Posted on 09/16/2012 11:52:44 AM PDT by fabian
Someone where called me a liar or such for writing that for the first three centuries after Christ, he was NOT seen as God at all, but the son of God. This is from Wikipedia and other sources back it up.
I will indeed take up your challenge, as in contrast to you, i actually document both what sources say. First, you are in contradiction with yourself, for rather than Christ not being seen as God at all for first three centuries after Christ, which ended about 333 AD, Tertullian, whom you erroneously provide as was being the first (not that you understand the theology of the Trinity), lived 160 – c. 225 AD. And a seen, men earlier than that affirmed the Deity of Christ, while what the so-callled “church fathers” believed is not determinative of doctrine, but what the weight of Scriptural evidence best warrants, which as shown, is that Jesus is God, being one in being, or nature with the Father.
And i do not have a problem with using Wikipedia which you invoke, providing the references are acceptable, yet from the WP article on the Trinity of the Church Fathers we read,
Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch, who was martyred in Rome around 110 AD,[1] wrote a series of letters to churches in Asia Minor on his way to be executed in Rome. The conjunction of Father, Son and Holy Spirit appears in his letter to the Magnesian church.
“Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit;.. Be ye subject...to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit...” (Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 13 [SR]).[2]
This source uses the gospel of Matthew only and no other known gospel, and thus it must have been written before the four-gospel canon had become widespread in the churches, i.e. before the second half of the 2nd century when Tatian produced the Diatessaron. Given its literary dependence on the Gospel of Matthew, it is not surprising that the Didache follows the Gospel of Matthew in designating the Trinitarian formula as a baptismal formula:
|
“ |
After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water…. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. |
” |
Even though he does not use the word "Trinity" explicitly, Justin Martyr's First Apology, written around AD 150, reveals a primitive theology of the Trinity, in which God is in first place, Christ in second, and the Spirit in third,
|
“ |
We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein. |
” |
(First Apology 13:5–6).[5]
And to which is to be added, "in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit." (First Apology, 61 LXI)
Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum is the oldest extant work that uses the actual word "Trinity" to refer to God, his Word and his Wisdom. The context is a discussion of the first three days of creation in Genesis 1-3.
|
“ |
It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place.... The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity, God, his Word, and his Wisdom. |
” |
(To Autolycus 2:15).[6]
All these are before 300AD. And as regards the actual use of the word ”Trinity,” the WP article on that states that,
the first of the early church fathers recorded as actually using the word Trinity was Theophilus of Antioch [died approx 184AD] writing in the late second century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia)[71]
To which can be added (from http://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes), Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch.
"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation... [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).
Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.
"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority... There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).
"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).
If, as the anti-Trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325, then why do these quotes exist? The answer is simple: the Trinity is a biblical doctrine and it was taught before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.
Part of the reason that the Trinity doctrine was not "officially" taught until the time of the Council of Nicea is because Christianity was illegal until shortly before the council. It wasn't really possible for official Christian groups to meet and discuss doctrine. For the most part, they were fearful of making public pronouncements concerning their faith.
Additionally, if a group had attacked the person of Adam, the early church would have responded with an official doctrine of who Adam was. As it was, the person of Christ was attacked. When the Church defended the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity was further defined.
The early church believed in the Trinity, as is evidenced by the quotes above, and it wasn't necessary to really make them official. It wasn't until errors started to creep in that councils began to meet to discuss the Trinity, as well as other doctrines that came under fire. Be back later
You are also very confused and not even a real christian. There are three beings...holy spirit, God , and Jesus...and you guys claim they are all God. Now you are telling me there is only one God. So which one is God? OMG! wow...and you are not a Christian, btw, because you posted totally false and slanderous story about a very noble man, and then did not even retract or apologize for it. That is a toal lack of humility.
you cannot seem to see that most of those quotes do indeed not show Jesus as God, for instance...”whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit;.. Be ye subject...to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit...” (Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 13 [SR]).[2]
This one in no ways says Jesus is God, but the son. The son obeys the Father, if he loves him. You loose the argument, period. All you also have to argue with is the written word that your dark spirit within tries to turn into what is not meant, because you have departed from your good spirit for the tree of knowledge once again. You are reliving Adam’s original sin and in now ways do I expect you to admit it.
You are clearheaded and do not judge people.
How many does it TAKE???
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
I am now convinced...
That you want to post WORDS from a NON biblical source, and want us to believe them, but when WE post words from the bible; you dismiss them as irrelevant.
Jeremiah 18:11-12
So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.”’
But they will say, ‘It’s hopeless! For we are going to follow our own plans, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his evil heart.’
I did not expect you to be decent and apologize for putting up a clearly false story. O well....some Christian you are. All of your words mean nothing without being able to admit you were wrong to do that.
We are dealing with two separate but related issues. You have challenged both the early teaching of the trinity and the early teaching of the deity of Christ. Daniel’s pre-300 quotes demonstrate early belief in the trinity, contrary to your assertions. For early mention of the deity of Christ, you may wish to consider the early fathers quoted here:
http://www.risenjesus.com/the-early-church-fathers-on-jesus
In particular, you should note the words of Polycarp. He is a personal favorite of mine, because he was a disciple under the apostle John. You know, that same fellow who said the “word was God?” If anybody in the ancient church would be in a position to know what John meant, it would have to be someone who knew him personaly, who learned their theology directly from someone who was there when Jesus lived and taught and died and rose again. And how does Polycarp come down on the issue? He could not be any clearer. Read the quotes. Old Polycarp thinks Jesus is God. You’d have to be willfully blind not to see it. Read, and enjoy. I know I did. :)
Peace,
SR
Forgot to ping you to #232...trying to get this in before the etiquette police pull up and give me a ticket. :)
And did you know that the forbidden fruit was a drug, and that “sex is the first temptation awakened by the temptation of food.”
And that such “false affections are form the lying spirit that created us to need them in the first place.”
“Is there any doubt that your destiny is being formed - with your will being controlled - through what you eat? , and
(”Eat no evil,” p. 49,50)
This is made to the fault of that plague upon mankind, as Masters treats her, women. Some cultist inordinately blame the Jews, others but with Masters it is the women, and his psychology abounds with disdain for them, including mothers (and other authority figures which he examples a basic animosity towards), and overreach in blaming what sometimes many may be guilty of, but which is not restricted to females.
Bad company!
You are blowing smoke to be frank. All these quotes support the Deity of Christ, and including the weakest one which you invoke, as it refers to direct spiritual obedience to unseen beings in Heaven being given equally to those named, and in all of Scripture only God is the object of such.
This is likewise seen in baptism in which the name of the authority which one is baptized in is the Father, the Son and the Spirit, which would be blasphemous if such were not Divine.
But of course you would not even admit you were wrong about no one believing in Christ being God in 3 centuries after Christ, and also ignore the abundant and far weightier testimony of Scripture which explicitly and implicitly reveals the Deity of Christ.
Also refuted before is the premise that to be subject to another disallows being of the same nature, or that one in Scripture refers to an absolute unity.
In the end, all you have is your puffed up proclamation of esoteric knowledge, as the disciple is not greater than his master, in this case a mortal who renamed himself “Masters,” whom God the Father shall yet abase under the feet of the one who stated, “Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I AM. “ (John 13:13) .
No problem. But as history shows, when the Scriptures are not the supreme authority, but mere mortals effectively claim to be so, then the most unwarranted traditions or fantasies are seen taught as doctrines, albeit mixed with some truth.
And given the level of dependance upon Obermeister/Masters and devotion to him, i have no doubt that if he instructed his disciples to drink suicidal kool aid then many would. As it is, too many subscribe to his Christ-denying guru gospel, for which he is accursed. (Ga;. 1:6-9)
I DO expect you to be intelligent, and figger out when a 'story' is OBVIOUSLY a satirical piece.
You WOULD rather do that than to sound so JUDGEMENTAL; would you?
Very well stated! I heard it said that man could not have written the Bible even if he wanted to and wouldn't have even if he could. The truth you stated so well is that God is unfathomable to mortal and finite man. That God has revealed himself to us in the ways he has is testament to the veracity of the revelation. God bless you!
Thank you so much daniel1212 for what you do here. I for one truly appreciate your efforts and submissions. God bless you and keep up the good work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.