The Earliest Trinity Statements (page 5)

Amazing1914

Thanks Blueblades, I will look for that chapter. I apprecaite the lead. - Jim W.

Leolaia

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

I don't really want to stress this point because I am sympathetic to your overall view, but in fact many such as Harnack, Moffatt, McNiele, Hengel, Koester, and recent researchers on Polycarp including Hartog have discussed the problem at length and do not regard the solution as entirely "certain" either way....The main issue is which John was known to the Asia Minor bishops (the apostle or the presbyter, or both?) and whether the apostle was martyred sometime earlier than the 90s...

Amazing1914

Leolaia,

Thanks for the additional referenced historians. I often find that when I check out criticisms, they are either wildly different than accepted history, or there are only minor, marginal differences.

In light of your comment, let's place the Apostle John's death at 89 AD. St. Polycarp was born in 69 AD. So, he was old enough and lived well within the lifespan of St. John. It matters little if experts disagree on exact years in such cases, because the overlap is sufficient to cover the point.

Similarly, St. Polycarp is believed to have died a martyr in Febuary 155. This would make him 86 years old, which is a reasonable lifespen. However, it is also established history that St. Polycarp visited Pope Anicetus in Rome. But, Pope Anicetus did not ascend to the Papacy until 157 AD. So, historians will disagree over various technicalities of accession of Pope Anicetus, or the exact date of St, Polycarp's death or visit to Rome. Either way, it has no meaningful impact on the above discussion.

The fact that Polycarp was a student of the Apostle John is too well establish in the letters of the early Church Fathers and the historians of the day. It is too well established that St. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp.

I have not read the works of those you cited. If what they argue is wildly different from what I have presented, in such a way as to totally toss out one of the players, like St. Polycarp, then I would be most surprised.

Thanks again, Jim W.

Narkissos

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/apostolic.html

(Check the inner links on the alleged relationship between "John" and Polycarp)

greendawn

It is fairly obvious that the early apostolic Christians didn't believe in a trinity since they no doubt took the words father and son literally.

Why would trinity members be called Father and Son if they weren't meant to describe a relationship whereby the son came after the father who was also the orgin of the son that brought him into existence? Why see into these a deep and strange meaning where the son existed as long as the father did that is eternally and was not given existence by him? What kind of a son is he then?

As Paul said the Father is the head of the son just as the Son is the head of the church, if that doesn't show subordination I don't know what does. Paul often refers to the Father as: "the God of our Lord Jesus" and nowhere does he imply absolute equality between the two. He as the founder of the gentile church should know better than Athanasius et al.

lovelylil

greendawn,

I agree with you that Jesus was subordinate to Jehovah, hence the father and son statement. But do you think that Jesus was the same in nature as Jehovah? Could this be why John 1:1 was written. I think John was saying Jesus was God in the sense that he was in the same nature God, not Jehovah himself. Does this make sense? Some bible commentaries I have read make this point, that while John says Jesus was God, it was only in the sense of being divine in nature. I posted some scriptures that seem to show that Jesus was divine in nature a few postings back. I say "seems" because I am still on the fence about the whole issue. I used to believe Jesus was Michael but researched that topic a whole year and now come to a different conclusion. I think Jesus was truly unique as the Only Son of Jehovah and the Logos. What do you think?

I know the bible cannot contradict itself but why do some scriptures show Jesus as the same nature and is this why triniarians get it confused and think Jesus IS God Jehovah? Or, do they believe like I do at this point that Jehovah and Jesus are both God in the sense of being same in nature? I would like your input on this please. Thanks.

greendawn

Lovelylil, that verse in John 1:1 is correctly translated as: "and divine (a god) was the word" but in what precise sense I don't know. However Jesus is called the only begotten son of God and knowing that He also has millions of angelic sons, to be the only begotten implies a different superior nature to that of the angels. Let's not forget also that "everything was created through him and for him" and that is quite a status, I would certainly call it Divine.

The infinitely inferior satan, himself a mere creation of the Father through the only begotten son, is called a god so it's not surprising that someone far greater than him would also be called a god.

Though not biblically stated the Son may well be a "homo-ousios" of the Father a direct participant in the Divine nature, something that the angels are not, except perhaps indirectly.

Amazing1914

Greendawn (and Narkissos, below),

It is fairly obvious that the early apostolic Christians didn't believe in a trinity since they no doubt took the words father and son literally.

First, Loveylil made excellent points.

Actually, if you go back and read again what I first posted, the early Christians did not take the Father-Son relationship the same way as human father-son relationships. If you go all the way back to when the Jews sought to kill Jesus, it was because he made himself equal to God. Obviously, being the Son of God in the mind of jesus and the Apostles was not something just like a human relationship.

God is a spirit, and neither male nor female. Those conventions are used to help us characterize that Jesus is part of the Godhead - hence why the Jews were offended.

St. Clement made it clear what had been believed since the time of the Apostles ... and Clement was only removed by one generation. It is hardly a credible case to say that in such a short time the church completely flipped over the the Trinity, were it a false doctrine or heresy.

Finally, if you still believe that the early Christians did not accept Jesus divinity (leaving out the Holy Spirit for now), what are your sources for this conclusion?

Narkissos,

I am aware of the criticisms, but they are not enough to explain or prove the claims of Irenaeus and Polycarp and other Chruch Fathers in error. Also, some modern historians have started to look again to Eusebius as their prime source, yet most other historians have avoided relying much on Eusebius. Historians have to look at other sources.

Notwithstanding these criticisms ... the real thrust with my original post is that these early Church Fathers all wrote about the nature of God in a way that fits modern Catholic, Orthodox, and Mainline Protestantism. Starting with St. Ignatius, they lived during the time of the Apostles on into the late second century. Their views coincide throughout the entire Chirstian world, from Spain, to Rome, to Asia Minor, to Israel, Persia, and Egypt. It is very unlikely that an error in the case of Polycarp actually knowing the Apostle John will have any serious impact upon what was consistently taught, and used to fight heresies. However, I still see no real evidence that Polycarp was not a student of the Apostle John. He could have known both the Apostle John and the Presbyter named John who became Bishop. It is not a stretch, as these people all traveled, even if slowly by ship or camel.

Thanks for the interesting link. Jim W.

lovelylil

Thanks Greendawn! Thanks Amazing!

I agree Jesus is something superior to Angels. And still believe he is divine by nature which means something different than some believe. I think this is what John was saying in John 1:1 But, I have trouble saying it means "a god" only because the bible says there is one true God so all others must be false, no? So, are we saying Jesus is a false God? Or a lesser God? Maybe Jehovah willingly shares his Divinity with the Son and that is why Jesus is the only begotten? Could this be the difference in Jesus and all others who are created?

Anyway, you both raise some very good points to ponder.

greendawn

Amazing 1914, I didn't really make this clear but I didn't mean to say that the father and son analogy was to be 100% applied to God the Father and the Son. What I was saying is that the basics of that relationship were applicable ie that the father exists before the son and at some stage becomes the source of the son's existence or otherwise put the there was a time that the son did not exist and would never have come to exist unless the Father had willed it.

It's plain and simple, the terms Father and Son were used with a view to them being quite literal. Otherwise they would lead to a lot of unnecessary confusion and other terms would have been employed to describe a trinitarian concept.

And we always hear about the son calling the Father "my God" but never the Father calling the son my God as one would expect from the three equal gods concept.

Lilly I am not saying that Jesus is equal to the Father but a god, way above the angels but far beneath the Father. On the other hand the Father gave him divine rights over the creation (subjected everything to his feet excepting of course Himself) and sat him on His throne. Note also that this came as a reward for the mission that the Christ undertook on earth and lead to his crucifixion. That's why the apostles called him Lord as they also called God.

Those that formulated the Trinity were obfuscators to the nth degree.

The Earliest Trinity Statements

Share this