The Problem with 2 Peter 1:1

[tigger 2]

I don't understand your question. It is not a matter of what I believe but a matter of what he actually wrote: First Clement: Clement of Rome (earlychristianwritings.com)

I am asking you to actually do a little work and post for me only the parts of the writing of the first and most important Ante-Nicene Father which reveal a two or three-person God.

 

[Marymog]

I am asking you to actually do a little work and post for me only the parts of the writing of the first and most important Ante-Nicene Father which reveal a two or three-person God.

Got it...thanks for the clarification. Here is my work, which is part of your Christian history:

Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John: For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit”.

Justin Martyr: “We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

 

[DavidB]

I glossed over your link. Haven't you glossed over my links to my personal studies?

I have beside me at my computer the set of Ante-Nicene Fathers. I also have further translations by Dr. Sparks and by Lightfoot and Harmer (which includes the Greek text). I have even done a personal study on them and the earliest baptismal questions and creeds.

If you would actually extend a tiny bit of effort and quote for me a FEW trinitarian (or binitarian) examples from the earliest Ante-Nicene Fathers, I will reply to them. It would be nice of you (I guess that's out of the question) if you started with the earliest and most important of them: 1 Clement.

I am very interested in this discussion.

 

[DavidB]

I glossed over your link. Haven't you glossed over my links to my personal studies?

I have beside me at my computer the set of Ante-Nicene Fathers. I also have further translations by Dr. Sparks and by Lightfoot and Harmer (which includes the Greek text). I have even done a personal study on them and the earliest baptismal questions and creeds.

If you would actually extend a tiny bit of effort and quote for me a FEW trinitarian (or binitarian) examples from the earliest Ante-Nicene Fathers, I will reply to them. It would be nice of you (I guess that's out of the question) if you started with the earliest and most important of them: 1 Clement.

I have read that there may be some corruption with the translations of these early writers just as has been proven with the Bible itself. There are far fewer copies, especially aged ones to examine to eliminate these corruptions compared to what has been done with the Bible. Would you say this is true?

 

[tigger 2]

Reply to marymog:

So, which of these is the first and most important Ante-Nicene Father (which you originally recommended)?

While we wait, here's a bit on the two you quoted

Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John: For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit”. - to the Ephesians, ch. 18 (longer form) short form has “For the Son of God…”

Justin Martyr

(c. 100-165 A.D.)

Justin, whom the trinitarian The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (p. 770) called “the most outstanding of the ‘Apologists,’” wrote:

God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after him are created and corruptible {Justin has just concurred that the world was begotten by God} .... take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say this is the Cause of all. - ANF 1:197 (‘Dialogue’).

But,

Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten - ANF 1:170 (‘Apology’).

And thus do we also, since our persuasion by the Word, stand aloof from them (i.e., the demons), and follow the only unbegotten God through His Son - ANF 1:167 (‘Apology’).

Justin Martyr’s ‘Apology’ and ‘Dialogue {With Trypho}’ “are preserved but in a single ms (Cod. Paris, 450, A.D. 1364)” - Britannica, 14th ed.

 

[DavidB]

Got it...thanks for the clarification. Here is my work, which is part of your Christian history:

Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John: For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit”.

Justin Martyr: “We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place,

How does that support the trinity?

 

[Marymog]

How does that support the trinity?

Are you being serious?

 

[DavidB]

Are you being serious?

I am trying to be polite but yes I am serious. How does stating that Jesus is the Son of the true God and that he holds a second place support that he is coeternal or coequal? A son in second place says the opposite. It sounds very consistent with what tigger quotes Justin Martyr saying.

 

[Marymog]

I am trying to be polite but yes I am serious. How does stating that Jesus is the Son of the true God and that he holds a second place support that he is coeternal or coequal? A son in second place says the opposite. It sounds very consistent with what tigger quotes Justin Martyr saying.

Thank you David,

Let's break down what they wrote: For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit”.

For our God, Jesus Christ= Jesus is God

was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan = Jesus was conceived in accordance to the plan of God, his father.

So we have JESUS and his father, God. That makes 2 personages.

of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” = there was ALSO another personage involved, the Holy Spirit

So now we have JESUS, GOD and the Holy Spirit mentioned as 3 separate entities.


“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein”

That paragraph LITTERALY says "a third". That makes 3 (Jesus, God and the Spirit) separate personages.

God bless....Mary

 

[tigger 2]

Who can find 1 Clement showing us Jesus or HS are equally God with the Father?

 

[tigger 2]

Did you not see the part in blue in my post which followed your quote of Ignatius (long form). Do you know what short form and long form are referring to?

 

[DavidB]

Thank you David,

Let's break down what they wrote: For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit”.

For our God, Jesus Christ= Jesus is God

was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan = Jesus was conceived in accordance to the plan of God, his father.

So we have JESUS and his father, God. That makes 2 personages.

of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” = there was ALSO another personage involved, the Holy Spirit

So now we have JESUS, GOD and the Holy Spirit mentioned as 3 separate entities.


“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein”

That paragraph LITTERALY says "a third". That makes 3 (Jesus, God and the Spirit) separate personages.

God bless....Mary

I am referring to your quote from Justin Martyr. I see that there are 3 mentioned. I just don’t see anything that proves those 3 are coequal or coeternal. It says Jesus holds a “second place” and “a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God.”
I look forward to your answer (or anyone else’s) to Tigger2 regarding the Ignatius quote.

 

[DavidB]

Did you not see the part in blue in my post which followed your quote of Ignatius (long form). Do you know what short form and long form are referring to?

I don’t and would like you to explain if they don’t.

 

[tigger 2]

I don’t and would like you to explain if they don’t.

From Catholic Encyclopedia - “St. Ignatius of Antioch”

“Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form.”

It seems there are several (or more) versions of Ignatius' writings. In the Ante-Nicene Fathers the Book of Ephesians shows two versions side by side. Since they were not labelled, I have assumed the one on the left is the longer version (it varies) and the one on the right is the shorter version.

At any rate, the one marymog quoted with the Son apparently called "God" has the other version beside it which does not say that but instead uses the "Son of God" in its place.

What we find generally, except for 1 Clement, in the manuscripts still available for the Ante-Nicene fathers, is that there are mixtures of apparent trinitarian statements and clear non-trinitarian statements.

If we take into consideration who the copyists were for the last 1800 years, we can see where any trinitarian statements could have been added by copyists. What we would not expect is for any copyist during that period to add non-trinitarian statements. The copy would have been destroyed along with its copyist!

That is why many trinitarian scholars say things like:

“It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Christian theologians of the second and third centuries, even theologians of the rank of Origen...came to see the Logos [the Word, Christ] as a god of second rank.” - The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publ., 1987, Vol. 9, p. 15.

Trinitarian scholar, minister, and missionary, H. R. Boer admits: The very first Christians to really discuss Jesus’ relationship to God in their writings were the Apologists.

“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.” - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.

“Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father.” - pp. 112-113, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity (trinitarian), 1977; and p. 114, The History of Christianity, A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.

“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.

Alvan Lamson is especially straightforward:

“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ... Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.” - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.

Please note, that these are not my comments; they are not the WT comments, they are trinitarian comments.

 

[Titus]

The summation of Aunty Jane:
The "deity of Jesus Christ" was never mentioned by him or his Father in any passage of scripture.

 

[DavidB]

From Catholic Encyclopedia - “St. Ignatius of Antioch”

“Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form.”

It seems there are several (or more) versions of Ignatius' writings. In the Ante-Nicene Fathers the Book of Ephesians shows two versions side by side. Since they were not labelled, I have assumed the one on the left is the longer version (it varies) and the one on the right is the shorter version.

At any rate, the one marymog quoted with the Son apparently called "God" has the other version beside it which does not say that but instead uses the "Son of God" in its place.

What we find generally, except for 1 Clement, in the manuscripts still available for the Ante-Nicene fathers, is that there are mixtures of apparent trinitarian statements and clear non-trinitarian statements.

If we take into consideration who the copyists were for the last 1800 years, we can see where any trinitarian statements could have been added by copyists. What we would not expect is for any copyist during that period to add non-trinitarian statements. The copy would have been destroyed along with its copyist!

That is why many trinitarian scholars say things like:

“It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Christian theologians of the second and third centuries, even theologians of the rank of Origen...came to see the Logos [the Word, Christ] as a god of second rank.” - The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publ., 1987, Vol. 9, p. 15.

Trinitarian scholar, minister, and missionary, H. R. Boer admits: The very first Christians to really discuss Jesus’ relationship to God in their writings were the Apologists.

“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.” - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.

“Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father.” - pp. 112-113, Eerdman’s Handbook to the History of Christianity (trinitarian), 1977; and p. 114, The History of Christianity, A Lion Handbook, Lion Publishing, 1990 revised ed.

“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.

Alvan Lamson is especially straightforward:

“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ... Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.” - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.

Please note, that these are not my comments; they are not the WT comments, they are trinitarian comments.

Thank you for the references. I remembered there was some corruption of those writings but didn’t remember the specifics. Since the apostles has to deal with apostasy in the 1st century, it’s no surprise that it existed in the second.

 

[Illuminator]

I glossed over your link. Haven't you glossed over my links to my personal studies?

I have beside me at my computer the set of Ante-Nicene Fathers. I also have further translations by Dr. Sparks and by Lightfoot and Harmer (which includes the Greek text). I have even done a personal study on them and the earliest baptismal questions and creeds.

If you would actually extend a tiny bit of effort and quote for me a FEW trinitarian (or binitarian) examples from the earliest Ante-Nicene Fathers, I will reply to them. It would be nice of you (I guess that's out of the question) if you started with the earliest and most important of them: 1 Clement.

“Clement has left us one recognized epistle, long and wonderful, which he composed in the name of the church of Rome…in many churches this epistle was read aloud to the assembled worshippers in early days, as it is in our own”
(Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3, 4, 80).

“Clement has left us one recognized epistle" but it would be a stretch to say that's all he wrote. The one epistle is all that survived the ravages of time. He must have written more than one epistle, the problem is they no longer exist.

Just as the term “Trinity” is not found anywhere in the bible, we both know that its meaning is explicitly taught. The same goes for other doctrinal concepts that, though the term is not found in the bible, we know its meaning is explicitly taught. (i.e. "Incarnation")

The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians*, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).

The term “Trinity” was first used around the time of the 12th Pope, St. Soter (166-175), and the 13th Pope, St. Eleutherius (175-189). Theophilus was bishop of Antioch, and use the Greek “trias”, which was Latinized into “trinitas” about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. (but the historic Church had always been trinitarian, which was proven to refute the heresiarch Arius at the Council of Nicea in 325.) See "Ancient Baptists" and Other Myths

Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use.

The first usage of the term "Trinity" didn't show up for over half a century after the death of Clement, so demanding proof text of "Trinity" from ONE epistle is unrealistic. There is no indication that Clement denied the Trinity by anyone after that, and surely someone would have noticed.

The Didache
“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”
(Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

Ignatius of Antioch
“[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God”
(Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit”
(ibid., 18:2).

Justin Martyr
“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

Theophilus of Antioch
“It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom” (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

It took 4 centuries for the canon of the NT to develop into full bloom (397 A.D.), a fact denied by post-enlightenment modernists and made-in-America cults. So wouldn't it only be fair to examine the development of other doctrines such as the papacy, Mary, and others during this time frame?
See Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?
.
.

 

[Illuminator]

What the Watchtower quoted:

“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.​

​

What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you:

"Question of Continuity and Elemental Trinitarianism: From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. ... From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. ... If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300)
Catholic Encyclopedia's and Dictionaries
see also CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity

 

[Scott Downey]

For the unbelieving Jews, Jesus was a damnable heresy worthy of death, for Jesus said God was His Father
making Himself equal with God.

John 5:17-18
New King James Version
17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.”

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

And as so do other religious groups consider this damnable heresy, they would love to have the opportunity to stone Christ.

John 10:31-33
New King James Version
Renewed Efforts to Stone Jesus
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”

33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

Even the unbelieving Jews recognized that by the things Christ said, he was making Himself equal with God and God.

 

[Marymog]

I am referring to your quote from Justin Martyr. I see that there are 3 mentioned. I just don’t see anything that proves those 3 are coequal or coeternal. It says Jesus holds a “second place” and “a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God.”
I look forward to your answer (or anyone else’s) to Tigger2 regarding the Ignatius quote.

Help me understand your thought process here so we can have a fruitful discussion. Are you/we discussing ONLY what Justin Martyr has to say about this (the Trinity)?

Respectfully, Mary