A look at the pre Nicene creeds IV

Find article here


[5] but they certainly would never have allowed any non-trinitarian changes or additions to Origen's work! These non-trinitarian statements that still remain, therefore, must be original. Certainly Origen did not teach a trinity (or binity) even though trinitarian scholars have "credited" him with formulating the trinity doctrine!
De Principiis, the foremost treatise on systematic theology in the ancient Church, has survived in the main only in Rufinus'* largely emended Latin translation. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm, 1945.
_________________________________
*

"RUFINUS ... (c. 345-410), monk, historian and translator .... He also studied for several years in Alexandria under Didymus the Blind [St. Didymus, a staunch Nicene trinitarian - p. 402], and was deeply influenced by his Origenism [Didymus tried to 'prove' that Origen had taught a trinity doctrine in his De Principiis - p. 1010] .... [Rufinus'] free translation of Origen's De Principiis, the only complete text now surviving, was intended to vindicate Origen's ['trinitarian'] orthodoxy, and involved Rufinus in bitter controversy with his former friend, St. Jerome, who criticized the tendentious character of his rendering." - p.1207, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Revised, 1990 printing, Oxford University Press.

"It is much to be regretted that the original Greek of the De Principiis has for the most part perished. We possess it chiefly in a Latin translation by Rufinus. And there can be no doubt that he often took great liberties with his author. So much was this felt to be the case, that [Roman Catholic "Saint"] Jerome [342-420 A.D.] undertook a new translation of the work; but only small portions of his version have reached our day. He strongly accuses Rufinus of unfaithfulness as an interpreter, while he also inveighs bitterly against Origen himself, as having departed from the Catholic Faith, specially in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity." - ANF, 4:233.

In other words, Rufinus did not translate literally, but, instead, intentionally changed (or 'corrected') De Principiis so as to make people believe that Origen had taught the trinity! And this is the text that has been used by trinitarians ever since to "prove" that Origen taught the trinity! Furthermore, the famed trinitarian St. Jerome (ca. 400 A.D.) who accused Rufinus of dishonestly mistranslating Origen's work noted with great bitterness that Origen DID NOT TEACH THE TRINITY!!!!

To illustrate Rufinus' corruption of Origen's original Greek text we have a few pages of Book IV of Origen's De Principiis still existing in the original Greek. Here are two passages of the Greek with Rufinus' Latin "translation" of them alongside as published in the trinitarian The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, pp. 362, 363, Eerdmans Publ.:


Origen's Original Greek:


"through the Word who was in the beginning with God, illuminated the ministers of truth, the prophets and apostles"
"the (doctrines) belonging to God and His only-begotten Son are necessarily laid down as primary"
.................................
Rufinus' Latin 'Translation':
"through the power of His only-begotten Word, who was in the beginning God with God, enlightened the ministers of truth, the prophets and apostles"

"Accordingly, it is of God, i.e. of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that these men, filled with the Divine Spirit, chiefly treat"
...................................

Tertullian
(c. 160-220 A.D.)
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.... - p. 1222, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publ., 2nd ed., 1982.
Even though Tertullian (c. 160 - c. 220) is often "credited" with being the first to apply the term 'trinity' to the Christian God, he wrote (c. 200 A.D.):

It is this philosophy which is the ... rash interpreter of the divine nature and order. In fact, heresies are themselves prompted by philosophy. It is the source of 'aeons,' and I know not what infinite 'forms' and the 'trinity of man' in the system of Valentinus {about 140 A.D.!}. - pp. 5-6, Documents of the Early Church, Bettenson (trinitarian), Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 1963.
Not only did he condemn the interpretation of divine nature by philosophy, but he shows his familiarity with another heretical use of the term 'trinity' (as applied to man) years before he is "credited" with first applying that same philosophically-derived term to God (and the divine nature)!

The most influential answer given in the west 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 a person who was equally 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. 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 {substantia} and two persons {persona} with Origen's 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 (trinitarian), A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.
Trinitarian Boer (as do most trinitarians) wants us to believe that Origen's and Tertullian's doctrines of God and the Son of God were actually leading to trinitarianism. But is this true? What did Tertullian actually intend? What about Tertullian's "one nature (substantia in Latin) and two persons (persona in Latin)"? Did it really mean what later Church "scholars" wanted it to mean? Well, here is the admission of another highly-respected trinitarian scholar:

{Tertullian} therefore proposed to say that God is 'one substance {substantia in Latin - compares to homoousios in Greek} consisting in three persons {persona}'. The precise meaning of the Latin words substantia and persona is not easy to determine in Tertullian's usage. {'In Tertullian substantia could be used in the sense of character or nature [among other things].' - p. 90, Chadwick.} - p. 89, The Early Church, Prof. Henry Chadwick (trinitarian), 1986 ed., Dorset Press, New York.
And the trinitarian, Catholic work Trinitas - A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity notes that, even though later writers used some of Tertullian's terminology (e.g., substantia) to describe the Trinity, it appears that Tertullian did not use them in that sense:

"hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from [Tertullian's] usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology."
For example, even many trinitarian NT Greek language experts admit that since John used the neuter form of the word "one" at John 10:30, he intended the meaning of "one in will or purpose"! That this is true is proved by the same usage at John 17:11, 22 (see the study paper entitled ONE). Tertullian, when making the same point, tells us that John writes at Jn 10:30 -

'We are one thing' Unum, not 'one person' Unus. .... He accordingly says Unum, a neuter term, which does not imply singularity of number, but unity of essence, likeness, conjunction, affection on the Father's part, who loves the Son, and submission on the Son's, who obeys the Father's will. - ANF, 3:618, 'Against Praxeas.'
Here we see Tertullian using "one" in "essence" (as did Origen above) to mean both individuals having the same will or purpose. And that will is the Father's which the Son obeys perfectly. They are "one" then in "essence" (will) only because one of them is completely, perfectly subordinate to the will of the other! But over 100 years later trinitarians began insisting that the renowned Tertullian and Origen had stated trinitarian truths by their uses of "substance/essence," etc.

From the very beginning {of the proposal of the trinitarian creed at the Nicene Council, 325 A.D., which used such terms as homoousios}, however, people like Eusebius of Caesarea {renowned scholar and historian who headed the majority of bishops at the Nicene council - and a non-trinitarian!} had doubts about the creed, doubts that focused on the word homoousios. This was, to be sure, a vague and nontechnical term which was capable of a fairly wide range of senses. .... the term was non-Scriptural, it had a very doubtful theological history, and it was open to what, from Eusebius's {non-trinitarian} point of view, were some dangerous misinterpretations indeed. - p. 135, A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker (trinitarian), Scribner's, 1985.
Tertullian, too, like the other Ante-Nicene Fathers, taught that Prov. 8:22-30 relates the words of the Son of God, Christ (speaking as "Wisdom"):

"'At first the Lord {Jehovah} created me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works, before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled; moreover, before all the hills did He beget me;' that is to say, He created and generated me in His own intelligence." - ANF, 3:601, 'Against Praxeas'.
And,

Scripture in other passages teaches us of the creation of the individual parts. You have Wisdom {the Son of God} saying, 'But before the depths was I brought forth,' in order that you may believe that the depths were also 'brought forth' - that is created just as we create sons also, though we 'bring them forth.' It matters not whether the depth {like Wisdom itself} was made or born, so that a beginning be accorded to it - ANF, 3:495, 'Against Hermogenes'.
Of course the eternal, only true, Most High God had no beginning. (Rev. 3:14)

So we see that even though later trinitarians have "found" the beginnings of the "formulation [of the trinity doctrine]" in the writings of Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertullian, these ancient Christian writers had no such intention. They may have begun speculating about certain unscriptural elements from popular Greek philosophy. Their writings may have been "doctored" by an army of trinitarian copyists through the centuries. Their words may have been "redefined" by trinitarian interpreters through the centuries. And some of their ideas may have been translated into trinitarian-supporting ideas by modern trinitarian translators. But, amazingly, in spite of it all, their non-trinitarian knowledge of God still comes through clearly in their writing and bolsters the even more significant testimony of all the earliest Creeds: God is the Father alone!

But there are other Ante-Nicene Fathers whom Bowman and other trinitarians have appealed to for "trinitarian" support.

Clement of Alexandria
(c. 150-213 A.D.)

"Clement himself was undoubtedly the most significant Alexandrian apologist" - p. 179, Robert M. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, Westminster Press, 1988.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 213), wrote, in a discussion of God:

"This discourse respecting God is most difficult to handle. For since the first principle of everything is difficult to find out, the absolutely first and oldest principle, which is the cause of all other things being and having been, is difficult to exhibit. ...­. No one can rightly express Him wholly. For on account of His greatness He is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of Him For the One is indivisible." - pp. 463-4, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF], Eerdmans Publishing, 1989.

Clement, as with most (if not all) of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, also believed and taught that Prov. 8:22-30 presented the words of the Son of God (speaking as "Wisdom") in his pre-human existence. He wrote:

Wisdom, which was the first of the creation of God. (Cf. Rev. 3:14) - ANF 2:465, 'The Stromata.'

And to make it perfectly clear, Clement writes:

To know God is, then, the first step of faith [see the early baptismal questions above] .... But the nature of the Son, which is nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One, is most perfect ... which orders all things in accordance with the Father's will - ANF 2:524, 'The Stromata.'

The Ante-Nicene Fathers recognized the Scriptural use of the terms elohim and theos which could be understood as either "a god" or "God" and applied to both the Most High ("God") and to men and angels ("gods" - see the BOWGOD or 'God, gods' study). This is one of the areas where trinitarian translators may choose the meaning that best brings out their trinitarian interpretation in both scripture and the early writings. For example, when Clement writes: "I say, the Word of God became [a] man, that thou mayest learn from [a] man how man may become God {theos}" - ANF 2:174, 'Exhortation to the Heathen' - it is clear that the trinitarian translators of ANF have mistranslated "God" for "a god" (possibly because they don't wish to point out other, even more important, mistranslations when theos has been similarly applied to the Christ). But the very context of this writing tells us that Clement must mean "man may become a god {theos}" since he simply cannot become God!

Even the Encyclopedia Britannica has rendered this same statement by Clement as "a god": Clement of Alexandria taught that the object of Christ's incarnation and death "was to free man from sin ... and thus in the end elevate him to the position of a god." - p. 799, Vol. 5, Britannica., 14th ed. Hippolytus
(c. 160-235 A.D.)

Hippolytus, "the most important 3rd century theologian of the Roman Church" (p. 652, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F. L. Cross, Oxford University Press, 1990 reprint) wrote:
Chapter xxviii - The Doctrine of the Truth

The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval {'of the same age or duration'} with Himself .... But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them ....

Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos {the Word, the Son of God} first ....{Prov. 8:22, 24, 25}

For simultaneously with His procession from His Progenitor, inasmuch as He is this Progenitor's first-born, He has, as a voice in Himself, the ideas conceived in the Father. And so it was, that when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Logos one by one completed each object of creation, thus pleasing God. .... God, who is the source of all authority, wished that the Logos might render assistance in accomplishing a production of this kind. - ANF, 5:150, 151, 'The Refutation of All Heresies'.

Such is the true doctrine in regard of the divine nature .... in order that you may hasten and by us may be taught who the true God is .... And by means of this knowledge you shall escape the approaching threat of the fire of judgment {2 Thess. 1:7-9} - ANF 5:152, 153, 'Refutation'.
There is a translation of another statement by Hippolytus on p. 153 of this work (The Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF]) where this trinitarian translator has rendered: 'For Christ is the God above all...', which obviously contradicts the quoted portions above. The footnote admits an alternate translation of 'For Christ is He whom the God above all has ordered to wash away sin ...' - f.n. #7, ANF 5:153. (Bowman quotes this same trinitarian translation, but, of course, fails even to mention the significant footnote.)

We need to be aware that this trinitarian work (ANF), like so many others, consistently uses such trinitarian translations (but only very rarely, as above, admits the more likely alternate, non-trinitarian renderings). The same thing is the rule in most trinitarian Bible translations, too (cf. Ro 9:5, KJV vs. RSV). Another example is where Hippolytus states that the Logos is a god (which is the proper understanding of the Logos concept of that time - see the LOGOS study paper). - ANF 5:151

[6], 'Refutation'. And yet, when this term was used in other places for the Word (Logos), this trinitarian work translates "God" instead of "god" or "a god," thereby giving a trinitarian meaning where none was intended by Hippolytus.[7] This was also done in a few places where a man was clearly called "a god," but this translation renders "God" (5:153, for example). Here are some other early Christians (in addition to Hippolytus) who used "a god" or "god" even for men and angels - John 10:34; Clement of Alexandria (ANF, 2:206, 215, 271, 524, 528, & 574); the Christian writer of the Epistle to Diognetus (ANF, 1:29); Tertullian (ANF, 3:275); Origen (ANF, 10:323).
Against Sabellius, Hippolytus reiterated eloquently the view that the Logos is a prosopon {not persona, notice} (in Tertullian's language, 'person') distinct from the Father, but created by God for the carrying out of his will. - p. 86, A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker (trinitarian), Scribner¡¯s, 1985 ed.
Equally trinitarian and highly respected The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church admits that we cannot honestly say that Hippolytus definitely taught that the Logos (the pre-existent Christ) was even a person before being born on earth. This, of course, would mean that Hippolytus certainly didn't consider him to be the always-existent, second Person of the orthodox trinity doctrine. This trinitarian publication also tells us that Hippolytus did not even consider the Holy Spirit as a person (let alone a person who is God!). So much for the trinity doctrine being taught by "the most important 3rd century theologian of the Roman Church"! - p. 652, F. L. Cross, Oxford University Press, 1990 reprint. - - Also see the PHIL study (f.n. #13).

http://www.ccel.org/w/wace/biodict/htm/iii.viii.xxxiv.htm -

"Hippolytus (2) Romanus. Though so celebrated in his lifetime, Hippolytus has been but obscurely known to the church of subsequent times. He was at the beginning of the 3rd cent. unquestionably the most learned member of the Roman church, and a man of very considerable literary activity .... A century after his death Eusebius evidently knew nothing of him beyond what he could infer from such works of his as had reached him. These works were soon superseded by those of other more able and learned writers. Scarcely one has come down to us without mutilation, and the authenticity of almost every work assigned to him has been disputed. Yet his celebrity survived, and various legends, not always carefully distinguished from the authentic history of the saint, arose. It has been disputed whether Hippolytus was a presbyter or a bishop; and if a bishop, of what see; whether he laboured in Italy or Arabia; whether he was orthodox or a schismatic; whether he was a martyr, and if so, by what death he died. At length the recovery of the work on heresies, now by general consent attributed to him, cleared away some obscurities in his personal history, though many questions can still receive only doubtful answers.

Theophilus
(c. 115-181 A.D.)

"Theophilus occupies an interesting position, after Ignatius,[8] in the succession of faithful men who represented Barnabas and other prophets and teachers of Antioch [f.n. refers to Acts 13:1]" - ANF 2:87.
It is odd that Bowman did not refer to Theophilus also. Many trinitarians (most of whom should know better also) claim that Theophilus (2nd century A.D.) was the first to apply the term "trinity" to the "Godhead"! They have interpreted and translated a single passage from Theophilus' second letter to a non-Christian acquaintance (Theophilus to Autolycus, Book 2, Ch. 15) to read: "the three days which elapsed before the creation of the Luminaries are a type [symbol] of the Trinity...." - (Rendel Harris, The Origin of the Prologue to St. John).

Here is the passage as it is rendered in the trinitarian-translated, trinitarian-edited, and trinitarian-published The Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF]:


CHAP. XV. - OF THE FOURTH DAY.

On the fourth day [of creation] the luminaries were made; .... For the sun is a type [symbol] of God, and the moon of man. .... In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types [symbols] of the trinity [triados], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the Fourth [day] is the type [symbol] of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. - p. 101, Vol. 2, Eerdmans.
The trinitarian translators and editors of this passage have translated this one-time-only use of triados ['triad'] by Theophilus as "Trinity" to make it appear that the actual Greek word for "triad" means "Trinity." But instead of this "trinity" being defined as "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit," we find that it is actually defined as "God [not 'the Father' or even 'God the Father'], the Word, and wisdom"! Of course "the Word" and "wisdom" are, in reality, both well-known titles of the Son,

[9] so this "Trinity" is, actually, two persons! Not only that, but one person only in this "trinity" is actually called God! The other person (in two different aspects) is not called God!

Furthermore, even today "triad" does not mean "trinity"! A triad is merely a group of three things (Webster's New World Dictionary, The World Publishing Co., 1973). It is no different from "tetrad": "a group or arrangement of four." So "triad" does not necessarily have the meaning of "three things which are all equally and completely one thing" (even though they may well be related in some sense)!

Notice the triad found at Rev. 1:4, 5:
Grace to you and peace from [1] him who is and who was and who is to come, and [2] from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and [3] from Jesus Christ... - RSV.
Never mind (as in Theophilus' statement) that only one of them is God, and one other is apparently 7 different persons or things, and the third is the Son. Nevertheless, this is a heavenly triad (Trinity?): all three are united in the sense of being the heavenly agent appealed to by John as the provider of grace and peace! (Also see the triad which is united in the glory in which Jesus will return - Luke 9:26; cf. 1 Tim. 5:21.)

Theophilus was replying to some charges his non-Christian acquaintance had made. He replied in three separate letters. Part of his first reply concerned the "Nature of God" and "The Attributes of God" - Book I, Ch. 3, 4. And yet, during that detailed description of his concept of the Christian God, he never mentioned "three," "triad," etc. Instead God is the Father! Since Theophilus is actually defending his concept of the Christian God at that point, that is the place he would have mentioned "Trinity" or a clear description of such an understanding (IF he really had such an understanding)!

If Theophilus were truly dropping such a bombshell here (in a completely inappropriate place in his second communication with Autolycus: "The Fourth Day"), there certainly would have been explanations, justifications, repetitions, emphases of this new concept! The importance of such a knowledge of God, whether new or old, would have been clearly brought out in his first book concerning who the Christian God is, his nature, attributes, etc. (It is not even mentioned.) And it would be frequently referred to in subsequent writings. (Certainly as much as "Father," "Lord," "Most High," "Creator," etc.!) But he merely mentions it in passing, in this second book, in a context that actually indicates otherwise, and never again uses this incredibly important 'knowledge of God' by name ("triados") or by description! To claim to find the Trinity in this passage is ridiculous! It is proof of the desperation of many trinitarian scholars who are grasping at straws in an attempt to justify a false teaching.

Notice how Theophilus does explain his knowledge of God:

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. ... He is unbegotten; and He is unchangeable,.... And He is called .... Father, because he is before all things... the Highest, because of His being above all; and Almighty - ANF 2:90.
Theophilus is describing God - and pointing out that only God is unbegotten in every sense of the word. He has also pointed out that the Son IS begotten! The Son has gone through many changes, but God is unchangeable! Only the Father is ever described as Most High! The Son is not Most High! Only the Father is ever described as Almighty! These descriptions of God do not fit the Son in Theophilus' list of the attributes of the Christian God!

"God is uncreated, and the Father and Maker of all things" - p. 95.

Again God is the Father alone. On p. 103 Theophilus writes that if someone asks how God could walk in Paradise (Gen. 3:8), he would reply:

"The God and Father of all" could not do so, "but [1] His [God's] Word, through whom He [God] made all things, being [2] His power [a term commonly applied to God's angels] and [3] His wisdom, [impersonating (see ANF footnote)] the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden [impersonating] God, and conversed with Adam." - p. 103.
Obviously, like all other Christians of this time, Theophilus considered the Father alone to be God! And the Word/Power/Wisdom [the Son] who impersonates (

"the word is used in its original meaning, and with reference to an actor taking up a mask and personating a character" - ANF footnote) God is certainly not God!

A much more appropriate rendering of Theophilus' "Trinity" statement would be: "the three days which were before the luminaries are symbols representing the triad (the group of three) of (1) God, and (2) His Word, and (3) His wisdom. And the fourth [day] is the symbol representing man, who needs light, so that there may be [the tetrad? (group of four)] of (1) God, and (2) the Word, and (3) Wisdom, and (4) man."[10]

Simply because triados, the word for "group of three" or "triad" (not "trinity" or "tri-unity"), happened to be used in this one-time-only instance does not even remotely justify the conclusion that Theophilus was calling three (actually two) persons the only true God (particularly when one of them was already specifically called God and the others were not)!

Two of them were really alternate titles for one person (the Son) who had been created or begotten! We would be equally justified in concluding that Theophilus was proclaiming the Quadrinity when, in the very next breath (and parallel in context), he announced the four (or three) to be: God, the Word/wisdom, and man! This was in a parallel sense to what he had done with the previous three (or two) and likewise cannot honestly be considered some "four-in-one" absolute-equality Quadrinity any more than the parallel description of the "triad" can be considered a trinity!

This whole argument that Theophilus was the very first to call the "Godhead" a "Trinity" is so incredibly poor that it emphatically demonstrates the desperation of trinitarians who are unable to find true proof of a trinity!

* * * * *

So how much of the developing new "Knowledge" (speculation) concerning God and the Word found in modern translations of these ancient writers is really the work of the Ante-Nicene Fathers themselves and how much is the work of later trinitarian copyists, trinitarian translators, etc.?

Well, obviously, the trinitarians who handled, copied, and translated these works for over 1500 years would have made trinitarian changes much as they did in many still-existing manuscripts of Scripture itself. But one thing is certain, they would never have made anti-trinitarian changes in those manuscripts, translations, etc. Any objective student would be forced to admit that the numerous instances of anti-trinitarian statements concerning God and Christ must have come unchanged from the Ante-Nicene writers themselves.

We find, then, no clear, undisputed proof for a trinity-God in the Holy Scriptures. We find absolutely no honest evidence for a 'trinity-God' understanding in the Creeds of the first two centuries: God, instead, is clearly the Father only. And we find proofs of a non-trinitarian God understanding in the writings of the Christian writers of the first 200 years of Christianity:

The Father, alone, is God. It wasn't until the 4th century that a "Three-Persons-in-One-God" Doctrine began to be preached and urged upon a reluctant Church (see the HIST study paper).

- - - - - - - -
Speculative thought began to analyze the divine nature until in the 4th century an elaborate theory of a threefoldness in God appears. In this Nicene or Athanasian form of thought God is said to consist of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all equally eternal, powerful and glorious. - Encyclopedia Americana, 1944, Vol. 6, p. 619.

At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian ... It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages [from time of the Apostles to about 165 A.D.], as reflected in the NT and other early Christian writitngs. - Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Hastings (trinitarian).
The very first Christians to really discuss Jesus' relationship to God in their writings, according to Dr. Boer, were the Apologists.

Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father. - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, H. R. Boer (trinitarian), Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.

Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father. - pp. 112-113, Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity (trinitarian), 1977; and p. 114, The History of Christianity (trinitarian), A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.

Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, .... The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies .... It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons. - The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1985, Micropedia, Vol. 11, p. 928. [11]

A look at the pre Nicene creeds V

Find article here

The dogma of the Trinity is of relatively recent date. There is no reference to it in the Old Testament .... One can even say that it is a conception foreign to primitive [first century A.D., at least] Christianity. - Professor Louis Reau of the Sorbonne (France¡¯s leading university), in Iconographie de l¡' Art Chretien, p. 14., Vol. 2, Book 1.

...the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers; that in the time of Justin [c.100-165 A.D.], and long after, the distinct nature and inferiority [in comparison to the Father (God alone) only, of course] of the Son were universally taught; and that only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become visible. - The Church of the First Three Centuries, p. 34.
Famous U. S. Founding Father, scholar, and U.S. President, Thomas Jefferson, restates the above in even stronger terms - pp. 631-632, 693-694. He sums it up in a Dec. 8, 1822 letter:
No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded [a single person only], 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 [Constantine's Rome], wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God ... with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs.... - pp. 703-704, The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Koch and Peden, The Modern Library (Random House, Inc.), 1944.
Yes, by the end of the fourth century A.D. the trinitarians had completely taken over the Roman Church (which controlled Christendom for more than a thousand years) and have dominated Christendom ever since. By wielding the power of the secular government (starting with the Roman Emperor Constantine) and enforcing terrible persecutions on those who attempted to retain the original non-trinitarian teachings they have ruthlessly stomped out non-trinitarian opposition until very recent times.

... the council [of Nicaea, 325 A.D.] anathematized - cursed - those who held to the [non-trinitarian] position, and Constantine ... ordered the death penalty for those who did not conform, and commanded the burning of the [non-trinitarian] books - pp. 50-51, Christianity Through the Ages, Prof. K.S. Latourette (trinitarian), Harper ChapelBooks, 1965. - See HIST study.

The council of Nicaea, which ... formulated the [trinitarian] creed upon which all the existing Christian churches are based, was one of the most disastrous and one of the least venerable of all religious gatherings. - H. G. Wells, author and historian, God, the Invisible King.

The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are Gr[eek] philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians. - Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1965), p. 899.

Christian thought had early [long before the Nicene controversy of the 4th century] learned to express its monotheistic stance by insisting that God is the sole agennetos ('underived,' 'ungenerated' ['unbegotten']): that is, the unique and absolute first principle. By contrast with God, all else that exists - INCLUDING THE LOGOS ['The Word', Jesus Christ], GOD'S SON - was described as generated. This implied, of course, not only that the Logos was subordinate to God (as any 'image,' even an exact image, is secondary to the reality it represents), but also that the Logos had something in common with creatures which God did not - some quality of 'generatedness'. - p. 132, A History of the Christian Church, 4th ed., Williston Walker (trinitarian), Scribners, 1985.

The formulation 'One God in three persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective. - New Catholic Encyclopedia (trinitarian), p. 299, Vol. 14, 1967.

Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord; and the origin of the conception is entirely PAGAN. - Paganism in our Christianity, pp. 197, 198, Arthur Weigall.

If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians (who differed from their fellow Jews only in the belief that Jesus was the promised Messiah) was changed by the Church at Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief. - The History of Christianity, Peter Eckler.

Christianity did not destroy Paganism; it adopted it .... From Egypt came the idea of a divine trinity. - The Story of Civilization: Part III, by historian Will Durant.
.................................................................................................
NOTES
1.

In fact, it would be even more 'reasonable' to conclude that all the three things found in question #3 above are a 'trinity' than that some of the things found in three separate questions represent a trinity. But, of course, even though the three things in question #3 are all in the same question (and even connected by "and" in the very same breath)## and are necessarily related in some respect, there is absolutely no proper reason to claim they are a trinity: co-equal, co-eternal, of equal power, authority, and importance. It is even less proper to insist on some trinity connection for the three separate questions (or statements) of the earliest creeds!

For a scriptural comparison, let's look at the "three-in-one" aspects of 1 John 5:8. It would be best to use most modern Bible translations here since the King James Version (and the very few modern Bibles based on it) has been proven to have spurious material added at 1 John 5:7 (even trinitarian scholars freely admit this). - See the 1JN5-7 study paper.

If
the three separate statements of the earliest Creeds really add up to three things being equally one God, then 1 John 5:8, which includes the Spirit, is a much more certain proof of a three-in-one God! There's only one slight problem: the two other "persons" who are equally one with the Spirit have unexpected "names"!

"And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth." - 1 John 5:7 ASV. The Spirit IS God, trinitarians say, and, being a person, He can bear witness here. But let's read on:

"For there are three who bear witness [this is the only place in the entire Bible where we find a 'trinitarian' formula that even mentions the word 'three'], The spirit [which is God according to trinitarians], and the water, and the blood: and the THREE [are] in ONE." - ASV.

This is by far the clearest "trinitarian" statement in the entire Bible!! It is the only one that even mentions "three" (although by using trinitarian-style "evidence" we could easily work in "seven" at Rev. 4:5 or "four" at Rev. 4:6 which has 4 living creatures "in the midst of" God's throne). And to top it all off it says "THE THREE ARE IN ONE". (The ASV renders "agree in one," but the word "agree" is not really found in the Bible manuscripts here. It literally says "the three are in one." - Compare the MLB: "the three are one.")

And who are these three equal "persons" (who bear witness) who are equally God himself (since, trinitarians insist, the holy spirit is God and the three are all "in one")? Why these three "persons" who are equally God are the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood! (Notice how verse 9 also shows that these three are "really" God: the witness of these three is really the witness of God!)

Obviously this scripture is really saying that three things are "witnesses" to (or "testify to") Jesus being the Christ, the Son of God: "the Spirit (Greek, to pneuma: singular, neuter - a thing) and the water (Greek, to hudor: singular, neuter - a thing) and the blood (Greek, to haima: singular, neuter - a thing)." And these three things are "one" (Greek, hen, singular, neuter - 'one thing') in that they all "witness" to the same fact that Jesus is Christ. The Spirit "testified" to Jesus being the Christ by visibly descending upon him at his baptism. "Water symbolizes Jesus' baptism, and the blood symbolizes his death" (NIVSB f.n.) These 3 things, then, all "testified" to the same thing. But they are all things! This is why trinitarian copyists in earlier centuries actually added the words of 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV to the inspired words of John in the translations and copies of manuscripts they were making. They were desperate to find actual scriptural evidence of the trinity concept. And since it didn't honestly exist, they had to manufacture it!

Of course an honest, clear statement of a trinity would be: "For there are three persons who are the only true God: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And the three are the One [heis, singular, masculine] God." (You see, it isn't a difficult statement for anyone to write, let alone an inspired Bible writer. Even "God is three" would be honest, clear evidence, but you will never see even that in the inspired scriptures. In fact, "three" is never used in any description concerning God. And the number "three," in strong contrast to such numbers as "one," "seven," "twelve," and "forty" has little or no importance in the religious content of the Bible! - pp. 565, 566, Vol. 3, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ. - - -and see the IMAGE study, f.n. #8.) But 1 John 5:8 is, by far, the closest the Bible ever comes to such a statement!

Therefore, this clearest of trinitarian "proofs" (1 John 5:8) shows "conclusively" that if the Holy Spirit is God, His two equal partners are not Jesus and Jehovah, but the "persons" of "the Holy Water" and "the Holy Blood"!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

## Here is the highly significant credal statement of St. Clement of Rome (ca. 90 A.D.): "Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace (which was poured out upon us) and one calling in Christ?" - 1 Clement 46:6 (see original Greek text).

Clement lists four things, and only one of them (the first listed, of course) is God, and, in fact, God cannot be Christ, the Spirit, or the Calling which are all listed in addition to God!

2. Another early Eastern Creed, which is dated variously between 280 A.D and 350 A.D., and "originated probably in Antioch" translates as:
We believe and baptize in one unbegotten only true Almighty God, the Father of the Christ.... And [we believe and baptize in] the Lord Jesus the Christ, His only-begotten Son, the firstborn of all creation... And we [believe and] baptize in the Holy Spirit, that is, the Paraclete, which acted in all the holy ones from the beginning... - from Greek text of "The Creed of the Apostolical Constitutions" on p. 39, Vol. II, The Creeds of Christendom, Schaff (trinitarian), Baker Book House (trinitarian), 1998 reprint.

3. The Nicene Creed was developed at this time in this form:
'We believe:

- In one God, the Father Almighty Maker of all things visible and invisible.

- And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the same essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

- And in the Holy Ghost.' - See pp. 28, 29, The Creeds of Christendom, Vol.1, Schaff, Baker Book House.

[Bracketed material above contains material not found in the Received Text.]
This was only a partial statement of the still-developing trinity doctrine for the Church because the Holy Spirit was not described as God in any sense, let alone as a person who was equally God. This statement, however was finally completed 60 years later at the Council of Constantinople where the phrase "the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified...." was added after "And in the Holy Ghost." - p. 29, The Creeds of Christendom.

4.
Apparently even as early as 268 A.D. this term had come to have different meanings for different 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 same Council or Synod of 268 A.D. also excommunicated Paul! - Augustus to Constantine, p. 218, Harper & 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 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 teaching!). At any rate, it is certainly significant that this council so strongly condemned the concept that the Logos was homoousios in a literal sense with God as late as 268 A.D.!

A look at the pre Nicene creeds VI

Find article here


5.
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 much later developed the "orthodox" trinity doctrine apparently meant merely a unity of will for Origen. "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 (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985. Obviously homoousios, as it was first used within Christendom by Heracleon, did not have the same meaning as later trinitarians made it seem!

And as for Origen's development of the "Eternal Generation" of the Son - it is true that existing manuscripts today indicate that he used the term, but it is apparent that it did not mean to him what those later trinitarian developers insisted that it did. 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 even considered all creation as 'eternally generated.' At least he thought that Logos and the world, were coeval {'of the same age or duration'} with God. Furthermore he did not believe anything that was "eternally generated" could actually be 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. So, since being "generated" connotes "being secondary" and "subordinate" to God, then his being "eternally generated" likewise connotes Jesus' being eternally secondary and subordinate to God!

6.
"(d) The Tract against Noetus. ....­ On comparing this tract with the exposition of the truth given at the end of the Refutation, the identity of doctrine, and sometimes of form of expression, decisively proves common authorship. The same doctrine is found, that the Logos, Which had from eternity dwelt in the Deity as His unspoken thought, afterwards assumed a separate hypostatic existence; differing from created things not only in priority but also because they were out of nothing, He of the substance of the Godhead; and being the framer of the universe according to the divine ideas (in the Platonic sense of the word) which had dwelt in Him from the first. That the Son's personal divinity was not by the original necessity of His nature, but given by an act of the divine will, is stated more offensively than in the earlier tract. He says to his reader, 'God has been pleased to make you a man, not a god. If He had willed to make you a god He could have done so; you have the example of the Logos [the Word of John 1:1.]' - ["The Refutation of all Heresies", Ch. xxix. (p. 151, Vol. 5, ANF.)]" - http://www.ccel.org/w/wace/biodict/htm/iii.viii.xxxiv.htm


7.
Another such example found in trinitarian translations of Hippolytus' writing concerns the probable intended meanings of huparchon (see PHIL study) and ek (or ex). The trinitarian mistranslation of the commentary on Gen. 49:21-26 by Hippolytus where he paraphrases Phil. 2:6 (see the PHIL study) is "For as the only begotten Word [Logos] of God, being God of God [theos huparchon ek theou], emptied himself, according to the Scriptures, humbling himself of his own will to that which he was not before, and took unto himself this vile flesh, and appeared in the 'form of a servant,' and 'became obedient to God the Father, even unto death,' so hereafter he is said to be 'highly exalted'..." - ANF, 5:167.

ek
(and ex) literally mean "from" or "out of" and is used to denote the source of a thing. The phrase ek theou is used frequently in the Bible and means "from God." It shows that God is the source of something.

Although "of God" was understood in the Elizabethan English of the 400-year old KJV as "from God" (the correct meaning of ek theou), it is usually misunderstood in modern English. That is why most modern Bible translations often translate it differently to make sure the proper meaning of ek is brought out for modern readers. For example 1 Cor. 11:12 b (literally, "but all [is] ek tou theou") is translated as follows:

"God is the source of all" - NEB; REB.

"All things originate from God" - NASB; CBW.

"They all have their origin from God" - MLB.

"It is God who brings everything into existence" - GNB.

"both man and woman, like everything else, owe their existence to God" - Phillips.

"Both come from God" - JB.

"both men and women come from God their creator" - LB.

"all comes from God" - NIV; NJB; TEV; and Beck (NT).

"All things are from God" - RSV; NRSV; NAB.

So, just with the proper translation of ek theou alone, we should read Hippolytus' words describing the only-begotten Word as "being a god whose source is God;" or "being a god who owes his existence to God;" or "being a god who originates from God;" or "being a god who comes from God his Creator;" etc.

But there is also the misunderstood huparchon to be considered. It literally means "to make a beginning (hupo, 'under'; arche, 'a beginning')" - W. E. Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 390. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defines it as "to begin under (quietly), i.e. COME INTO EXISTENCE" - #5225. So even though it may be translated as "being;" "existing;" "was;" etc., it nevertheless must also be understood as something that has come into existence. (It is important that you also examine the study PHIL which examines this term and others used at Phil. 2:6.)

We can see that with the actual literal (and most probable) meaning of huparchon and the actual literal (and most probable) meaning of ek, this trinitarian interpretation (like Phil. 2:6 itself) actually becomes anti-trinitarian: "The only-begotten Word of God, a god [theos without the article - see the PRIMER study paper] who came into being [huparchon] from [ek] God...." And, as we have already seen, these very same trinitarian translators had previously admitted that Hippolytus taught that God had made the Word "a god" - ANF, 5:151.


8.
"Ignatius of Antioch [who died in 107 A.D.] writes as follows: 'There is only one God, who makes himself known to us through Jesus Christ his Son, who is his Logos....' " - p. 14, vol. 9, The Encyclopedia of Religion.

Ignatius also wrote "But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word before time began" - [long version] - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume I, page 52.

Also see Ephesians ch. 3 & 6; Magnesians (end of ch. 8) ;Trallians, ch. 1 - Lightfoot.
9.

Even the trinitarian editors of Theophilus' work have noted that he has already identified wisdom as Christ in this very same work (as did most other Ante-Nicene Fathers) - note 3, p. 101, Vol. 2, ANF. However, even if we insisted on interpreting Theophilus' statement as describing God, Jesus (the Word), and the holy spirit (wisdom) as some trinitarians want to do, we must still admit that this is describing God as one entity and Jesus and the holy spirit as two other separate entities! Yes, there is a threeness here all right, but it is a threeness in which God is not Jesus (nor the holy spirit)! The "triads" of the other early Christians are typified by the earliest Creeds quoted above and the quote from Irenaeus above (quoted from ANF, 1:330).

Consider any other triad. For example, the triad of some families would be: father, mother, and only child. If we were to use the trinitarian method of describing Theophilus' triad above ("God, Word, and Wisdom are all equally God"), we would have to say that in this family the father, mother, and only child are all equally the father! This is clearly not what was intended by the original writer!

10.
Notice how distinguished trinitarian NT scholar Robert M. Grant renders this passage by Theophilus:
"the three days prior to [the creation of] the luminaries are prefigurations of the triad, God and his Logos and his Sophia [wisdom]. For a fourth prefiguration there is man, who needs light, so that there might be God, Logos, Sophia, Man."
Dr. Grant continues by comparing this to other early writings including Ptolemaeus' teaching
"that two tetrads were revealed in Gen. 1:1, 2: [1] God, Beginning, Heaven, Earth, and [2] Abyss, Darkness, Waters, Spirit .... Theophilus' triad and tetrad are different but contain very similar elements." - pp. 159-60, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, The Westminster Press, 1988.
Granted, Grant grants that Theophilus' triad and tetrad are different from Ptolemaeus' in that they are composed of different things. Nevertheless, the important points here are (1) the fact that trinitarian Grant properly renders the word as "triad," not "trinity," (2) that he acknowledges that the fourth day of creation contains a "tetrad" for Theophilus, and (3) that the intended meanings of the words "triad" (triados) and "tetrad" used by the contemporary Ptolemaeus are not what certain trinitarians would want them to be.

Obviously Ptolemaeus used the word "tetrad" in the same way Theophilus uses "triad" - a group made up of that number of different things. Ptolemaeus most certainly did not mean that the tetrad of God, Beginning, Heaven, and Earth were all equally God. He would have been shocked if anyone could have possibly distorted the obvious meaning to such an extent. He would think you the worst of fools if you interpreted him to mean, for example, the Earth was God!

In exactly the same way do we know that Theophilus' triad of God, Wisdom and Word are not a trinity wherein, for example, Wisdom is equally God!

11.
This particular quote, with its ellipses, is often attacked by trinitarian critics. They say that the writer has left out important portions of the original quote [as shown by the ellipses (....)] which prove the original writer believed just the opposite of what was quoted "out of context." So for their benefit, here is the entire quote with their important trinitarian content:

"Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them - i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all" (2 Corinthians 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. [emphasis added]

"The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Old Testament and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as "persons" (modalism). It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons."

It should be reasonably obvious to readers that the portion (in blue here) which was left out by me, deals with the trinitarian writer's biased opinions. Citing Matt. 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 certainly does not comprise "proof" nor even appropriate evidence for the writer's conclusion that "Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity." And none of it denies the factual information quoted by me (in black here). Whether this trinitarian criticism is a straw man argument or a red herring isn't important. Whatever it is, it has no bearing on the way I quoted the relevant portions.

The Watchtower Society's Commentary on Paul's epistle to the Galatians.

A reproduction of the Watchtower Society's article

GALATIANS, LETTER TO THE

The inspired letter written in Greek, by Paul an apostle, “to the congregations of Galatia.”—Ga 1:1, 2.

Writership. The opening sentence names Paul as the writer of this book. (Ga 1:1) Also, his name is used again in the text, and he refers to himself in the first person. (5:2) A portion of the letter, in the way of an autobiography, speaks of Paul’s conversion and some of his other experiences. The references to his affliction in the flesh (4:13, 15) are in harmony with expressions seemingly relating to this affliction in other Bible books. (2Co 12:7; Ac 23:1-5) Paul’s other letters were usually written by a secretary, but this one, he says, was written with his “own hand.” (Ga 6:11) In his other writings, almost without exception, he sends the greetings of himself and those with him, but in this letter he does not. Had the writer of the letter to the Galatians been an impostor, he would very likely have named a secretary and would have sent some greetings, as Paul usually did. Thus the writer’s form of address and his honest direct style vouch for the letter’s authenticity. It would not reasonably be fabricated this way.

The letter is not usually contested as being a letter of Paul’s except by those who attempt to discredit Paul’s writership of all the letters commonly attributed to him. Among evidences from outside the Bible supporting Paul’s writership, there is a quotation that Irenaeus (c. 180 C.E.) makes from Galatians and ascribes to Paul.

To Whom Addressed. The question of which congregations were included in the address “the congregations of Galatia” (Ga 1:2) has long been a controversy. In support of the contention that these were unnamed congregations in the northern part of the province of Galatia, it is argued that the people living in this area were ethnically Galatians, whereas those of the S were not. However, Paul in his writings usually gives official Roman names to the provinces, and the province of Galatia in his time included the southern Lycaonian cities of Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe as well as the Pisidian city of Antioch. In all these cities Paul had organized Christian congregations on his first evangelizing tour when he was accompanied by Barnabas. That the congregations in the cities of Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and Pisidian Antioch were addressed agrees with the way the letter mentions Barnabas, as one apparently known by those to whom Paul was writing. (2:1, 9, 13) There is no indication elsewhere in the Scriptures that Barnabas was known to Christians in the northern part of Galatia or that Paul even made any trips through that territory.

Paul’s exclamation, “O senseless Galatians,” is no evidence that he had in mind only a certain ethnic people who sprang exclusively from Gallic stock in the northern part of Galatia. (Ga 3:1) Rather, Paul was rebuking certain ones in the congregations there for allowing themselves to be influenced by an element of Judaizers among them, Jews who were attempting to establish their own righteousness through the Mosaic arrangement in place of the ‘righteousness due to faith’ provided by the new covenant. (2:15–3:14; 4:9, 10) Racially, “the congregations of Galatia” (1:2) to whom Paul wrote were a mixture of Jews and non-Jews, the latter being both circumcised proselytes and non-circumcised Gentiles, and no doubt some were of Celtic descent. (Ac 13:14, 43; 16:1; Ga 5:2) All together, they were addressed as Galatian Christians because the area in which they lived was called Galatia. The whole tenor of the letter is that Paul was writing to those with whom he was well acquainted in the southern part of this Roman province, not to total strangers in the northern sector, which he apparently never visited.

Time of Writing. The period covered by the book is of an undetermined length, but the time of writing has been set between approximately 50 and 52 C.E. It is implied inGalatians 4:13, that Paul made at least two visits to the Galatians before he wrote the letter. Chapters 13 and 14 of the Acts of Apostles describe a visit of Paul and Barnabas to the southern Galatian cities that took place about 47 to 48 C.E. Then, after the conference regarding circumcision in Jerusalem, about 49 C.E., Paul, with Silas, went back to Derbe and Lystra in Galatia and to other cities where Paul and Barnabas had “published the word of Jehovah” (Ac 15:36–16:1) on the first tour. It was evidently after this, while Paul was at another point on his second missionary tour, or else back at his home base, Syrian Antioch, that he received word that prompted him to write to “the congregations of Galatia.”

If it was during his year-and-a-half stay in Corinth (Ac 18:1, 11) that Paul wrote this letter,then the time of writing was likely between the autumn of 50 and the spring of 52 C.E., the same general period during which he wrote his canonical letters to the Thessalonians.

If the writing was done during his brief stop in Ephesus or after he got back to Antioch in Syria and “passed some time there” (Ac 18:22, 23), it would have been about 52 C.E. Ephesus is an unlikely place for writing, though, both because of his short stay there and because if Paul had been so close when he heard of the deflection in Galatia, it is to be expected that he would have personally visited the brothers or explained in his letter why it was not possible for him to do so at the time.

What his letter says about the Galatians “being so quickly removed from the One who called [them]” (Ga 1:6) may indicate that the writing of the letter was done soon after Paul had paid a visit to the Galatians. But even if the writing had not taken place until 52 C.E. in Syrian Antioch, it would still have been relatively soon for such a deflection to occur.

Canonicity. Early evidence of the book’s canonicity is found in the Muratorian Fragment and in the writings of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen. These men referred to it by name along with most or all of the other 26 books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It is mentioned by name in the shortened canon of Marcion and even alluded to by Celsus, who was an enemy of Christianity. All the outstanding lists of the books in the canon of the inspired Scriptures, up to at least the time of the Third Council of Carthage, in 397 C.E., included the book of Galatians. We have it preserved today, along with eight of Paul’s other inspired letters, in the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P46), a manuscript assigned to about 200 C.E. This gives proof that the early Christians accepted the book of Galatians as one of Paul’s letters. Other ancient manuscripts, such as the Sinaitic, Alexandrine, Vatican No. 1209, Codex Ephraemi rescriptus, and Codex Bezae, as well as the Syriac Peshitta, likewise include the book of Galatians. Also, it harmonizes completely with Paul’s other writings and with the rest of the Scriptures from which it frequently quotes.

Circumstances Relating to the Letter. The letter reflects many traits of the people of Galatia in Paul’s time. Gallic Celts from the N had overrun the region in the third century B.C.E., and therefore Celtic influence was strong in the land. The Celts, or Gauls, were considered a fierce, barbarous people, it having been said that they offered their prisoners of war as human sacrifices. They have also been described in Roman literature as a very emotional, superstitious people, given to much ritual, and this religious trait would likely influence them away from a form of worship so lacking in ritual as Christianity.

Even so, the congregations in Galatia may have included many who formerly had been like this as pagans, as well as many converts from Judaism who had not entirely rid themselves of scrupulously keeping the ceremonies and other obligations of the Mosaic Law. The fickle, inconstant nature attributed to the Galatians of Celtic descent could explain how at one time some in the Galatian congregations were zealous for God’s truth and a short time later became an easy prey for opponents of the truth who were sticklers for observance of the Law and who insisted that circumcision and other requirements of the Law were necessary for salvation.

The Judaizers, as such enemies of the truth might be called, apparently kept the circumcision issue alive even after the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem had dealt with the matter. Perhaps, too, some of the Galatian Christians were succumbing to the low moral standards of the populace, as may be inferred from the message of the letter fromchapter 5, verse 13, to the end. At any rate, when word of their deflection reached the apostle, he was moved to write this letter of straightforward counsel and strong encouragement. It is evident that his immediate purpose in writing was to confirm his apostleship, counteract the false teachings of the Judaizers, and strengthen the brothers in the Galatian congregations.

The Judaizers were crafty and insincere. (Ac 15:1; Ga 2:4) Claiming to represent the congregation in Jerusalem, these false teachers opposed Paul and discredited his position as an apostle. They wanted the Christians to get circumcised, not seeking the Galatians’ best interests, but so that the Judaizers could bring about an appearance of things that would conciliate the Jews and keep them from opposing so violently. The Judaizers did not want to suffer persecution for Christ.—Ga 6:12, 13.

To accomplish their objective, they claimed that Paul’s commission came to him secondhand, that it was only from some men prominent in the Christian congregation—not from Christ Jesus himself. (Ga 1:11, 12, 15-20) They wanted the Galatians to follow them (4:17), and in order to nullify Paul’s influence, they had to paint him first as no apostle. Apparently they claimed that when Paul felt it expedient, he preached circumcision. (1:10; 5:11) They were trying to make a sort of fusion religion of Christianity and Judaism, not denying Christ outright but arguing that circumcision would profit the Galatians, that it would advance them in Christianity, and that, furthermore, by this they would be sons of Abraham, to whom the covenant of circumcision was originally given.—3:7.

Paul thoroughly refuted the contentions of these false Christians and built up the Galatian brothers so that they could stand firm in Christ. It is encouraging to note that the Galatian congregations did remain true to Christ and stood as pillars of the truth. The apostle Paul visited them on his third missionary tour (Ac 18:23), and the apostle Peter addressed his first letter to the Galatians, among others.—1Pe 1:1.

[Box on page 881]

HIGHLIGHTS OF GALATIANS

A letter emphasizing appreciation for the freedom that true Christians have through Jesus Christ

Written a year or perhaps several years after the Galatians had been informed about the decision of the governing body that circumcision is not required of Christians

Paul defends his apostleship

Paul’s apostleship was not of human origin but was by appointment from Jesus Christ and the Father; he did not consult with the apostles in Jerusalem before beginning to declare the good news; not until three years later did he briefly visit Cephas and James (1:1, 13-24)

The good news he proclaimed was received, not from men, but by revelation from Jesus Christ (1:10-12)

By reason of a revelation, Paul, with Barnabas and Titus, went to Jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from James, Peter, and John, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations (2:1-10)

At Antioch, when Peter wrongly separated himself from non-Jewish believers in fear of certain visiting brothers from Jerusalem, Paul reproved him (2:11-14)

A person is declared righteous only through faith in Christ, not works of law

If a person could be declared righteous by works of law, Christ’s death would have been unnecessary (2:15-21)

Galatians received God’s spirit because of their responding in faith to the good news, not because of works of law (3:1-5)

True sons of Abraham are those who have faith like his (3:6-9, 26-29)

Because of being unable to keep the Law perfectly, those seeking to prove themselves righteous by works of the Law are under a curse (3:10-14)

The Law did not invalidate the promise associated with the Abrahamic covenant, but it served to make transgressions manifest and acted as a tutor leading to Christ (3:15-25)

Stand fast in Christian freedom

Jesus Christ, by his death, released those under law, making it possible for them to become sons of God (4:1-7)

Returning to an arrangement of observing days, months, seasons, and years would mean going back into slavery and coming into a position like that of Ishmael, the son of the servant girl Hagar; with his mother he was dismissed from Abraham’s household (4:8-31)

Having been liberated from sin and no longer being bound by the Law, they were to resist anyone who would induce them to accept a yoke of slavery (1:6-9; 5:1-12; 6:12-16)

Do not abuse your freedom but yield to the influence of God’s spirit, manifesting its fruitage in your life and shunning the works of the flesh (5:13-26)

Readjust in a spirit of mildness anyone taking a false step; but all are individually obligated to carry their own load of responsibility (6:1-5)

The metropolis III