Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
By Juan Baixeras
INDEX
1. Greek Philosophies
2. Names to know
3. Apostolic Fathers
4. The Church Fathers
5. A Brief History of the Church After Nicaea
6. Summary
INTRODUCTION
1
Council of Constantinople in 381 AD., the Holy Spirit was
added to the formula, bringing to life the modern day Trinity.
One can easily see that even at Nicaea the Trinity was not an
established doctrine by the absence of the Holy Spirit.
Trinitarians will argue that the belief in a triune God was
there from the Apostles, and that it was formalized as dogma
at Nicaea and Constantinople. But the fact is that the New
Testament does not anywhere teach the doctrine of the
Trinity. The Doctrine of the Trinity, as we shall see, was not an
established doctrine from Apostolic times, but a slowly
developing idea that took over three hundred years to
formalize.
Just to clear up the claim that the Apostles taught the Trinity
in the New Testament, we will conduct a careful analysis of
Patristic writings from the days of the Apostles all the way to
Nicaea. The logic is, that if the Apostles did indeed teach the
Trinity, then it would stand to reason that the early Christian
leaders of the church would also be Trinitarians, and their
letters should reflect that teaching. The problem that
Trinitarians will find is that these early Christian leaders (until
the late second century) had no idea of any Trinity. The latter
part of the second century is when we start hearing for the
first time of a Trinity of any kind, and even then, it is not very
similar to the Trinity that Christianity has today. If the
Apostles had actually taught the Trinity, then the Doctrine of
the Trinity should be a constant teaching from the Apostles all
the way to Nicaea. The problem with this thought is that the
Christian leaders which came right after the Apostles, and
who in some cases were appointed by the Apostles, are
strangers to the thought of a triune God. As we get farther
and farther away in time from the Apostles, we begin to see
changes in the writers’ Christology and their overall theology.
This is almost completely due to the incredible influence of
Greek philosophies such as Platonism, Neo-Platonism,
Stoicism, and Gnosticism on early Christianity. There are
probably a few more isms, but these are the major culprits.
Greek philosophy not only created the Doctrine of the Trinity,
but it was also responsible for several more near fatal
changes to true Christianity which we will also be examining.
You must realize that in those days Greek philosophy was the
major thought pattern of the civilized world. Anyone who was
anyone was educated in Greek philosophy. Another reason
why these philosophies were so quick to influence early
Christianity is that in the beginning of the church, the leaders
were for the most part Jewish, with the Jewish concept of God.
2
"The Jews conceive God as an absolutely simple unity
(inferring absolutely no constituent divisions)." (Jewish
Thought 6/12/96)
"They did not believe that truth could conflict with truth and
were confident that all that was rationally certain in Platonic
speculation would prove to be in perfect accordance with the
Christian revelation. Their unhistorical approach and
unscholarly methods of exegesis of texts, both pagan and
Christian, facilitated this confidence."
There was also the felt need of some Christians with Greek
philosophical training to express Christianity in those terms,
both for their own intellectual satisfaction and in order to
convert educated pagans.
This paper will cover almost all the major Patristic writings
leading up to Nicaea. Some writings have been left out
because they had nothing to contribute to the topics at issue.
3
This group of "fathers" will be divided up into what are known
as the Apostolic Fathers, and the Church Fathers. Apostolic
Fathers does not mean the Apostles. These are individuals
who are considered to be the disciples of the Apostles, or of
their immediate disciples. They are about as close as you can
get to the Apostles. As you will see, their theology for the
most part, has not been corrupted. Their writings basically
continue the preaching tradition of the Apostles. There is
little theoretical speculation. (History of Philosophy, Vol. 2,
Chpter 2.)
2. The kingdom of God. (Do the writers think that the kingdom
of God is an earthly kingdom that is to come in the future at
the return of Christ, or do they think that it is a kingdom of
the heart?)
3. The nature of death and afterlife. (Do the writers think that
you go to heaven or hell when you die, or do they believe in
the resurrection of the dead upon Christ’s return?)
3. I will list all the verses dealing with the topics mentioned
above and a commentary for each verse.
CHAPTER 1
4
GREEK PHILOSOPHIES
In these definitions I will list only the points that have a direct
relationship to our topic. The purpose of this paper is not to
get a full understanding of these philosophies, but to see how
and in what capacity they have affected Christian theology.
You can obviously see how this way of thinking will ultimately
influence Christianity and change the goal of a Christian from
being at the first resurrection to heaven going.
5
Platonist also believe in the Doctrine of Recollection,
according to which, learning is the remembering of a wisdom
that the soul enjoyed prior to its incarnation.
6
Christology developed. And wouldn’t you know it, all the
major theologians who wrote about the logos being God were
from Egypt. What a coincidence!
7
The two most popular versions were the ones taught by
Valentinus and by Basildes. Of these two, Valentinus was the
most influential. Most of the others have similarities to these
two. I will be explaining Valentinus’ Gnosticism. This is the
Gnosticism Hippolytus of Rome and Irenaeus refuted in their
writings. Fasten your seat belts!
First, we see Bythus impregnate Sige, and she then gave birth
to Nous who was equal to the one who had produced him, and
alone was capable of comprehending his father’s greatness.
This is a very close parallel to how Trinitarians explain the
relationship of Jesus (the second person in the Trinity) to God
the Father. Nous, who is also called father, the beginning of all
things, who also sends forth Logos, which is also a name for
the root and substance of all things.
8
and a Duodecad. Does that ring a bell? Then Monogenes (aka
Nous) gave origin to another pair, namely Christ and the Holy
Spirit. Then, out of gratitude for the great benefit which the
Propator (aka Bythus) had conferred on them, the whole
Pleroma of the Aeons, with one design and desire, and with
the concurrence of Christ and the Holy Spirit, their father also
approving , brought together whatever each one had in
himself of the greatest beauty and preciousness, and uniting
all these contributions so skillfully to blend the whole, they
produced, to the honor and glory of Bythus, a being of most
perfect beauty, the very star of the Pleroma, and the perfect
fruit of it, namely Jesus. (Aspirin break) Him they also speak
of under the name of Savior, and Christ, and patronymically,
Logos. Then by way of honor, angels of the same nature as
himself were simultaneously produced to act as his
bodyguards. (Grolier’s Multimedia Encyclopedia and Irenaeus
Against Heresies)
No, I have not been drinking. There was a Christ and a Logos
who were not Jesus. Later, it is explained how the spirit of this
Christ enters the body of this Aeon created Jesus. It is very
Docetic (see next definition).
9
denied that Jesus had truly suffered and died as a human
being. Docetism, a primary feature of the early Gnostic
theologies, persists today in the popular mind-set of
Christianity. (Reading The Apostolic Fathers, pg. 175)
CHAPTER 2
10
NAMES TO KNOW
11
Philo comes from an area that is heavily influenced in
Stoicism and Gnosticism. Notice that it says that he welded
Judaism with Greek philosophy. The only possible outcome is
disaster. Philo’s method of interpretation only made things
worse. The allegorical method assumes that what is written is
not really what is meant by the Scripture. It assumes there
are hidden truths behind every text. People using this method
usually found three or four ways to interpret a specific text.
Philo already has the LOGOS as the actual creator (God) and
as the intermediary between God and man. This concept is
very Gnostic. It is also exactly how the second person of the
Trinity (the logos) is thought of in the later writings of Origen,
Tertullian and the other logos Christology theologians who
shaped the theology of the orthodox church. The logos in
Trinitarian Christianity is thought to be God himself, but also
the mediator between God and man. It also mentions that his
writings became a source of inspiration and study in early
Christian Egypt. You can almost visualize how this hybrid
teaching spread throughout the early church. People were
actually studying this Stoic-Gnostic view of the Hebrew
Scriptures.
12
CHAPTER 3
(1 CLEMENT)
13
Clement of Rome was the bishop of Rome, or pope, from AD
92 - 101. This letter to the Corinthians is considered the
earliest piece of Christian literature other than the New
Testament writings. The high esteem in which Clement was
held is evident from the fact that until the 4th century his
letter was accepted by some as Scripture. (Reading The
Apostolic Fathers, pg.98)
1:3 "To them which are called by the will of God through our
Lord Jesus Christ."
1:4 "Grace and peace from Almighty God through Jesus Christ
be multiplied."
14:6 "The good shall be dwellers in the land, and the innocent
shall be left on it; but they that transgress shall be destroyed
utterly from it."
16:2 "The scepter of God, our Lord Jesus Christ came not in
the pomp of arrogance or pride..."
It states that Jesus is the scepter of God, not God. The scepter
of royal authority has symbolized the power of earthly rulers
since antiquity. In the mind of Clement, Jesus as the scepter
of God represents the power and authority of God. But a
representative is not the same person as the one he
represents, or else he would not be called a representative.
18:18 "Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not Thy
Holy Spirit from me."
14
Clement believes that the Holy Spirit is the presence of God.
This is correct. There is no indication of him believing it to be
a separate person of a triune God.
19:4 "And let us look steadfast unto the Father and Maker of
the whole world."
One can see that the Master and him are not the same being.
Same concept as 1:3-4.
36:11-12 "Thou art My Son, I this day have begotten thee. Ask
of Me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thine inheritance,
and the ends of the earth for thy possession."
42:2-3 "Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is
from God, and the Apostles are from Christ."
15
This is an excellent verse in order to see that to Clement,
Jesus is by no means God. If you somehow force the
implication that Clement thinks that Christ is God, then in this
verse it stands to reason that Clement must also think that
the Apostles are Christ. Not very Biblical.
42:6-7 "They (Apostles) went forth with glad tidings that the
kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in
country and town."
46:9 "Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of
grace that was shed upon us?"
One God and one Christ. You cannot get much more
separation between two individuals than this.
49:13 "For the love which He had toward us, Jesus Christ our
Lord has given His blood for us by the will of God."
50:4-8 "All the generations from Adam unto this day have
passed away: and they shall be made manifest in the
visitation of the kingdom of God. For it is written; Enter into
the closet for a very little while, until Mine anger and My
wrath shall pass away, and I will remember a good day and
will raise you from your tombs."
16
50:13 "This declaration of blessedness was pronounced upon
them that have been elected by God through Jesus Christ."
59:28 "Let all the Gentile know that Thou art God alone, and
Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep
of Thy pasture."
Jesus is the Son of the being who is God alone. If you try to
include Jesus in the term "God," then by rule, you will also
have to include Thy people in the term "God." Doesn’t work,
does it?
Conclusion - One can see why this letter until the 4th century
was considered by some to be Scripture. It is completely in
agreement with the New Testament. Clement does not believe
Jesus to be anyone but the Son of the only God. He does not
consider Jesus to be God. On the contrary, he distinguishes
between them completely. He believes in the dead being dead
until the coming of the kingdom of God in the future. I find
absolutely no evidence at all of any Trinitarian concept in his
theology, which would have been evident had he believed in
that doctrine. At this stage in time, Jesus’ Christianity was
still intact. I give Clement of Rome an A+ in theology.
17
appointed Polycarp to be bishop at Smyrna. Historically he
formed a link between the apostolic and patristic ages
(Encyclopedia Britannica). Also according to the Encyclopedia
Britannica:
Prologue:1 " mercy unto you and peace from God Almighty
and Jesus Christ our Savior be multiplied."
1:2 "Unto our Lord Jesus Christ, who endured to face even
death for our sins, whom God raised, having loosed the pangs
of death."
2:1 "That ye have believed on Him that raised our Lord Jesus
Christ from the dead and gave unto him a throne on His right
hand."
18
next to himself, so that he himself could sit next to himself.
This is exactly how a Trinitarian has to interpret this verse.
Extremely unlikely, to say the least!
7:1 "For everyone who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh, is antichrist."
7:2 "Wherefore let us forsake the vain doing of the many and
their false teachings, and turn unto the word which was
delivered unto us from the beginning."
19
that the word was delivered unto us in the beginning. Jesus
was not delivered unto us in the beginning, Hebrews 1:2
states:
12:2 "Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and the eternal high priest Himself the Son of God Jesus
Christ, build you up in faith and truth."
20
THE SEVEN LETTERS OF IGNATIUS
These seven letters are almost split right down the middle.
Three of them distinguish completely between Jesus and God,
three of them call Jesus "God," and the last one has two
versions of the same letter that are in opposition to each
other.
21
The next question is, which group is the forged set? You will
have to do a little detective work, and use a lot of common
sense, but it will be quite obvious which group has been
tampered with.
"In the 4th century these letters were corrupted by the heavy
insertions of an interpolator, and the collection was
augmented by six letters forged under Ignatius’ name."
22
over again in his letter. If we allege that the unaltered letters
are the ones that say that Jesus is God, then Ignatius and
Polycarp’s view of Jesus are 180 degrees of each other. It is
highly unlikely that in that scenario they would be as helpful
to each other as they were. Both of these men wrote against
false teachings. If their views were so opposed to each other,
I do not think that Ignatius would ask Polycarp to write to the
churches in his name. I also do not think that Polycarp would
have made a collection of Ignatius’ letters (which he would
have considered false teachings) and then attached his own
letter to it, and sent them out to Philipi for them to be read
and studied. Notice how Polycarp in his letter to the
Philippians in verse 7:1, refers to people who do not share his
view of Jesus as, "Of the devil... that they are the firstborn of
Satan." Ignatius also states when speaking about false
teachers in his letter to the Smyrnaeans in chapter 7, "It is
proper, therefore, to avoid association with such people." Yet,
Polycarp and Ignatius are beloved friends. Ignatius mentions
Polycarp warmly in several of his letters. Ignatius associated
with Polycarp on his journey, and I do not think that Polycarp
considered Ignatius of the devil. Here are a few quotations
from Ignatius on Polycarp:
23
You decide.
0:1 "To the Church of God the Father and of Jesus Christ the
beloved."
This sentence states that the only God is the Father. Jesus is
not considered in the term "God" or "Father." He is neither
God, nor the Father.
1:1 "I extol Jesus Christ, the God who has granted you such
wisdom."
This verse seems to say that Jesus raised himself up from the
dead. If this letter has not been altered, then he contradicts
himself in this same letter in 6:2 in which he writes," and
which the Father in His loving kindness raised from the dead."
He also says the same thing in his letter to the Trallians in
8:1, "his Father having raised him." The Father raising Jesus is
vastly different from Jesus raising himself. That would be the
Son raised the Son.
This verse states Jesus is God. Contradicts verse 0:1 and 1:1
24
Conclusion - This letter contradicts itself. It states that Jesus
is God, but it also distinguishes between God and Jesus. It
states that the Son raised himself, and then says that the
Father raised Jesus. Even if we assume that the writer
believes Jesus to be God, there is still no evidence of a triune
God. My opinion is that this letter has been tampered with.
0:1 "Majesty of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ, His
only Son."
0:2 "Good wishes for unimpaired joy in Jesus Christ our God."
3:3 "Nothing visible is good. For our God Jesus Christ, being in
the Father, is the more plainly seen."
25
THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO POLYCARP
1:1 "Who hath for his bishop God the Father and Jesus Christ."
3:7 "The eternal, the invisible, who became visible for our
sake."
26
1:3 "And I wish her abundant greeting in God the Father and
in Jesus Christ."
This verse might appear to give the impression that Jesus pre-
existed in heaven, but this is just a way of writing that was
common in those days. Take for example Revelation 13:8. It
says, "In the book of life of the Lamb who was slain before
the foundation of the world." In Matthew 25:34 it says,
"Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of
the world." Obviously, Revelation 13:8 does not mean that
Jesus was crucified before the world was created. It means
that the plan of salvation had been prepared by God before
the foundation of the world. It is the same concept with
Matthew 25:34, and also in this verse 6:2. Ignatius is saying
that the role of Jesus Christ as the Messiah was planned by
the Father before the worlds even existed.
Jesus is again not included in the term "one God." Jesus came
to reveal God and His plan of salvation to us. In John 17:6
Jesus says, "I have manifested thy name ( your real self ) to
the men whom thou has given me out of the world." Jesus is
His word (the embodiment of God’s plan). He is not "The
Word," the second member of the Trinity. Ignatius in his letter
to the Romans says in 2:2, "I am the word of God." He does
not mean that he is the second member of the Trinity, he
means that he reveals the will of God. This must be kept in
consideration when reading John 1:1-14 because Ignatius and
Polycarp both knew John, and I am sure their usage of the
word logos is identical.
27
THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE TRALLIANS
1:6 "Polybius your bishop informed me, who by the will of God
and of Jesus Christ visited me."
There are two wills. One will is God’s, and the other is Jesus’.
Notice that it says that by the will of God AND of Jesus Christ.
It does not say Father and Jesus Christ. Therefore, God does
not equal Jesus. This verse is in agreement with Luke 22:42
where Jesus says, "Still, not my will but yours be done."
8:8 "Jesus Christ, who was of the race of David, who was the
son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly
persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and
died.."
28
THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE PHILADELPHIANS
1:2 "To the church of God the Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ."
1:9 "But by the love of God the Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ."
3:3 "Surely, all those that belong to God and Jesus Christ..."
Same.
3:6 "If a man runs after a schismatic, he will not inherit the
kingdom of God."
29
Both think of God as the Father.
M 0:2 "By the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God."
L 0:2 "By the will of God the Father and of our Lord Jesus
Christ our savior."
M 20:2 "In one faith and one Jesus Christ, who after the flesh
was of David’s race, who is the Son of Man and the Son of
God."
30
L version is the same. Ignatius is very adamant about the
humanity of Jesus. This is totally contrary to someone who
thinks that Jesus is God. This sentence fits L, but disagrees
with M.
M 21:9 "Fare ye well in God the Father and in Jesus Christ our
common hope."
31
When you separate the altered letters from the originals, I
think Ignatius’ theology is very similar to his beloved friend
Polycarp’s theology. I give Ignatius an A- in theology.
( THE DIDACHE )
The Apostles did not write this letter as the title suggests. It
was written by a group of unknown Christian authors
probably around 80 -120 AD. in Antioch. It was written to
provide specific Christian instruction for community leaders.
(Reading The Apostolic Fathers, pg.48)
10:4 -5 "Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for Thy
name’s sake... but didst bestow upon us spiritual food and
drink and eternal life through Thy Son."
In this sentence Almighty Master and Thy Son are not the
same being.
10:9 "And (the church) gather it together from the four winds,
even the church which has been sanctified, into Thy kingdom
which Thou has prepared for it."
32
future kingdom of God in which the Messiah will rule the
world with his saints (his followers). There is no conception of
going to heaven. The writers do not believe the Son to be the
Almighty Master. There is no mention of any triune God. I give
them an A+ in theology.
5:5 "Onto whom (Jesus) God said from the foundation of the
world, let us make man in our image and likeness."
5:10 "For if he had not come in the flesh neither would men
have looked upon him and been saved."
6:16 "For the Lord said again, For wherein shall I appear unto
the Lord my God and be glorified?"
This clearly states that the writer knows that Jesus has a God,
(God the Father). They are not the same being. There can only
be one God, and if Jesus is God and he has a God, that would
mean that there are two Gods.
6:17 "So in like manner we also, being kept alive by our faith
in the promise and by the word, shall live and be lords of the
earth."
33
To attain implies something to be accomplished in the future.
9:2 "Hear O Israel, for thus saith the LORD (YHWH) thy God, "
who is he that desireth to live forever, let him hear with his
ears the voice of My servant."
SECOND CLEMENT
34
9:6 "Let us therefore love one another, that we all may come
unto the kingdom of God."
God = Father.
17:5 "And they will be amazed when they see the kingdom of
the world given to Jesus."
19:4 "He (the godly) shall live again in heaven with our
fathers."
20:5 "To the only God invisible, the Father of truth, who sent
forth unto us the Savior and Prince of immortality."
The only invisible God is the Father of truth. This being sent
the Savior. They are distinct beings.
35
& 17:5 and then to say that we go to heaven. Those two
beliefs are opposed to each other.
V.2 "For the first will be taken up into the heavens, the
second class will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit
the city, and on this account the Lord said, "In my Father’s
house there are many mansions."
36
This verse is confusing because Papias as you will read,
believes the kingdom of God to be here on earth. Maybe there
is another meaning to this verse that I am missing.
V.2 "For in the times of the kingdom the just man who is on
the earth shall forget to die."
V.2 "But when He saith all things are put under him, it is
manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under
him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then
shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all
things under him, that God may be all in all."
I just wrote this to show you the view of Mary before it was
altered. She was the mother of Jesus. Later, because of
Trinitarian theology, she became the mother of God.
37
This letter was written by Christians of Smyrnea who
witnessed the martyrdom of Polycarp. It was written around
155-160 AD (Reading The Apostolic Fathers, pg.84). This
letter has not been listed with the usual chapter and verse, so
I will just list them numerically.
Prologue – "peace and love from God the Father and our Lord
Jesus Christ."
Same as 1.
"Son of God."
38
THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS
This verse is very long, but its main theme is that All Mighty
God made the universe through His Son whom he sent to us in
meekness. It shows a belief in pre-existence. It sounds Arian
in belief.
7:4 "Not so. But in gentleness and meekness has he sent him,
as a king might send his son who is a king. He sent him, as
sending God, He sent him, as a man unto men."
This writer does not believe the Son to be God. He says that
God sent him with the authority as if he were God. He further
states that the Son was a man.
8:5 "No one has either seen or recognized Him (God), but he
revealed Himself. And He revealed Himself by faith."
This author is quoting Luke 18:19 where Jesus says to the rich
official, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except
God."
39
Jesus considers only God to be good and not himself. Jesus in
that verse does not include himself in the term "God," and
this is what the author in this verse means also.
9:1 "And having made clear our inability to enter into the
kingdom of God of ourselves."
11:5 "This Word, who was from the beginning, who appeared
as new and yet proved to be old."
Conclusion - Chapters 1-10 imply that Jesus is not God but His
representative on earth. Only God is good. They do imply pre-
existence and Jesus as the craftsman of the universe. The soul
is immortal to the author. Chapters 11&12 now have the
"Word" (which in the first 10 chapters was always referred to
as Son) as eternal. These two sources are definitely from
different time periods. Word (logos) Christology was a
primary concern of the third century theologians. There is still
no mention of a triune God. This writer does not mention the
Holy Spirit. He is in my opinion, from a time period which
40
should not include him as an apostolic writer. Chapters 1-10
shows the influence of Platonism, and later Arianism. I give
those chapters a C in theology. Chapters 11&12 are full of
Gnosticism, and I give them a D-.
You will see that as we get further away in time from these
writers, the more corrupted Christianity becomes.
CHAPTER 4
JUSTIN MARTYR
41
Justin Martyr (100 - 165 AD) is considered one of the most
important Greek philosopher - Apologists in the early
Christian Church, whose writings represent the first positive
encounter of Christian revelation with Greek philosophy, and
laid the basis for a theology of history. Justin considers
himself a philosopher, his whole motivation in life, he says,
was to find the true philosophy. He was reared a pagan and
studied Stoic, Platonic, Pythagorean, and other Greek
philosophies, and then became a Christian (Encyclopedia
Britannica). According to Steve Mason of York University,
V. "For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail
to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among
the Barbarians (Christians) were they condemned by Reason
(or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and
became man, and was called Jesus Christ."
VIII. "We seek the abode that is with God, the Father and
Creator of all."
42
For Justin God = Father, and He is the creator of all. This is
different from later Trinitarian belief that the Father planned
creation and the Son created it.
XI. "And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you
suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a
human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with
God."
This verse shows that Justin knows about the kingdom of God.
It does not however, give us enough information to determine
if he believes it to be here on earth.
XII. "And that you will not succeed is declared by the Word,
than whom, after God begat him."
Justin believes that God created Jesus. Jesus is not eternal like
modern Trinitarians believe.
XIV. "And follow the only unbegotten God through His Son."
God does not equal Son. Only God is unbegotten. Verse XII
states that Jesus was begat, and this verse says that God is
unbegotten. Therefore, Jesus cannot be God to Justin.
XIIL . "He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding him
in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we
will prove, for they proclaim our madness to consist in this,
that we give to a crucified man a place second to the
unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all."
XXXII. "And the first power after God the Father and Lord of
all is the Word, who is also the Son."
43
XXXIX. "Strive to escape the power of God the Father and
Lord of all, and the power of Christ himself."
XXXIX. "Tho art My Son; this day I have begotten Thee. Ask of
Me, and I shall give you Thee the heathen for Thine
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth as thy
possession."
This verse shows his belief in the future kingdom of God with
the Messiah as King.
LXI. "For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the
universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy
Spirit, they then receive the washing with water."
44
Justin believes the angel of the Lord to be Jesus before he
came to earth as a man. He obviously never read the first
chapter of Hebrews, or Matthew 2:19.
LXIII. "And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, "I
am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers," this signified
that they, even though dead, are let in existence, and are
men belonging to Christ himself."
This verse shows that he believes that when you die you are
dead, your soul does not go to heaven when you die. The goal
is resurrection. Combine this verse with what he said in LII.
VIII. "And God has called man to life and resurrection, He has
called not a part, but the whole, which is the soul and the
body."
This verse claims that when you are resurrected in the flesh,
you will then go to heaven. This kind of thought will erase the
teachings of Jesus on the kingdom of God on earth.
45
Justin is actually telling us where the false Doctrine of the
Transmigration of Souls came from.
II. "That he (Justin) would not have believed the Lord himself
if he had announced any other God than the Fashioner and
Maker of the world, and our nourisher."
XVII. "As the good of the body is health, so the good of the
soul is knowledge, which is indeed a kind of health of soul, by
which a likeness to God is attained."
IIL. - IL. "Jesus may still be the Christ of God, though I should
not be able to prove his pre-existence as the Son of God who
made all things."
LXXX. "If you meet some who say that their souls go to
heaven when they die, do not believe that they are
Christians!"
46
Justin is very adamant about refuting the Pythagorean and
Platonic idea of the transmigration of souls at death.
IRENAEUS
AGAINST HERESIES
BOOK 1
47
3:6 "Lead away from the truth those who do not retain a
steadfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
9:3 "That Jesus who suffered for us, and who dwelt among us,
is himself the Word of God."
BOOK 5
48
Irenaeus believes in immortality at the coming of Jesus and
not at death, as Greek philosophy does.
6:1 "For that flesh which has been molded is not a perfect
man in itself, but the body of a man, and part of a man.
Neither is the soul itself, considered apart by itself, the man;
but it is the soul of man, and part of a man. Neither is the
spirit a man, for it is called the spirit, and not a man; but the
commingling and union of all these constitutes the perfect
man... he was aware of the future reintegration and union of
the three, and that they should be heirs of one and the same
salvation?"
3:2 "For they possess the Spirit of the Father, who purifies
man."
This verse describes the Spirit as the Spirit of the Father. This
view is anti- Trinitarian. The reason is that the Father and the
Holy Spirit are supposed to be equal and separate, but in this
case, the Spirit belongs to the Father, it is not separate.
Irenaeus might believe in the Word being God, but he is not a
Trinitarian in the post Nicene tradition.
3:4 "Blessed are the meek, for they shall posses the earth by
inheritance; as if in the future kingdom, the earth, from
whence exists the substance of our flesh, is to be possessed
by inheritance."
18:2 "And thus one God the Father is declared, who is above
all, and through all, and in all. The Father is indeed above all,
and he is the head of Christ."
49
Irenaeus’ dispensation is hierarchical. The Father is above all,
including Christ. This is in major conflict from today’s Doctrine
of the Trinity that claims that all the members are equal.
20:1 "Since all receive one and the same God the Father, and
believe in the same dispensation regarding the incarnation of
the Son of God, and are cognizant of the same gift of the
Spirit."
20:1 "And await the same salvation of the complete man, that
is, of the soul and body."
31:2 "It is manifest that the souls of his disciples also, upon
whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go
away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and
there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then
receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is
bodily, just as the Lord arose."
50
He is very clear hear about how the resurrection takes place.
You are dead until the resurrection day, when you are
resurrected in your entirety. To Irenaeus there is no going to
heaven at death.
VIII. "For as the ark of the covenant was glided within and
without with pure gold, so was the body of Christ pure and
resplended; for it was adorned within by the Word, and
shielded without by the Spirit."
51
He believes Jesus to be God.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
52
It is amazing to me that someone who has been called a
Christian Gnostic is considered to be one of the fathers of the
church.
1:3 "But that in the resurrection the soul returns to the body,
and both are joined to one another according to their peculiar
nature."
53
MAXIMUS AND ANTONIUS MELISSA
THE BAROC
ORIGEN
54
church. His writings helped to create a Christian theology that
blended biblical and philosophical categories. He claimed that
a philosophical mind has a right to think within a Christian
framework. Origen sought to gather the fragments of pagan
philosophies and unite them to Christian teachings so as to
present the gospel in a form that would not offend, but rather
ensure the conversion of Jews, Gnostics, and cultivated
heathen. (History of Philosophy and Encyclopedia Britannica)
With this view, why even bother to read the Bible, lets just
make it up as we go along. According to the church historian
Eusebius, Origen as a young man allegorized Matthew 19:12
and castrated himself so he could work freely in instructing
female catechumens. Imagine if someone came up to you and
told you they had castrated themselves because of Matthew
19:12, what would you think of his ability to interpret the
Bible? What would you think of their mental stability?
55
second person of the triad) became incarnate in a body
derived from the Virgin Mary. So intense was the union
between Christ’s soul and the Logos that it is like the union of
body and soul, of white-hot iron and fire (Encyclopedia
Britannica). You cannot get much more Gnostic than this.
Remember the Aeon Christ descending into the Jesus they had
created.
56
creation. The Platonic Forms are now in a mind which is
Intelligence, and are now thought of as divine ideas.
57
Christianity. I do not think that the majority of Christianity
has ever fully recovered.
BOOK 1 ON GOD
ON CHRIST
1. "In the first place, we must note that the nature of that
deity which is in Christ in respect of his being the only-
begotten Son of God is one thing, and that human nature
which he assumed in these last times for the purpose of the
dispensation (of grace) is another."
58
This is simple Gnostic Dualism.
2. "From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit
was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was
not complete except by the authority of the most excellent
Trinity of them all, by the naming of the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit."
You can see the Doctrine of the Trinity starting to take shape.
It is starting to develop, but the key word is starting, it was
not an already present teaching in Christianity as Tertullian
will so graciously point out. Origen’s Trinity is vastly different
from what is in place today. In fact, Origen centuries later was
condemned by the church for his views since they did not
stress equality for one thing.
59
god." He will also say, "The Son is theos (god), but only the
Father is autotheos (absolute God, God in Himself)." Origen
believes in pre-existent and immortal souls.
We can say many things about Origen’s views, that they were
Gnostic, Stoic, Platonic, and definitely not Christian as Jesus
and the Apostles defined Christianity. But one thing is certain,
although Origen’s thoughts laid down much of the foundation
for later Trinitarian dogma, he is not a Trinitarian according to
the orthodox view of the Trinity.
Heracles, his disciple, and colleague, and who was also the
leader of the catechetical school in Alexandria and then
became Patriarch of Alexandria was a close friend of Origen.
60
friend according to Eusebius, as was Theoctistus of Caesarea
in Palestine who ordained him.
Even after his death people were still studying his works. St.
Pamphilus composed an "Apology for Origen." The directors
at the catechetical school in Alexandria continued to walk in
his footsteps.
61
First of all, we have to notice all the people who I will not
write a biography on that were listed previously, some of
which had the tittle of St. These people were leaders of their
Christian communities, and when they fell in line with
Origen’s teachings, they did a lot of harm by spreading this
new theology to their congregation and to new believers.
62
Nicene position. It was not the norm, it was actually
unpopular.
63
Christianity with Greek philosophy were covered earlier, and
this is one reason why it spread. A modern day hypothetical
situation can help us to illustrate the process.
Tim who has always looked up to Bob, agrees with Bob. Tim is
a very good speaker and he teaches this idea to his
congregation, and the idea continues to spread. David, who
was a student of Bob’s also agrees with him, and tries to
convince his group of this new insight into the Scriptures. Bob
even appears on the Opra Show to discuss his findings.
Now the issue comes to the forefront and the leaders start to
fight among themselves as to who is right.
64
centuries, due to the swift punishments and suppression, it is
uncontested and has now become the norm. This explanation
is very simplistic, but I think it you can get an overall picture
of how this doctrine spread.
TERTULLIAN
65
"The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity and Unity, sometimes
called the Divine Economy, or Dispensation of the personal
relations of the Godhead."
AGAINST PRAXEAS
This letter was written to combat another view that was also
spreading called Modalism or Sabellianism. It argued that the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all just manifestations of
God. In other words, God came to earth as Jesus, and when He
comes into our hearts, He comes as the Holy Spirit. This might
almost sound as Trinitarian, and most people describe the
Trinity as such, but this is not the definition of the Trinity.
Modalism argues that God suffered and died on the cross.
This creates an immense problem since everyone knows that
God cannot die. This is one reason the Trinity describes God
as three separate persons and yet one. In this way the Son as
a separate person can die. Of course, is you consider Jesus to
be true God of true God as Trinitarians do, then God was still
the one who was crucified and died on the cross. Very
confusing to say the least. This is why it is referred to as a
66
mystery. An example of the difference between the two
doctrines can best be illustrated by a simple explanation. In
the Trinity, it is possible for the three of them to be present at
the same time and to have a conversation. For the Modalist, it
is not possible. God just becomes Jesus or the Holy Spirit
when it is necessary.
Tertullian will intensely argue that the Father and Son are
separate persons, unlike Modalism which argues that they are
all the same person. It is an excellent Unitarian argument. He
uses almost all the same verses that a Unitarian would use to
show you that Jesus is not God. He argues that the Father and
Jesus are not the same person, but when he comes across 1
Corinthians 8:6, "Yet for us there is one God, the Father," he
says that in this case the Son is included in the term "Father."
What reason does he give for this exception? None
whatsoever. He just dismisses it so that he can justify his
arguments. Just consider this, only God = Father, and then
listen to his arguments. They are fantastically Unitarian!
67
different from today’s trinity which insists on them being
equal.
Chap. IX. "Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being
greater than the Son."
Tertullian will now start to show us that the Father and the
Son are two distinct persons. The only problem with that is
that he ignores 1 Corinthians 8:6, yet for us there is one God,
the Father, and all the other verses which say "God the
Father." You will never see one verse that says God the Son.
In the Bible, only Father = God.
I agree!
Chap. XXI. "Everyone who saw the Son, and believed on him,
should obtain the life (everlasting) and the resurrection at
the last day."
68
Chap. XXII. "You are not ignorant whence I came, and I am not
come of myself, But He that sent me is true, whom ye know
not; but I know Him, because I am from Him. He did not say,
Because I myself am He; and I have sent mine own self; but
his words are, "He hath sent me."
I agree!
Chap. XXII. "Now, if he were one, being at once both the Son
and the Father, he certainly would not have quoted the
sanction of the law, which requires not the testimony of one,
but of two."
I agree!
I agree!
Perfect!
Chap. XXVI. "He is also ignorant of the last day and hour,
which is known only to the Father."
Chap. XXVIII. "For if Christ is God the Father, when he says, "I
ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and
your God," he of course shows plainly enough that there is
above himself another Father and another God."
Exactly!
I agree!
69
in what sense he declares "Christ died"... In short, since he
says that it was Christ (that is, the Anointed One) that died,
he shows us that that which died was the nature which was
anointed; in a word, the flesh."
PRAYER
70
5:1 "Thy kingdom come," also refers to the same end as "Thy
will be done," namely, (May Thy kingdom come) in ourselves,
for when does God not reign?.... if the realization of our
Lord’s kingdom has reference to the will of God and to our
uncertain condition, how is it that some ask for an extension
of time, as it were, for this world, since the kingdom of God--
for the coming of which we pray tends toward the
consummation of the world? Our hope is that we may sooner
reign, and not be slaves any longer."
5:2 "Even if it were not prescribed to ask for in prayer for the
coming of His kingdom, we would, of our own accord, have
expressed this desire in our eagerness to embrace the object
of our hope."
5:4 "It is for the coming of this kingdom that we are harassed
now, or rather, it is for this coming that we pray."
71
that the Doctrine of the Trinity was something relatively new
and just starting to develop. This is suggested by the fact
that Tertullian’s Trinity is vastly different from the Doctrine of
the Trinity that was established as the orthodox position over
the next few centuries. If the Apostles had taught the
Doctrine of the Trinity, it would have been a solid teaching of
the church and would not have changed as drastically as it
did.
ATHANASIUS
72
myself why? If it was the established belief of the church, why
did they have to wait until the Council of Constantinople fifty
six years later to include the Holy Spirit as a member? The
reason is because it was not the established teaching, it was
a doctrine that was trying to come into its own. It was making
a power grab at Nicaea.
If at Nicaea the church had just formalized the belief that was
already established by the church,
ON THE INCARNATION
1:1 "We also, by God’s grace, briefly indicated that the Word
of the Father is Himself divine, that all things owe their being
to His will and power."
1:1 "That mystery the Jews traduce, the Greeks deride, but
we adore."
73
Even Athanasius admits that there were a lot of people who
did not accept this belief. As a matter of fact, the majority did
not believe this doctrine to be true.
CHAPTER 5
74
Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan
religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
75
346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.
76
addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters.
(History of Arian Controversy)
77
CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY
78
As you will notice, the main contributors to the concept of a
triune God are all from the same time period. They were all
members of the logos Christology sect. Loofs, a historian of
Christology remarks:
79
the established teaching of the church, there should not have
been any difference from the 2nd to the 4th century, or for
that matter to the present. But there was a great deal of
difference between their views. The reason being was that it
was not the established teaching of the church, but a new
idea, a new way of interpreting the Scriptures. It was in its
developing stage. This is why there was so much conflict. This
is why Tertullian said, "The majority of believers are startled
at the dispensation (of the three in one)." It must have been
just that, STARTLING! I am still startled today.
All this has lead to a near fatal blow to the Christianity that
Jesus and his Apostles preached. In order to restore
Christianity to its original form, we have to willing to remove
all the Greek philosophy from Christianity. We have to be
willing to challenge the status quo. We have to be willing to
read God’s instruction book, the Bible, and not let others tell
us what we should believe. We have to be willing to invest a
little time in order to find the truth, and we have to be willing
to share our findings with other Christians.
I hope this paper has been of some use to you. May God Bless
you with the truth.
baixeras@aol.com
80
BACK HOME
81