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 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.
Forgot to ping you to #232...trying to get this in before the etiquette police pull up and give me a ticket. :)