The Earliest Trinity Statements

by Amazing1914 86 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Amazing1914

  Minimus,

  To suggest that GOD would be in any "subordinate" position because of humanity is absurd. That GOD could be persecuted, killed, etc. by mere humans is very ridiculous.To say that GOD was lower than angels for any period of time would surely take away from his almightiness. If GOD was really dead for 3 days, then GOD ceased to exist or at least a part of him.....Once again it makes no sense to me. I'm Arian, all the way, I guess.

  If one uses Watchtower logic and limited definition based on Watchtower doctrine, then it is easy to see how one could frame such as argument as you did. I will show in upcoming posts how the Watchtower used slight-of-hand in these arguments. As far as your comment goes, let's look at it from another paradigm: "There is only one Humanity, but many humans. Each human is fully human, co-equal with all other humans. Likewise, there is only one Divinity (God, or Godhead) and three members. Each member is fully God, fully divine and co-equal with the other members. While humans are co-equal in their nature, not all are co-equal in position, authority, knowledge, abilities. Likewise, the three members of One Divinity are co-equal in nature, but not all are co-equal in position or authority.

  When Jesus became human, according to St. Clement, he was fully a Perfect God and Perfect Man. Jesus subordination as a human is done out of love and respect and obedience as a example to us. For example, my son is an adult in his thirties, fully co-equal with me in nature and rights. Yet, my son may voluntarily subordinate himself to me out of love and respect for my position as his father. In other ways people subordinate themselves to others voluntarily out of love. We see this in marriage, where a husband may defer and subordinate to his wife, or a wife to a husband in matters of money or raising the children. Or they may take an equal share. So, to suggest that such is absurd for Jesus as a Divine person to voluntarily subordinate himself, especially on earth, to be absurd is nothing more than a vain attempt to play down what the Bible and the early Church Fathers clearly taught. Being lower than the angels for a period of time is exactly what the book of Phillipians says. Even if one believes as the JWs and claims that Jesus is a "created top-dog Angel," according to your argument then, this still means Jesus, as "a god," was demeaned by being a little lower than the angels. This is ludricris thinking, and clearly violates the very statements supporting Jesus subordination in Phillipians. Another Watchtower slight of hand is to argue that God was dead for three days. Jesus the second person of the Godhead did not die. Rather, Jesus as a human was dead for three days. Remember that there are Three (3) members of Divinity. So, when one says "God," one is referring to ALL three, much as when one says "humanity" one is referring to ALL humans. If one human dies, humanity still exist. So, even if Jesus as "God" were to die, there are still the other three members oif Divinity. I do not claim to be anything other than Christian. I am just reporting the news, and showing how this topic can be seen just as logically from the Trinitarian side ... and that is precisely what the early Chirstians believed and taught. Jim Whitney
• 

  Leolaia

  I view second and third century AD theological reflection as attempts to (re-)interpret, synthesize, and harmonize different streams of early Christian thought into a coherent orthodox theory intended to exclude other developed heterodox theories. There is obvious continuity with first-century NT traditions (a continuity which the Society erroneously denies, especially on the matter of the Deity of Christ, which is artifically excluded from their NT), but at the same time it builds on them through exegetical interpretation of texts and through concepts inherited from Greek intellectual thought. Not only is there an explicitness and vocabulary missing from earlier sources but also conceptual differences between later expressions and early theologically naive statements (such as the pneumatic christology of Paul and Hermas, the quasi-modalism of Ignatius, the Philonic deuteros theos theology of Justin Martyr, etc.). At the same time, there was not a single kind of trinitarian thinking, and early triadic formulae...while critical to the growth of trinitarianism over binitarianism....lack conscious reflection on the precise status, role, and function of the three persons. As I would put it, many of the ingredients of the economical and later ontological Trinity (i.e. the Deity of Christ, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, unity between the persons) were in place in the first and early second centuries AD but not yet distilled into a coherent and logically explicit statement of faith. The latter occurred through the dialogic efforts of apologists and theologians to disprove the claims of "heretics"; witness, for instance, Tertullian's precise formulation of plurality-without-division as a refutation of Praxeas' conception of aeonic generation.

  Here are some of the earliest statements I've found that go beyond triadic or ditheistic thinking to something that more explicitly eases the notion of God-in-plurality with monotheism (i.e. trinitarianism proper):

  "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the One God." (Testament of Isaac 1:1; date unknown, probably second century AD)

  "That we are not atheists, seeing that we acknowledge one God, I have sufficiently demonstrated. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor does our teaching of the Godhead [?e????????] stop there, but we also say that there is a host of angels and ministers whom God, the Maker and Artificer of the world, set in their places through the Word that issues from him....We are attended only by the knowledge of him who is truly God and of the Word that issues from him -- a knowledge as to what is the unity of the Son with the Father, what is the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these powers -- the Spirit, the Son, and the Father -- and their diversity when thus united....We say that there is God and the Son, his Word, and the Holy Spirit, united [e???µe?a] in power yet distinguished in rank as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, since the Son is Mind, Reason, and Wisdom of the Father and the Spirit an effluence like light from fire" (Athenagorus of Athens, Legatio 10.5, 12.3, 24.2; written in AD 177).

  "Therefore the Father is Lord, and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for He who is born from God is God. And thus God is shown to be one according to the essence of his being and power; but at the same time, as the administrator of the economy of our redemption, He is both Father and Son: since the Father of all is invisible and inaccessible to creatures, it is through the Son that those who are to approach God must have access to the Father" (Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Teaching, 47; written ca. AD 190, this is technically a binitarian statement).

  "The perversity [of Praxeas] considers that it has possession of the pure truth in thinking it impossible to believe in the unity of God without identifying the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; failing to see that the one may be all in the sense that all are of one [ex uno omnia], that is through unity of substance [per substantiae unitatem]; while this still safeguards the mystery of the 'economy,' which disposes the unity into a Trinity [trinitas], arranging in order the three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, though these are three not in quality [status], but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in manifestation [species]; of one substance, one quality, one power, because God is one and from him those degrees and forms are assigned in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. How they admit of plurality without division [numerum sine divisione] the following discussions will show." (Tertullian, Adversus Praxean, 2; written ca. AD 213)

  "We who by grace of God have insight into the situations and contexts of the Scriptures (especially as we are disciples not of men but the Paraclete (declare that there are two beings, the Father and the Son (and even three, with the Holy Spirit, according to the principle of the 'economy,' which introduces plurality, lest (and this is your perverse conclusion) it be believed that the Father was born and died, and inadmissible belief, since it is not part of the tradition. Yet we have never given vent to the phrases 'two Gods,' or 'two Lords'; not that it is untrue that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God; each is God. But we believe this inasmuch as in times past two were proclaimed as Gods and Lords, so that when Christ came he should be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is God and Lord. . . . But when Christ came and was recognized by us as that same person who in time past had made plurality in the Godhead, being made a second from the Father and a third with the Spirit, and when the Father was made more fully manifest through him; then the name of God and Lord was restored to unity. . . ." (Ibid, 13)

  Trinitarian thinking is a natural consequence of harmonizing two theological views in primitive Christianity: the impulse of monotheism inherited from Judaism and the recognition of the Deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. It crystallized imho thanks to efforts by non-orthodox Christians to systematize their theological views... e.g. the gnosticism of Praxaes which posited the persons as distinguished through division (thus denying monotheism), the modalism of Sabellius who affirmed monotheism at the expense of distinction of the three persons, the non-trinitarian christology of Arius who denied the essential unity and equality of the Son with the Father, etc.
• 

  Blueblades

  Jim, here is the info on the book and where to order it. Blueblades.The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound

  by Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting

  This important work is a detailed biblical investigation of the relationship of Jesus to the one God of Israel. The authors challenge the notion that biblical monotheism is legitimately represented by a Trinitarian view of God and demonstrate that within the bounds of the canon of Scripture Jesus is confessed as Messiah, Son of God, but not God Himself. Later Christological developments beginning in the second century, and under the influence of pagan Gnosticism, misrepresented the biblical doctrine of God and Christ by altering the terms of the biblical presentation of the Father and the Son. This fateful development laid the foundation of a revised, unscriptural creed which needs to be challenged. This book provides a definitive presentation of a Christology rooted in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. The authors present a sharply-argued appeal for an understanding of God and Jesus in the context of Christianity's original, apostolic, unitary monotheism.

  Contents:

  Foreword

  Introduction

  I. The God of the Jews

  II. Jesus and the God of the Jews

  III. Did Jesus' Followers Think He Was God?

  IV. Paul and the Trinity

  V. From the Hebrew World of the Bible to the Twentieth Century via Greek Philosophy

  VI. The Trinity and Politics

  VII. The Nature of Preexistence in the New Testament

  VIII. John, Preexistence and the Trinity

  IX. The Holy Spirit: A Third Person or God in Action?

  X. The Conflict over the Trinity in Church History and the Current Debate

  XI. The Challenge Facing Trinitarianism Today

  XII. Have We Bartered for Another God?

  XIII. An Appeal for a Return to the Biblical Christ

  XIV. Epilogue: Believing the Words of Jesus

  Bibliography

  Scripture Index

  Author Index

  Subject Index

  ---

  378 pages

  ISBN 1-57309-309-2 $12

  The book may be ordered from Atlanta Bible College at 800-347-4261 or 404-362-0052. Box 100,000, Morrow, GA 30260. E-mail [email protected]

  ---

  Return to Restoration Fellowship Books Page
• 

  Amazing1914

  Blueblades,

  Thanks again. I will order the book and read it. Reviewing the abstract paragraph, I realized that there is a fundamental point being missed by the author, and by some posters here on JWD. It is this: The trinity concept was already well established by the very first disciples of the Apostles while they were still alive. True, the doctrine continued to be more precisely worded, and eventually by 180 AD the term Trinity (a functional term) was coined by a second generation Christian, St. Clement of Alexandria and St. Theolophus, of Antioch in 150 AD.

  The author simply dismisses these critical facts by saying, "Later Christological developments beginning in the second century, and under the influence of pagan Gnosticism, misrepresented the biblical doctrine of God and Christ by altering the terms of the biblical presentation of the Father and the Son." The Apostle John lived until nearly the second century, dying about the year 98 AD. His students lived on until about the year 150 AD when the term "trinity" was first coined. By 180 AD, one of the first students of the first disciples clearly nailed the Trinity. There is little chance that the very first disciples were already misrepresenting biblical doctrine, as the Bible did not exist yet for another 300 years.

  I want to read the book because I want to consider how a non-Trinitarian presents his arguments, especially since it is not based on Watchtower-styled argumentation.

  The second point is that there is no evidence that any one was introducing the "Trinity" or its concept from the outside, trying to gain acceptance, but being rebuffed by Church Fathers. Rather, it was the other way around, with all other concepts, from Gnostics to the Arians and everyting in between that was being rebuffed by Trinitarian concepts ... concepts that were well developed by the first disciples of the Apostles and their subsequent students. To argue that somehow the whole Church in the then known world, from Spain and France, to Egypt, up to Greece and Syria and further east all at the same time sunk into a false doctrine called the Trinity is just not in keeping with history.

  Thanks again,

  Jim Whitney
• 

  Leolaia

  Year 150 AD, Polycarp of Smyrna, a student of the Apostle John

  The Apostle John did not die until about the year 100.

  The Apostle John lived until nearly the second century, dying about the year 98 AD. His students lived on until about the year 150 AD when the term "trinity" was first coined.

  BTW, I would say that these historical claims are far from certain, especially in light of contrary evidence suggesting an earlier martyrdom of Apostle John and a confusion between him and a later presbyter of Ephesus also named John. It's a thorny problem without a satisfactory solution.
• 

  Amazing1914

  Leolaia,

  Okay, let's say the Apostle John died a few years earlier, maybe 96 or 94 ... so what? Polycarp and St. Ignatius were still his students, and these are facts that are certain and accepted by historians, both religious and sectarian.

  Jim Whitney
• 

  outnfree

  What I will say right now, is that the Society never actually quoted the early Church Fathers in the Trinity brochure, but rather, quoted an anti-trinitarian book author's opinion of what the early Church Fathers meant. They made their quotes in a way that strongly implies that they took them directly from the Church Fathers. The Society had to do this because there is absolutely no support for any of their doctrine in the early Church writings. This is why the Society never actually cites the actual reference their supposed quotes were taken. They had to conceal the source in order to make their point appear valid. Unfortunately, Jehovah's Witnesses eat this stuff up that the Society spews forth, but they never seem interested in really checking out what was written.

  That is so true, Jim. It was when I was challenged on my JW beliefs and attempted to become an INFORMED apologist for Societal dogma that I realized how disingenuous the Trinity brochure's arguments and "quotes" were! Quite an eye-opener.

  I believe I am no longer an anti-trinitarian, but am not sure that I would label myself a trinitarian, either. I am more in tune with that dangerous concept that we are ALL divine....

  Nice to know you're out there and working on this, Jim.

  Brenda
• 

  lovelylil

  Was Christ Divine?

  Here is some evidence from the Bible that seems to support the Divinity of Christ. This is not the same as saying that Christ is Jehovah. They are not the same person, but the texts here seem to be saying they are the same in Nature. Scriptures are taken from the NIV Bible unless otherwise noted.

  John Chapter 1.

  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God*. 2 He was with God in the Beginning.

  14 The Word became flesh* and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only

  • The word flesh here is also translated human.
  • When it says the word “was God”, it is the same as saying was divine in nature, John did not think Jesus was Jehovah

  John 5:18

  For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but also, he was even Calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

  John 5:18 (New King James Version)

  Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God Was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

  • Here the Jews knew that by saying he Gods son, Jesus was saying he was equal in Nature to God

  Romans 1:3

  Regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David

  * Shows Christ took on human nature

  Philippians 2:5-7

  5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
  

  6 Who, being in very nature God , did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

  7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness

  Philippians 2:5-7 (Young's Literal Translation)

  5 For, let this mind be in you that [is] also in Christ Jesus,

  6 who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God,

  7 but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made,

  Hebrews 1:3

  The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being*, sustaining all things by his

  Powerful word.
• 

  Blueblades

  Jim,Chapter 9, The Holy Spirit: A third person or God in action? Page 215, is a discussion that you will find useful, as that is what I understand you are focusing on in your up.coming talk .

  All the best to you, I hope your heart is doing you well, take good care of yourself.

  Blueblades
• 

  lovelylil

  blue blades,

  I believe the Holy Spirit is Gods power in action also. Because I have experience this in my life. So I am not a true trinitarian although I do believe that in Nature, Jesus was Divine. Not that he was Jehovah. I found that many scriptures that were written in the OT and applied to Jehovah, have been used in the NT to apply to Jesus. Maybe because he is the only Son and Heir to Jehovah, and Jehovahs acting agent, that is why this is allowed? Also the bible says to honor the Son just like we Honor the father. I am still learning about Christ so I know I don't have all the answers. But one thing I do know is this: I had no idea who he really was until after leaving the WT completely.

  Rather than argueing and quoting books, why not just use the bible because all the information is in there about who Jesus really is and what his life and ministry is about. I am always suspect with books because the author is always biased as to his personal belief. Anyway, I did enjoy your comments and amazings too. Lilly