Russian Family Movies

The early Church taught it that God is a Trinity? Part Four: When and how the doctrine of the Trinity did it develop? The early Church

Article published in The Watchtower 01/08/1992

Image: The Council of Nicaea


The first three articles of this series showed that neither Jesus nor his disciples, nor the early Church Fathers have taught the doctrine of the Trinity (The Watchtower November 1, 1991, February 1 and April 1 1992). This article will explain how the doctrine of the Trinity has developed, and what role the Council of Nicaea, held in the year 325, has played in this area.
in the year 325 AD, the Roman Emperor Constantine convened a council in the city of Nicaea in Asia Minor. His intention was to settle a longstanding religious dispute which concerned the relationship of the Son of God Almighty. On the results of this council, we read in the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"It was Constantine who presided. He led an active discussion, and it was he who proposed the formula (...) capital that would express the relationship of Christ to God in the Creed adopted by the council, 'of the same substance [homoousios] that the Father' (...). Intimidated by the emperor, the bishops, with the exception of two, signed the creed, which many did gré1 their cons. "
The intervention of the chief pagan she was motivated by convictions based on Scripture? No. According to A Brief History of Christian Doctrine (German), "Constantine had virtually no understanding of the issues encountered grecque2 theology." This he understood, however, is that religious differences threatened the unity of his empire, and he wanted them to be resolved.
The doctrine of the Trinity was it established?
The Council of Nicaea he established or confirmed the Trinity as a doctrine of Christianity? Many people think. But the facts show he is different.
The Creed promulgated by this council has said concerning the Son of God, things that would allow various clerics consider it, somehow, as equal to God the Father. However, it is very interesting to see what is not in the Nicene Creed. Here, as it was presented at the time, the Creed in its entirety:
"We believe in one God, Father almighty, creator of things visible and invisible;
" And in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son God's only begotten of the Father, that is to say the substance of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, the same substance as the Father, by whom all things were created in heaven and on earth that came down from heaven for us and for our salvation became incarnate, became man, suffered, rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and he will judge the living and the dead.
"And the Holy Esprit3."
According to this creed, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit they are one God in three persons? The three are they equal in eternity, power, position and wisdom? No. We find no formula indicating that three would be one. Originally, the Nicene Creed has neither established nor confirmed the Trinity.
At best, this creed is the Son equal with the Father in that it would be "same substance" as him. But it says nothing about such holy spirit. Everything he says is: "(...) We believe the Holy Spirit." We do not find here the doctrine of the Trinity taught by Christianity.
Even the term "same substance" (homoousios) does not necessarily mean that the council believed a numerical equality of the Father and the Son. We read in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (Eng.):
"It is doubtful that the council had intended to confirm digital identity of the substance of the Father and Fils4."
Even if the council had wanted to say that Father and the Son were numerically one, it still would not make a Trinity. It was a matter of God in two persons, not of God in three persons required by the doctrine of the Trinity.
"The view of a minority"
At Nicaea, the bishops as a whole they believed that the Son was equal to God? No, because there were divergent views. Thus, there was the current represented by Arius, who taught that the Son had a beginning and is not equal to God, but is subordinate in all. Athanasius, by cons believed that the Son is in some way equal to God. And there were still other designs. At
About the decision of the council to consider the Son to be the same substance (consubstantial) God, Martin Marty says: "Nice actually represented the views of a minority, and the agreement has not been without evil, it was unacceptable to many who were not arienne5 trend. "Similarly, the book selected Library of Nicene and postnicéens Fathers of the Christian Church (Eng.) noted that" a doctrinal position clearly articulated and contrary to Arianism was adopted by only a minority, but this emporté6 minority has. " In addition, we read in A Brief History of Christian Doctrine:
"What seemed particularly unacceptable amount of bishops and theologians oriental concept was introduced into the Creed by Constantine himself, the homoousios [ 'of the same substance] which, in the struggles that have later opposed orthodoxy and heresy, became the subject of désaccord7. "
After the council, the debate has continued for decades. Those would be considered as equal to the Son of God Almighty even for some time, was in disgrace. Thus, Martin Marty said of Athanasius: "His popularity is rising and then lowered, and he was exiled so often [in the years that followed the council] that he kept going and venir8." Athanasius spent years in exile because of political and religious leaders did not agree with his idea of a Son equal with God.
Therefore, it is not true to say that in 325 the Council of Nicaea established or confirmed the doctrine of the Trinity. Which later became the teaching of Trinity did not exist at the time. The concept that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each God and are truly equal in eternity, power, position and wisdom, yet one God - one God in three persons - not was developed by the council or by the Fathers of the early Church. One can read in the Church of the first three centuries (Eng.):
"The doctrine of the Trinity which is widespread in our time (...) finds no support in the language of Justin and this observation may be extended to all the Fathers anténicéens; that is to say to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Jesus. They speak, indeed, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit or prophetic, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense that the 'now recognize the Trinity. Exactly the opposite they do. The doctrine of the Trinity, as explained in the Fathers, was essentially different from the modern doctrine. What we say can be proved in the same way as any other fact owned the history of human ideas. "
" We challenge anyone to name one famous writer who, during the first three ages, have believed in the Trinity in the modern sense of term.9. "
Nicaea but represented a turning. This council has ensured that, later, formally accepted the idea of a Son equal to the Father, which paved the way for the concept of Trinity. Orthodoxy in the second century (Eng.), J. Buckley noted:
"At least until the late second century, the Church Universal has remained united in a fundamental sense: all accepted the supremacy the Father. All saw God the Father Almighty as the only Supreme Being, immutable, ineffable and without beginning. (...)
"Once these writers and religious leaders of the second century have disappeared, the Church has seen (...) slip imperceptibly but inexorably, to reach (...) at the Council of Nicaea, the culmination of this gradual erosion of the original faith. A minority are exalted his heresy imposed by a majority consent and, supported by the political authorities, has used pressure, intimidation or seduction to those who struggled to keep spotless the purity of their faith immaculée10. "

The Council of Constantinople in the year 381 the Council of Constantinople confirmed the Nicene Creed. And it added. He called the Holy Spirit "Lord (...) makes alive." The expanded that Creed was adopted in 381 (that is, in essence, that which is used today in churches and is called "Nicene Creed") shows that Christianity was about to formulate a dogma of the Trinity completed. Yet even this council is not finalized. Here's what the New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges:
"We note that 60 years after Nicaea I, the Council of Constantinople I [381] homoousios avoided in its definition of the divinity of the Holy Esprit11."
"The theologians are very surprised by this credo appears moderate in its expression, the Indeed, for example, that there is not the word used to describe a homoousios Holy Spirit who is consubstantial with the Father and the Fils12. "
The same Encyclopedia acknowledges that" homoousios does not appear in the Écriture13. No, the Bible does not use that word, she does not speak of the Holy Spirit or the Son as consubstantial with God. This is a non-biblical expression that led to the doctrine itself unbiblical, unscriptural or rather, Trinidad.
Even after Constantinople, it took centuries for the teaching of the Trinity is accepted throughout Christendom. New Catholic Encyclopedia says about this: "In the West, it seems that silence (...) General has welcomed and Constantinople I Credo14." This book shows that the Creed adopted at the Council has not been widely recognized in the West before the seventh or eighth century.
experts also admit that the Athanasian Creed, often cited as the benchmark for defining and defending the Trinity, was not written by Athanasius, but much later, by a stranger. Thus we read in the New Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"The Eastern Church had no knowledge of the symbol before the twelfth century. Since the seventeenth century, biblical scholars agree that this symbol is not due to Athanasius (d. 373), but it was probably written in the fifth century in southern France. (...) The influence of the symbol seems first to have felt, in the sixth and seventh centuries, in the southern France and Spain. The Church of Germany in the ninth century, and later that of Rome, integrated it with their liturgie15. "

How it developed the doctrine of the Trinity has been a slow development which spanned several centuries. Trinitarian ideas of Greek philosophers such as Plato, who lived several centuries before Christ, were gradually introduced in the teachings of the Church. We read in The Church of the first three centuries
"(...) We argue that the doctrine of the Trinity appeared gradually and relatively late, that its origin is totally alien to Jewish and Christian scriptures, it developed and was introduced into Christianity with the assistance of Fathers Platonists; at Justin's time and long after, the inferiority of the Son and the distinct nature were universally taught, and that the Trinity was then that state ébauche16. "
Before Plato, the triad, or trinity, were common in Babylon and Egypt. Also, in their efforts to attract unbelievers that had the Roman Empire, the clergy have come to incorporate some just some of these ideas to Christianity. Thus it has come to accept the belief that the Son and the Holy Spirit would be the equal of the Father.
He also took time for the word "Trinity" is accepted. In the second half of the second century, Theophilus, bishop of Antioch in Syria, who wrote in Greek, introduced the word trias, which meant "triad" or "trinity". Then, the Latin writer Tertullian, who lived in Carthage in North Africa, has made use of the word in his writings Trinitas, meaning "trinity." However, we find not the word trias in the Christian Greek Scriptures, written under divine inspiration, and the word Trinity does not appear in the Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate. Neither of these expressions is the Bible. However, the word "Trinity", derived from pagan concepts, was introduced in ecclesiastical literature, and after the fourth century, it has come to be part of the dogma of the churches.
Thus, we can not say that Bible scholars have examined in depth to see if there was taught the Trinity. Rather, the political as well as that of the Church that states, which has largely shaped this doctrine. In Christian tradition (Eng.), Jaroslav Pelikan points out "the factors of the debate are not of theology, many of whom have repeatedly appeared close to determine its outcome, but there were forces equivalent to were counterbalanced. This doctrine often seemed to be the victim, or the proceeds of the policy of the Church and conflicts personnalité17. Washburn Hopkins, Yale professor, wrote about it: "The orthodox definition of the Trinity who eventually won was mostly the result of political concerns Église18."
How the doctrine of the Trinity is unreasonable when compared to simple biblical teaching that God is supreme and has no equal! As God says, "to which you assimilate, or do you provide equal, or compare me up, so we were like? - Isaiah 46:5. What she has shown

What represented the progressive development of the Trinitarian idea? One aspect of the abandonment of true Christianity that Jesus had said (Matthew 13:24-43). The apostle Paul also spoke of the apostasy to come:
"A time will come when people will not endure sound doctrine, but rather according to their passions and itching ears, they give teachers in quantity and ears away from truth and turn to fables. "- 2 Timothy 4:3, 4, Jerusalem, Catholic version.
teaching of the Trinity is one of those fables. But the number of foreign Christian fables, which have also developed gradually include the inherent immortality of the human soul, purgatory, limbo and the eternal torments of hell fire.
What, then, that the doctrine of the Trinity? It is a pagan doctrine disguised as Christian teaching. It was launched by Satan to deceive people, so they have a confused idea of God and mysterious. As a result, they are willing to accept other false religious concepts and other evil practices.
"by their fruits" Matthew 7:15-19 In
, Jesus said that we could distinguish the false from the true religion in this way:
"Be on your guard with the false prophets which come to you in clothes sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. In their fruits ye shall know them. Do we pick grapes from thorns or figs of thistles? Likewise every good tree produces good fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit. (...) Every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. "
Consider an example. In John 13:35, Jesus said: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves." Similarly, in 1 John 4:20 and 21, we read in the Word of God
"If someone says 'I love God' but hates his brother is a liar. Indeed, the who does not love his brother whom he has seen can not love God whom he has not seen. And here is the command we have from him: that he who loveth God love his brother also. "
apply this fundamental principle that true Christians should have love between them, what happened during the two world wars of the twentieth century and in other conflicts. Practitioners of the same religion of Christianity clashed on the battlefields and were massacred because of nationalist disputes. Each side claimed to be a Christian and was supported by members of his clergy, who said that God was on their side. The massacre of "Christians" by other "Christians" is a rotten fruit. It is a violation of Christian love, a negation of God's laws. - See also 1 John 3:10-12.
One day he will be accountable
Thus, the abandonment of Christianity was not the only consequence of the introduction of ungodly beliefs, such as the doctrine of the Trinity: it also leads to unholy practices. However, one day will come when he will be accountable, because Jesus said: "Every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." That is why we read this exhortation in the Word of God:
"Get out of her [the false religion], my people, if you do not want to participate with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive a share of his wounds. For her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her acts of injustice. "- Revelation 18:4, 5.
Soon, God 'will in the heart' of the political thought of turning against the false religion. They "make the (...) devastated and eat her flesh, and burn it with fire, completely." (Revelation 17:16, 17.) False religion and its pagan conceptions of God will be destroyed forever. Yes, God will say to the practitioners of false religion as Jesus said in his day: "Your home is abandoned." - Matthew 23:38.
True religion will survive the judgments of God, so that eventually all honor and glory be rendered to the one Jesus called "the one true God." It is mentioned by the Psalmist when he said: "You, whose name is Jehovah, you are, you alone, Most High over all the earth." - John 17:3, Psalm 83:18.
Bibliography:
1. Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Volume 6, page 386.
2. Epochen der Dogmengeschichte Bernhard Lohse, according to the English translation of Ernest Stoeffler, 1963, page 51.
3. History of councils, Charles Joseph Hefele, Volume I, Part I, page 445.
4. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume VII, page 115.
5. A Short History of Christianity, Martin Marty, 1959, page 91.
6. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 1892, Volume IV, page xvii.
7. Epochen der Dogmengeschichte, page 53.
8. A Short History of Christianity, page 91.
9. The Church of the First Three Centuries, Alvan Lamson, 1869, pages 75, 76, 341.
10. Second Century Orthodoxy, J. Buckley, 1978, pages 114, 115.
11. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, volume VII, page 115.
12. Ibid. volume IV, page 436.
13. Ibid. page 251.
14. Ibid. page 436.
15. The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 1985, 15e édition, Micropædia, volume 1, page 665.
16. The Church of the First Three Centuries, page 52.
17. The Christian Tradition, Jaroslav Pelikan, 1971, page 173.
18. Origin and Evolution of Religion, Washburn Hopkins, 1923, page 339.
[Notes]
Pour de plus amples renseignements, consulter la brochure Doit-on croire à la Trinité? published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc..
As shown in previous articles in this series, although these words were used by Theophilus and Tertullian, they did not refer to the Trinity taught by Christianity Today.

Sugaring Hair Removal Ottawa

she taught that God is a Trinity? Part Three: The apologists have they taught the Trinity? The early Church

Article published in The Watchtower 01/04/1992

In its numbers from 1 November 1991 and 1 February 1992, the Watchtower has shown that neither Jesus nor his disciples, nor the Apostolic Fathers of the late first and early second century of our era have taught the doctrine of Trinidad. What about the clergy of the late second century? NEAR
the mid to late second century AD saw the emergence of so-called ecclesiastical apologists today. They have written to defend Christianity they knew cons hostile philosophies in vogue in the Roman world at the time. The beginning of their work coincides with the end of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and continued after them.
Among the apologists who wrote in Greek include Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus and Clement of Alexandria. Tertullian was an apologist who written in Latin. Have they taught in modern Christendom Trinity: three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in a co-equal Godhead, each one true God, though there are not three Gods but one God?
"The Son is subordinate"
In A Short History of the Early Church (Eng.), H. Boer explains the idea of teaching apologists:
"Justin taught that before the creation of the world, God was alone and there was no Son. (...) When God took the desire to create the world, (...) he fathered another being Divine to create the world for him. This divine being was called (...) son because he was born, he was called Logos because it was derived from reason or the Spirit of God. (...)
"Justin and other apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. It is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world but, nevertheless, a creature. Subordinationism theology calls this relationship the Son to the Father. The Son is subordinate, that is to say, secondary to the Father, the Father and dependent on it caused. The apologists were subordinatianistes1. "
In The training of Christian dogma (German), Martin Werner discusses the earliest understanding of the relationship of the Son of God:
" This relationship was understood unequivocally as a 'subordination', c ' that is to say, in the sense of a subordination of Christ to God. Whatever the place where the New Testament the relationship of Jesus to God the Father, is examined, (...) it is conceived as a subordinate and is represented categorically as such. Subordinationism and most conclusive of the New Testament, as the story synopsis, was Jesus himself (...). This original position, firm and manifest as it was, was able to survive for long. 'All the great theologians anténicéens described the subordination of the Logos God.2. "
Consistent with this, R. Hanson writes in Search of Christian doctrine of God (Eng.):
"Before the outbreak of the Arian controversy [fourth century], there is no theologian in the Eastern and Western Church, which a way or another, do not look at the Son as subordinate to Père3. "
Alvan Lamson, The Church in the first three centuries (Eng.) adds that evidence relating to the teachings of the church authorities before the Council of Nicaea (325 AD):
"The Fathers anténicéens generally, if not uniformly affirmed the inferiority of the Son (...). They regarded the Son as distinct from the Father, which shows that they claim its inferiority in plain terms. (...) They considered separate subordonné4. "
Similarly, here is what Robert Grant said of the Gods and apologists in the one God (Eng.):
" The Christology of the apologies, like that of New Testament is essentially subordinationism. The Son is always subordinate to the Father, who is the one God of the Old Testament. (...) What we find in these ancient authors is not a doctrine of the Trinity (...). Before Nicaea, Christian theology was almost universally subordinatianiste5. "
The Trinity of Christianity teaches that the Son is equal with God the Father in eternity, power, position and wisdom. The apologists, meanwhile, said that the Son is not equal to God the Father. They regarded the Son as subordinate. This is not the teaching of the Trinity.
Faithful to the teaching
first century Apologists and other early Church Fathers were largely faithful to what the Christians of the first century were taught about the relationship of Father and Son. Notice how this is expressed in the training of Christian dogma:
"During the Christian era primitive, there was no sign of a problem or controversy of any Trinitarian kind as those over later produced violent conflicts within the Church. The reason probably lies in the fact that in early Christianity, Christ was a being belonging (...) the angelic world of high heaven, which was created and chosen by God for this task: introducing, at the end of the ages, the Kingdom of (...) Dieu6. "
In addition, regarding the teaching of the Fathers the early church, an encyclopedia (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) made this observation:
"In the mind of the primitive Church, the tendency when speaking of God the Father is the first design, not as the Father of Jesus Christ, but as the source of all being. Therefore, God the Father is, so to speak, God by excellence. To Him belong epithets such as without origin, immortal, immutable, ineffable, invisible and unbegotten. It is He who made all things, including the very substance of all creation, from scratch. (...)
"This would seem to suggest that only the Father is, strictly speaking, God and the Son and Spirit are only secondarily. Amount of statements made at the time seem to go in this primitive sens7. "
Although this encyclopedia continues minimizing these truths and by claiming that the doctrine of the Trinity was accepted to the primitive age, the facts belie this claim. Consider the words of the famous Catholic theologian, Cardinal John Newman:
"Finally Agree that all dogmas which our Lord is the subject were, by the power of reason and with a perfect agreement, confessed by the Primitive Church (.. .). But surely it is otherwise with the Catholic dogma of the Trinity. I do not see in what sense we can say that there is a consensus in favor of the first theologians (...).
"The symbols of the early days make no mention of Catholic doctrine, they speak, it is true, a Trinity, but that the three persons are one, co-eternal, equal, all uncreated, all powerful, all incomprehensible, it is not established, and could never be concluded from these first symboles8. "
What Justin has taught
One of the earliest apologists was Justin, who lived about 110 to and 165 AD. None of his writings which have survived only reported three co-equal persons in one God.
For example, the Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic version, Proverbs 8:22-30 says Jesus before he was a man: "Yahweh created me, the first fruits of his work before his most old. (...) When the depths were no, I was brought forth (...). Before the hills was I brought forth (...). I was [the] sides [of God] as the prime contractor. "Dealing with these verses, Justin said in his Dialogue with Trypho:
" The verb shows that the Father [the] absolutely has begotten before all creatures, and the digitally generated differs from the generating; anyone who avouerait9. "
Since the Son is begotten of God, the Son Justin means by" God. " He says in his First Apology, "The Father of the universe has a Son, who is the Word, the firstborn of God, and Dieu10. "The Bible, too, uses the title" God "about the Son of God. In Isaiah 9:6, it is called "Mighty God". But in the Bible, angels, humans, false gods and Satan are also called "gods". (Angels: Psalm 8:5, 2:6 See Hebrews, 7. Humans: Psalm 82:6. False gods: Exodus 12:12, 1 Corinthians 8:5. Satan 2 Corinthians 4:4.) In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word translated "God" Él, simply means "Fort" or "Almighty". Its equivalent in the Greek Scriptures is theos.
Moreover, the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 9:6 shows that there is a clear distinction between the Son and God. The Son is called "Mighty God" Él gibbor, not "God Almighty". The latter translates the Hebrew word Él Shadday and applies only to Jehovah God.
note, however, that if he calls the Son "God", Justin never says that the Son belongs to a group of three equal persons, each of which is God, so that the three are one God. Instead, he says in his Dialogue with Trypho:
"There is one God and Lord [Jesus into his life prehuman] below the Creator of all things [God Almighty], he [the Son] is also called angel because he [the Son] announces to all that men want to announce the Creator of all things, above which there is no other God. (...)
"[The Son] is other than the God who made all things, I mean for the number and not [other] for pensée11."
be found in his First Apology, Chapter 6 an interesting passage where he presents a defense against charges of atheism against Christians by the pagans. He writes:
"We worship, we love [God] (...) the Son came from him, which gave us these teachings, and the host of other good angels who escort and like him, and the Spirit prophétique12. "
A translator of this passage, Bernhard Lohse, has commented: "As if not enough, in this enumeration, to speak of angels as beings that Christians venerate and love, Justin does not hesitate to cite the angels before the Holy Esprit13. - See also Development of Doctrine chrétienne14.
Thus, while Justin seems to have departed from the pure teaching the Bible on the question of who should be the object of worship of Christians, it is clear he did not consider the Son to be equal with the Father, nor is it regarded the angels as His equal. Regarding Justin, we quote again the Church of the first three centuries of Lamson:
"Justin watched the Son of God as distinct and inferior to him separately, not in the modern sense, as belonging to a group of three hypostasis, or person, (...) but distinct about the essence and nature, having a real existence, substantial individual separate from God, from whom he kept all his powers and titles; being placed under him in all things and subject to his will. The Father is supreme, the Son is subordinate: the Father is the source of power, the Son is the one who receives it. The Father is the origin, the Son, as a minister or instrument executed. In numbers, they are two, but they agree, or are one, in thought, for the Son is always the will of the Father who emporte15. "
Moreover, nowhere says that Justin 'Holy Spirit is a person equal to the Father and the Son. Therefore, in any way we can honestly say that Justin taught Trinity of modern Christianity. What
Clement taught
Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215 AD) calls, too, the Son "God." He even calls it "Creator", a term never used in the Bible about Jesus. Did he say that the Son was equal at every point of the Almighty Creator? No. Clement was probably thinking John 1:3, which says the Son: "All things came into existence by his entremise16." In his creative work, God the Son has served as an officer. - Colossians 1:15-17. Clement calls
the supreme God "the God and Father of our Lord Jésus17" and said that "the Lord is the son of Créateur18. He also said: "The God of the universe is only one, good, fair, creative, and son [is] in the Père19." He then writes that the Son is a God above him.
Clement speaks of God as "first and only giver of life eternal, the Son, who received Him [God], we donne20. It is clear that He who gave life to the origin is greater than that, so to speak, forward. Clement said that is why God is first, and le plus haut21”. En outre, il dit que le Fils “est le plus proche de Celui-là seul qui est le Tout-Puissant” et que le Fils “ordonne toutes choses en accord avec la volonté du Père22”. Maintes fois, Clément montre la suprématie du Dieu Tout-Puissant sur le Fils.
Sur Clément d’Alexandrie, on lit dans L’Église des trois premiers siècles:
“Nous pourrions citer nombre de passages de Clément dans lesquels l’infériorité du Fils est distinctement affirmée. (...)
“Nous sommes étonnés que l’on puisse lire Clément en lui accordant une attention ordinaire et imaginer un seul instant qu’il considérait the Son as being numerically identical to the Father, one with Him. His nature and less dependent, as far as we seem, is everywhere recognized. Clement believed that God and the Son were numerically distinct, in other words, two beings: one supreme subordonné23 the other. "
Moreover, we can repeat: even if Clement sometimes seems to go beyond what the Bible says about Jesus, he nowhere speaks of a Trinity of three equal persons in one God. Apologists such as Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus, who lived between the time of Justin and the Clement, had similar views. Lamson said they "were not Trinitarian better than Justin himself, that is to say they did not believe in three [people] and undivided co-equal: they taught a doctrine totally inconsistent with this croyance24 ".
Theology of Tertullian
Tertullian (ca. 160-230 AD) was the first to use the Latin word Trinitas. As noted by Henry Chadwick, Tertullian suggested that God is a substance consisting of three personnes25 '. This does not mean, however, he thought three co-equal and co-eternal. Nevertheless, his ideas were later used as a basis to authors who worked on what became the doctrine of the Trinity. The design had
Tertullian the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with the Trinity of Christianity, because it was subordinationism. He regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. In Against Hermogenes, he wrote:
"This is so that men might well believe that there is nothing that has arisen and has had a beginning, except God. (...) How can we suppose that there was anything, except Father, who is older than the Son of God, His Word and unique first-born and hence there is something nobler than him. (...) This [God] who did not need a Creator to give him the good life has a rank higher than [the Son] who had a auteur26. "
In Similarly, in Against Praxeas, it shows that the Son is different from the God Almighty and it is subordinate. He said:
"The Father is the entire substance. The Son is the derivation and the part of all this, as he says himself: 'My Father is greater than me. " (...) The Father is except the Son, in that it is greater than the Son in the sense that the generator is different than that resulted in this sense that the sender is different than that sent, in the sense that it produces is different than that produit27. "
In Against Hermogenes, Tertullian also says there was a time when the Son did not exist as a person, which shows that he did not regard the Son as an eternal in the sense that God is éternel28. Cardinal Newman said: "Tertullian must be regarded as heterodox on the doctrine of the eternal existence of Our Seigneur29." On Tertullian, Lamson says
"This reason, or Logos, as the Greeks called it, was thereafter, according to what Tertullian believed, converted to the Word or Son, that is to say a be real, having existed from all eternity only as an attribute of the Father. Tertullian has, however, assigned a rank subordinate to the Father (...).
"If we are judged by any explanation of the Trinity received today, it would be futile to try to save the conviction of Tertullian [heretical]. He would not stand a moment in examen30. " No
Trinidad
If you read all that has been written apologists, you would find that, although they deviated in some respects the teachings of the Bible, none of them has taught that the Father, son and Holy Spirit are co-equal in eternity, power, position and wisdom.
This is true for other authors of the second and third centuries, as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian and Novatian. While some have gone so far as to the Father and the Son as equal in some areas, in other respects they held subordinate to the Son God the Father. And none of them has even thought that the holy spirit was equal to the Father and the Son. For example, Origen (ca. 185-254 AD) said that the Son of God is "the Firstborn of all creation" and that the Scriptures "The recognition as the oldest of all the works of création31.
An objective reading of these authorities of the early church shows that the doctrine of the Trinity taught by Christianity did not exist in their time. As can be read in The Church of the first three centuries
"The doctrine of the Trinity which is widespread in our time (...) finds no support in the language of Justin and this observation can be extended to all the Fathers anténicéens, that is to say all Christian writers during the three centuries after the birth of Jesus. They speak, indeed, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit or prophetic, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense that the 'now recognize the Trinity. Exactly the opposite they do. The doctrine of the Trinity as explained that these Fathers, was essentially different from the modern doctrine. What we say can be proved in the same way as any other facts from the history of ideas humaines32. "
In fact, Tertullian before we do not even speak of the Trinity. And the Trinity "heterodox" Tertullian was very different from belief today. Therefore, how the doctrine of the Trinity, as understood in our time, did it get? Was it the Council of Nicaea, which took place in 325 AD? We look these issues in an upcoming issue of The Watchtower, this will be the fourth part of this series.
Bibliography:
1. A Short History of the Early Church, Harry Boer, 1976, page 110.
2. Die Entstehung christlichen Dogmas of Martin Werner, 1957, p. 125.
3. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, R. Hanson, 1988, page 64.
4. The Church of the First Three Centuries, Alvan Lamson, 1869, pages 70, 71.
5. Gods and the One God, Robert Grant, 1986, pages 109, 156, 160.
6. Die Entstehung christlichen Dogmas of, pages 122, 125.
7. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1982, Volume 2 page 513.
8. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Cardinal John Newman, translated by L. Boyeldieu of Auvigny (Development of Christian Doctrine), pages 11-13.
9. Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 129 (Desclée de Brouwer, collection "Ichthys" on page 333).
10. First Apology, Chapter 63 (Desclée de Brouwer, collection "Ichthys" on page 92).
11. Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 56, pages 214, 215.
12. First Apology, Chapter 6, page 36.
13. Epochen der Dogmengeschichte Bernhard Lohse, according to the English translation of Ernest Stoeffler, 1963, 2nd paperback edition, 1980, p. 43.
14. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 20.
15. The Church of the First Three Centuries, pages 73, 74, 76.
16. The Educator, Book I, Chapter 11, Part 97, 3 (Editions du Cerf, introduction and notes by H.-I. Marrou, translated by Marguerite Harl, page 283).
17. Ibid., Book I, Chapter 8, Part 72, 2 (page 239).
18. Ibid., Part 73, 1 (page 241).
19. Ibid., Part 74, 1 (page 241).
20. What is the rich who will be saved? Chapter 6.
21. Ibid. Chapter 7.
22. The Stromata, Chapter 2.
23. The Church of the First Three Centuries, Alvan Lamson, 1869, pages 124, 125.
24. Ibid., P. 95.
25. The Early Church, Henry Chadwick, 1980 edition, page 89.
26. Cons Hermogenes, Chapter 18.
27. Praxeas cons, Chapter 9.
28. Cons Hermogenes, Chapter 3.
29. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, pages 19, 20.
30. The Church of the First Three Centuries, pages 108, 109.
31. Celsus cons.
32. The Church of the First Three Centuries, pages 75, 76.

Beautuful Agony Free Movie

she taught that God is a Trinity? Part Two: The Apostolic Fathers have they taught the Trinity? The early Church


Article published in The Watchtower 02/01/1992


The first part of this series of articles published in The Watchtower November 1, 1991, addressed the following question: Jesus His disciples have they taught the Trinity doctrine that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three equal persons but one God? When one reads the Bible, historians, theologians and even, it is clear they have not taught. What is the ecclesiastical authorities that emerged shortly after: they have taught the Trinity?
THE NAME "Apostolic Fathers" refers to clerics who wrote about Christianity in the late first and early second century AD. Among them were Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas and Papias.
was told them they had been contemporaries of some of the apostles. They were therefore familiar with the apostolic teachings. About what they wrote, we read in the New Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"Taken together, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are more historical value than any other book except the Christian New Testament [1]." If the apostles taught
the Trinity, the Apostolic Fathers should teach them well. This should be a critical aspect of their teaching, because nothing is more important than telling people who God is. Therefore, they taught the doctrine of the Trinity?
An early creeds
There are a leading professional non-biblical Christian faith in a book composed of 16 short chapters, entitled the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Some historians date the writing of this book around the year 100, or even before. Its author is unknown [2].
The Didache deals with things people would need to know to become Christians. In chapter 7, with the words of Jesus reported in Matthew 28:19, it prescribes to baptize "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit [3]. But says nothing that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal in eternity, power, position and wisdom. In chapter 10, we find the following confession of faith, set out as a prayer:
"We thank you, Holy Father, for Thy holy name which You have made to dwell in our hearts and for the knowledge and faith and immortality Thou hast revealed by Jesus Your Child. To Thee be glory for ever. Thee, Master almighty, who hast created all things because of your name (...). Thou hast vouchsafed to us to give spiritual food and drink and eternal life by Your Child [4]. "
There is nothing in this Trinity. In The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity (Eng.), Edwin Hatch cites the above passage and said
"Originally, in the sphere of influence of Christianity, it does not seem that one is gone well beyond these simple designs. The doctrine on which it was insisted that God is that He is, He is Almighty and eternal God, that He has made the world, that His mercy is over all His works. It had no taste for metaphysical discussion [5]. "
Clement of Rome Clement
Rome, who thinks it was "bishop" of that city, has also been among the first to write about Christianity. He died about the year 100 AD. In the writings ascribed to him, he makes no mention, directly or indirectly, of the Trinity. We read in the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians:
"Grace and peace from the Almighty God through Jesus Christ, you are increasing!"
"The apostles have preached the gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ did on behalf of God. Therefore Christ been sent by God through Christ and the apostles. "
" May God, who sees everything, and who is the Head of all spirits and Lord of all flesh - who chose our Lord Jesus Christ, and through him To be a people of its own - given to every soul that invokes His glorious and holy Name, faith, fear, peace, patience, patience [6]. "
Clement does not say that Jesus or the Holy Spirit is equal with God. He has the God Almighty (not just the "Father") as distinct from the Son. He speaks of God as superior, since Christ was "Sent" by God and that God has "chosen". Showing that God and Christ are two separate entities and are not equal, Clement said
"Through fervent prayer and supplication, we implore the Creator of the universe to keep intact the precise number of his elect in the world world, through his beloved son Jesus Christ. (...) We see that only you [God] are 'highest among those who are the highest' (...). You alone are the guardian spirits and the God of all flesh. "
" That all nations are aware, you are the one God, and Jesus Christ Your Child [7]. "
Clement calls God (not just the" Father ")" highest ", and Jesus the" Child "of God. He also notes about Jesus: "As it reflects the splendor of God, he is more superior to angels as his title is more remarkable than their own [8]." Just as the moon reflects the light of sun without equal the source of this light, the sun, so Jesus reflects, without equal, the splendor of God.
If the Son of God was equal to God, who is the Heavenly Father, Clement would not have needed to say that Jesus was superior to the angels would have been obvious. In addition, the way he says it shows that it recognizes one thing: that the Son is superior to angels, it is less than God Almighty. Clement
design is quite clear: the Son is inferior to the Father and less important than him. Clement never considered that Jesus formed a deity with the Father. It shows that the Son is dependent on the Father, that is to say God, it clearly says that the Father is the 'one God' and he shares his position with anyone. Nowhere Clement does the holy spirit of equality with God. Therefore, there is no question of Trinity in the writings of Clement.

Ignatius Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, lived since the mid first century AD until the early second century. Assuming that all the writings attributed to him are authentic, in none of them there is no question of equality between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Although Ignatius had said that the Son was equal to the Father in eternity, power, position and wisdom, this would not a Trinity, for nowhere does it say that the Holy Spirit is equal with God in these areas. But Ignatius did not say that the Son was equal to God the Father in these areas or others. Instead, he showed that the Son is subject to Him who is superior, God Almighty.
Ignatius calls the Almighty God "the only true God, who has not been generated and is unapproachable, the Lord of all, the father and progenitor of the only-begotten Son," showing the distinction between God and His son [9]. He mentions "God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ [10]. And he said: "There is one God, the Almighty, which was manifested in Jesus Christ, His Son [11]."
Ignatius shows that the Son is not eternal, but was created, because it makes him say: "The Lord [God Almighty] created me, the beginning of His ways [12]." Similarly, Ignatius said: "There is only one God of the universe, Father of Christ, 'from whom are all things', and one Lord Jesus Christ, our Lord, through whom are all things [13].' "He also writes:
" The Holy Spirit does not tell his own things, he said things of Christ, (...) as the Lord told us the things He had received from the Father. For He [the Son] said, 'the word which ye hear is not mine but the Father who sent Me [14]. "
" There is one God, manifested through Jesus Christ, His Son, which is his Word, which has the silence and, in all respects, it was pleasing to [God] who sent it. (...) Jesus Christ was subject to the Father [15]. "
It is true that for Ignatius the Son is" God's Word. " But the fact of calling the Son "God" does not necessarily mean it is the equal of God Almighty. In Isaiah 9:6, the Bible, too, calls the Son "God." And according to John 1:18, the Son is the only god that has been generated. Being empowered by the Father, Jehovah God, the Son could well be described as "powerful", which is the primary meaning of "god". - Matthew 28:18, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Hebrews 1:2.
However, the 15 letters attributed to Ignatius are they considered authentic? In The Fathers anténicéens (Eng.) Volume I, we read from the pen of Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson:
"According to the universal opinion of critics, it was wrong for the first eight of these letters attributed to Ignatius. They are in themselves proof positive that they are the later production (...) and, by mutual agreement, they are now dismisses as false. "
" Of the seven Epistles recognized by Eusebius (.. .), we possess two Greek recensions, one short and one long. Although (...) (...) short version is generally preferred in the long run, a widespread opinion among biblical scholars is that it does not even regarded as being totally devoid of interpolations or as an indisputable authenticity [16]. "
The short version of his writings, if we accept it as genuine, well removed few sentences (listed in the long version) which show that Christ is subordinate to God, but what remains of this short version still does not go in the direction of a Trinity. And these writings, whether they are genuine, show at most that Ignatius believed in the duality of God and his son. It was certainly not a duality between equals, because the Son is always presented as inferior and subordinate to God. Thus, regardless of the credit that we accord to Ignatian writings, we find there is no trace of a doctrine of the Trinity.

Polycarp Polycarp of Smyrna was born in the last third of the first century and died in mid-second century. It would have been in contact with the apostle John. He is credited with an Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.
Is there something in this book of Polycarp which indicates the existence of a Trinity? No, there is no mention. Instead, what he says is consistent with the teaching of Jesus and his apostles and disciples. Thus we read in his Epistle:
"God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and himself, (...) the son of God, Jesus Christ, do you grow in faith and in the truth [17]. "
us note, nor Clement, Polycarp speaks of a relationship between the Trinity" Father "and" Son ", which would be equal in a deity. However, he speaks of "God Father" of Jesus, not only the 'Father of Jesus'. Thus, as the authors of the Bible have ceased to do so, Polycarp distinguishes God of Jesus. In 2 Corinthians 1:3, Paul says, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." He does not just say: 'Blessed be the Father of Jesus', but "Blessed be the God and Father of Jesus .
Polycarp also says: "Peace from the God Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior [18]." Again, Jesus is separate from God Almighty, it is not one co-equal persons of a triune deity.
Hermas Hermas and Papias
, another apostolic father, wrote in the first part of the second century. There in his book, The Shepherd, or Pastor, statements which might suggest that, for him, God was a Trinity? Consider some examples:
"And that's not where the man wants to speak about the Holy Spirit: God wants when he speaks he speaks. (...) God planted the vineyard, that is to say that he created his people and told his son. And his son instructed the angels to watch them all individually [19]. "
" The Son of God was born before all creation [20]. "
Hermas says here that when God (and not just the Father) hope that the spirit speaks, he speaks, which shows the superiority of God over the mind. Then he says that God gave His Son to the vineyard, which shows the superiority of God over the Son. He also said that the Son of God was born before his creatures, those of the Son is to say things that the Son of God has created as a skilful worker, in effect, "through it all Other things were created in heaven and on earth. " (Colossians 1:15, 16.) Is that the Son is not eternal. It was created spirit of high rank before all other spirits, like angels, who have been created through him.
Thus saith J. Kelly, in early Christian Doctrine (Eng.), design Hermas was the Son of God:
"In a number of passages, we hear about an angel who is superior to the six angels forming the small board of God, and who is regularly called 'venerable', 'saint' and 'glorious'. This angel is called Michael, and it is difficult not to conclude Hermas saw in him the Son of God and identified with the archangel Michael. "
" It also collects (...) attempts to see in Christ a kind of angel Supreme (...). Of course, we find no sign of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense [21]. "
Papias is also part of those who said they have known the Apostle John. It was probably written in the early second century, but we now have only fragments of his works. We find nothing that refers to a doctrine of the Trinity.
Faithful to the teachings of Jesus
On the question of the supremacy of God and his relationship with Jesus, we can say that the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers is faithful to that of Jesus, disciples and apostles, as collected in the Bible. All speak of God, not as a Trinity, but as a separate Being, eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. In addition, they speak of the Son of God as a spiritual creature separate lower and subordinate, that God has created for her to serve by doing His will. As for the holy spirit, nowhere does it say that it is equal to God.
Thus, in these writings of the Apostolic Fathers dating from the late first century and the beginning of the second, there is nothing in favor of the Trinity taught by Christianity. These men talked about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the same way as the Bible. Consider, for example, Acts 7:55, 56:
"All filled with the Holy Spirit, [Stephen] fixed his gaze to heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at God's right hand. 'Ah! said he, "I see the heavens opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." - Jerusalem (Catholic Bible).
Stephen had a vision of God in heaven with Jesus at His side. The Son was standing near him who is called, not just "Father" but "God", someone completely separate from Jesus. In addition, Stephen is not saying he saw a third person. He did not see the Holy Spirit in heaven with Jesus and his Father.
This approximates the passage of Revelation (Apocalypse) 1:1 which reads: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, God gave him." (Jerusalem). Again, we see the risen Christ in heaven entirely distinct from God, and as for the holy spirit, it is not mentioned. If Jesus was the second person of a trinity and he knows everything, how could God himself 'give' a revelation?
Passages such as these show clearly that there is no Trinity. Furthermore, no biblical text speaks of God as a Trinity. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers are faithful to the Word of God. It is undeniable that they did not teach the Trinity dear to Christianity.
The large group of writings on Christianity that followed appeared later in the second century. These works of ecclesiastical called apologists. Have they taught a Trinity? In an upcoming issue, the third part of this series of articles will deal with their teachings.
Bibliography
1. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1985, Micropaedia, volume 1, page 488.
2. A Dictionary of Christian Theology, Alan Richardson, 1969, page 95, The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1985, Micropaedia, volume 4, page 79.
3. The Didache and the early church, Emile Besson, page 25.
4. Ibid. Pages 30, 31.
5. The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, Edwin Hatch, 1957, p. 252.
6. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, American reprint from the edition Edinburgh, 1885, Volume I, pages 5, 16, 21.
7. The Library of Christian Classics, Volume 1, Early Church Fathers, edited and translated by Cyril Richardson, 1953, pages 70, 71.
8. Ibid., P. 60.
9. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, page 52.
10. Ibid., P. 58.
11. Ibid., P. 62.
12. Ibid., P. 108.
13. Ibid., P. 116.
14. Ibid., P. 53.
15. The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 4, Robert Grant, 1966, page 63.
16. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, pages 46, 47, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, John McClintock and James Strong, reprinted by Baker Book House Co. 1981, Volume IV, pages 490-493; The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910, Volume VII, pages 644-647.
17. Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter XII.
18. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, page 33.
19. Hermas, The Shepherd, 43, 8, 59, 2.
20. Ibid., 89, 2.
21. Early Christian Doctrines, J. Kelly, second edition, 1960, pages 94, 95.

What School Did George Crum Go To

she taught that God is a trinity? Part: Jesus and his disciples did they teach the Trinity? A brochure


Article published in The Watchtower 1/11/1991

Image: "Preaching of Saint Paul" by Le Sueur


Jesus and his disciples have they taught doctrine of the Trinity? Over the centuries followed, the Church leaders have they taught? How did it come about? And why is it important to know the truth about this belief? This first part introduces a series of articles in The Watchtower will devote to these issues.
those who acknowledge the Bible as the Word of God admit they have a duty to communicate to their peers taught about the Creator. In addition, they understand that what they teach about God must be true.
God took over the "comforters" of Job for failing to meet this requirement. "Jehovah said to Eliphaz the Temanites: 'My anger became fierce against you and your two companions, because you do not say about me, what is true, as my servant Job. "- Job 42:7.
Speaking of resurrection, the apostle Paul said that we would be be "false witnesses of God" if we taught her about the things he did not do (1 Corinthians 15:15). That being the teaching of the resurrection, we must be very cautious when it comes to teach anything about the identity of God.
The doctrine of the Trinity
Almost all churches of Christianity teach that God is a trinity. The Catholic Encyclopedia (Eng.) said that the Trinity is "the fundamental doctrine of Christianity," and defines it thus:
"In the unity of the Godhead there are three persons: Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, three persons are really distinct. Thus, as the Athanasian Creed, 'the Father is God, God the Son, and Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God. (...) The people are co-eternal and co-equal: they are the same way, and uncreated omnipotentes1. "
The Baptist Encyclopedia (Eng.) gives a similar definition. It reads:
"[Jesus] is (...) the eternal Jehovah. (...) The Holy Spirit is Jehovah. (...) The Son and the Spirit are on a strictly equal footing with the Father. If Jehovah is, they are aussi2. "
Opponents are anathematized
In 325 the Council of Nicaea, Asia Minor, has formulated a creed affirming that the Son of God is" truly God ", of As the Father is "truly God". In this Creed, it declared:
"As for those who say that there was [a time] where [the Son] was not born before he was not, and was born of nothing, or assert that the Son of God is of another hypostasis or substance, or was created and is subject to change; these, the Catholic Church anathématise3. "
Therefore, anyone who believed the Son and the Father are not co-eternal, or that the Son was created was delivered to eternal damnation. Imagine the influence that this may exert on the mass of believers.
In 381, another council met in Istanbul and said that we should worship and glorify the Holy Spirit, just as the Father and the Son. A year later, in 382, held a synod in Constantinople in which it affirmed the full divinity of the spirit saint4. That same year, before a council which was held in Rome, Pope Damasus introduced a collection of teachings to be condemned by the Church. The document, called the Tome of Damasus, contained the following statements:
"Whoever denies the Father eternal, the Son is eternal and that the Holy Spirit is eternal, this one is a heretic. "
" Whoever denies the Son of God is truly God as the Father is truly God, having all power, and knowing all the equal of the Father, this one is a heretic. "
" Anyone who denies that the Holy Spirit is truly God (...) (...) has all power and knows all, (...) this one is a heretic. "
" Anyone who denies that three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit are real people, they are equal, eternal, containing all things visible and invisible, and they are all-powerful (...) This one is a heretic. "
" Whoever says that [the Son who has been] made flesh was not in heaven with the Father when he was on earth, this one is a heretic ".
" Whoever, recognizing that the Father is God, God the Son and the Holy Spirit is God, (...) does not say they are one God, one (...) there is a hérétique5. "
Jesuits who translated these passages from the Latin have made this remark:" Pope St. Celestine I (422-432) seemed to take these guns for law and can be regarded as definitions of foi6. "The Bible scholar Edmund Fortman says, meanwhile, that the Tome is a" solid trinitaire7 doctrine. "
If you belong to a church that accepts the teaching of the Trinity, can tell you that these statements are definitions of your faith? On the other hand, did you know that to accept the doctrine of the Trinity taught by the churches he had to believe that Jesus was in heaven when he was on earth? This teaching is similar to that expounds Athanasius Church of the fourth century, in a book entitled De l'Incarnation:
"The Word [Jesus] was not locked in His body and His presence in the flesh did not prevent him from being present elsewhere as well. When he moved, he also did not cease to lead the world, thanks to his intelligence and his power. (...) It is still the lifeblood of the entire universe, present in everything and yet outside the tout8. "
What is the doctrine of the Trinity?
Some think that believing in the Trinity is only to give the divinity of Jesus. Others simply believe that it is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
However, careful examination Creed of Christendom reveals that these views do not correspond at all to the official definitions. These show clearly that the Trinity is not a simple idea. It is instead a complex set of independent ideas that have been associated over the centuries as to form a system.
design that could be done in Trinidad after the Council of Constantinople (381), the Tome of Damasus (382), the Athanasian Creed, which came some time later, and other documents are still all of which allow us to determine precisely what this doctrine of Christianity. We distinguish the following ideas:
1. There in the Godhead three divine persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
2. Each of these different people would be eternal, none occurred before or after the other.
3. Each would be almighty, none greater or less than the other.
4. Each would be omniscient, knowing everything.
5. Each is truly God.
6. However, there would not three Gods but one God.
Clearly, the doctrine of the Trinity is a complex set of ideas which we have mention the most important, because a detailed examination would reveal more. However, it is clear that if we left out one of these fundamental ideas, which would no longer be the Trinity of Christianity. To get a complete view of this doctrine, we must take them all. Including
better what is meant by the word "Trinity", we ask: Was This doctrine taught by Jesus and his disciples? If this is the case, it should be fully formed from the first century AD. And since what Jesus taught his disciples and is in the Bible or the doctrine of the Trinity is exposed in the Bible, or it is not. If it is, it must be clear.
can not reasonably believe that Jesus and his disciples have been taught about God without saying who he really is, especially knowing that the believers would have to give up their lives to God. Jesus and his disciples would have had to give priority to the teaching of this fundamental doctrine. Let the Scriptures

In Acts chapter 17, verse 11, we told some people they are "noble" because they "scan the Scriptures daily to see if this is so, what the Apostle Paul tells them. It encourages people to check the scriptures to the teachings of Paul, yet an apostle. That's what we should do.
us remember that the Scriptures are "inspired by God 'and must be used to" put things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work ". (2 Timothy 3:16, 17.) Therefore, the Bible is perfect or complete in its doctrinal teaching. If the Trinity exists, it must be stated in the Bible.
We invite you to scrutinize the Bible, especially the 27 books that constitute the Christian Greek Scriptures, to see if Jesus and his disciples taught any trinity. During your research, ask yourself the following questions:
1. Is there a single passage that contains the word "Trinity"?
2. Is there a single passage that says God is three distinct persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and these three are one God?
3. Is there a single passage that says the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal in everything, so in eternity, power, position and wisdom?
You can search, you will not find any Scripture passage that contains the word "Trinity" nor any passage that says the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal in everything, so in eternity, power, position or wisdom. There is not a single passage saying that the Son is equal with the Father in these areas, and even if it was this passage does not prove the Trinity, because this doctrine entails a whole, not two, but three elements, and nowhere does the Bible of the holy spirit the equal of the Father.
What say many biblical scholars
Many biblical scholars, including Trinitarians acknowledge that the Bible contains no doctrine formal Trinity. Here, for example, what we read in The Encyclopedia of Religion (Eng.):
"Today, scholars and theologians agree that the Hebrew Bible contains no doctrine of the Trinity. (...) Although the Hebrew Bible calls God the father of Israel and it personifies God by using words such as Word (Davar), Spirit (Ruach), Wisdom (hokhmah) and Presence (Shekhinah), this would force the intent and spirit of the Old Testament to link these notions with the doctrine of the Trinity appeared later.
"In addition, exegetes and theologians agree that the New Testament contains no explicit doctrine of the Trinity. God the Father is the source of all that is (Pantokrator) and the father of Jesus Christ, 'Father' is not a title given to the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God.
(...) "In the New Testament, there is no reflexive consciousness of the metaphysical nature of God ('immanent trinity'); it lacks either the technical language in which this doctrine subsequently exposed (hupostasis, ousia, substantia, subsistentia, prosopon, persona). (...) It is undeniable that this doctrine can be proved by relying solely Écritures9. "
respect to the history of this doctrine, here is what we read in the New Encyclopaedia Britannica:
" The word Trinity does not appear in the New Testament. The doctrine means that there is never stated explicitly. (...)
"This doctrine took shape gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.
(...) "It was not until the late fourth century that the distinction between the three and their unit were collected in the same doctrine Orthodox one essence and three people.10. "
One reads about the same in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (Eng.) on the origin of the Trinity:
" The exegetes and theologians, including a number growing Catholics, recognize that it is inappropriate to speak of the Trinitarian doctrine in the New Testament without serious reservations. Specialists in the history of dogma and systematic theologians agree, each for their part, that when we speak of a doctrine of the Trinity completed, we move from the period of the origins of Christianity than, say, the last quarter of the fourth century. It is only then that what might be called the definitive doctrine of the Trinity, one God in three Persons' became part of life and Christian thought. (...)
"The formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness that we had at the time of origin and is the product of 3 centuries of training doctrinale11."
"Implicitly"? The Trinitarian
may say that the Bible speaks of "implicit" in a trinity. But this statement is far post the writing of the Bible. It is an attempt to make the Bible say that the church has, over time, arbitrarily decided what would this doctrine.
Ask yourself this question: Why the Bible she would be content to speak of "implicit" in his most important lesson, one that relates to the identity of God? The Bible is clear on other key issues, why would she not on it, the most important? If it were a trinity, the Creator of the universe would have it not clearly revealed in the book he was writing? The reason
that the Bible does not teach clear doctrine of the Trinity is simple: it is not a biblical teaching. If God was a Trinity, he would have made it clear that Jesus and his disciples might reveal it to others. And this essential knowledge have been recorded in the inspired Word of God. God would not have left it to imperfect men to grapple with this issue in later centuries.
That shows us an honest examination of biblical texts which, according to Trinitarians, speak "implicitly" in the Trinity? What do these passages not speak of the Trinity taught by Christianity. Theologians forcing Scripture to try to make them express their preconceived ideas about the Trinity. But these ideas are not Trinitarian in texts. Indeed, they are inconsistent with the testimony that emerges from the Bible in its entirety.
One of the texts cited in support of the Trinity is found in Matthew 28:19, 20, which speaks both of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Some see an allusion to the Trinity. But read these verses. Y is said somewhere that the three are one God and they are equal in eternity, power, position and wisdom? No. It is the same with other texts that speak to both of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
As for those who, in Matthew 28:19, 20, would be tempted to draw conclusions from the use of the word "name" in the singular, referring to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we pray for examine the use of the same word in the plural, about Abraham and Isaac, which is made in Genesis 48:16. - Jerusalem, New World Translation. The Trinitarian
also argue the passage from John 1:1, where in some translations, it is called the "Word" as being "with God" and as "God". Note that other versions say that the Word was "God" or was "a divine being", which do not necessarily refer to God, but to be powerful. Moreover, this biblical verse states that the "Word" was "with" God. She could not reasonably be the same God. And whatever conclusion one draws about the "Word", the fact is that in this verse, it speaks only of two persons, not three. Thus, when examining in good faith the texts used in support of the Trinity we find that they prove absolutely nothing.
We can consider another factor: whether the doctrine of the Trinity was taught by Jesus and his disciples, the famous church that came immediately after them would have, too, surely taught. These men, now called the Apostolic Fathers, they taught the Trinity? That this be discussed by the second part of this series of articles that will appear in an upcoming issue of The Watchtower.

Bibliography 1. The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Volume XV, page 47.
2. The Baptist Encyclopaedia, edited by William Cathcart, 1883, pages 1168, 1169.
3. A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernhard Lohse, 1980 edition, page 53.
4. Ibid., Pages 64, 65.
5. The Church teaches, according to the translation of John Clarkson, SJ, John Edwards, SJ, William Kelly, SJ, and John Welch, SJ, 1955, pages 125 to 127.
6. Ibid., P. 125.
7. The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, 1982 Edition, page 126.
8. Of the Incarnation, according to the translation of Penelope Lawson edition 1981, pages 27, 28.
9. The Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade, head, 1987, volume 15, page 54.
10. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1985, Volume 11, Micropaedia, page 928.
11. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Volume XIV, page 295.
[Note]
For a more detailed examination of these biblical texts, see the booklet Are we to believe in the Trinity? published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc..

Hair Salon New Client Information Form

cons Trinidad


In 1989 Jehovah's Witnesses have published a brochure entitled " Should we believe in the Trinity? .

It is intended to parallel what the Bible, the Apostolic Fathers and the Councils said the nature of God.

This brochure is strongly criticized by a majority of churches that criticize his publishers have cited authors out of context.

Note however that the many quotations from writers both ancient and modern are provided only partially for the simple reason that it is only a meager 32-page brochure that instead of wanting to too many reproductions.

other from the brochure is intended only to give proof that the Trinity as defined in the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople is not a reflection of the biblical teaching regarding the nature of God or the idea that were made the Apostolic Fathers the Father and the Son.

Those who think that the Jehovah's Witnesses sought to distort the meaning of ancient authors about different go astray.

It is also worth noting that the Apostolic Fathers are not in harmony regarding the nature of Christ.

That's also because of the proliferation of formulations that was organized the Council of Nicaea.

Also in most of them one finds no real intention of trying to define its exact nature.

The early Fathers abundantly cite the Gospels and the letters of the biblical writers and content of their testimony without feeling compelled to go into debating endlessly complicated theological systems.

Finally, if the pamphlet "Should we believe in the Trinity? "Use the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers nor does it any more than it is always correct, it is in any case what is clear from other published articles by the same publishers.

Again it is demonstrated that the Trinitarian doctrine is the fruit of a slow progression that ended in a context of theological debates about muscular substance of policy issues, an idea shared today by religious historians.

I give you below some of the booklet containing the passages dealing with the early Christians and context of the Council of Nicaea:

Was she taught by the first Christians?

THE early Christians they taught the Trinity? Let us say that what historians and theologians:

" Early Christianity had not defined a doctrine of the Trinity similar to that needed to be further developed in the Creed." - New International Dictionary of Theology of New Testament (Eng.).

" The early Christians, however, not that dogma n'appliquèrent [Trinity] to their own faith. They worshiped God the Father and Jesus Christ, Son of God, and they recognized (...) [the] Holy Spirit. But they never thought to do these three entities a real mix. "- Pagan Survivals in the world Christian.

" In Initially, the Christian faith was not Trinitarian (...). No, as evidenced by the N [ew] T [estament] and other writings of early Christianity, it was not so at the times and apostolic postapostolique. "- Encyclopedia of the religion and of ethics (Eng.).

" The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established and probably not fully integrated into the Christian life and its profession of faith before the late fourth century ^e . (...) In the Apostolic Fathers, there is nothing even remotely reminiscent of that view. "- New Catholic Encyclopedia.

What taught the Fathers anténicéens?

It is recognized in the Fathers anténicéens religious leaders whose influence, during the first centuries after the birth of Christ, was considerable. Their education is no lack of interest.

Justin (died about 165 AD) has admitted that before coming to earth, Jesus was an angel, it had been created, and it was "different from the God who made all things ". He said that Jesus is inferior to God and that "he has never done what the Creator wanted him (...) say and do."

Irenaeus (died c. 200 AD) said that before being a human, Jesus lived a separate existence from God and it was lower. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the "one true God," which is "above all, and from whom there is none else."

Clement of Alexandria (died about 215 AD) called God "the only true God, uncreated and imperishable." He said that the Son is "right after the Father sole omnipotent", but it is not equal.

Tertullian (died around 230 AD) taught the supremacy of God. He said: "The Father of the Son is different (it is different) in that it is greater, in that the generator is different from that which is begotten one who sends, different from the one sent." He also said: "There was a time when the Son was not. (...) Above all, God was alone. "

Hippolytus (died c. 235 AD) said that God is" the one God, the first and Only Creator and Lord of all "to which" nothing was contemporary of [same age] (...). But there was one and alone who, because he wanted to, called into existence that which previously was not "like Jesus, which was created before coming to earth.

Origen (died c. 250 AD) said that "the Father and the Son are two substances (...), two things in terms of their essence," and that "compared to the Father [the Son] is a very small light. "

Summarizing all historical evidence, Alvan Lamson wrote in The Church of first three centuries (Eng.): "The modern doctrine of the Trinity and popular (...) does not originate from the words of Justin, and this remark could be extended to all the Fathers anténicéens; ie say to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. They speak, indeed, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (...) but not as co-equal, not as a single species, numerically speaking, not as Three in One in any sense recognized by the Trinitarians. The opposite is true. "

Thus, the testimony of the Bible and history clearly shows that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and it remained so for centuries.

How the doctrine of the Trinidad did it develop?

At this stage of our review, some might ask: 'If the Trinity is not a biblical teaching, how has it become a doctrine of Christianity? " For many, it was formulated in 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea.

In fact, it's not quite true. The Nicene Council has said that Christ was the same substance as God, which laid the foundation for later Trinitarian theology, but he has not established the Trinity as the Holy Spirit was not presented the third person as a triple deity.

The role of Constantine to Nicaea

For many years, an idea that was spreading, and that Jesus is God, met stiff opposition, opposition based on the Scriptures. In an attempt to end the conflict, the Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. A part of them only about 300, went there.

Constantine was not a Christian. It is said that converted on the late, however, he was baptized while he was dying. The Church in primitive (Eng.), Henry Chadwick says of him: "Like his father, Constantine worshiped the Sun undefeated; (...) we shall not see his conversion effect of grace ( ...), but the calculation of a military leader. His understanding of Christian doctrine was never very clear. Nevertheless, he was sure of one thing: victory in battle was a gift from God of the Christians. "

What role this emperor, who was not baptized, he played at the Council of Nicaea? Here one can read about it in the Encyclopedia UK: "It was Constantine, who presided. He led an active discussion, and it was he who proposed the formula (...) capital that would express the relation of Christ to God in the Creed adopted by the council, 'of the same substance as the Father' (...) . Intimidated by the emperor, the bishops, with the exception of two, signed the creed, did what many against their will. "

The role of Constantine was therefore crucial. After two months of fierce debate among the bishops, the pagan emperor ruled in favor of those for whom Jesus was God. Why? Certainly not because of a belief fueled by the Scriptures. According A brief history of the Christian doctrine (Eng.), "Constantine had virtually no understanding of the issues posed by the Greek theology." This he understood, however, is that religious division was a threat to his empire, he wanted to consolidate unity.

Moreover, the bishops assembled at Nicaea did not put up the true doctrine of the Trinity. They began ruling on the nature of Jesus, but not the role of the Holy Spirit. If Trinidad was a clear biblical truth, the bishops did not they would set at that time?

This that is passed then

AFTER Nicaea, Discussions went on for decades. Those who did not see in Jesus equal to God even regained the upper hand for a while. However, the emperor Theodosius finally settle the issue at their expense. He imposed the creed of the Council of Nicaea in his kingdom and in 381 the Council of Constantinople met to clarify the formula.

This council placed the Holy Spirit on the same plane as God and Christ. Trinity, as taught by Christianity, made his appearance.

However, even after the Council of Constantinople, all did not accept the Trinity. Many are opposed and who were subject to violent persecution. It took centuries for the Trinity given a precise formulation through symbols or Creed. Encyclopedia American noted in this regard: "The trinitarian idea reached its fullest development in the Middle Ages in the West, when the scholastic began by explaining the philosophy and psychology."

The symbol Athanasius

WITH the Athanasian Creed, the Trinity received a more elaborate definition. Athanasius, who was clergyman, supported Constantine at the Council of Nicaea. The symbol that bears his name said: "We [worship] one God in Trinity (...). God is the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost: and there are not three Gods but one God. "

However, experts are unanimous in recognizing that the symbol n has not been formulated by Athanasius. We bed in New Encyclopedia UK: "The Eastern Church had no knowledge of the symbol before e XII century. Since the XVII th century, biblical scholars agree that this symbol is not due to Athanasius (d. 373), but it was probably written at the V th century in southern France. (...) The influence of the symbol seems first to have felt, at the VI and VII ^e th centuries in the south of France and Spain. The Church of Germany in the ninth century e, and later that of Rome, integrated it in their liturgy. "

Thus, from the time of Christ, it took centuries for the Trinity is accepted throughout Christianity. What in all this, has guided the decisions? The Word of God or political considerations or chapel? In Origin and evolution of the religion (Eng.), E. Hopkins replied: "The orthodox definition of the Trinity finally prevailed was essentially the result of political concerns of the Church. "

Apostasy announced

This dismal route of the Trinity echoed the words of Jesus and his apostles. They announced that after their time would come an apostasy, a deviation, an abandonment of true worship, which would last until Christ returns. So before the day of God, the day of destruction of this system of things, true worship would be restored.

The Apostle Paul said that this "day" would not come "unless first apostasy does not come and that would prove the man who despises the law." (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7.) He later said: "After my departure there wolves enter in among you who will spare no formidable flock, and (...) the midst of you will stand for men holding perverse speech in order to draw away disciples after them. "(Acts 20:29, 30 Je). Other disciples of Jesus spoke of this apostasy and clergy who "despises the law." - See For example, 2 Peter 2:1, 1 John 4:1-3; Jude 3, 4.

Paul also wrote: "A time will come when people will not endure sound doctrine, but rather according to their passions and itching ears, they give teachers in quantity and divert ears from the truth and turned unto fables. "- 2 Timothy 4:3, 4, Je.

Jesus himself said the reason that true worship would be abandoned. While he had sowed good seed in his field, the enemy, Satan would sow the weed on top. Therefore, when the first wheat stalks begin to grow, the weeds also appear. We should therefore expect that the pure Christianity undergoes a deviation that would persist until harvest time, when Christ would put things in order (Matthew 13:24-43). Encyclopedia American said this: "The doctrine of the Trinity IV ^e century did not give an accurate picture of early Christian beliefs about the nature of God, it was rather a deviation." The question arises: what caused this deviation? - 1 Timothy 1:6.

What influence?

as far as it goes back in antiquity, until the Babylonian era, we see that it was common to worship the pagan gods in groups of three, called triads . Centuries before the coming of Christ until his death, the influence of this practice has arisen in Egypt, Greece and Rome. After the death of the apostles, these pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.

historian Will Durant notes in this regard: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; adopted it. (...) From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity. "As for Siegfried Morenz, he said in The Egyptian religion: " [It] was the trinity both an opportunity and a duty for theologians (...). So three gods are combined into one which can speak in the singular. But this way the flow of Egyptian influence is in direct contact with Christian theology. "

At the end of ^{III and IV e} th century, Egypt, church of Alexandria, as Athanasius, transmitted by this influence and they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity. These men acquired themselves a great reputation, so that Morenz considers "Alexandrian theology as the intermediary between the Egyptian religious heritage and Christianity."

In the preface to the History of Christianity (Eng.), Edward Gibbon, it says: "While Christianity triumphed over paganism, the fact remains that paganism has succeeded in corrupting Christianity. The Church of Rome has replaced pure Deism of the first Christians (...) by the incomprehensible dogma of the Trinity. Similarly, many pagan doctrines invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato were adopted because considered credible. "

According Dictionary of the religious knowledge (Eng.), many people say that the Trinity "is a corrupt education, borrowed from pagan religions and grafted to the Christian faith." To book pagan survivals in the world Christian, the Trinity is "entirely pagan origin."

Hastings is why James says in the Encyclopedia of the religion and of ethics (Eng.): "In Indian religion eg, we meet the trinity Brahma, Siva and Vishnu, in Egyptian religion, the triad Osiris, Isis and Horus (...). This is not only in historical religions that we find the idea of a trinity. One notable neo-Platonic conception of the supreme or ultimate reality "that is" represented in a triadic form. However, what relationship is there between the Greek philosopher Plato and the Trinity?

The Platonism

is thought that Plato lived from 428-347 BC. Although he did not teach the Trinity as it is today, his philosophy has paved the way for this doctrine. Subsequently, various philosophical movements that spread triadic beliefs sprang up, and were influenced by Platonic conceptions of God and nature.

The New Dictionary universal Lachâtre Maurice said of the influence of Plato: "The trinity Platonic [Plato], which itself was basically a kind of arrangement, new provision of trinities oldest of the peoples who had preceded us appears to be the trinity philosophical, rational, c that is to say the trinity of attributes that gave birth to the triplicity of hypostasis or divine persons of the Christian Churches (...). This conception of divine Trinity Greek philosopher (...) is everywhere in the ancient religions [heathen]. "

The New Encyclopedia of the religious knowledge (Eng.), of Schaff-Herzog, describes the influence of Greek philosophy: "The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their form from the Greek Fathers, who were (...) directly or indirectly, greatly influenced by Platonic philosophy (...). It is undeniable that this philosophy has been to the Church a source of error and corruption. "

We read in The Church of three first centuries "The doctrine of the Trinity appeared gradually and relatively late, his (...) is totally alien to Jewish and Christian scriptures; (...) it developed and was introduced into Christianity with the help of Platonic Fathers. "

At the end of the third th century, the" Christianity "and inspired the new philosophies of Platonism were inseparably united. In the words of Adolf Harnack in his Precis of history dogmas of the doctrine of the Church was "riveted to the ground by chains of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. (...) It thus became a mystery for the vast majority of Christians. "

The Church claimed that its new doctrines were based on the Scriptures, but here's what Adolf Harnack said about it: "In reality, the Church recognized as legitimate presence in its midst the Hellenic speculation ideas and practices of the superstitious pagan mysteries. "

In a statement of reasons (Eng.), Andrews Norton says of the Trinity: "We can trace the history of this doctrine, and discover its origin, not in the Christian revelation but in Platonic philosophy (...). The Trinity is not a doctrine taught by Christ and his Apostles, but a fiction due to the Platonic school late. "

Thus, it is the IV ^e century apostasy announced by Jesus and the apostles had its full development. The formation of the dogma of the Trinity is not one of the manifestations of the rest, because among other pagan beliefs or practices that were then adopted apostate churches include the hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry. Christianity had entered the period of spiritual darkness heralded the Scriptures, that period would be dominated by "a man who despises the law", ie clergy, more and more powerful. - 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7.

Why the prophets of God not did they not taught?

WHY, for thousands of years no prophet of God did he teach the Trinity in His people? We could at least think that Jesus, the Great Teacher, explain this dogma to his followers. If Trinity was the "fundamental doctrine" of faith, God have inspired hundreds and hundreds of pages of the Scriptures without devoting some of this instruction to teach the Trinity?

Christians can they believe that centuries after the arrival of his son and after having inspired the writing of the Bible, God has endorsed the introduction of a doctrine that was unknown to his servants for millennia, which is an "ineffable mystery," which "is beyond human understanding," which is recognized pagan origin, and was "essentially the result of political concerns of the Church"?

The testimony of history is clear: the doctrine of the Trinity is a deviation and points of apostasy.