apparent that it did not mean to him what those later trinitarians used it to mean. Lohse tells us:
“It has thus an entirely different foundation from that of a similar idea found in the later theology of the Trinity.... It is immediately apparent that this second feature [‘eternal generation’] is considerably more problematical than the first.” (p. 47.)
In fact, Origen apparently considered all creation as ‘eternally generated.’
“Did this mean, though, that Logos and world, since each in its different way is coeval [’of the same age or duration’] with God, are therefore equally primordial with God? .... The ‘eternal generation’ of the Logos did not for [Origen] imply that the Logos is God’s equal; being ‘generated’ or ‘begotten’ entailed being secondary - i.e., subordinate.” - p. 93, A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker (trinitarian), Scribners, 4th ed. - See OBGOD study (f. n. #4).
Origen was,
“the greatest and most influential Christian thinker of his age” and, “in the Arian controversy ... one side espoused Origen’s subordinationism, and the other, his idea of the eternal generation of the Logos, while neither seems to have understood what these notions meant in Origen’s system.” - pp. 89, 93, Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, Scribners, 4th ed.
It is ironic that Origen (and the other very early Christian writers) have been “credited” with the beginning of the development of the trinity doctrine. It is clear that he had no such concept, and, in fact, clearly taught that the Word (Logos), Jesus, was separate from, inferior to, and created by God!
The same holds true for the renowned first century A.D. Jewish scholar, Philo. He, too, clearly taught that God was a single person only, the Father and that the Word (Logos) was an angel (or ‘a god’), intermediary between God and man. And yet their teachings have been distorted by early “Christian” philosophers into a trinity-supporting teaching! - See CREEDS and LOGOS studies.
“... it is the influence of Philo’s theological and philosophical model (mediated through Clement and Origen to the bishops who met at the great councils), combined with the very speculative allegorical interpretation of scripture under the influence of Neoplatonism (typical of the outlook in Alexandria), that explains the theological move of the councils from a Jesus who was filled with the Logos to a Christ who was the being [essence] of God.” - J. Harold Ellens, p. 28, Bible Review, Feb. 1997.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (87.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST"
87. Tertullian wrote in his Apology, XXI,
“God made this universe by his word, reason and power .... We also claim that the word, reason and virtue, by which we have said that God made all things, have spirit as their substance [substantia] ... This Word [Jn 1:1] we have learnt, was produced from God, and was generated by being produced, and therefore is called the Son of God [Jn 1:34], and God [or ‘a god’: Jn 1:1c], from unity of substance [spirit] with God. For God too is spirit.” - p. 112, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, 1977.
We must not forget, however, that even angels are spirit, and are called 'sons of God,' and are even, on occasion, called gods! (see the BOWGOD study) - pp. 39, 591, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publ.; and pp. 37, 1133, New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., Tyndale House Publ.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
“God made this universe by his word, reason and power .... We also claim that the word, reason and virtue, by which we have said that God made all things, have spirit as their substance [substantia] ... This Word [Jn 1:1] we have learnt, was produced from God, and was generated by being produced, and therefore is called the Son of God [Jn 1:34], and God [or ‘a god’: Jn 1:1c], from unity of substance [spirit] with God. For God too is spirit.” - p. 112, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity, 1977.
We must not forget, however, that even angels are spirit, and are called 'sons of God,' and are even, on occasion, called gods! (see the BOWGOD study) - pp. 39, 591, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publ.; and pp. 37, 1133, New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed., Tyndale House Publ.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (86.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST"
86. “’All three,’ [Tertullian] says, ‘are one (unus).’ But Tertullian felt that it must be possible to answer the question ‘Three what?’ or even ‘One what?’ He therefore proposed to say that God is ‘one substance [or “nature” in 85] consisting in three persons.’ The precise meaning of the Latin words substantia and persona is not easy to determine in Tertullian’s usage.[15] [‘In Tertullian substantia could be used in the sense of character or nature.’ - p. 90.] He was a well educated orator rather than a meticulous philosopher, and it is probably a mistake to try to interpret his terminology within a rigorous Aristotelian framework. He had been influenced by Stoicism with its doctrine that the immaterial is simply the non-existent, and was prepared to explain that God in all three ‘Persons’ is ‘spirit’, which he seems to have interpreted as an invisible and intangible but not ultimately immaterial vital force.” - p. 89, The Early Church, Prof. Henry Chadwick, 1986 ed. Dorset Press, New York. (Henry Chadwick was Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford from 1959-1969. He is now Regius Professor of Divinity and a Fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge.)
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Note (85.) to "History of the 'Christian' Trinity - HIST"
85. “The most influential answer given in the west [where the secular power resided, seated at Rome] was proposed by Tertullian. Indeed, it provided the foundation for the answer that the Catholic Church was to give to the problem at Nicaea in 325 [over 100 years later] and again at Constantinople in 381 [when the Holy Spirit was finally included as God]. Tertullian taught that there is one divine nature [substantia]. The Father and the Son have this one nature in common. They are separate and distinct, however, so far as their persons are concerned. Therefore, there is one divine nature, but there are two divine persons [see 72 ]. Each of these has a specific function. At the same time, Tertullian gave a distinctly subordinate place to the Son. The Son is not eternal. The eternal God became Father when he begot [or “generated” or “produced”] the Son, just as he became Creator when he made the world. On this point Tertullian is one with the Apologists. Later theology united Tertullian’s teaching of one nature and two persons with Origen’s[88, 89] teaching of the eternal generation of the Son to give the Catholic answer to the question of the relationship of the Son to the Father .... thus Tertullian [about 215 A. D.] provided the main outline for the Christian [?] doctrine of the trinity.” - pp. 112-113, Boer.
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Entire Study File
Trinity Index
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)