Tuesday 31 December 2013
Ecclesiastes Ch.1 NWT(2013 edition)
“The greatest futility! Everything is futile!”+
3 What does a person gain from all his hard work
At which he toils under the sun?+
4 A generation is going, and a generation is coming,
6 The wind goes south and circles around to the north;
Round and round it continuously circles; the wind keeps making its rounds.
To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.+
8 All things are wearisome;
No one can even speak of it.
The eye is not satisfied at seeing;
Nor is the ear filled from hearing.
9 What has been is what will be,
And what has been done will be done again;
There is nothing new under the sun.+
10 Is there anything of which one may say, “Look at this—it is new”?
It already existed from long ago;
It already existed before our time.
11 No one remembers people of former times;
Nor will anyone remember those who come later;
Nor will they be remembered by those who come still later.+
12 I, the congregator, have been king over Israel in Jerusalem.+ 13 I set my heart to study and explore with wisdom+ everything that has been done under the heavens+—the miserable occupation that God has given to the sons of men that keeps them occupied.
14 I saw all the works that were done under the sun,
And look! everything was futile, a chasing after the wind.+
15 What is crooked cannot be made straight,
And what is lacking cannot possibly be counted.
16 Then I said in my heart: “Look! I have acquired great wisdom, more than anyone who was before me in Jerusalem,+ and my heart gained a great deal of wisdom and knowledge.”+ 17 I applied my heart to knowing wisdom and to knowing madness* and to knowing folly,+ and this too is a chasing after the wind.
18 For an abundance of wisdom brings an abundance of frustration,
So that whoever increases knowledge increases pain.+
A look at the pre Nicene creeds.
Earliest Christian Creeds and Writings
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) published a brochure attacking the validity of the trinity doctrine: Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 1989. Like other brochures the JWs publish, it was limited to 32 pages. This, obviously, isn't enough to cover such a large subject in great detail. Much had to be left out or severely condensed. Nevertheless, an excellent job was done in presenting the basics of this subject. On pp. 6-9 of this brochure an examination was made of the history of the development of the trinity doctrine. This included an examination of the actual writings and creeds of the earliest Christians (those who lived before the trinity doctrine was actually adopted by the Roman Church in the 4th century A. D.).
Robert M. Bowman, Jr. has written a 157-page book which attempts to reply to the JW brochure. It was published by the Baker Book House in 1989 under the title Why You Should Believe in the Trinity. Mr. Bowman had no such 32-page limit as the JWs set for themselves in their brochure and was able to write in as much detail as he wished. He strongly attacked the honesty and the accuracy of the JWs and their brochure.
One area he focused on concerns the writings of the first ("Ante-Nicene" or "before the Nicene Council of 325 A. D.") Christians. He quoted portions of writings by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen. He ignored the many anti-trinity portions of these ancient Christian writings and produced, instead, portions which seem (as translated by modern trinitarians, at least) to show a "Jesus is God" understanding. For all of these, Bowman quoted from the trinitarian-translated The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) edited by trinitarians Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, published by the trinitarian Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989 reprint.
Before we examine these earliest writings of individual Christians, however, let's examine something which clearly reveals the understanding of the church itself in this three hundred year period before the Nicene Council: the confession of his faith required of each believer before he could be baptized as a Christian. These are the all-important beliefs that the Church itself says each Christian must have!
Earliest Christian Creeds
Cardinal Newman was "one of the most influential English Catholics of all time ... universally revered at the time of his death." - The Columbia Viking Desk Encyclopedia, 1968, v. 2, p. 758.
Cardinal Newman wrote that the Christian creeds before Constantine's time (he was Emperor from 306 to 337 A.D.) did not make any mention of a trinity understanding.
"They made mention indeed of a Three; but that there is any mystery in the doctrine, that they are coequal, co-eternal, all increate, all omnipotent, all incomprehensible, is not stated, and never could be gathered from them." - The Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 15. (See Awake! 8 Jan. 1973, p. 16.)
The Apostles' Creed (and other very early creeds) grew out of very early baptismal questions. Trinitarian Church historian Dr. H. R. Boer writes:
Around the year A.D. 200, the candidate for baptism answered questions before being baptized as follows:
[1] Do you believe in God the Father Almighty? [Answer:] I believe.
[2] Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and died, and rose the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father [Ps. 110, Acts 2:32-36], and will come to judge the living and the dead? [Answer:] I believe.
[3] Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, and the holy church, and the resurrection of the flesh? [Answer:] I believe.
This form of questioning the candidate began in Rome. In the course of time, questions were changed into a statement or declaration. The beginning of the Apostles' Creed is found in this development. For a long time the creed that came into being in this way was known as the Roman Creed. [This earliest Roman Creed was still in substantial agreement with the above Baptismal Questions even as late as 341 A. D. - see The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Vol. 1, p. 204, Eerdmans, 1984.]
As need arose, other beliefs were added. The form in which the Apostles' Creed exists today dates from about the fifth century. - A Short History of the Early Church, Dr. H. R. Boer (trinitarian), pp. 75-76, 1976, Eerdmans Publishing Co. (trinitarian) - Cf. p. 280, Augustus to Constantine, Robert M. Grant (trinitarian), Harper & Row, 1990.
An
Encyclopedia of Religion confirms the above and adds that
"in the fourth century, the myth of composition by the twelve apostles appears." And, "The final form of the Apostles' Creed was reached in Gaul whence it returned to Rome in the eighth century. The traditional text [the one commonly used today in Christendom] can hardly be traced beyond the sixth century". - pp. 33, 208, 1945 ed.
We can see, then, that the modern form of the creed which is called the Apostles' Creed actually derived from the Roman Creed. And, in fact, the Roman Creed itself was developed long after the death of the Apostles.
Here then, is the true confession of the earliest Christian congregations in Rome itself. These are the beliefs one must have before he can even be baptized!
Number one, of course, is the answer to that most essential question: 'Who is the God you worship?' It is "God the FATHER Almighty"!
If there had been any thought in the Christian community of this city (that over 100 years later would forcefully impose the teaching of a newly-developed trinity concept upon the entire church) that God was really three persons, the question would have been something like "Do you believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit who are Almighty?" or "Do you believe God is one and God is three: The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit?" !! But there is no suggestion of such a thing. God is "the Father Almighty" - period!!
Then we go to question #2 in these essential baptismal questions. It is entirely about Jesus but in no way even implies that he is God or even, somehow, equal to God! In fact, it clearly designates him as separate from God ("Son of God") and, of course, separate from the Father, who is God (Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Father). Certainly, if Jesus were thought to be God, it would have been as clearly stated in this question as was the other necessary knowledge concerning Jesus that a candidate must answer correctly before being baptized!
Then we go to question #3. Do we see even a hint of the essential knowledge of a 3-in-one God: that the Holy Spirit is a person who is equally God? No! In fact, we see a question dealing with important things!
Question number one, then, deals with the most important belief about the individual who, alone, is the God we must worship. He is identified as the
Father.
Question number two is a question about the second most important belief (and about the second most important person in existence). This is Jesus.
And question number three is about the next most important beliefs: The holy spirit, the holy church, and the resurrection. That these three things are lumped together is highly significant!
A trinitarian might say (although clearly false from context alone) that each of the three questions deals with one aspect of the Trinity. But question number three alone shows the falsity of such a statement. If this question were truly speaking of believing in the Godhood of the Holy Spirit, it certainly would not include the church and the resurrection equally in that very same statement. [1]
Now notice this admission by another trinitarian scholar and church historian:
Besides Scripture and tradition one finds at the end of the second century another entity of FUNDAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE for the doctrine of the church, namely the creed .... One of the oldest creeds to be canonized in a particular church was the old Roman baptismal creed, which is generally designated as Romanum (R) .... an early form of this confession read as follows:
I believe in God, the Father, the Almighty;
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord,
And in the Holy Ghost, the holy church, the resurrection of the flesh.
In this form the old Roman confession probably originated not later than the middle of the second century. [Toward the end of the 2nd century the additional information about Jesus ('who was born of the Holy Spirit, etc.' as found in the quote from trinitarian Boer above) was added to R]. More or less similar creeds were extant in most of the Christian congregations of the West .... Later the wording of R became generally accepted in the West.
The same trinitarian authority also admits that the East (the original home of Judaism and Christianity) had a slightly different form. The original Eastern Creed, he tells us, read as follows:
[2]
I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, of whom everything [else] is,
and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, through whom everything [else] is,
and in the Holy Ghost.
.... Hence the formula of faith was intended primarily for the instruction of candidates for baptism. This leads to a further point, namely, that the creed functioned as a formal summary of the Christian faith. It was the criterion of faith upon which catechetical instruction was based. - pp. 33-35, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernhard Lohse (trinitarian), Fortress Press (trinitarian), 1985.
Please notice that this first "summary of the Christian faith" of all Christians one hundred years after the death of Jesus affirms one God only: the Father only! (See the TC study pp. 4-7 [1 Cor. 8:6].) There is no greater testimony (and no further evidence required) that the Christians of the first two centuries did not believe in nor teach a multiple-person God!
There is another book of Christian history which has received high praise from many sources including Publishers Weekly (which called it: "a book whose honesty, scholarship and general attractiveness commend it") and the highly trinitarian-influenced Christianity Today ("If you have only one church history book, this should be it."). This trinitarian book, The History of Christianity, a Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 Rev. ed., strongly confirms the above information:
Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father. - p. 114.
Christians Summarize Their Beliefs
.... One important outline of basic Christian beliefs in the late second and early third centuries was the 'Rule of Faith'. Origen described it as: 'the teaching of the church preserved unaltered and handed down in unbroken succession from the apostles.' ....
Irenaeus [writing ca. 160-200 A. D.] is the first writer to record a clearly identifiable Rule. Its main content was as follows: '...this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who [or which] made known through the prophets the plan of salvation ....' - p. 115.
.... Hippolytus's account of baptism at Rome at the outset of the third century [ca. 200 A.D.] is very important: 'When the person being baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him shall say:
"Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?"
And the person being baptized shall say: "I believe." Then holding his hand on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say:
"Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead?"
And when he says: "I believe," he is baptized again. And again he shall say:
"Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, in the holy church, and the resurrection of the body?"
The person being baptized shall say: "I believe," and then he is baptized a third time.'
.... Creeds in statement form ('I believe ...') developed from the mid-third century by adaptation of the question-and-answers. They were originally used in the closing stages of the instruction of converts prior to baptism. - pp. 116, 117.
Instruction Before Baptism
At the birth of the church, converts [Jewish only at first] were baptized with little or no delay. But a course of instruction prior to baptism soon became customary, especially for non-Jewish converts. Justin explained that before baptism: 'All those who are convinced and believe the things which are taught by us and said to be true, and promise to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to call on God with fasting.'
Hippolytus of Rome [wrote ca. 200-230 A. D.] again provides valuable evidence. A convert's occupation and personal relations were scrutinized, and then came pre-baptismal instructions which took three years (even longer in Syria!). [How many in Christendom take their worship that seriously today?] - p. 117.
So, (1), the complete lack of any single clear statement of a trinity idea for the all-important knowledge of God (Jn 17:3) in the entire Bible shows that the Bible writers did not believe any such thing.
And (2), the complete lack of any clear, undisputed statement of God as a trinity in the writings and teachings of the very first Christians also shows that they hadn't been taught this "knowledge" of God by the Apostles nor did they understand that the inspired writings of the scriptures themselves taught any such a thing. The very first Christians were considered a sect of Judaism (see the ISRAEL study), and the Jews would not have allowed anyone who was a Jew to proclaim a God other than the one who has always been the Jewish God: The Father alone, Jehovah!
The first Christians were all Jews. They had come to believe the apostles' message that Jesus was the promised Saviour of God's people. 'Jesus is the Messiah (Christ)' summed up all that the Jews were called upon to accept. .... But all early Christian theology was Jewish - pp. 101, 102, The History of Christianity (trinitarian), Lion.
Consequently, the Early Church was primarily Jewish and existed within Judaism. - p. 59, Christianity Through the Centuries, Cairns (trinitarian), Zondervan Publ. (trinitarian), 1977 ed.
In [the first century] churches were still regarded as synagogues, whose members .... professed monotheism in the same terms as did the Jews. They used the Hebrew Scriptures, and they took messianism, the eschatology (even angelology), and the ethics of Judaism for granted... - pp. 121-122, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), Fortress Press (trinitarian), 1985.
The leaders of Judaism simply did not allow those within their religion to teach or believe in any other God. If Christians had believed this most blasphemous trinitarian (or even "binitarian") "knowledge" of God, the Jews would have killed them immediately. At the very least they would have been driven out at once. And, if they miraculously had been allowed to exist along with the other Jews, there would have been nothing that would have been more emphatically written and taught during that period than the blasphemous "God" of the Christians (and the equally loud defense of a "trinity" God by the Christians themselves)! But there were no such teachings, writings, or defenses by the Jews or by the Christians. And there was not even a mention of such a thing by the contemporary pagan writers who wrote about those Christians and those Jews!
And (3), the complete lack of even a hint of a trinity teaching in the baptismal questions and earliest creeds confirms this non-trinitarian understanding for the very first Christians for the first 200 years of the Christian Church. Remember, these are the statements of the most important, basic beliefs of a Christian for at least 100 years after the last book of Scripture had been written.
Earliest Christian Writings
It is true that apostasy set in quickly. We find varied teachings and speculations beginning to creep into the writings of early Christians about 120 years after the death of Christ. It seems that many writers about this time were developing some favorite hypotheses of their own that were not shared by other Christian writers. The more educated the writer, the more likely he was to be affected by the most respected "science" (Greek philosophy) and religions of that day. (Even Bowman admits that citations from the Ante-Nicene Fathers - about 150 to 325 A.D. -
"need to be treated with some caution. In many cases they reflect not the general theological beliefs of common Christians in their day, but the often brilliant, often wrong-headed, speculations of intellectuals trying to take seriously the new faith." - p. 28, Bowman.)
But as even many trinitarian scholars and historians of today admit, the very first writers (the "Apostolic Fathers" who wrote from the time of the Apostles up to about 150 A. D.) made no changes in the understanding of God. In fact, even when changes began to be made in the latter half of the second century, Christ was still not considered equal to God (who was the Father alone). And the trinity concept wasn't developed until the 4th century (325) when in Nicaea a partial such doctrine
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) published a brochure attacking the validity of the trinity doctrine: Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 1989. Like other brochures the JWs publish, it was limited to 32 pages. This, obviously, isn't enough to cover such a large subject in great detail. Much had to be left out or severely condensed. Nevertheless, an excellent job was done in presenting the basics of this subject. On pp. 6-9 of this brochure an examination was made of the history of the development of the trinity doctrine. This included an examination of the actual writings and creeds of the earliest Christians (those who lived before the trinity doctrine was actually adopted by the Roman Church in the 4th century A. D.).
Robert M. Bowman, Jr. has written a 157-page book which attempts to reply to the JW brochure. It was published by the Baker Book House in 1989 under the title Why You Should Believe in the Trinity. Mr. Bowman had no such 32-page limit as the JWs set for themselves in their brochure and was able to write in as much detail as he wished. He strongly attacked the honesty and the accuracy of the JWs and their brochure.
One area he focused on concerns the writings of the first ("Ante-Nicene" or "before the Nicene Council of 325 A. D.") Christians. He quoted portions of writings by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen. He ignored the many anti-trinity portions of these ancient Christian writings and produced, instead, portions which seem (as translated by modern trinitarians, at least) to show a "Jesus is God" understanding. For all of these, Bowman quoted from the trinitarian-translated The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) edited by trinitarians Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, published by the trinitarian Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989 reprint.
Before we examine these earliest writings of individual Christians, however, let's examine something which clearly reveals the understanding of the church itself in this three hundred year period before the Nicene Council: the confession of his faith required of each believer before he could be baptized as a Christian. These are the all-important beliefs that the Church itself says each Christian must have!
Earliest Christian Creeds
Cardinal Newman was "one of the most influential English Catholics of all time ... universally revered at the time of his death." - The Columbia Viking Desk Encyclopedia, 1968, v. 2, p. 758.
Cardinal Newman wrote that the Christian creeds before Constantine's time (he was Emperor from 306 to 337 A.D.) did not make any mention of a trinity understanding.
The Apostles' Creed (and other very early creeds) grew out of very early baptismal questions. Trinitarian Church historian Dr. H. R. Boer writes:
Around the year A.D. 200, the candidate for baptism answered questions before being baptized as follows:
[1] Do you believe in God the Father Almighty? [Answer:] I believe.
[2] Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and died, and rose the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father [Ps. 110, Acts 2:32-36], and will come to judge the living and the dead? [Answer:] I believe.
[3] Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, and the holy church, and the resurrection of the flesh? [Answer:] I believe.
This form of questioning the candidate began in Rome. In the course of time, questions were changed into a statement or declaration. The beginning of the Apostles' Creed is found in this development. For a long time the creed that came into being in this way was known as the Roman Creed. [This earliest Roman Creed was still in substantial agreement with the above Baptismal Questions even as late as 341 A. D. - see The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Vol. 1, p. 204, Eerdmans, 1984.]
As need arose, other beliefs were added. The form in which the Apostles' Creed exists today dates from about the fifth century. - A Short History of the Early Church, Dr. H. R. Boer (trinitarian), pp. 75-76, 1976, Eerdmans Publishing Co. (trinitarian) - Cf. p. 280, Augustus to Constantine, Robert M. Grant (trinitarian), Harper & Row, 1990.
An
Encyclopedia of Religion confirms the above and adds that
"in the fourth century, the myth of composition by the twelve apostles appears." And, "The final form of the Apostles' Creed was reached in Gaul whence it returned to Rome in the eighth century. The traditional text [the one commonly used today in Christendom] can hardly be traced beyond the sixth century". - pp. 33, 208, 1945 ed.
We can see, then, that the modern form of the creed which is called the Apostles' Creed actually derived from the Roman Creed. And, in fact, the Roman Creed itself was developed long after the death of the Apostles.
Here then, is the true confession of the earliest Christian congregations in Rome itself. These are the beliefs one must have before he can even be baptized!
Number one, of course, is the answer to that most essential question: 'Who is the God you worship?' It is "God the FATHER Almighty"!
If there had been any thought in the Christian community of this city (that over 100 years later would forcefully impose the teaching of a newly-developed trinity concept upon the entire church) that God was really three persons, the question would have been something like "Do you believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit who are Almighty?" or "Do you believe God is one and God is three: The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit?" !! But there is no suggestion of such a thing. God is "the Father Almighty" - period!!
Then we go to question #2 in these essential baptismal questions. It is entirely about Jesus but in no way even implies that he is God or even, somehow, equal to God! In fact, it clearly designates him as separate from God ("Son of God") and, of course, separate from the Father, who is God (Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Father). Certainly, if Jesus were thought to be God, it would have been as clearly stated in this question as was the other necessary knowledge concerning Jesus that a candidate must answer correctly before being baptized!
Then we go to question #3. Do we see even a hint of the essential knowledge of a 3-in-one God: that the Holy Spirit is a person who is equally God? No! In fact, we see a question dealing with important things!
Question number one, then, deals with the most important belief about the individual who, alone, is the God we must worship. He is identified as the
Father.
Question number two is a question about the second most important belief (and about the second most important person in existence). This is Jesus.
And question number three is about the next most important beliefs: The holy spirit, the holy church, and the resurrection. That these three things are lumped together is highly significant!
A trinitarian might say (although clearly false from context alone) that each of the three questions deals with one aspect of the Trinity. But question number three alone shows the falsity of such a statement. If this question were truly speaking of believing in the Godhood of the Holy Spirit, it certainly would not include the church and the resurrection equally in that very same statement. [1]
Now notice this admission by another trinitarian scholar and church historian:
I believe in God, the Father, the Almighty;
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord,
And in the Holy Ghost, the holy church, the resurrection of the flesh.
In this form the old Roman confession probably originated not later than the middle of the second century. [Toward the end of the 2nd century the additional information about Jesus ('who was born of the Holy Spirit, etc.' as found in the quote from trinitarian Boer above) was added to R]. More or less similar creeds were extant in most of the Christian congregations of the West .... Later the wording of R became generally accepted in the West.
The same trinitarian authority also admits that the East (the original home of Judaism and Christianity) had a slightly different form. The original Eastern Creed, he tells us, read as follows:
[2]
and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, through whom everything [else] is,
and in the Holy Ghost.
.... Hence the formula of faith was intended primarily for the instruction of candidates for baptism. This leads to a further point, namely, that the creed functioned as a formal summary of the Christian faith. It was the criterion of faith upon which catechetical instruction was based. - pp. 33-35, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernhard Lohse (trinitarian), Fortress Press (trinitarian), 1985.
Please notice that this first "summary of the Christian faith" of all Christians one hundred years after the death of Jesus affirms one God only: the Father only! (See the TC study pp. 4-7 [1 Cor. 8:6].) There is no greater testimony (and no further evidence required) that the Christians of the first two centuries did not believe in nor teach a multiple-person God!
There is another book of Christian history which has received high praise from many sources including Publishers Weekly (which called it: "a book whose honesty, scholarship and general attractiveness commend it") and the highly trinitarian-influenced Christianity Today ("If you have only one church history book, this should be it."). This trinitarian book, The History of Christianity, a Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 Rev. ed., strongly confirms the above information:
Christians Summarize Their Beliefs
.... One important outline of basic Christian beliefs in the late second and early third centuries was the 'Rule of Faith'. Origen described it as: 'the teaching of the church preserved unaltered and handed down in unbroken succession from the apostles.' ....
Irenaeus [writing ca. 160-200 A. D.] is the first writer to record a clearly identifiable Rule. Its main content was as follows: '...this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who [or which] made known through the prophets the plan of salvation ....' - p. 115.
.... Hippolytus's account of baptism at Rome at the outset of the third century [ca. 200 A.D.] is very important: 'When the person being baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him shall say:
"Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?"
And the person being baptized shall say: "I believe." Then holding his hand on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say:
"Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead?"
And when he says: "I believe," he is baptized again. And again he shall say:
"Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, in the holy church, and the resurrection of the body?"
The person being baptized shall say: "I believe," and then he is baptized a third time.'
.... Creeds in statement form ('I believe ...') developed from the mid-third century by adaptation of the question-and-answers. They were originally used in the closing stages of the instruction of converts prior to baptism. - pp. 116, 117.
Instruction Before Baptism
At the birth of the church, converts [Jewish only at first] were baptized with little or no delay. But a course of instruction prior to baptism soon became customary, especially for non-Jewish converts. Justin explained that before baptism: 'All those who are convinced and believe the things which are taught by us and said to be true, and promise to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to call on God with fasting.'
Hippolytus of Rome [wrote ca. 200-230 A. D.] again provides valuable evidence. A convert's occupation and personal relations were scrutinized, and then came pre-baptismal instructions which took three years (even longer in Syria!). [How many in Christendom take their worship that seriously today?] - p. 117.
So, (1), the complete lack of any single clear statement of a trinity idea for the all-important knowledge of God (Jn 17:3) in the entire Bible shows that the Bible writers did not believe any such thing.
And (2), the complete lack of any clear, undisputed statement of God as a trinity in the writings and teachings of the very first Christians also shows that they hadn't been taught this "knowledge" of God by the Apostles nor did they understand that the inspired writings of the scriptures themselves taught any such a thing. The very first Christians were considered a sect of Judaism (see the ISRAEL study), and the Jews would not have allowed anyone who was a Jew to proclaim a God other than the one who has always been the Jewish God: The Father alone, Jehovah!
Consequently, the Early Church was primarily Jewish and existed within Judaism. - p. 59, Christianity Through the Centuries, Cairns (trinitarian), Zondervan Publ. (trinitarian), 1977 ed.
In [the first century] churches were still regarded as synagogues, whose members .... professed monotheism in the same terms as did the Jews. They used the Hebrew Scriptures, and they took messianism, the eschatology (even angelology), and the ethics of Judaism for granted... - pp. 121-122, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), Fortress Press (trinitarian), 1985.
The leaders of Judaism simply did not allow those within their religion to teach or believe in any other God. If Christians had believed this most blasphemous trinitarian (or even "binitarian") "knowledge" of God, the Jews would have killed them immediately. At the very least they would have been driven out at once. And, if they miraculously had been allowed to exist along with the other Jews, there would have been nothing that would have been more emphatically written and taught during that period than the blasphemous "God" of the Christians (and the equally loud defense of a "trinity" God by the Christians themselves)! But there were no such teachings, writings, or defenses by the Jews or by the Christians. And there was not even a mention of such a thing by the contemporary pagan writers who wrote about those Christians and those Jews!
And (3), the complete lack of even a hint of a trinity teaching in the baptismal questions and earliest creeds confirms this non-trinitarian understanding for the very first Christians for the first 200 years of the Christian Church. Remember, these are the statements of the most important, basic beliefs of a Christian for at least 100 years after the last book of Scripture had been written.
Earliest Christian Writings
It is true that apostasy set in quickly. We find varied teachings and speculations beginning to creep into the writings of early Christians about 120 years after the death of Christ. It seems that many writers about this time were developing some favorite hypotheses of their own that were not shared by other Christian writers. The more educated the writer, the more likely he was to be affected by the most respected "science" (Greek philosophy) and religions of that day. (Even Bowman admits that citations from the Ante-Nicene Fathers - about 150 to 325 A.D. -
But as even many trinitarian scholars and historians of today admit, the very first writers (the "Apostolic Fathers" who wrote from the time of the Apostles up to about 150 A. D.) made no changes in the understanding of God. In fact, even when changes began to be made in the latter half of the second century, Christ was still not considered equal to God (who was the Father alone). And the trinity concept wasn't developed until the 4th century (325) when in Nicaea a partial such doctrine
A look at the pre Nicene creeds II
3] was first forced upon the church by a Roman Emperor. The completed doctrine was further forced upon the church in the late 4th century (381) by another Roman Emperor (see the HIST study) and has completely dominated Christendom ever since.
Of all the thousands of NT manuscript copies which still exist today there are only a very small number (mostly fragments) which are not from this completely trinitarian-dominated time period (381 A.D. to present). Any changes made by copyists in this time period would, obviously, be trinitarian changes! And it is well known that from 325 A. D. (when the emperor, who presided over the Nicene council, and his trinitarian advisors had the anti-trinitarians banished and persecuted and their anti-trinitarian writings burned - see the HIST study) onward the Roman church began systematically destroying (and changing) writings and manuscripts which were considered non-trinitarian or otherwise "heretical"!
There are other problems associated with the existing copies of the writings of these very early Christians.
First
, unlike the writings of Holy Scripture, there are very few existing manuscripts of the writings of the first Christians. For many of these writers there are only one or two manuscripts available, and they are often of relatively late date (many hundreds of years after the original was composed). In other words, instead of having the original words of the ancient writers themselves, we have copies of copies, etc. many times over. Justin Martyr's important 'Dialogue with Trypho,' for example, exists only in a copy made over a thousand years after the original was written.
Second
, the copyists very often did not take the same care or have the same reverence for these manuscripts as they did for the scriptures themselves. They would sometimes change the wording and even add their own thoughts and beliefs to the original writings in order to provide greater authority for these beliefs in an attempt to persuade others (for example, see the "Rufinus" note at the end of the Origen study below).
"Furthermore, the manuscripts of the Church Fathers have suffered the usual transcriptional modifications to which all ancient manuscripts were subject; this was especially true for Biblical passages where the tendency of scribes was to accommodate readings to the Byzantine textual tradition." - p. xxxvi, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) [The Byzantine textual tradition is of relatively late date and very trinitarian. - RDB]
We find that there have been many changes which were intended to advance trinitarian ideas even in copies of the scriptures over the many centuries (since 381 A. D. at least) of copying and recopying by the scribes of trinitarian Christendom. Words that were not in the originals have been added (e.g., 1 Jn 5:7 as rendered in KJV - See 1JN5-7 study paper and Insight, Vol. 2, p. 1019) and changed (e.g. 1 Tim. 3:16 as rendered in KJV - See MINOR study paper) in later copies.
Of course, the best copyists were used in copying manuscripts of scripture itself. More care was taken to assure the accuracy of these copies of copies of the original inspired scriptures than with the writings of other early Christians. But even in copies of scriptural manuscripts we find a great amount of purposeful changes made by the copyist himself.
For example, the copyist of the very early papyrus manuscript known as p66 (copied ca. 150 - 200 A. D.), which is a copy of much of the Gospel of John,
"was quite free in his interaction with the text. He produced several singular readings that reveal his independent interpretation of the text. .... This leads to another phenomenon in the manuscript p66, that of omissions. .... Thus, it is more likely that the shorter text in p66 is not original but redactional, the work of the scribe attempting to trim the text of whatever he perceived to be unnecessary." [italic emphasis added - RDB] - pp. 373-374, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, Baker Book House, 1999 by trinitarian scholar Prof. Philip W. Comfort & trinitarian editor David P. Barrett.
Why, even the copyist who is considered "the best of all the early Christian scribes" (the copyist of p75) , did not resist the temptation to make changes in his copies of earlier manuscripts of inspired Scripture!
"... when he did deviate from his exemplar [the earlier ms. he was copying], he did not go in the direction of simplifying the text (as did the scribe of p45) ; rather he elevated it." Some of his numerous changes and additions are then listed. - pp. 494-496, Comfort & Barrett.
Fortunately, there are thousands of manuscripts of NT Scripture remaining today (some of quite early date) which can be compared. This helps greatly in the process of determining what the original writings most likely were.
It should be no surprise, then, that there are a great number of changes, additions, deletions, etc. to be found in the very few remaining (mostly late date) manuscripts of the non-scriptural writings of the earliest Christians, and they are almost impossible to isolate and positively identify because of.the extreme rarity of still existent manuscripts for comparison.
Third, since trinitarians have ruled the world of Christendom in every way, politically, economically, numerically (99% of all professing Christians even today are trinitarian), etc. for over 1600 years now, it should not be too surprising that trinitarians are the ones who have written the modern translations of the existing manuscript copies of these ancient writers. And these trinitarian translators have written their translations for trinitarian publishers who publish for a trinitarian market! Surely we wouldn't expect them to translate an ambiguous or vague passage (and the trinitarian translators themselves have admitted that these writings are full of such passages) in a non-trinitarian way if they could find another (even if much less probable), trinitarian, interpretation. (They even admit that they have purposely done so. See Preface, Vol. 5, ANF)
Fourth, the terminology used by these early Christians has been redefined in later years. Terms translated today as "person," "substance," "nature," "begotten," "of the same substance [homoousios]," etc. often had a different meaning for these first Christians. But early trinitarians began REdefining them starting in the 4th century.
For example, early Christian Heracleon [c. 160 A. D.] taught that those who worshiped God in spirit and truth were themselves "of the same nature [homoousios] as the Father"! - p. 394, note #111, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985.
Some trinitarian historians today will even admit that the Son being homoousios ("one substance/essence") with the Father merely meant to Origen (and other early Christians, such as Heracleon above) that the Son was UNITED IN WILL with the Father! But, starting around the time of the Nicene Council in the 4th century,
[4] trinitarians began insisting that this very influential Christian writer of the 2nd century had meant by homoousios that the Son and the Father were equal in absolute essence and were, therefore, both equally God. Most trinitarian writers and translators of today continue this trinitarian redefinition tradition. - See the HIST and REDEF studies.
Even more important is the redefinition by later trinitarians of "a god" (theos - a term used in Scripture for angels and even certain men who REPRESENTED God - see the BOWGOD study) into "God" (ho theos - a term used in Scripture for the only true Most High God - see the DEF and PRIMER studies). Even the following respected trinitarian reference work reluctantly admits this:
"It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Christian theologians of the second and third centuries, even theologians of the rank of Origen...came to see the Logos [the Word, Christ] as a god of second rank." - The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publ., 1987, Vol. 9, p. 15.
But when trinitarian translators find Jesus called theos ("a god") in these earliest writings, they most often translate it as "God" instead!
So, after more than 1500 years of trinitarian dominance, redefinition, rewording, and selective translating, it should not be surprising that the trinitarian translations of the existing copies of the manuscripts of those early Christian writers will at times appear trinitarian. (See the sections on Origen and Hippolytus below for examples.) What would be very surprising would be, given the above conditions, that there would be any support for a non-trinitarian doctrine still left in modern trinitarian translations of the writings of these earliest Christians!
We can see from the very early creeds quoted above that the churches of that time were not trinitarian. Now let's see if any of that truth still remains in the trinitarian-reworked letters of the Apostolic Fathers and the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
Trinitarian scholar, minister, and missionary, H. R. Boer admits: The very first Christians to really discuss Jesus' relationship to God in their writings 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, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.
Other respected trinitarian scholars agree.
"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, A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.
"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 [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.
Alvan Lamson is especially straightforward:
"The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ... Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact." - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.
Clement of Rome
(wrote c. 96 A.D.)
The writing of Clement of Rome (c. 96 A. D.) to the Corinthians (1 Clement) is:
"the earliest and most valuable surviving example of Christian literature outside the New Testament" and "was widely known and held in very great esteem by the early Church. It was publicly read in numerous churches, and regarded as being almost on a level with the inspired scriptures." - pp. 17, 22, Early Christian Writings, Staniforth, Dorset Press, New York.
Clement, St., Pope of Rome (ca. 92-101) .... St. Clement is looked upon as the first of the 'Apostolic Fathers.' - p. 177, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.
So what did this famous Apostolic Father tell us about the essential knowledge of God?
[In the early days of Christianity] one believed in the Father, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but no tie was available to unite them together. They were mentioned separately. Prayers were addressed, for example, to the Father who 'alone,' according to Clement of Rome, 'was God.' - Revue d¡' Histoire et de Litterature Religieuses (Review of History and of Religious Literature), May-June, 1906, pp. 222, 223.
Yes, Clement of Rome wrote:
"And we will ask, with instancy of prayer and supplication, that the Creator of the universe may guard intact unto the end the number that hath been numbered of His elect throughout the whole world, through his beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the full knowledge of the glory of His Name.
"[Grant unto us, Lord {Jehovah, Father}] that we may set our hope on Thy Name {Jehovah - Ps. 83:18, KJV, Ex. 3:15, NEB, LB, MLB} which is the primal source of all creation ... that we may know thee, who alone abides Highest in the lofty, Holy in the holy ... Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture." - 59:2-4, The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot and Harmer, noted trinitarian scholars. [Information in special brackets { } and emphasis added by me.]
"Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order." - 42:1, 2, Lightfoot & Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers.
Not only is this the earliest and most important of the early Christian sources, but the earliest existing manuscript for it is probably the oldest of any of the other early Church writers.
The text [for 1 Clement] is mainly due to three sources. (1) The famous Alexandrian uncial MS of the New Testament [A] in the British Museum, belonging to the fifth century, to which it is added as a sort of appendix .... (2) The Constantinopolitan or Hierosolymitan MS [C] .... This MS is dated A.D. 1056 (3) The Syriac translation .... bears a date corresponding to A.D. 1700. - pp. 3, 4, The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot and Harmer, Baker Book House (trinitarian), 1984 reprint.
We see, then, that the witness of the very first and most important of the Apostolic Fathers is clearly not trinitarian! But what about the later Ante-Nicene Fathers (ca. 160-300 A.D.)?
Justin Martyr
(c. 100-165 A.D.)
Justin, whom the trinitarian The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (p. 770) called "the most outstanding of the 'Apologists,'" wrote:
God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after him are created and corruptible {Justin has just concurred that the world was begotten by God} .... take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say this is the Cause of all. - ANF 1:197 ('Dialogue').
But,
Of all the thousands of NT manuscript copies which still exist today there are only a very small number (mostly fragments) which are not from this completely trinitarian-dominated time period (381 A.D. to present). Any changes made by copyists in this time period would, obviously, be trinitarian changes! And it is well known that from 325 A. D. (when the emperor, who presided over the Nicene council, and his trinitarian advisors had the anti-trinitarians banished and persecuted and their anti-trinitarian writings burned - see the HIST study) onward the Roman church began systematically destroying (and changing) writings and manuscripts which were considered non-trinitarian or otherwise "heretical"!
There are other problems associated with the existing copies of the writings of these very early Christians.
First
, unlike the writings of Holy Scripture, there are very few existing manuscripts of the writings of the first Christians. For many of these writers there are only one or two manuscripts available, and they are often of relatively late date (many hundreds of years after the original was composed). In other words, instead of having the original words of the ancient writers themselves, we have copies of copies, etc. many times over. Justin Martyr's important 'Dialogue with Trypho,' for example, exists only in a copy made over a thousand years after the original was written.
Second
, the copyists very often did not take the same care or have the same reverence for these manuscripts as they did for the scriptures themselves. They would sometimes change the wording and even add their own thoughts and beliefs to the original writings in order to provide greater authority for these beliefs in an attempt to persuade others (for example, see the "Rufinus" note at the end of the Origen study below).
We find that there have been many changes which were intended to advance trinitarian ideas even in copies of the scriptures over the many centuries (since 381 A. D. at least) of copying and recopying by the scribes of trinitarian Christendom. Words that were not in the originals have been added (e.g., 1 Jn 5:7 as rendered in KJV - See 1JN5-7 study paper and Insight, Vol. 2, p. 1019) and changed (e.g. 1 Tim. 3:16 as rendered in KJV - See MINOR study paper) in later copies.
Of course, the best copyists were used in copying manuscripts of scripture itself. More care was taken to assure the accuracy of these copies of copies of the original inspired scriptures than with the writings of other early Christians. But even in copies of scriptural manuscripts we find a great amount of purposeful changes made by the copyist himself.
For example, the copyist of the very early papyrus manuscript known as p66 (copied ca. 150 - 200 A. D.), which is a copy of much of the Gospel of John,
Why, even the copyist who is considered "the best of all the early Christian scribes" (the copyist of p75) , did not resist the temptation to make changes in his copies of earlier manuscripts of inspired Scripture!
"... when he did deviate from his exemplar [the earlier ms. he was copying], he did not go in the direction of simplifying the text (as did the scribe of p45) ; rather he elevated it." Some of his numerous changes and additions are then listed. - pp. 494-496, Comfort & Barrett.
Fortunately, there are thousands of manuscripts of NT Scripture remaining today (some of quite early date) which can be compared. This helps greatly in the process of determining what the original writings most likely were.
It should be no surprise, then, that there are a great number of changes, additions, deletions, etc. to be found in the very few remaining (mostly late date) manuscripts of the non-scriptural writings of the earliest Christians, and they are almost impossible to isolate and positively identify because of.the extreme rarity of still existent manuscripts for comparison.
Third, since trinitarians have ruled the world of Christendom in every way, politically, economically, numerically (99% of all professing Christians even today are trinitarian), etc. for over 1600 years now, it should not be too surprising that trinitarians are the ones who have written the modern translations of the existing manuscript copies of these ancient writers. And these trinitarian translators have written their translations for trinitarian publishers who publish for a trinitarian market! Surely we wouldn't expect them to translate an ambiguous or vague passage (and the trinitarian translators themselves have admitted that these writings are full of such passages) in a non-trinitarian way if they could find another (even if much less probable), trinitarian, interpretation. (They even admit that they have purposely done so. See Preface, Vol. 5, ANF)
Fourth, the terminology used by these early Christians has been redefined in later years. Terms translated today as "person," "substance," "nature," "begotten," "of the same substance [homoousios]," etc. often had a different meaning for these first Christians. But early trinitarians began REdefining them starting in the 4th century.
For example, early Christian Heracleon [c. 160 A. D.] taught that those who worshiped God in spirit and truth were themselves "of the same nature [homoousios] as the Father"! - p. 394, note #111, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985.
Some trinitarian historians today will even admit that the Son being homoousios ("one substance/essence") with the Father merely meant to Origen (and other early Christians, such as Heracleon above) that the Son was UNITED IN WILL with the Father! But, starting around the time of the Nicene Council in the 4th century,
[4] trinitarians began insisting that this very influential Christian writer of the 2nd century had meant by homoousios that the Son and the Father were equal in absolute essence and were, therefore, both equally God. Most trinitarian writers and translators of today continue this trinitarian redefinition tradition. - See the HIST and REDEF studies.
Even more important is the redefinition by later trinitarians of "a god" (theos - a term used in Scripture for angels and even certain men who REPRESENTED God - see the BOWGOD study) into "God" (ho theos - a term used in Scripture for the only true Most High God - see the DEF and PRIMER studies). Even the following respected trinitarian reference work reluctantly admits this:
But when trinitarian translators find Jesus called theos ("a god") in these earliest writings, they most often translate it as "God" instead!
So, after more than 1500 years of trinitarian dominance, redefinition, rewording, and selective translating, it should not be surprising that the trinitarian translations of the existing copies of the manuscripts of those early Christian writers will at times appear trinitarian. (See the sections on Origen and Hippolytus below for examples.) What would be very surprising would be, given the above conditions, that there would be any support for a non-trinitarian doctrine still left in modern trinitarian translations of the writings of these earliest Christians!
We can see from the very early creeds quoted above that the churches of that time were not trinitarian. Now let's see if any of that truth still remains in the trinitarian-reworked letters of the Apostolic Fathers and the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
Trinitarian scholar, minister, and missionary, H. R. Boer admits: The very first Christians to really discuss Jesus' relationship to God in their writings were the Apologists.
Other respected trinitarian scholars agree.
"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 [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.
Alvan Lamson is especially straightforward:
Clement of Rome
(wrote c. 96 A.D.)
The writing of Clement of Rome (c. 96 A. D.) to the Corinthians (1 Clement) is:
Clement, St., Pope of Rome (ca. 92-101) .... St. Clement is looked upon as the first of the 'Apostolic Fathers.' - p. 177, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.
So what did this famous Apostolic Father tell us about the essential knowledge of God?
Yes, Clement of Rome wrote:
"[Grant unto us, Lord {Jehovah, Father}] that we may set our hope on Thy Name {Jehovah - Ps. 83:18, KJV, Ex. 3:15, NEB, LB, MLB} which is the primal source of all creation ... that we may know thee, who alone abides Highest in the lofty, Holy in the holy ... Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture." - 59:2-4, The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot and Harmer, noted trinitarian scholars. [Information in special brackets { } and emphasis added by me.]
"Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order." - 42:1, 2, Lightfoot & Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers.
Not only is this the earliest and most important of the early Christian sources, but the earliest existing manuscript for it is probably the oldest of any of the other early Church writers.
We see, then, that the witness of the very first and most important of the Apostolic Fathers is clearly not trinitarian! But what about the later Ante-Nicene Fathers (ca. 160-300 A.D.)?
Justin Martyr
(c. 100-165 A.D.)
Justin, whom the trinitarian The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (p. 770) called "the most outstanding of the 'Apologists,'" wrote:
God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after him are created and corruptible {Justin has just concurred that the world was begotten by God} .... take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say this is the Cause of all. - ANF 1:197 ('Dialogue').
But,
A look at the pre Nicene creeds III
The trinitarian The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987, tells us:
" ... another sentence from {Justin Martyr} ... 'There is, as has been said, another god and lord {the Son of God} below the Creator of the universe' " - Vol. 9, p. 15.
Justin Martyr (c. 100 - c. 165) in a dialogue with the Jew Trypho says:
And later in the same dialogue with Trypho Justin again relates the words of Wisdom, the pre-existent Son of God,
A saying of Justin Martyr indicates what lack of clarity there was with regard to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity as late as the middle of the second century .... He admits that Christians indeed reject the false pagan gods, but, he goes on to say, they do not deny the true God, who is the Father of justice and chastity and of all other virtues, and who will have nothing to do with that which is evil. He then says, 'Both him {The Father, God alone} and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who follow and are made like to Him, and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, because we honor {them?} in reason and truth.' As if it were not enough that in this enumeration angels are mentioned as beings which are honored and worshiped {but see the WORSHIP study} by Christians, Justin does not hesitate to mention angels before naming the Holy Spirit. The sequence in which the beings that are worshiped are mentioned (God the Father, Christ, the {OTHER} angels, the Spirit) is noteworthy. - pp. 43, 44, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Lohse (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985.
Respected church historian, Robert M. Grant (trinitarian), likewise notes concerning the above:
Notice how worship (or 'obeisance') is given to the Son "and the host of other good angels." Again Justin Martyr calls the Son, the Word, an angel! - See the REAPS study.
Trinitarian scholar Dr. H. R. Boer tells us that the very first Christians to really discuss Jesus' relationship with God in their writings were the Apologists,
"The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]" - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.
Justin Martyr's 'Apology' and 'Dialogue {With Trypho}' "are preserved but in a single ms (Cod. Paris, 450, A.D. 1364)" - Britannica, 14th ed.
Irenaeus
(c. 140-203 A.D.)
The trinitarian New Bible Dictionary teaches us: "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, Tyndale House Publ., 1982. Since most trinitarian historians give the blame to these three writers for beginning the development of Christendom's trinity doctrine, let's examine them first.
Trinitarian scholar H. R. Boer writes:
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul from 178 to his death in about 203, had the most biblical approach of the early theologians in his discussion of Christ.
Boer then quotes Irenaeus:
'But there is only one God, the Creator ... He it is ... whom Christ reveals .... He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: through His Word, who is His Son, through Him He is revealed.' - pp. 110, 111, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans, 1976. (Ellipses were provided by Boer. Irenaeus quote by Boer is from ANF, 1:406.)
And noted trinitarian scholar Robert M. Grant tells us the following:
Irenaeus cited Justin [Martyr]...: "Justin well says in his work Against Marcion that he would not have believed the Lord [Jesus] himself if he had preached another God besides the Creator." - p. 84, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, The Westminster Press, 1988.
Trinitarian Grant admits that Irenaeus agrees with Justin Martyr in his statement showing there is no other God than the Creator and that it is not Jesus! Justin (and Irenaeus) certainly would never say that they would "not have believed" Jesus under any circumstances if they really believed he was equally God with the Father!
Yes, Irenaeus actually teaches the following concerning the Christian doctrine of God and Jesus:
"The Church ... [believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit ..." (1:330, Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF], by the trinitarian Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Eerdmans Publ..)
* * * *
"... neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme .... the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; it is incumbent on us to follow ... their testimonies to this effect." (ANF, 1:422, 'Against Heresies')
* * * *
"Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets ... which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him." (ANF, 1:428, 'Against Heresies')
* * * *
"And that the whole range of the doctrine of the Apostles proclaimed one and the same God ... That He was the Maker of all things, that He was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the God of glory, - they who wish may learn from the very words and acts of the Apostles, and may contemplate the fact that God is one, above whom is no other." (ANF, 1:434, 'Against Heresies')
* * * *
"Those, therefore, who delivered up their souls to death for Christ's Gospel .... To the Jews {who already knew the one true God of the Bible, Jehovah, the Father}, indeed, [they proclaimed] that the Jesus who was crucified by them was the Son of God, the Judge of quick and dead, and that He has received from His Father an eternal kingdom in Israel, as I have pointed out; but to the Greeks {who did NOT yet know the one true God of the Bible} they preached one God who made all things, and, Jesus Christ His Son." (ANF, 1:435, 'Against Heresies') Material within special brackets { } supplied by me.
* * * *
Notice that Ireneaus, above, teaches us that the very first Christians did not teach a new understanding of God to the Jews. Why? Because they already knew the God of the Bible was the Father. But to the Greeks, who did not know the God of the Bible, they also had to teach that the one God is the Father!
"For faith, which has respect to our Master, endures unchangeably, assuring us that there is but one true God, and that we should truly love Him for ever, seeing that He alone is our Father." (ANF, 1:399-400, 'Against Heresies')
* * * *
"If, for instance, anyone asks, 'what was God doing before He made the world?' we reply that the answer to such a question .... remains with God, and it is not proper for us to aim at bringing forward foolish, rash, and blasphemous suppositions [in reply to it] .... For consider all ye who invent such opinions, since the Father Himself is alone called God ... since, moreover, the Scriptures acknowledge Him alone as God" - (ANF, 1:400, 'Against Heresies')
* * * *
"... no one is termed God by the Apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord." - (ANF, 1:553, 'Against Heresies')
* * * *
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," and all other things in succession; .... Now, that this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul the apostle also has declared, [saying] "There is one God, the Father, who is above all {Eph. 4:6; cf. 1 Cor. 8:6}, ..." - (ANF, 1:362)
* * * *
"It is easy to prove from the very words of the Lord [Jesus], that he acknowledges one Father and Creator of the world, and Fashioner of man ... and that this One is God over all" - (ANF, 1:370)
Like most, if not all, Ante-Nicene Fathers Irenaeus taught that "Wisdom" speaking at Prov. 8:22-30 is the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, the Word. In fact, the very trinitarian writers of ANF admit also:
Prov. viii 22-25. This is one of the favourite Messianic quotations of the Fathers, and is considered as the base of the first chapter of St. John¡¯s Gospel. - ANF 1:488, f.n. #10.
Here, then, is what Irenaeus taught about the Son of God, Wisdom, the Word, speaking at Prov. 8:22-25:
'The Lord {"Jehovah" in original Hebrew manuscripts} created me the beginning of His ways in His work ... before all the hills, He brought me forth ... when He made the foundations of the earth strong, I was with Him preparing [them].' .... There is therefore one God, who by {through} the Word and Wisdom created and arranged all {other} things. - ANF 1:488.
Only fragments of manuscripts containing the original Greek remain. Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" exists today in full only in a single Latin translation from the original Greek language. It is thus not surprising that trinitarian-supporting "evidence" may be found in the single trinitarian-recopied, trinitarian-translated, trinitarian-redefined manuscript available today. But certainly this respected early Christian writer whom today's trinitarian scholars "credit" with the very "formulation" of the trinity doctrine would not have made the many clear non-trinitarian statements recorded above if he had really believed in or taught a trinity (or "Binity")! Obviously the many trinitarians who handled (and mishandled) Irenaeus¡¯ writing down through the centuries could (and did) change some non-trinitarian thoughts into trinitarian thoughts.
* But they would certainly never change trinitarian thoughts into non-trinitarian thoughts. Therefore, those many non-trinitarian concepts still remaining must be Irenaeus' original teaching (as a study of the very first Creeds of this time also proves)!
______________
*
The very trinitarian translators of ANF wrote in their Introductory Note to Irenaeus' Against Heresies: "The text [of Against Heresies] ... is often most uncertain. .... After the text has been settled according to the best judgment [trinitarian, of course] which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenaeus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. .... And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural retranslation [trinitarian, of course] into Greek, in order to have some inkling of what the author wrote. .... We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess [trinitarian, of course] can only be made as to the probable meaning." - ANF 1:311-312. Obviously, if a trinitarian, even a scrupulously honest trinitarian, makes a "conjectural retranslation" or a "guess ... as to the probable meaning," it will be a trinitarian guess or "conjectural retranslation"!
But notice what Irenaeus himself wrote about such contrivances:
It does not follow because men are endowed with greater and less degrees of intelligence, that they should therefore change the subject matter [of the faith] itself, and should conceive of some other God besides Him who is the Framer, Maker, and Preserver of this universe, (as if He were not sufficient for them).... - ANF 1:331.
And, as already noted:
Irenaeus cited Justin [Martyr]...: "Justin well says in his work Against Marcion that he would not have believed the Lord [Jesus] himself if he had preached another God besides the Creator." - p.184, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, Robert M. Grant, The Westminster Press, 1988.
Origen
(c. 185-254 A. D.)
Again, as we saw above, the trinitarian New Bible Dictionary teaches:
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, Tyndale House Publ., 1982.
Not only do most trinitarian scholars credit Origen as being one of the co-founders of Christendom's trinity doctrine, but most historians also credit him for his great scholarship, intellect, and Christian integrity.
Origen was the greatest scholar and most prolific author of the early church. He was not only a profound thinker but also deeply spiritual and a loyal churchman. - p. 107, The History of Christianity, A Lion Handbook.
Origen, the greatest and most influential Christian thinker of his age, whose work won him the grudging respect even of such a radically anti-Christian philosopher as the Neoplatonist Porphyry. - p. 89, A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker, Scribners, 1985.
Origen was the greatest scholar of his age, and the most learned and genial of all the ante-Nicene fathers ['the greatest divine and one of the noblest characters of his age' - The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. II, p. 21]." - Prof. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, I, p. 54.
Origen was probably the most accomplished Biblical scholar produced by the early Church - p. 6346, Vol. 17, Universal Standard Encyclopedia (Funk and Wagnalls), 1956.
The character of Origen is singularly pure and noble; for his moral qualities are as remarkable as his intellectual gifts. - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 229, Vol. IV, Eerdmans.
Origen was a great scholar as well as a great theologian. .... His work on the words of Scripture has a value quite independently of his theological views. Some of the most important qualifications of the worthy interpreter of Scripture he possesses in a supreme degree. His knowledge of Scripture is extraordinary both for its range and its minute accuracy. He had no concordance to help him; but he was himself a concordance. Whatever word occurs he is able to bring from every part of Scripture the passages in which it is used. .... a knowledge of all parts of the Bible as is probably without parallel. It has to be added that he is strong in grammar, and has a true eye for the real meaning of his text; the discussions in which he does this often leave nothing to be desired. - p. 293, Vol. 10, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans, 1990 printing.
Yes, even respected trinitarian scholars admit not only the stellar scholarship and knowledge of Origen, but also his outstanding moral qualities and pure character. This man simply would not lie nor distort.
Origen actually taught:
The agent of redemption as of all creation is the Divine Logos {'the Word'} or Son of God, who is the perfect image or reflection of the eternal Father. Though a being distinct, derivative, and subordinate. - p. 551, An Encyclopedia of Religion, Ferm (ed.), 1945.
Origen believed that
'the Son can be divine only in a lesser sense than the Father; the Son is [theos](god), but only the Father is [autotheos] (Absolute God, God in Himself).' - p. 1009, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (trinitarian), ed. F. L. Cross (trinitarian), Oxford University Press, 1990 printing.
Ardent trinitarian Murray J. Harris likewise admits:
'Origen, too, drew a sharp distinction between [theos - 'a god'] and [ho theos - 'the god' or 'God']. As [theos], the Son is not only distinct from ('numerically distinct') but also inferior to the Father who is [ho theos] and [autotheos] (i.e. God in an absolute sense).' - p. 36, Jesus as God, Baker Book House (trinitarian), 1992.
The trinitarian The Encyclopedia of Religion says:
"Origen himself will downgrade the Logos ['downgraded' in relation to God only] in calling it 'second god' (Against Celsus, 5.39, 6.61, etc.) or again in writing 'god' (theos) without the article, whereas he calls the Father ho theos, 'the God' [with the article]." - p. 15, Vol. 9, Macmillan Publ., 1987.
a god."! - ANF, 10:323. (The earliest existing Manuscript for Origen's Commentary on John appears to be from the 13th century.)
Remember, this man is not only the best expert on NT Greek, but his great honesty and Christian character were not questioned even by his severest opponents!
Trinitarian Latourette also says that "Origen held that God is one, and is the Father" - p. 49, Christianity Through the Ages, Harper ChapelBook, 1965.
Trinitarian Bernhard Lohse also concedes that Origen taught
that 'the Son was a creature of the Father, thus strictly subordinating the Son to the Father' and, 'Origen is therefore able to designate the Son as a creature created by the Father.' - pp. 46, 252, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Fortress Press (trinitarian), 1985.
For example, Origen writes:
there are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power. - ANF 10:321-322.
Yes, Origen calls the Son of God a created angel, the highest of the angels, the Angel of God. He calls Jesus, the Word:
"the Angel of God who came into the world for the salvation of men"- p. 568, vol. 4, ANF.
These creatures were also called gods (in a proper, scriptural sense but clearly subordinate to God himself - see the BOWGOD or 'God and gods' study papers)! - ANF, 10:323.
Like Irenaeus (and most, if not all, Ante-Nicene Fathers), Origen considered "Wisdom" speaking at Prov. 8:22-30 to be Christ, the Son of God. He wrote:
"we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon:
'The Lord {"Jehovah" in the ancient Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts} created me {Wisdom, 'the only-begotten Son of God'} - the beginning {see Rev. 3:14} of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth.' {Prov. 8:22-25}
He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: 'who is the first-born of every creature.' {Col. 1:15} - ANF 4:246, 'De Principiis'.
So once again we find clear non-trinitarian statements in Origen's writings.
It's obviously not unexpected that the trinitarian re-copyists, translators, and re-definers would have caused original non-trinitarian statements to now read as trinitarian statements,
Justin Martyr (c. 100 - c. 165) in a dialogue with the Jew Trypho says:
And later in the same dialogue with Trypho Justin again relates the words of Wisdom, the pre-existent Son of God,
A saying of Justin Martyr indicates what lack of clarity there was with regard to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity as late as the middle of the second century .... He admits that Christians indeed reject the false pagan gods, but, he goes on to say, they do not deny the true God, who is the Father of justice and chastity and of all other virtues, and who will have nothing to do with that which is evil. He then says, 'Both him {The Father, God alone} and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who follow and are made like to Him, and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, because we honor {them?} in reason and truth.' As if it were not enough that in this enumeration angels are mentioned as beings which are honored and worshiped {but see the WORSHIP study} by Christians, Justin does not hesitate to mention angels before naming the Holy Spirit. The sequence in which the beings that are worshiped are mentioned (God the Father, Christ, the {OTHER} angels, the Spirit) is noteworthy. - pp. 43, 44, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Lohse (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985.
Respected church historian, Robert M. Grant (trinitarian), likewise notes concerning the above:
Notice how worship (or 'obeisance') is given to the Son "and the host of other good angels." Again Justin Martyr calls the Son, the Word, an angel! - See the REAPS study.
Trinitarian scholar Dr. H. R. Boer tells us that the very first Christians to really discuss Jesus' relationship with God in their writings were the Apologists,
"The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]" - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.
Justin Martyr's 'Apology' and 'Dialogue {With Trypho}' "are preserved but in a single ms (Cod. Paris, 450, A.D. 1364)" - Britannica, 14th ed.
Irenaeus
(c. 140-203 A.D.)
The trinitarian New Bible Dictionary teaches us: "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, Tyndale House Publ., 1982. Since most trinitarian historians give the blame to these three writers for beginning the development of Christendom's trinity doctrine, let's examine them first.
Trinitarian scholar H. R. Boer writes:
Boer then quotes Irenaeus:
And noted trinitarian scholar Robert M. Grant tells us the following:
Trinitarian Grant admits that Irenaeus agrees with Justin Martyr in his statement showing there is no other God than the Creator and that it is not Jesus! Justin (and Irenaeus) certainly would never say that they would "not have believed" Jesus under any circumstances if they really believed he was equally God with the Father!
Yes, Irenaeus actually teaches the following concerning the Christian doctrine of God and Jesus:
* * * *
"... neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme .... the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; it is incumbent on us to follow ... their testimonies to this effect." (ANF, 1:422, 'Against Heresies')
* * * *
"Such, then, are the first principles of the Gospel: that there is one God, the Maker of this universe; He who was also announced by the prophets ... which proclaim the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and ignore any other God or Father except Him." (ANF, 1:428, 'Against Heresies')
* * * *
"And that the whole range of the doctrine of the Apostles proclaimed one and the same God ... That He was the Maker of all things, that He was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the God of glory, - they who wish may learn from the very words and acts of the Apostles, and may contemplate the fact that God is one, above whom is no other." (ANF, 1:434, 'Against Heresies')
* * * *
"Those, therefore, who delivered up their souls to death for Christ's Gospel .... To the Jews {who already knew the one true God of the Bible, Jehovah, the Father}, indeed, [they proclaimed] that the Jesus who was crucified by them was the Son of God, the Judge of quick and dead, and that He has received from His Father an eternal kingdom in Israel, as I have pointed out; but to the Greeks {who did NOT yet know the one true God of the Bible} they preached one God who made all things, and, Jesus Christ His Son." (ANF, 1:435, 'Against Heresies') Material within special brackets { } supplied by me.
* * * *
Notice that Ireneaus, above, teaches us that the very first Christians did not teach a new understanding of God to the Jews. Why? Because they already knew the God of the Bible was the Father. But to the Greeks, who did not know the God of the Bible, they also had to teach that the one God is the Father!
* * * *
"If, for instance, anyone asks, 'what was God doing before He made the world?' we reply that the answer to such a question .... remains with God, and it is not proper for us to aim at bringing forward foolish, rash, and blasphemous suppositions [in reply to it] .... For consider all ye who invent such opinions, since the Father Himself is alone called God ... since, moreover, the Scriptures acknowledge Him alone as God" - (ANF, 1:400, 'Against Heresies')
* * * *
"... no one is termed God by the Apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord." - (ANF, 1:553, 'Against Heresies')
* * * *
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," and all other things in succession; .... Now, that this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul the apostle also has declared, [saying] "There is one God, the Father, who is above all {Eph. 4:6; cf. 1 Cor. 8:6}, ..." - (ANF, 1:362)
* * * *
"It is easy to prove from the very words of the Lord [Jesus], that he acknowledges one Father and Creator of the world, and Fashioner of man ... and that this One is God over all" - (ANF, 1:370)
Like most, if not all, Ante-Nicene Fathers Irenaeus taught that "Wisdom" speaking at Prov. 8:22-30 is the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, the Word. In fact, the very trinitarian writers of ANF admit also:
Here, then, is what Irenaeus taught about the Son of God, Wisdom, the Word, speaking at Prov. 8:22-25:
Only fragments of manuscripts containing the original Greek remain. Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" exists today in full only in a single Latin translation from the original Greek language. It is thus not surprising that trinitarian-supporting "evidence" may be found in the single trinitarian-recopied, trinitarian-translated, trinitarian-redefined manuscript available today. But certainly this respected early Christian writer whom today's trinitarian scholars "credit" with the very "formulation" of the trinity doctrine would not have made the many clear non-trinitarian statements recorded above if he had really believed in or taught a trinity (or "Binity")! Obviously the many trinitarians who handled (and mishandled) Irenaeus¡¯ writing down through the centuries could (and did) change some non-trinitarian thoughts into trinitarian thoughts.
* But they would certainly never change trinitarian thoughts into non-trinitarian thoughts. Therefore, those many non-trinitarian concepts still remaining must be Irenaeus' original teaching (as a study of the very first Creeds of this time also proves)!
______________
*
The very trinitarian translators of ANF wrote in their Introductory Note to Irenaeus' Against Heresies: "The text [of Against Heresies] ... is often most uncertain. .... After the text has been settled according to the best judgment [trinitarian, of course] which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenaeus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. .... And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural retranslation [trinitarian, of course] into Greek, in order to have some inkling of what the author wrote. .... We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess [trinitarian, of course] can only be made as to the probable meaning." - ANF 1:311-312. Obviously, if a trinitarian, even a scrupulously honest trinitarian, makes a "conjectural retranslation" or a "guess ... as to the probable meaning," it will be a trinitarian guess or "conjectural retranslation"!
But notice what Irenaeus himself wrote about such contrivances:
And, as already noted:
Origen
(c. 185-254 A. D.)
Again, as we saw above, the trinitarian New Bible Dictionary teaches:
Not only do most trinitarian scholars credit Origen as being one of the co-founders of Christendom's trinity doctrine, but most historians also credit him for his great scholarship, intellect, and Christian integrity.
Origen, the greatest and most influential Christian thinker of his age, whose work won him the grudging respect even of such a radically anti-Christian philosopher as the Neoplatonist Porphyry. - p. 89, A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker, Scribners, 1985.
Origen was the greatest scholar of his age, and the most learned and genial of all the ante-Nicene fathers ['the greatest divine and one of the noblest characters of his age' - The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. II, p. 21]." - Prof. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, I, p. 54.
Origen was probably the most accomplished Biblical scholar produced by the early Church - p. 6346, Vol. 17, Universal Standard Encyclopedia (Funk and Wagnalls), 1956.
The character of Origen is singularly pure and noble; for his moral qualities are as remarkable as his intellectual gifts. - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 229, Vol. IV, Eerdmans.
Origen was a great scholar as well as a great theologian. .... His work on the words of Scripture has a value quite independently of his theological views. Some of the most important qualifications of the worthy interpreter of Scripture he possesses in a supreme degree. His knowledge of Scripture is extraordinary both for its range and its minute accuracy. He had no concordance to help him; but he was himself a concordance. Whatever word occurs he is able to bring from every part of Scripture the passages in which it is used. .... a knowledge of all parts of the Bible as is probably without parallel. It has to be added that he is strong in grammar, and has a true eye for the real meaning of his text; the discussions in which he does this often leave nothing to be desired. - p. 293, Vol. 10, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans, 1990 printing.
Yes, even respected trinitarian scholars admit not only the stellar scholarship and knowledge of Origen, but also his outstanding moral qualities and pure character. This man simply would not lie nor distort.
Origen actually taught:
Origen believed that
Ardent trinitarian Murray J. Harris likewise admits:
The trinitarian The Encyclopedia of Religion says:
a god."! - ANF, 10:323. (The earliest existing Manuscript for Origen's Commentary on John appears to be from the 13th century.)
Remember, this man is not only the best expert on NT Greek, but his great honesty and Christian character were not questioned even by his severest opponents!
Trinitarian Latourette also says that "Origen held that God is one, and is the Father" - p. 49, Christianity Through the Ages, Harper ChapelBook, 1965.
Trinitarian Bernhard Lohse also concedes that Origen taught
For example, Origen writes:
Yes, Origen calls the Son of God a created angel, the highest of the angels, the Angel of God. He calls Jesus, the Word:
These creatures were also called gods (in a proper, scriptural sense but clearly subordinate to God himself - see the BOWGOD or 'God and gods' study papers)! - ANF, 10:323.
Like Irenaeus (and most, if not all, Ante-Nicene Fathers), Origen considered "Wisdom" speaking at Prov. 8:22-30 to be Christ, the Son of God. He wrote:
'The Lord {"Jehovah" in the ancient Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts} created me {Wisdom, 'the only-begotten Son of God'} - the beginning {see Rev. 3:14} of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth.' {Prov. 8:22-25}
He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: 'who is the first-born of every creature.' {Col. 1:15} - ANF 4:246, 'De Principiis'.
So once again we find clear non-trinitarian statements in Origen's writings.
It's obviously not unexpected that the trinitarian re-copyists, translators, and re-definers would have caused original non-trinitarian statements to now read as trinitarian statements,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)