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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment