(1) Mark 12:28-30
One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, “Which is the first of all the commandments?�29Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!30You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’j
(2) However, while Jesus remained a man (“Son of God, or Son of Man) and was raised from the dead by God, about 85 AD, Jesus began to be considered divine himself. His can be seen in John’s gospel written about 95 AD.
This broke with the traditional Old Testament teaching that the Lord was one, resulted in the Christians being excluded from the Hebrew synagogues, and the Christians labeled as heretics (“minim�).
(3) … According to Berakhot 28b, Samuel ha Katan (fl. c. 80-110), at the invitation of Gamaliel II of Jabneh, composed the "benediction against the minim," included in the Amidah as the twelfth benediction (see E. J. Bickerman, in HTR, 55 (1962), 171, n. 35). This was directed primarily against Judeo-Christians (specifically mentioned in one old text—see Schechter, JQR 10 (1897 / 98)), either to keep them out of the synagogue or to proclaim a definite breach between the two religions." 3
[See article Genizah Specimens / Liturgy, by Solomon Schechter, in The Jewish Quarterly Review, Volume 10, 1898, pages 654 - 659.]
(4) Arianism was a counter movement which claimed that Jesus was not divine himself and a large group of Christians reverted to this view.
(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binitarianism#History
After the 325 Council of Nicaea defeated Arianism, the Council of Constantinople was called in 381 in order to attempt to deal with the binitarians, who were referred to as "Semi-Arians". However, as the Trinity was finalized at this time as official Christian doctrine, the offended Semi-Arians walked out. "They rejected the Arian view that Christ was created and had a different nature from God (anomoios dissimilar), but neither did they accept the Nicene Creed which stated that Christ was 'of one substance (homoousios) with the Father'. Semi-Arians taught that Christ was similar (homoios) to the Father, or of like substance (homoiousios), but still subordinate"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Cr ... itan_Creed
(6) “What is known as the "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed" or the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed"[21] received this name because of a belief that it was adopted at the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 381 as a modification of the original Nicene Creed of 325…
“It differs in a number of respects, both by addition and omission, from the creed adopted at the First Council of Nicaea. The most notable difference is the additional section "And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets….�
How and when did the Trinity become Christian dogma?
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Isn't this short summary of the question accurate?
Post #81[Replying to post 59 by polonius.advice]
I agree that the Christ is not the second person of a Trinity. However, he is divine and eternal. This was accomplished by the Christ receiving God's nature or what the bible refers to as the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) at his birth. No other human being has received this divine nature. But, it will become available (at the resurrections) to those who have accepted the true ways of God.
As far as, being "eternal" this word can also reference someone who had a beginning, but without interruption or end. The reality that nothing "physical" can be considered to be eternal is without question. So, it is clear that the Christ's physical nature was not eternal, but his divine nature is. Hence, the Christ can be understood to be divine and eternal…
poionius.advice wrote:If someone tries to argue that Christ is divine (the second person of the Trinity) one has to explain how he could be begotten and had a beginning in time. If such were true he would not be co-eternal with God, would he?
I agree that the Christ is not the second person of a Trinity. However, he is divine and eternal. This was accomplished by the Christ receiving God's nature or what the bible refers to as the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) at his birth. No other human being has received this divine nature. But, it will become available (at the resurrections) to those who have accepted the true ways of God.
As far as, being "eternal" this word can also reference someone who had a beginning, but without interruption or end. The reality that nothing "physical" can be considered to be eternal is without question. So, it is clear that the Christ's physical nature was not eternal, but his divine nature is. Hence, the Christ can be understood to be divine and eternal…
-
RightReason
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Post #82
[Replying to 2timothy316]
You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. –Deuteronomy 6:5
The truth is the New World Translation adds "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times, where there is absolutely no ancient manuscript evidence of any kind to support it.
http://www.bible.ca/jw-YHWH.htm
You seem unable to recognize the irony of your argument against the Trinity. Hmmmmm . . . JW’s would never be guilty of what you are accusing Christendom of would they? . . . . .
*************************
Are Jesus and Michael the Archangel Really the Same Person?
One of the most peculiar of the WTS’s teachings is their assertion that Jesus is actually Michael the Archangel. If the JW has difficulty explaining any particular doctrine, it will be this one. Even JWs will admit that if one were to have walked up to any of the apostles or disciples of Christ and asked them who Jesus was, they would not have said, "Well, he’s Michael the Archangel!" Not only was the very idea was unheard of before Charles Taze Russell (the founder of the WTS), but the Bible explicitly rejects the possibility of it.
For example, the author of Hebrews states, "To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my son? . . . Let all the angels of God worship him. . . . Your throne, O God, stands firm forever. . . . O Lord, you established the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands’ . . . to which of the angels has he ever said ‘Sit at my right hand . . . ’" (Heb. 1). Here, the author of Hebrews separates Jesus from angels, and commands the angels to worship him (cf. Rev. 5:13-14,14:6-7). The obvious problem is this: Archangels are creatures, but the Bible forbids any creature to worship another creature. Thus, either the Bible is in error by commanding the angels to worship an archangel, or Jesus is uncreated and cannot be an archangel. Since this gave the JWs a tremendous problem, they even had to change their own Bible translation, called the New World Translation (NWT), to eliminate the references to worshipping Christ. (The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT read "worship" in Hebrews 1:6.) Beyond this, Jesus has the power to forgive sins and give eternal life, but no angel has this capacity.
Jesus: Creature of Creator?
The doctrine that most clearly sets the WTS apart from Christianity is its denial of the divinity of Christ. JWs maintain that Jesus is actually a creature—a highly exalted one at that—but not God himself. Scripturally, the evidence is not in their favor.
John 1:1 states unequivocally, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This verse gave the JWs tremendous difficulty, and so in their own NWT they render the end of this verse as, "And the word was a god." One great difficulty with this translation is how it contradicts passages such as Deuteronomy 32:39, which says, "I alone, am God and there are no gods together with me." Further contradictions can be seen in Exodus 20:3, "Have no other gods besides me," and Isaiah 43:10, "Before me no god was formed nor shall there be any after me." When a particular translation so clearly opposes other verses in Scripture, one can know immediately that it is inaccurate.
In John 20:28 Thomas says to Jesus, "My Lord and my God." In the original Greek it literally reads, "The Lord of me and the God of me." It would be nothing short of blasphemy for Jesus not to rebuke Thomas if he was wrong. Jesus does nothing of the sort, but instead accepts Thomas’ profession of his identity as God.
The Bible indicates that God alone created the universe (Is. 44:24), and "he that constructed all things is God" (Heb. 3:4). However, Jesus created the heavens and the earth (Heb. 1:10). This passage by itself proves that Jesus is God, since an Old Testament reference to God (Ps. 102:26-28) is now given to him.
In John 8:58, Jesus takes the name of God, "I AM" (Ex. 3:15-18), and applies it to himself. Only God may use this title without b.aspheming (Ex. 20:7, Deut. 5:11), and the punishment for someone other than God to use the sacred "I AM" is stoning (Lev. 24:16). Thus in verse 59, Jesus’ audience picked up stones to kill him, because they correctly understood his use of "I AM" as his claim to being God and hence thought he was guilty of blasphemy. This verse also proved to be difficult for the JWs to combat, and so they changed "I AM" to "I have been." The Greek here isego eimi, which any first-semester Greek student can tell you means "I am." It should also be noted that it would be rather strange for people to stone Jesus for saying that he "had been."
JWs maintain that only Jehovah God may be prayed to. But Stephen prayed to Jesus in Acts 7:59, and so one must conclude that Jesus is God. Otherwise, Stephen b.asphemed while filled with the Holy Spirit (7:55). Now the JWs will assert that Stephen was praying as a result of the vision he originally beheld, where he saw God and Jesus in heaven (verse 55). However, verse 58 says that Stephen was dragged out of the city to be stoned, so clearly the vision had ended, for his stoning took place in a different location and at a later time. It is in the context of this later setting when Stephen clearly prays to Jesus that he might "receive [Stephen’s] spirit."
The WTS would have their followers believe that Jehovah and Jesus are necessarily different beings, though the Bible tells another story. Jesus is called Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6, and in the very next chapter the same title is given to Jehovah in verse 21. Other shared titles include: King of Kings (compare with Rev. 17:14), Lord of Lords (Deut. 10:17; Rev. 17:14), the only Savior (Is. 43:10-11; Acts 4:12), the First and the Last (Is. 44:6; Rev. 22:13), the Alpha and the Omega (Rev. 1:8; Rev. 22:13-16), Rock (Is. 8:14; 1 Pet. 2:7-8), and Shepherd (Ps. 23:1; Heb. 13:20-21).
Jesus and Jehovah have much more in common than titles, though. They are both worshipped by angels (Heb. 1:6, Neh. 9:6). They are both unchanging (Heb. 13:8, Mal. 3:6). They both created the heavens and the earth (Heb. 1:10, Neh. 9:6) and are all-knowing (John 21:17, 1 John 3:20). Both give eternal life (John 10:28, 1 John 5:11), and judge the world (John 5:22, Ps. 96:13). To them every knee will bend and every tongue confess (Phil. 2:9-11, Is. 45:23).
https://www.catholic.com/tract/more-stu ... -witnesses
Sure about that? Because JW’s couldn’t even resist inserting the word Jehovah in that verse, because it helps their created cause. Here is the typical Christian translation . . ."You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength." Deut 6:5
I need no interpretation here. No extra understanding. No lines to read between.
You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. –Deuteronomy 6:5
The truth is the New World Translation adds "Jehovah" into the New Testament 237 times, where there is absolutely no ancient manuscript evidence of any kind to support it.
http://www.bible.ca/jw-YHWH.htm
You seem unable to recognize the irony of your argument against the Trinity. Hmmmmm . . . JW’s would never be guilty of what you are accusing Christendom of would they? . . . . .
*************************
Are Jesus and Michael the Archangel Really the Same Person?
One of the most peculiar of the WTS’s teachings is their assertion that Jesus is actually Michael the Archangel. If the JW has difficulty explaining any particular doctrine, it will be this one. Even JWs will admit that if one were to have walked up to any of the apostles or disciples of Christ and asked them who Jesus was, they would not have said, "Well, he’s Michael the Archangel!" Not only was the very idea was unheard of before Charles Taze Russell (the founder of the WTS), but the Bible explicitly rejects the possibility of it.
For example, the author of Hebrews states, "To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my son? . . . Let all the angels of God worship him. . . . Your throne, O God, stands firm forever. . . . O Lord, you established the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands’ . . . to which of the angels has he ever said ‘Sit at my right hand . . . ’" (Heb. 1). Here, the author of Hebrews separates Jesus from angels, and commands the angels to worship him (cf. Rev. 5:13-14,14:6-7). The obvious problem is this: Archangels are creatures, but the Bible forbids any creature to worship another creature. Thus, either the Bible is in error by commanding the angels to worship an archangel, or Jesus is uncreated and cannot be an archangel. Since this gave the JWs a tremendous problem, they even had to change their own Bible translation, called the New World Translation (NWT), to eliminate the references to worshipping Christ. (The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT read "worship" in Hebrews 1:6.) Beyond this, Jesus has the power to forgive sins and give eternal life, but no angel has this capacity.
Jesus: Creature of Creator?
The doctrine that most clearly sets the WTS apart from Christianity is its denial of the divinity of Christ. JWs maintain that Jesus is actually a creature—a highly exalted one at that—but not God himself. Scripturally, the evidence is not in their favor.
John 1:1 states unequivocally, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This verse gave the JWs tremendous difficulty, and so in their own NWT they render the end of this verse as, "And the word was a god." One great difficulty with this translation is how it contradicts passages such as Deuteronomy 32:39, which says, "I alone, am God and there are no gods together with me." Further contradictions can be seen in Exodus 20:3, "Have no other gods besides me," and Isaiah 43:10, "Before me no god was formed nor shall there be any after me." When a particular translation so clearly opposes other verses in Scripture, one can know immediately that it is inaccurate.
In John 20:28 Thomas says to Jesus, "My Lord and my God." In the original Greek it literally reads, "The Lord of me and the God of me." It would be nothing short of blasphemy for Jesus not to rebuke Thomas if he was wrong. Jesus does nothing of the sort, but instead accepts Thomas’ profession of his identity as God.
The Bible indicates that God alone created the universe (Is. 44:24), and "he that constructed all things is God" (Heb. 3:4). However, Jesus created the heavens and the earth (Heb. 1:10). This passage by itself proves that Jesus is God, since an Old Testament reference to God (Ps. 102:26-28) is now given to him.
In John 8:58, Jesus takes the name of God, "I AM" (Ex. 3:15-18), and applies it to himself. Only God may use this title without b.aspheming (Ex. 20:7, Deut. 5:11), and the punishment for someone other than God to use the sacred "I AM" is stoning (Lev. 24:16). Thus in verse 59, Jesus’ audience picked up stones to kill him, because they correctly understood his use of "I AM" as his claim to being God and hence thought he was guilty of blasphemy. This verse also proved to be difficult for the JWs to combat, and so they changed "I AM" to "I have been." The Greek here isego eimi, which any first-semester Greek student can tell you means "I am." It should also be noted that it would be rather strange for people to stone Jesus for saying that he "had been."
JWs maintain that only Jehovah God may be prayed to. But Stephen prayed to Jesus in Acts 7:59, and so one must conclude that Jesus is God. Otherwise, Stephen b.asphemed while filled with the Holy Spirit (7:55). Now the JWs will assert that Stephen was praying as a result of the vision he originally beheld, where he saw God and Jesus in heaven (verse 55). However, verse 58 says that Stephen was dragged out of the city to be stoned, so clearly the vision had ended, for his stoning took place in a different location and at a later time. It is in the context of this later setting when Stephen clearly prays to Jesus that he might "receive [Stephen’s] spirit."
The WTS would have their followers believe that Jehovah and Jesus are necessarily different beings, though the Bible tells another story. Jesus is called Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6, and in the very next chapter the same title is given to Jehovah in verse 21. Other shared titles include: King of Kings (compare with Rev. 17:14), Lord of Lords (Deut. 10:17; Rev. 17:14), the only Savior (Is. 43:10-11; Acts 4:12), the First and the Last (Is. 44:6; Rev. 22:13), the Alpha and the Omega (Rev. 1:8; Rev. 22:13-16), Rock (Is. 8:14; 1 Pet. 2:7-8), and Shepherd (Ps. 23:1; Heb. 13:20-21).
Jesus and Jehovah have much more in common than titles, though. They are both worshipped by angels (Heb. 1:6, Neh. 9:6). They are both unchanging (Heb. 13:8, Mal. 3:6). They both created the heavens and the earth (Heb. 1:10, Neh. 9:6) and are all-knowing (John 21:17, 1 John 3:20). Both give eternal life (John 10:28, 1 John 5:11), and judge the world (John 5:22, Ps. 96:13). To them every knee will bend and every tongue confess (Phil. 2:9-11, Is. 45:23).
https://www.catholic.com/tract/more-stu ... -witnesses
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Post #83
FWI wrote:
If he's divine, that would make him a god. Are you advocating polytheism?I agree that the Christ is not the second person of a Trinity. However, he is divine and eternal. This was accomplished by the Christ receiving God's nature or what the bible refers to as the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) at his birth. No other human being has received this divine nature. But, it will become available (at the resurrections) to those who have accepted the true ways of God.
As far as, being "eternal" this word can also reference someone who had a beginning, but without interruption or end. The reality that nothing "physical" can be considered to be eternal is without question. So, it is clear that the Christ's physical nature was not eternal, but his divine nature is. Hence, the Christ can be understood to be divine and eternal…
-
2timothy316
- Under Probation
- Posts: 4296
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
- Has thanked: 193 times
- Been thanked: 494 times
Post #84
Yep!RightReason wrote: [Replying to 2timothy316]
Sure about that?"You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength." Deut 6:5
I need no interpretation here. No extra understanding. No lines to read between.
-
Checkpoint
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4069
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 64 times
Re: Isn't this short summary of the question accurate?
Post #85[Replying to post 81 by FWI]
John 1:14; Hebrews 2:14-18.
He did not receive the divine nature at his birth, but the human nature.I agree that the Christ is not the second person of a Trinity. However, he is divine and eternal. This was accomplished by the Christ receiving God's nature or what the bible refers to as the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) at his birth.
John 1:14; Hebrews 2:14-18.
Post #86
[Replying to post 83 by Overcomer]
In the language of Hebrew, the term "elohim" is defined as meaning gods in the ordinary sense, but specifically used of the Supreme God. Hence, angels are referred to as "elohim" or gods in Exodus 22:28, Deut. 5:7, 11:16, 17:3, 32:17, 32:39 (this verse clearly states that there is no god, like the Supreme God), Ps.8:5 and Ps. 106:37. Even, when we review the definition of the Hebrew word for angel (Strong's H4397), there is a reference to theophanic angels or gods who appeared to humans through a divine manifestation (Genesis 19:1, Luke 1:26-28).
We also can see where certain human beings can be referred to as "gods" in the O.T. In Genesis 3:5 the serpent is telling Adam/Eve that they could become "gods" by taking from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Moses was referred to as being an "elohim" or a god to his brother Aaron (Ex. 4:16) and Pharaoh (Ex. 7:1).
The Greek language (N.T.) uses the word "theos" (G2316) for the non-physical and powerful, which can be defined as: a god or goddess (deities), especially with (G3588) the supreme Divinity and figuratively: a magistrate or human being. Thus, it is a general term used for all deities, divinities and powerful humans. Yet, also is used to address the Supreme God. The best example of this is in John 1:1. Here, we see a clear differentiation between the terms: "with God" (theon) or the Supreme Being and "the Word was god" or (theos), which is the general term for a god or the powerful.
Therefore, the O.T. (elohim) and N.T. (theos) are terms that can be used to verify that there is a Supreme God and that other gods do exist. While, even humans can be considered gods in the general sense.
The order of God/gods at this present time period
The Supreme God
The only begotten Son of God (the Christ)
Angels (non-physical life forms)
Certain human beings (figuratively)
No, but I am advocating a form of monolatrism. However, a clear understand of how I view the terms God/gods must be presented.Overcomer wrote:If he's divine, that would make him a god. Are you advocating polytheism?
In the language of Hebrew, the term "elohim" is defined as meaning gods in the ordinary sense, but specifically used of the Supreme God. Hence, angels are referred to as "elohim" or gods in Exodus 22:28, Deut. 5:7, 11:16, 17:3, 32:17, 32:39 (this verse clearly states that there is no god, like the Supreme God), Ps.8:5 and Ps. 106:37. Even, when we review the definition of the Hebrew word for angel (Strong's H4397), there is a reference to theophanic angels or gods who appeared to humans through a divine manifestation (Genesis 19:1, Luke 1:26-28).
We also can see where certain human beings can be referred to as "gods" in the O.T. In Genesis 3:5 the serpent is telling Adam/Eve that they could become "gods" by taking from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Moses was referred to as being an "elohim" or a god to his brother Aaron (Ex. 4:16) and Pharaoh (Ex. 7:1).
The Greek language (N.T.) uses the word "theos" (G2316) for the non-physical and powerful, which can be defined as: a god or goddess (deities), especially with (G3588) the supreme Divinity and figuratively: a magistrate or human being. Thus, it is a general term used for all deities, divinities and powerful humans. Yet, also is used to address the Supreme God. The best example of this is in John 1:1. Here, we see a clear differentiation between the terms: "with God" (theon) or the Supreme Being and "the Word was god" or (theos), which is the general term for a god or the powerful.
Therefore, the O.T. (elohim) and N.T. (theos) are terms that can be used to verify that there is a Supreme God and that other gods do exist. While, even humans can be considered gods in the general sense.
The order of God/gods at this present time period
The Supreme God
The only begotten Son of God (the Christ)
Angels (non-physical life forms)
Certain human beings (figuratively)
Post #87
[Replying to post 78 by RightReason]
As I have already written to you: the Bible is composed of writings from the first century. It is these writings which are important, not the declaration by someone at a much later date that they belong in a collection called the Bible. We have thousands of actual manuscripts (some dating back to the second century) which we can use to form the NT Greek texts which are then translated into the books of the NT Bible.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers' writings are nearly all found in only a very few manuscripts for each writer. Most of these manuscripts were copied in relatively recent years.
For example: Only fragments of manuscripts containing the original Greek remain for Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies.� It exists today in full only in a single Latin translation from the original Greek language.
The very trinitarian translators of ANF wrote in their Introductory Note to Irenaeus’ Against Heresies:
“The text [of Against Heresies] ... is often most uncertain. .... After the text has been settled according to the best judgment [trinitarian, of course] which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenaeus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. .... And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural retranslation [trinitarian, of course] into Greek, in order to have some inkling of what the author wrote. .... We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess [trinitarian, of course] can only be made as to the probable meaning.� - ANF 1:311-312.
Obviously, if a trinitarian, even a scrupulously honest trinitarian, makes a “conjectural retranslation� or a “guess ... as to the probable meaning,� it will be a trinitarian guess or “conjectural retranslation�!
Besides the lack of ancient Greek manuscripts for these writers, we must remember that all the copyists and 'translators' were, at the time the existing manuscripts were written, trinitarian (or else!). If any additions or other changes were written into the new copy, they would certainly not be non-trinitarian! There would have been great recriminations for a copyist or translator who added anti-trinitarian statements. Not only would the copy be destroyed, but the copyist himself might share the same fate.
So we can be certain that only anti-trinitarian statements are certain in these late manuscripts.
...................
So, RR, the following respected trinitarian sources are wrong and you are right?
“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.� - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.
“Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father.� - pp. 112-113, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity (trinitarian), 1977; and p. 114, The History of Christianity, A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.
“It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Christian theologians of the second and third centuries, even theologians of the rank of Origen...came to see the Logos [the Word, Christ] as a god of second rank.� - The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publ., 1987, Vol. 9, p. 15.
“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.� - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.
Why would trinitarian scholars actually admit this?
...........................................................
Clement of Alexandria:
"The purpose of this appendix is to show that translations of the works of the early Church Fathers were made from very late copies of the original works, and in the case of Clement’s [of Alexandria] works, the translations were made from just one surviving Greek manuscript which is dated no earlier than the 11th century. If this situation obtains for most of the other Church Fathers, then this severely undermines using them as reliable witnesses and reliable translations." Dr. Leslie McFall - https://lmf12.files.wordpress.com/2015/ ... ia4.pdf Not only is the manuscript evidence highly questionable, (including the influence of the trinitarian copyists through the ages), but your quotation, RR, is incomplete:
Clement of Alexandria: "The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother."- book 1, ch. 6, The Instructor.
Obviously the word "one" here is in a different sense from what you think - probably in the sense of 'one' at John 17:21-23. It is odd that there don't seem to be influences of a trinity doctrine here, given the urges of the trinitarian copyists who wrote the existing copy.
Justin Martyr:
Justin Martyr’s ‘Apology’ and ‘Dialogue {With Trypho}’ “are preserved but in a single ms (Cod. Paris, 450, A.D. 1364)� - Britannica, 14th ed.
Justin wrote:
"God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after him are created and corruptible {Justin has just concurred that the world was begotten by God} .... take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say this is the Cause of all." - ANF 1:197 (‘Dialogue’).
And,
"Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten" - ANF 1:170 (‘Apology’).
continued in next post.
As I have already written to you: the Bible is composed of writings from the first century. It is these writings which are important, not the declaration by someone at a much later date that they belong in a collection called the Bible. We have thousands of actual manuscripts (some dating back to the second century) which we can use to form the NT Greek texts which are then translated into the books of the NT Bible.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers' writings are nearly all found in only a very few manuscripts for each writer. Most of these manuscripts were copied in relatively recent years.
For example: Only fragments of manuscripts containing the original Greek remain for Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies.� It exists today in full only in a single Latin translation from the original Greek language.
The very trinitarian translators of ANF wrote in their Introductory Note to Irenaeus’ Against Heresies:
“The text [of Against Heresies] ... is often most uncertain. .... After the text has been settled according to the best judgment [trinitarian, of course] which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenaeus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. .... And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural retranslation [trinitarian, of course] into Greek, in order to have some inkling of what the author wrote. .... We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess [trinitarian, of course] can only be made as to the probable meaning.� - ANF 1:311-312.
Obviously, if a trinitarian, even a scrupulously honest trinitarian, makes a “conjectural retranslation� or a “guess ... as to the probable meaning,� it will be a trinitarian guess or “conjectural retranslation�!
Besides the lack of ancient Greek manuscripts for these writers, we must remember that all the copyists and 'translators' were, at the time the existing manuscripts were written, trinitarian (or else!). If any additions or other changes were written into the new copy, they would certainly not be non-trinitarian! There would have been great recriminations for a copyist or translator who added anti-trinitarian statements. Not only would the copy be destroyed, but the copyist himself might share the same fate.
So we can be certain that only anti-trinitarian statements are certain in these late manuscripts.
...................
So, RR, the following respected trinitarian sources are wrong and you are right?
“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.� - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.
“Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father.� - pp. 112-113, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity (trinitarian), 1977; and p. 114, The History of Christianity, A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.
“It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Christian theologians of the second and third centuries, even theologians of the rank of Origen...came to see the Logos [the Word, Christ] as a god of second rank.� - The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publ., 1987, Vol. 9, p. 15.
“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.� - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.
Why would trinitarian scholars actually admit this?
...........................................................
Clement of Alexandria:
"The purpose of this appendix is to show that translations of the works of the early Church Fathers were made from very late copies of the original works, and in the case of Clement’s [of Alexandria] works, the translations were made from just one surviving Greek manuscript which is dated no earlier than the 11th century. If this situation obtains for most of the other Church Fathers, then this severely undermines using them as reliable witnesses and reliable translations." Dr. Leslie McFall - https://lmf12.files.wordpress.com/2015/ ... ia4.pdf Not only is the manuscript evidence highly questionable, (including the influence of the trinitarian copyists through the ages), but your quotation, RR, is incomplete:
Clement of Alexandria: "The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother."- book 1, ch. 6, The Instructor.
Obviously the word "one" here is in a different sense from what you think - probably in the sense of 'one' at John 17:21-23. It is odd that there don't seem to be influences of a trinity doctrine here, given the urges of the trinitarian copyists who wrote the existing copy.
Justin Martyr:
Justin Martyr’s ‘Apology’ and ‘Dialogue {With Trypho}’ “are preserved but in a single ms (Cod. Paris, 450, A.D. 1364)� - Britannica, 14th ed.
Justin wrote:
"God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after him are created and corruptible {Justin has just concurred that the world was begotten by God} .... take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say this is the Cause of all." - ANF 1:197 (‘Dialogue’).
And,
"Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten" - ANF 1:170 (‘Apology’).
continued in next post.
Post #88
[Replying to post 78 by RightReason]
Part 1
As I have already written to you: the Bible is composed of writings from the first century. It is these writings which are important, not the declaration by someone at a much later date that they belong in a collection called the Bible. We have thousands of actual manuscripts (some dating back to the second century) which we can use to form the NT Greek texts which are then translated into the books of the NT Bible.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers' writings are nearly all found in only a very few manuscripts for each writer. Most of these manuscripts were copied in relatively recent years.
For example: Only fragments of manuscripts containing the original Greek remain for Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies.� It exists today in full only in a single Latin translation from the original Greek language.
The very trinitarian translators of ANF wrote in their Introductory Note to Irenaeus’ Against Heresies:
“The text [of Against Heresies] ... is often most uncertain. .... After the text has been settled according to the best judgment [trinitarian, of course] which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenaeus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. .... And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural retranslation [trinitarian, of course] into Greek, in order to have some inkling of what the author wrote. .... We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess [trinitarian, of course] can only be made as to the probable meaning.� - ANF 1:311-312.
Obviously, if a trinitarian, even a scrupulously honest trinitarian, makes a “conjectural retranslation� or a “guess ... as to the probable meaning,� it will be a trinitarian guess or “conjectural retranslation�!
Besides the lack of ancient Greek manuscripts for these writers, we must remember that all the copyists and 'translators' were, at the time the existing manuscripts were written, trinitarian (or else!). If any additions or other changes were written into the new copy, they would certainly not be non-trinitarian! There would have been great recriminations for a copyist or translator who added anti-trinitarian statements. Not only would the copy be destroyed, but the copyist himself might share the same fate.
So we can be certain that only anti-trinitarian statements are certain in these late manuscripts.
Part 1
As I have already written to you: the Bible is composed of writings from the first century. It is these writings which are important, not the declaration by someone at a much later date that they belong in a collection called the Bible. We have thousands of actual manuscripts (some dating back to the second century) which we can use to form the NT Greek texts which are then translated into the books of the NT Bible.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers' writings are nearly all found in only a very few manuscripts for each writer. Most of these manuscripts were copied in relatively recent years.
For example: Only fragments of manuscripts containing the original Greek remain for Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies.� It exists today in full only in a single Latin translation from the original Greek language.
The very trinitarian translators of ANF wrote in their Introductory Note to Irenaeus’ Against Heresies:
“The text [of Against Heresies] ... is often most uncertain. .... After the text has been settled according to the best judgment [trinitarian, of course] which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenaeus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. .... And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural retranslation [trinitarian, of course] into Greek, in order to have some inkling of what the author wrote. .... We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess [trinitarian, of course] can only be made as to the probable meaning.� - ANF 1:311-312.
Obviously, if a trinitarian, even a scrupulously honest trinitarian, makes a “conjectural retranslation� or a “guess ... as to the probable meaning,� it will be a trinitarian guess or “conjectural retranslation�!
Besides the lack of ancient Greek manuscripts for these writers, we must remember that all the copyists and 'translators' were, at the time the existing manuscripts were written, trinitarian (or else!). If any additions or other changes were written into the new copy, they would certainly not be non-trinitarian! There would have been great recriminations for a copyist or translator who added anti-trinitarian statements. Not only would the copy be destroyed, but the copyist himself might share the same fate.
So we can be certain that only anti-trinitarian statements are certain in these late manuscripts.
Post #89
Part 2
So, RR, the following respected trinitarian sources are wrong and you are right?
“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.� - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.
“Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father.� - pp. 112-113, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity (trinitarian), 1977; and p. 114, The History of Christianity, A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.
“It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Christian theologians of the second and third centuries, even theologians of the rank of Origen...came to see the Logos [the Word, Christ] as a god of second rank.� - The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publ., 1987, Vol. 9, p. 15.
“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.� - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.
Why would trinitarian scholars actually admit this?
...........................................................
So, RR, the following respected trinitarian sources are wrong and you are right?
“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.� - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.
“Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father.� - pp. 112-113, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity (trinitarian), 1977; and p. 114, The History of Christianity, A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.
“It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Christian theologians of the second and third centuries, even theologians of the rank of Origen...came to see the Logos [the Word, Christ] as a god of second rank.� - The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publ., 1987, Vol. 9, p. 15.
“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.� - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.
Why would trinitarian scholars actually admit this?
...........................................................
Last edited by tigger2 on Sat May 05, 2018 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
