Early Christians Believed in the Trinity

[Cos]

18 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

No one is disputing Jesus' divine nature. Compare (1Pet.1:4). Nevertheless, what is "begot" is most definitely,............... "begun".

More likely the term “monogenes theos” (μονογενὴς θεός - God only begotten) means Jesus uniquely is what God is.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Cos said:

More likely the term “monogenes theos” (μονογενὴς θεός - God only begotten) means Jesus uniquely is what God is.

Not if you understand Greek. You simply can not translate this frase like this. There is also no hint for any underlying meanings.

How exactly have you reached this understanding?

 

[ARchiv@L]

I am not trying to “play smart” over here, because of the greek language / words. I simply try to help a little bit. And as I have said before, ALL comments are welcomed. This does not mean what I comment, is to “correct” someone’s comments or judge the comments (good or bad) …. Or that my comment is better than somebody else’s comment. Thanks.

[ARchiv@L]

 

---

The Greek word mo·no·ge·nesʹ is defined by lexicographers as “single of its kind, only,” or “the only member of a kin or kind.”
-----
A few translations, in support of the Trinitarian “God the Son” concept, would invert the phrase mo·no·ge·nesʹ the·osʹ and render it as “God only begotten.” But W. J. Hickie in his Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament (1956, p. 123) says it is hard to see why these translators render mo·no·ge·nesʹ hui·osʹ as “the only begotten Son,” but at the same time translate mo·no·ge·nesʹ the·osʹ as “God only begotten,” instead of “the only begotten God.”
----
Only-begotten
Insight, Volume 2
 

---

[Cos]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 3:47 PM, JW Insider said:

This is true, and I am aware of the more orthodox Trinitarian sounding quotes. It's not a definitive method, but I have also compared some of the scholarship with respect to Origen over time. It seems (generally) he was considered orthodox enough for his day, then was partly blamed for Arianism even before 325,  then was condemned for his views against the Trinity after 325, then found favor among more modern Trinitarians who tried to bring him back into the fold, then was scrutinized In more recent scholarship that put him back into the non-Trinitarian column, and has seen a modest attempt to synthesize his views and make them at least semi-Trinitarian. This was what I found generally, and it's probably informed by my own opinions and prejudices, too. But there are exceptions, as you have pointed out.

I did see those exceptions, because most articles that discuss Origen's Trinity references not only acknowledge these other quotes from Origen and others, but they also discuss them in great detail. Part of the process of determining truth has always included "testing" every side of a matter. But, of course,  I didn't want to get into a discussion of which scholars are better than other scholars. For me, it is sufficient to know that the arguments about Origen generally fall into two sides, and one of those two sides is closer to the truth than the other. So far, I chose a side, and you have chosen another. 

Another point to consider is not whether Rufinus was honest or not in a 4th century translation of  3rd century works, but the very fact that he was sure these books had been changed by "heretics and malevolent persons." I never assumed he was personally dishonest. What is more interesting is that in the 100-150 years since they were written, he focuses on one topic where he thinks these changes had been made. They were almost all Trinity references. That fact alone tells me that the Trinity doctrine was not resolved prior to the 4th century. I have also read Rufinus' own words about the "Falsification of the Books of Origen." It reminds me of the same fact. (Which also reminds me that a couple of the most disputed passages that ended up being generally identified as "glosses" or "forgeries" in the NT itself were on the topic of Trinity.)

I'm sure you already know that more and more scholarly works on the topic are being published all the time. From what I have seen, the majority of them agree that it developed over time.  Some of the same "Church Fathers" who helped to develop and maintain the Trinity doctrine over time also believed that Plato and Aristotle's works might have been inspired of God because they were so thankful that they provided a language and framework in which to explain the Trinity.  

I ran across a lot of that in the Origen articles, but this short page is accessible to everyone: https://blog.logos.com/2013/11/plato-christianity-church-fathers/ and includes a quote from Dean Inge that I think is very relevant to the discussion of "development." The emphasis was added on the original site.

Dean Inge, the famous professor of divinity, writes that:

“Platonism is part of the vital structure of Christian theology . . . . [If people would read Plotinus, who worked to reconcile Platonism with Scripture,] they would understand better the real continuity between the old culture and the new religion, and they might realize the utter impossibility of excising Platonism from Christianity without tearing Christianity to pieces. The Galilean Gospel, as it proceeded from the lips of Jesus, was doubtless unaffected by Greek philosophy . . . . But [early Christianity] from its very beginning was formed by a confluence of Jewish and Hellenic religious ideas.” (Emphasis added)

And, of course, for background a couple of quotes from the same site from persons who wrote prior to 325. (Eusebius also wrote after 325, of course. As I'm sure you know, he was famous for his book on "Church History" and infamous for his Arianism.) 

Eusebius of Caesarea

“[Plato is] the only Greek who has attained the porch of (Christian) truth.”

Clement of Alexandria

“. . . before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith . . . . For God is the cause of all good things, but of some primarily, as of the Old and New Testaments; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily . . . . For [philosophy] was a schoolmaster to bring ‘the Hellenic mind . . . to Christ.’ Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.” (Emphasis added)

I don't agree, but I do agree that what the first-century early church agreed upon, should be the basis for our current belief.

Jehovah's Witnesses are careful not to claim that the church ceased to exist through the intervening centuries, only that restoration was needed through long years of false doctrine. The verse that is usually used to show what you are saying is:

(Matthew 16:18) 18 Also, I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my congregation, and the gates of the Grave will not overpower it.

But Jesus also said:

(Luke 18:8) Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?”

Illustrations about the wheat and the weeds, the sheep and the goats, the narrow vs the broad road, etc., have always led Witnesses to believe that the intervening centuries have been full of major falsehoods, but that Jehovah and Jesus have not judged all of Christendom in the past centuries over these doctrines. But we also believe that it's possible to compare and test various doctrines as brighter light thus helps to restore truthful, healthful teachings.

(1 Corinthians 11:18, 19) . . .. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.

(2 Timothy 4:3, 4) 3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.

Hi JW Insider,

 

What I think is that some mistakenly judge Origen by later standards, and that is why there are is a difference of opinions. He is at the centre of debates even after his own time. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives account of the controversies over Origen, but these had nothing to do with Origen’s treatment of the Trinity, see also the Encyclopedia Britannica. Instead of choosing sides, wouldn’t you agree that there is no better way to know Origen’s thought then to go to his writings, and not speculate why one person says such and such about him, while another something else, also what must be kept in mind when reading his works is that his arguments were given to defend the faith against heresy, some seem to forget this.

 

You say that you “never assumed he (Rufinus) was personally dishonest” but then you call into question why he singled out “one topic…almost all Trinity references”. Rufinus says that if someone doubts then all they need do is to compare these with other portions of Origen’s writings; see again the prologue of Rufinus.

 

Moving on to what you say about the Trinity “developing”. Let me try to make this as clear as I can; what actually “developed” is the language used to explain the Trinity, NOT their belief system. Even the Nicene Creed under went further development in later decades, but the belief system remained.

 

The early Christian writers of the second and third century claimed that their understanding of the matter was taught by the apostles. Irenaeus, for example, said:

 

“The Church … has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith in one God, the Father … in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit.” (Against Heresies)

 

When we read the writings of the early church one cannot escape the consistency of what the early church believed; what they believe is even attested to by the secular Roman government in the first decade of the second century!

 

You bring up Eusebius who wrote the work Ecclesiastical History. Eusebius also wrote a letter after the Council of Nicea justifying its conclusions. He wrote for good reason. It was the "rule of faith" of his church, Caesarea, that was used as the basis for the Nicene Creed, and he was explaining the adaptations that the council had made. But because that letter was written so apologetically, Eusebius' adherence to an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was questioned. You even say he was “infamous for his Arianism”.

 

But what we find in Eusebius’ “Ecclesiastical History” is that it abounds with quotes from those who lived before him. If the church in its earlier days had believed anything different from Nicea, OR if the belief system of the early church had developed over time no one would have known better than Eusebius. But instead of testifying any change, Eusebius defended what they believed in harmony with the Nicene creed.

 

He writes in his letter to his home church;

“That he is consubstantial with the Father then simply implies, that the Son of God has no resemblance to created things, but is in every respect like the Father only who begat him; and that he is of no other substance or essence but of the Father. To which doctrine, explained in this way, it appeared right to assent, especially since we knew that some eminent bishops and learned writers among the ancients have used the term “homoousios” in their theological discourses concerning the nature of the Father and the Son”

 

Notice how he agrees with the use of homoousios because it was used by earlier church writers. Tertullian for example, regularly refers to the term. Eusebius was aware of this.

 

I would like to have a look at one of the earliest of Christian writings after the NT. In an anonymous letter to Diognetus, some say it may have been written as early as the late 80’s of the first century, though the date has been difficult to determine most scholars date it around the turn of the century. Even at this early date, however, we can see what was believed was later formulated at Nicea.

 

“Truly God himself … has sent from heaven and placed among men the truth and the holy and incomprehensible Word and has firmly established him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, angel, ruler, or anyone of those who bear sway over earthly things … but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things—by whom he made the heavens.” (Letter to Diognetus chapter. 7)

 

This anonymous author was not trying to explain exactly the formulated creed but he leaves us several clues that he held the same view as that of the later creed.

 

Here's another one:

“He sent the Word that he might be manifested to the world … This is he who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old, yet is ever born afresh in the hearts of the saints. This is he, who being from everlasting, is today called the Son.” (Letter to Diognetus chapter. 11)

 

I will continue from Clement of Rome who wrote also at the turn of the first century;

“For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect.... Amen.” (Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, 58:2)

  

In around the year 125;

“The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh;.... This is taught in the gospel” (THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES chapter 2)

 

Justin martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, writes;

 

“…you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order TO PROVE that Christ is called BOTH GOD AND LORD OF HOSTS…” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chpeter 36 emphasis added)

 

“And Trypho said, ‘We have heard what you think of these matters… For when you say that THIS CHRIST EXISTED AS GOD before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man’… And I replied to this… ‘as Son of the Maker of all things, BEING GOD, and was born a man by the Virgin’” (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 48 emphasis added).

 

“Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar…and holding HIM IN THE SECOND PLACE, AND THE PROPHETIC SPIRIT IN THE THIRD… for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.” (First Apology, chapter 14 emphasis added).

 

Irenaeus is another important witness who shows what the early Christians believed, having sat under the teaching of Polycarp who had been appointed bishop of Smyrna by the apostle John. Irenaeus was a missionary to barbarians in Gaul (modern France) who supervised several churches in and around Lyons.

 

"For I have shown from the scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man.” (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19)

 

Tertillian writes “All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes THE UNITY INTO A TRINITY, placing in their order THE THREE PERSONS — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: THREE…of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.” (Against Praxeas chapter 2 emphasis added)

 

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person” (Against Praxeas, chapter 25)

 

Hippolytus also writes “A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three.” (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, section 8)

 

I could go on, but this has turned out very long already, there are so many examples which show that what the early church believed is exactly what was formulated at Nicea.

 

It is clear that the teachings of the early Christian church are the very same teachings formulated at Nicea and the same as those taught to this day. 

Notice also how these early church writers in their works refute Heresies (the wheat against the weeds; the sheep against the goats; the narrow vs broad road). Yet nowhere do they even mention a belief system that even remotely resembles the JW form of religion, that is, until Arianism appeared in the fourth century.

 

Here are some more Scriptures that testify that the true belief system would NOT cease, Matt. 16:18-19; 28:20, Acts 28:28 also Isa. 59:21.

 

So when you claim that “Jehovah's Witnesses are careful not to claim that the church ceased to exist through the intervening centuries, only that restoration was needed through long years of false doctrine.”

 

If “restoration was needed” then you are indirectly claiming that your belief system, even though it is supposedly the true one, ceased?

 

As this is very long I just want to briefly say one more thing and that is in regard to your comment about the philosophical language used by the church to explain the trinity. When explaining something to others you use the language that they understand, you don’t use language or terminology that they are not familiar with, right?

 

In the Roman world there were many schools of philosophy, so it is little wonder that this is the language that the church used, some try to make an issue of this when there is nothing in it. Even though the terminology the early church writer used was indeed philosophical in origin which they admit, we have the words of one who used these philosophical terms more then most, and said “the knowledge which calls men to lead a good and blessed life derives from no other source but the very words and teaching of Christ” (Origen, On First Principles, emphasis mine).

 

I apologize if this response is abrupt in any way. <><

[Cos]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 11:49 PM, ThePraeceptor said:

Not if you understand Greek. You simply can not translate this frase like this. There is also no hint for any underlying meanings.

How exactly have you reached this understanding?

 

Here are what some Greek experts say,

“Several of the principal manuscripts and a great mass of ancient evidence support the reading μονογενὴς Θεὸς, “God only begotten.”  (Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament)

 

“The best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read monogenēs theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text.” (Robertson Word Pictures). <><

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Cos said:

You say that you “never assumed he (Rufinus) was personally dishonest” but then you call into question why he singled out “one topic…almost all Trinity references”.

Rufinus may have been sincere in thinking he was editing out corruptions to Origen, when he was actually editing Origen himself. He may have merely been judging Origen by his own later standards, as you say of others. The language had indeed developed so that Origen's seeming contradictions could now be stated with words that erased those contradictions. (In my opinion, the developing language merely hid the contradictions.) More evidence that Rufinus got some of it wrong is seen in the language of those "students/disciples" who followed Origen. I can't speak for differences, for example, in Paul of Samosata's view of monarchianism yet (three manifestations of one God in one person, instead of 3 persons).

As I get a chance, I'm re-reading the first couple volumes of "The Faith of the Early Fathers" and just starting "Origen: Scholarship in Service of the Church." I should probably re-read Eusebius, which I just found again yesterday in my library. I read it about 30 years ago as a complete novice to these things, and was only concerned then about his views on the various books of the Bible canon.

3 hours ago, Cos said:

“The Church … has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith in one God, the Father … in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit.” (Against Heresies)

This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, too. Sometimes, there is confusion because we generally avoid terms like "incarnate" but we still believe that the Word became flesh.

3 hours ago, Cos said:

But what we find in Eusebius’ “Ecclesiastical History” is that it abounds with quotes from those who lived before him. If the church in its earlier days had believed anything different from Nicea, OR if the belief system of the early church had developed over time no one would have known better than Eusebius. But instead of testifying any change, Eusebius defended what they believed in harmony with the Nicene creed.

To me this is evidence that Eusebius did his duty to find agreement in past statements even if he had to cherry-pick to do it. Eusebius was a church "politician" in my view. Some of what he says is very intriguing. The way he dismisses Papias, for example, as a fool because Papias thought he should go to Palestine and get the views of secondary witnesses, and came back with a lot of stories that weren't in (or contradicted) the canonical scriptures. But we have several such issues that seem impossible if there had already been a coherent and unchangeable canon in front of 2nd century bishops. (Not just Papias, but the adoptionism of Theodotus of Byzantium, for example.) Eusebius in effect admits to "cherry picking" in the way he dismisses what doesn't fit.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

To which doctrine, explained in this way, it appeared right to assent, especially since we knew that some eminent bishops and learned writers among the ancients have used the term “homoousios” in their theological discourses concerning the nature of the Father and the Son”

I'll quote the opening to the article, I quoted from before: "DID ORIGEN APPLY THE WORD HOMOOUSIOS TO THE SON?" with some highlights added:

This essay takes its title from one by Richard Hanson, which gives as its answer a 'decisive no'.^₁ Mine will be a qualified yes— the more confident, however—in that I argue for an indirect and transient application of the term, which will explain why it does not appear elsewhere in Origen's works and was not adopted by his pupils. The question is an important one, since Origen was, by common consent, the most profound and versatile theologian of the Church before the Council of Nicaea in 325. After this date the homoousion gradually prevailed as the orthodox symbol for the unity of the Godhead,² but Origen had given the Church its complementary formula of 'three Hypostases'.³ As the homoousion came to signify, not merely a community of attributes or nature, but an equality of status between the persons of the Trinity, Origen's theology was denounced by those who believed that he subordinated the other two Hypostases to the First. For this reason and others he was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.

That said, I can add that I have no problem with the way that Origen used the term in the sense that Jesus and God are of the same nature or essence. They are spirit creatures. But not equal, as Origen makes clear. This makes them, in effect, the same "substance" as spirit, and therefore also "the holy spirit" which emanates from them.  (Although I hate to use the term substance of something that is not material.)

It's curious that they chose a word that had actually been developed into a 2nd-century doctrine by the very unorthodox Gnostics. Note this from Wikipedia:

Pre-Nicene usage

The term ὁμοούσιος had been used before its adoption by the First Council of Nicaea. The Gnostics were the first to use the word ὁμοούσιος, while before the Gnostics there is no trace at all of its existence.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]} The early church theologians were probably made aware of this concept, and thus of the doctrine of emanation, taught by the Gnostics.^[11] In Gnostic texts the word ὁμοούσιος is used with the following meanings:

• Identity of substance between generator and generated.

• Identity of substance between things generated of the same substance.

• Identity of substance between the partners of a syzygy.

For example, Basilides, the first known Gnostic thinker to use ὁμοούσιος in the first half of the 2nd century AD, speaks of a threefold sonship consubstantial with the god who is not.^[12][13] The Valentinian Gnostic Ptolemy claims in his letter to Flora that it is the nature of the good God to beget and bring forth only beings similar to, and consubstantial with, himself.^[14] The term ὁμοούσιος was already in current use by the 2nd-century Gnostics, and through their works it became known to the orthodox heresiologists, though this Gnostic use of the term had no reference to the specific relationship between Father and Son, as is the case in the Nicene Creed.

Adoption in the Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed is the official doctrine of most Christian churches . . . with regard to the ontological status of the three persons or hypostases of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Origen seems to have been the first ecclesiastical writer to use the word ὁμοούσιος in a nontrinitarian context,^[a] but it is evident in his writings that he considered the Son's divinity lesser than the Father's, since he even calls the Son a creature.^[16]

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Cos said:

would like to have a look at one of the earliest of Christian writings after the NT. In an anonymous letter to Diognetus, some say it may have been written as early as the late 80’s of the first century, though the date has been difficult to determine most scholars date it around the turn of the century. Even at this early date, however, we can see what was believed was later formulated at Nicea.

Wikipedia indicates that most scholars would seem to put it closer to the 190's, not the 80's:

estimates of dating based on the language and other textual evidence have ranged from AD 130^[1] (which would make it one of the earliest examples of apologetic literature), to the late 2nd century, with the latter often preferred in modern scholarship.^[2]

4 hours ago, Cos said:

“Truly God himself … has sent from heaven and placed among men the truth and the holy and incomprehensible Word and has firmly established him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, angel, ruler, or anyone of those who bear sway over earthly things … but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things—by whom he made the heavens.” (Letter to Diognetus chapter. 7)

 

This anonymous author was not trying to explain exactly the formulated creed but he leaves us several clues that he held the same view as that of the later creed.

 

Here's another one:

“He sent the Word that he might be manifested to the world … This is he who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old, yet is ever born afresh in the hearts of the saints. This is he, who being from everlasting, is today called the Son.” (Letter to Diognetus chapter. 11)

The letter is known from a 13th century manuscript. Wikipedia makes a point about a phrase in chapter 10:

The 10th chapter breaks off in mid thought and so the last two chapters, a kind of peroration that abandons the (fictive?) epistolary formula, are often considered to be later additions as characteristically 3rd-century contentions appear in them: "This Word, Who was from the beginning...". Some have ascribed these additions to Hippolytus, based on similarities of thought and style.

This does not spoil your point about the entire letter, but I find nothing in the letter that I could not agree with. Note too that the words you left out after "Truly God himself, the Almighty, has sent from heaven and placed among men the truth and the holy and incomprehensible Word." Although Witnesses identify the Word with Michael as an archangel, we would also agree that the Almighty God did not send just "any servant, angel, ruler," etc. The Bible is clear that it was Jesus, as the Word, through whom all things were created.

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, Cos said:

I will continue from Clement of Rome who wrote also at the turn of the first century;

“For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect.... Amen.” (Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, 58:2)

This was responded to already, by others. There is nothing here that we don't believe. Curious that the Holy Spirit doesn't explicity "live" and that God is separated from Jesus and the Holy Spirit, so that they not God in this context. Trinitarian doctrine is conspicuous by its absence.

5 hours ago, Cos said:

In around the year 125;

“The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh;.... This is taught in the gospel” (THE APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES chapter 2)

Wikipedia quotes references to put it at 138-161. The line "This is taught in the gospel" is not found in all the versions and is considered a gloss. That doesn't change the idea that "God came down from heaven" which is evidently part of the original, and which I would say is worded in a way that is different from inspired scripture. God sent his Son from heaven, who had been with God "from the beginning." But this is not the same God coming down from heaven, because God was still in heaven. Jesus said that he would return to "my God" at his ascension. And of course, even after that ascension it was God who gave Jesus Christ the Revelation, which he gave to John. This was the point that JTR previously made.

I agree that it's quite possible however that somewhere between 125 and 161, some Christians explained the divinity of Christ in terms that were at least "Binitarian" but not yet Trinitarian. The nature of philosophical beliefs and syncretism with their former beliefs as Gentiles probably influenced confusion in some of them during the life and preaching of the apostles, themselves.

There is not a perfect consistency in the doctrines as they are presented by Justin Martyr around 160 (opinion) and he may have even been responsible for some of the wording we see in the "Apology of Aristides" above. Both of them use the expression "he was pierced by the Jews" for example. But I would agree that Martyr also appears "Binitarian" but not yet fully Trinitarian. I'll check into the quote from his First Apology later.

After Iranaeus, 180, and those after him, I'm not concerned that there were full Trinitarians teaching openly. But even here, as with Origen, their teachings were not always considered consistent enough to avoid condemnation.

 

[Cos]

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 11:28 PM, JW Insider said:

This was responded to already, by others. There is nothing here that we don't believe. Curious that the Holy Spirit doesn't explicity "live" and that God is separated from Jesus and the Holy Spirit, so that they not God in this context. Trinitarian doctrine is conspicuous by its absence.

Wikipedia quotes references to put it at 138-161. The line "This is taught in the gospel" is not found in all the versions and is considered a gloss. That doesn't change the idea that "God came down from heaven" which is evidently part of the original, and which I would say is worded in a way that is different from inspired scripture. God sent his Son from heaven, who had been with God "from the beginning." But this is not the same God coming down from heaven, because God was still in heaven. Jesus said that he would return to "my God" at his ascension. And of course, even after that ascension it was God who gave Jesus Christ the Revelation, which he gave to John. This was the point that JTR previously made.

I agree that it's quite possible however that somewhere between 125 and 161, some Christians explained the divinity of Christ in terms that were at least "Binitarian" but not yet Trinitarian. The nature of philosophical beliefs and syncretism with their former beliefs as Gentiles probably influenced confusion in some of them during the life and preaching of the apostles, themselves.

There is not a perfect consistency in the doctrines as they are presented by Justin Martyr around 160 (opinion) and he may have even been responsible for some of the wording we see in the "Apology of Aristides" above. Both of them use the expression "he was pierced by the Jews" for example. But I would agree that Martyr also appears "Binitarian" but not yet fully Trinitarian. I'll check into the quote from his First Apology later.

After Iranaeus, 180, and those after him, I'm not concerned that there were full Trinitarians teaching openly. But even here, as with Origen, their teachings were not always considered consistent enough to avoid condemnation.

 

Hello JW Insider,

 

Please don’t take this the wrong way as I am enjoying our discussion and therefore don’t mean to be rude in this, but why send three posts when only one would do, I don’t get that, it seems to be a common practice by some here.

 

I get a lot of emails, a lot, which I have to go through, so sending more than one reply only makes it more cumbersome to work with not to mention that it is difficult to follow your train of thought; I hope that you can understand this. If you want to quote what I say then just put in your post something like “You say, ‘such and such and such’ ” there is no need, which I can see, to respond by multiple posts.

 

You say in one post;

“The language had indeed developed so that Origen's seeming contradictions could now be stated with words that erased those contradictions. (In my opinion, the developing language merely hid the contradictions.)”

 

Can you give some examples of the “developing language” that you say “hid the contradiction”.

 

You then bring up Paul of Samosata, who held to the view of monarchianism, and who is also referred to as a devotee of Artemas, see Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 5 chapter 28. This just goes to show the amount of misunderstanding which abound in regard to Origen. Rufinus, at least, is straight forward in what he says; if he was “editing Origen himself” as you claim, why would he say to compare these with other portions of Origen’s writings? The kind of opinion you hold to about Rufinus, show me that you are set on the negative by calling into doubt what is said because it doesn’t sit right with you and your belief system.

 

After my quote from Irenaeus; “The Church … has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith in one God, the Father … in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit.” (Against Heresies)

 

You say

“This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, too. Sometimes, there is confusion because we generally avoid terms like "incarnate" but we still believe that the Word became flesh

 

If this is what “Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, too”, then you must put equal faith in the Holy Spirit as in the Son and the Father,  the same as Irenaeus does, do you, JW Insider, put equal faith in the Holy Spirit? Note how “this faith” is singular and is applicable to all three equally.

 

By the way the “and” in the quote from Clements letter to the Corinthians before “the Holy Spirit” indicates that “lives” is applicable the Him also. And yes others, or at least one other did respond to this quote, but when I ask him what he thought it meant, all he could say was “What he said” so “what he said’ is what he meant (?). I will ask you the same question, what does Clement mean when he says that the three are “the faith and hope of the elect”?

 

Eusebius’ “cheery picking” as you call his rendering of Ecclesiastical History, does not negate the fact that he make no mention (even any shrouded reference) that the belief system of the early church “developed” from one system (such as the binitarian belief system) to another.

 

In fact the binitarian belief system emerged after the Arian controversy toward the later part of the fourth century, and as a belief system it has ceased and then started over again throughout the last eighteen centuries. Remember Eusebius makes no mention of any such system.

 

The true belief system would not cease, so any claim to “restoration” is contrary to Scripture.

 

There is much more in the writings of the early church prior to Nicea that show what they believed and taught is consistent with the later creedal formula, we have only touch on a few examples I can cite more if you like. The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit were together believed upon by these first Christians.

 

The early church, from the first century onwards, always agreed that there were three in the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in complete accord with the later creeds. If one examines carefully and with all honesty the writings of the early church their language and theology bear forth their understanding of the Triune God long before and in complete harmony with the 4th century formulated creeds.

 

I finish off here with a quote from Ignatius;

 

“There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honor.”(THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE PHILIPPIANS, chapter 2). <><

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Cos said:

Please don’t take this the wrong way as I am enjoying our discussion and therefore don’t mean to be rude in this, but why send three posts when only one would do, I don’t get that, it seems to be a common practice by some here.

 

I get a lot of emails, a lot, which I have to go through, so sending more than one reply only makes it more cumbersome to work with not to mention that it is difficult to follow your train of thought; I hope that you can understand this. If you want to quote what I say then just put in your post something like “You say, ‘such and such and such’ ” there is no need, which I can see, to respond by multiple posts.

I will try to remember that for conversations with you. I have a tendency to respond with too many words, so I'm usually guessing that most people look at what I have written and just don't bother. ("too-long-didn't-read" -- tldr.) I rarely edit things down to a better size, which means that putting all my posts together would create "tldr times three" or "tldr times four." Of course, it doesn't bother me at all if no one reads what I've said, because writing out my responses in detail serves to make me think through an idea more completely, for myself, and then produces a "paper trail" for others to correct or to see if it still makes sense after I learn more. And if it's "tldr" then only those who WANT to go to the time and trouble to correct my errors will engage.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

You say in one post;

“The language had indeed developed so that Origen's seeming contradictions could now be stated with words that erased those contradictions. (In my opinion, the developing language merely hid the contradictions.)”

 

Can you give some examples of the “developing language” that you say “hid the contradiction”.

homoousia

4 hours ago, Cos said:

You then bring up Paul of Samosata, who held to the view of monarchianism, and who is also referred to as a devotee of Artemas, see Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 5 chapter 28. This just goes to show the amount of misunderstanding which abound in regard to Origen.

People can pick and choose from more than one teacher. Paul of Samosata followed Origen in several ways. I see no misunderstanding.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

Rufinus, at least, is straight forward in what he says; if he was “editing Origen himself” as you claim, why would he say to compare these with other portions of Origen’s writings? The kind of opinion you hold to about Rufinus, show me that you are set on the negative by calling into doubt what is said because it doesn’t sit right with you and your belief system.

That's one of the evidences that Rufinus sincerely thought he was doing the right thing. If he misunderstood what Origen meant in one place and it made him edit what Origen said in another place then it means we have lost out on being able to determine for ourselves the full range of Origen's ideas, or we may have lost out on our ability to see where Origen may have contradicted himself. Also, if Origen said "A" in one place and "B" in another, how do we know whether Rufinus picked the correct places to edit. Perhaps Origen would have preferred all his A's to be corrected as B's and Rufinus corrected all his B's and made them A's.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

After my quote from Irenaeus; “The Church … has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith in one God, the Father … in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit.” (Against Heresies)

 

You say

“This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, too. Sometimes, there is confusion because we generally avoid terms like "incarnate" but we still believe that the Word became flesh

 

If this is what “Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, too”, then you must put equal faith in the Holy Spirit as in the Son and the Father,  the same as Irenaeus does, do you, JW Insider, put equal faith in the Holy Spirit? Note how “this faith” is singular and is applicable to all three equally.

God helps us and communicates to us through the Word, his only-begotten Son, and God helps and communicates to us through the holy spirit, which was especially manifested through the work of the apostles and first-century disciples in laying the foundation of the first-century congregations. That work of the holy spirit has come down to us in the form of the inspired Bible which added the inspired Greek Scriptures to the canon of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. The holy spirit also works in the lives of individuals so that we can give faith, love and hope a priority in our lives and conquer in our war over sin and the works of the flesh. (Galatians 5:16-26)

Therefore we do have equal faith in God, his Son, and his holy spirit. We can't have real faith in God without equal faith in all his means of help and all his means of communicating his purpose and character to us. It should therefore have been quite natural for all Christian writers to link God, his Son, and his holy spirit. It should be natural for them to be linked together in the Greek Scriptures, too.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

By the way the “and” in the quote from Clements letter to the Corinthians before “the Holy Spirit” indicates that “lives” is applicable the Him also. And yes others, or at least one other did respond to this quote, but when I ask him what he thought it meant, all he could say was “What he said” so “what he said’ is what he meant (?). I will ask you the same question, what does Clement mean when he says that the three are “the faith and hope of the elect”?

If that "and" argument were necessarily so, he would not have needed to add "lives" before Jesus, either.

To the question as to what Clement likely meant, I would merely repeat the last two paragraphs I wrote above. They should be linked because our faith and hope is dependent on God and his direct means of working with us. Our faith and hope is not dependent on angels, organizations, material support, or even our fellow believers.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

Remember Eusebius makes no mention of any such [binitarian] system.

Perhaps not intentionally. His goal is to tie the current official faith of the Church to the faith handed down by the apostles. You are referring to a more formal Binitarian belief. I am referring to a time shortly after the writings of the apostles, especially John's gospel, when the primary goal was to resolve the meaning of Christ's divinity. There were several potential solutions offered, some which congealed in religions that are hardly recognizable as "Christianity" today, such as various heresies and forms of gnosticism.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

The true belief system would not cease, so any claim to “restoration” is contrary to Scripture.

Perhaps. There are two ways to look at this issue. One is that the wheat and weeds grow together throughout the history of believers. But it might never mean that there was a time when the majority of believers held correct beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses have long held that there were believers holding to a true belief system throughout history. Only near the end, towards the time of the harvest, would the wheat and weeds become distinguishable. So JWs believe that God and Jesus have always had "Witnesses" throughout history, and that the true belief system has not ceased. Another way to look at this is that the congregation that Jesus identifies as his Witnesses is not strictly identified throughout all of history by the sum total of their belief system. It may be that it refers to all those who are motivated to allow Jesus teachings about love for God and neighbor to guide their lives, doing unto others as they would have done to themselves, and therefore they are allowing the fruits of the holy spirit to guide their lives. Outside of that, all these other doctrines are of a much lower priority.

4 hours ago, Cos said:

There is much more in the writings of the early church prior to Nicea that show what they believed and taught is consistent with the later creedal formula, we have only touch on a few examples I can cite more if you like. The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit were together believed upon by these first Christians.

I have already described a sense in which the three entities should be spoken of together, and I have no problem linking them in many of the ways that the ANF linked them.

[Cos]

On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 11:30 PM, JW Insider said:

I will try to remember that for conversations with you. I have a tendency to respond with too many words, so I'm usually guessing that most people look at what I have written and just don't bother. ("too-long-didn't-read" -- tldr.) I rarely edit things down to a better size, which means that putting all my posts together would create "tldr times three" or "tldr times four." Of course, it doesn't bother me at all if no one reads what I've said, because writing out my responses in detail serves to make me think through an idea more completely, for myself, and then produces a "paper trail" for others to correct or to see if it still makes sense after I learn more. And if it's "tldr" then only those who WANT to go to the time and trouble to correct my errors will engage.

homoousia

People can pick and choose from more than one teacher. Paul of Samosata followed Origen in several ways. I see no misunderstanding.

That's one of the evidences that Rufinus sincerely thought he was doing the right thing. If he misunderstood what Origen meant in one place and it made him edit what Origen said in another place then it means we have lost out on being able to determine for ourselves the full range of Origen's ideas, or we may have lost out on our ability to see where Origen may have contradicted himself. Also, if Origen said "A" in one place and "B" in another, how do we know whether Rufinus picked the correct places to edit. Perhaps Origen would have preferred all his A's to be corrected as B's and Rufinus corrected all his B's and made them A's.

God helps us and communicates to us through the Word, his only-begotten Son, and God helps and communicates to us through the holy spirit, which was especially manifested through the work of the apostles and first-century disciples in laying the foundation of the first-century congregations. That work of the holy spirit has come down to us in the form of the inspired Bible which added the inspired Greek Scriptures to the canon of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. The holy spirit also works in the lives of individuals so that we can give faith, love and hope a priority in our lives and conquer in our war over sin and the works of the flesh. (Galatians 5:16-26)

Therefore we do have equal faith in God, his Son, and his holy spirit. We can't have real faith in God without equal faith in all his means of help and all his means of communicating his purpose and character to us. It should therefore have been quite natural for all Christian writers to link God, his Son, and his holy spirit. It should be natural for them to be linked together in the Greek Scriptures, too.

If that "and" argument were necessarily so, he would not have needed to add "lives" before Jesus, either.

To the question as to what Clement likely meant, I would merely repeat the last two paragraphs I wrote above. They should be linked because our faith and hope is dependent on God and his direct means of working with us. Our faith and hope is not dependent on angels, organizations, material support, or even our fellow believers.

Perhaps not intentionally. His goal is to tie the current official faith of the Church to the faith handed down by the apostles. You are referring to a more formal Binitarian belief. I am referring to a time shortly after the writings of the apostles, especially John's gospel, when the primary goal was to resolve the meaning of Christ's divinity. There were several potential solutions offered, some which congealed in religions that are hardly recognizable as "Christianity" today, such as various heresies and forms of gnosticism.

Perhaps. There are two ways to look at this issue. One is that the wheat and weeds grow together throughout the history of believers. But it might never mean that there was a time when the majority of believers held correct beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses have long held that there were believers holding to a true belief system throughout history. Only near the end, towards the time of the harvest, would the wheat and weeds become distinguishable. So JWs believe that God and Jesus have always had "Witnesses" throughout history, and that the true belief system has not ceased. Another way to look at this is that the congregation that Jesus identifies as his Witnesses is not strictly identified throughout all of history by the sum total of their belief system. It may be that it refers to all those who are motivated to allow Jesus teachings about love for God and neighbor to guide their lives, doing unto others as they would have done to themselves, and therefore they are allowing the fruits of the holy spirit to guide their lives. Outside of that, all these other doctrines are of a much lower priority.

I have already described a sense in which the three entities should be spoken of together, and I have no problem linking them in many of the ways that the ANF linked them.

Hello JW Insider,

 

I’m sorry that I couldn’t get back to you earlier my week has been very busy.

 

You say,

“Also, if Origen said "A" in one place and "B" in another, how do we know whether Rufinus picked the correct places to edit. Perhaps Origen would have preferred all his A's to be corrected as B's and Rufinus corrected all his B's and made them A's.”

 

Origen did not say “A” in one place and “B’ in another maybe you missed how, not only Rufinus, but also Pamphilus, mention that Origen’s work had been altered by others. So how can we know for sure? By doing what Rufinus suggests and compare these renderings to Origen’s other writings. So shall we?

 

 “Light without splendor is unthinkable. But if this is true, there is never a time when the Son was not the Son. He will be, however, not, as we have described the eternal light, unborn (lest we seem to introduce two principles of light), but, as it were, the splendor of the unbegotten light, with that very light as His beginning and source, born of it indeed, but there was not a time when He was not. Thus Wisdom, too, since it proceeds from God, is generated out of the divine substance itself. Under the figure of a bodily outflow, nevertheless, it, too, is thus called 'a sort of clean and pure outflow of omnipotent glory' (Wis. 7:25). Both these similes manifestly show the community of substance between Son and Father. For an outflow seems ὁμοὐσιος, i.e., of one substance with that body of which it is the outflow or exhaltation” (Origen In Hebr. frg. 24,359 emphasis mine).

 

Let’s notice a few things from this. When Origen says that there never was a time when the Son was not, this is in stark contrast with the later Arian principle that “there was a time when the Son was not”.

 

Another point is the uses of the word homoousios which you imply is a distortion of the developing language. Yet Origen here uses the word hamoousios in speaking of the Son's basic relation with the Father. Homoousios (Greek. ὁμοούσιος) means "of the same substance," "of the same essence."  Homo means "same" and ousia means "essence."  Origen is saying that the Son is of identically the same substance as the Father and thus is God just as the Father is God. For a more detailed treatment see G. L. Prestige, “God in Patristic Thought”, pp. 197-199.

 

You say;

“People can pick and choose from more than one teacher. Paul of Samosata followed Origen in several ways. I see no misunderstanding.”

 

It is interesting that Eusebius makes no mention of this and we both know Eusebius’ leanings were more towards your belief system, but I do agree “People can pick and choose from more than one teacher” but there is no confirmation of this theory in regard to Paul of Samosats,… not even from Eusebius, but then he would appear to be a charlatan because, from what you say, he does not record the specifics of church history but only a whitewashed version to “tie in” with “the current official faith”.

 

Even though Eusebius mentions other heresies which the church faced in the years before his own time, there is no mention of Binitarianism none at all. Why would he “intentionally” not mention this heresy? It’s because this heresy did not appear until the late fourth century. If it were a belief system BEFORE the fourth century then people like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and of course  Eusebius, would have referred to it, but there is nothing; just as there is no belief system that even resembles the JW form of religion being mentioned by these early church writers.

 

What you need to consider is this fact, the early church writers refuted all forms of heresy they do not even mention any group that resemble your type of religion because it did not exist until much later! This is fact, it’s not speculation no matter how many ways you want to “look at the issue” this fact speak volumes. <><