Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Restformationist

1st/2nd century church

Recommended Posts

TomNosser wrote: On the other hand if LDS trace the development of doctrines from the earliest of the ECF to Nicea and beyond we can show how the earliest of ECF embraced something like the CoJCoLDS and unlike the developed orthodoxy. This is exactly what one would expect if the charism claimed by the Catholic Church is not present

Tom, would you agree that just about any sect with peripheral ties to Christiantiy could make the same claim you're making simply because there was a greater plurality of views among church leaders on some issues prior to the councils? In other words, the very reason for the councils was to bring about agreement--this PRESUPPOSES a variety of opinions. If there wasn't a variety of opinions, there would be no need for councils. The councils bring about agreement, a more homogenous view, and thus there are less bones, at least official bones, for latter day folks to pick over.

For me, as a Catholic, I believe that God would guard and nurture His church through these times. Christ is the head of the Church--that's enough for me to believe that it would not and will not become an Apostate church.

Share this post


Link to post
Only the LDS Church is close to the doctrines of the first Christians, just as you would expect if the LDS Church is the only true Christian Church (which it is based soley on scriptural and historical evidence).

Share this post


Link to post
I realize that polytheism (or henotheism, depending on who you talk to) is a somewhat common position on early texts of the Bible, especially the OT. But what about the ECF? Seriously, I'm interested in your take on the matter 
The deification texts use "gods". I have to go see some students right now and will look up documentation tonight. I will probably accept more subtle references than you would.

While we wait for Juliann to get back, here are a few ECF deification texts prefaced by Bible references...

John 10: 34-36 (Ps. 82: 1-:P We are divine gods already

Acts 17: 28-29 We are the same type of being as God.

Romans 8: 17 We will inherit everything God has.

2 Corinthians 3: 18 We will have the same image and glory as God.

Galatians 4: 7 We are heirs of God through Christ.

Philippians 2:5-6 We are to think that we can be equal with God.

Philippians 3:21 We will have the same kind of body as God.

1 John 3: 2 We will be just like God.

Revelation 3: 21 We will have the same power and authority as God.

"Men are gods and gods are men." Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 3:1

"We have not been made Gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length Gods..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:38:4, in ANF 1:522

"...our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5: Preface, in ANF 1:526

All men are deemed worthy of becoming gods, and even of having power to become sons of the Highest. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 124, in ANF 1:262

"we assert that not by their communion merely with Him, but by their unity and intermixture, they received the highest powers, and after participating in His divinity, were changed into God." Origen, Against Celsus 3:41

God "made man for that purpose, that from men they may become Gods." Jerome, The Homilies of Saint Jerome, vol. 1 (FC 48), translated by M.L. Ewald, 106

"For as Christ died and was exalted as man, so, as man, is He said to take what, as God, He ever had, that even such a grant of grace might reach to us. For the Word was not impaired in receiving a body, that He should seek to receive a grace, but rather He deified that which He put on, and more than that, gave it graciously to the race of man." Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians 1:42, in NPNF Series 2, 4:330-331

Orthodox Christians "taught that the destiny of man was to become like God, and even to become deified" Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, 73

"One can think what one wants of this doctrine of progressive deification, but one thing is certain: with this anthropology Joseph Smith is closer to the view of man held by the Ancient Church than the precursors of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin were, who considered the thought of such a substantial connection between God and man as the heresy, par excellence." Benz, E.W., Imago Dei: Man in the Image of God, in Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism, 215-216

Share this post


Link to post

My understanding of early Christianity is that it was not at the cohesive group that we are used to in modern times. Once it moved into the "gentile" world, it took off in a religious climate that embraced poytheism and cult worship. The apostles and the subsequent leadership was constantly trying to reign them in through letters and correction. Early Christian writings are full of interesting teachings, but probably full of outside influences as well. I think this is what the early leadership was up against when they banned certain writings as heretical.

I don't think at all that their writings are bad or useless. There may be gems of truth in them that isn't accepted in mainstream Christianity. I don't think they were forbidden though for any reason other than that they were considered heresy.

Share this post


Link to post

BcSpace, you're playing the pick n choose game. We can all play along, the LDS, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Calvinists..... I'll play in a moment too, but I'll restate: yes, there were different understandings about some theological issues in the early church. This is the very reason why Councils were needed. I believe in a God who would protect and guide His church through these councils. LDS do not. And, I would suggest, your belief that God did not protect His church the first time around is an incoherent belief because I don't see how you could be sure your church has also not fallen away. Indeed, other LDS sects make this very claim.

Now, here are some ECF positions on the divinity of Christ (from Catholic Answers):

As the following quotes show, the early Church Fathers also recognized that Jesus Christ is God and were adamant in maintaining this precious truth.

Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and 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

Share this post


Link to post
You can't show otherwise.

Actually, ave maria posted just as much evidence as you originally provided. I'll add my own. Here it is...wait for it...

Your claim is wrong.

There you go.

You could start with Tertullian and Theophilus. Neither of them would have supported the creeds.

Talkin' to the big T's with the Ouija boards again, eh? Thanks for your astounding psychoanalysis. Judging by their writings, Tertullian and Theophilus laid much of the theological groundwork for the Trinity.

I notice you have no examples.

I am reticent to blast my fellow posters with pages upon pages of quoted text, a reticence which you obviously don't share. If you want them, simply ask. Of course, with your "stomping" statement you effectively destroy any hope I (or anyone else) have of having anything approaching a respectful and decent conversation with you. The count has provided some references already.

Now, to your quotes. As far as baptism/preaching to the dead, as I expected, you were unable to find even five places in which any ECF states that preaching/baptizing the dead is within the realm of possibility for the follower of Christ. You found many about Christ doing it, but since mainstream Christianity has held that belief for two thousand years without your help, that was not unexpected.

Many of the quotes you post about the second God issue I see as proto-Trinitarian. Even the ECF you quote as referring to Christ as a second God also defended the monotheism of the Christian faith. Trinitarian in direction, if not in exact form.

And of course, there are quotes that I simply believe were mistakes on the part of the writer. I am under no obligation to take everything the ECF write as pure doctrine straight from God.

Want my list? Take care, everyone :P

Share this post


Link to post
You can't show otherwise.

Actually, ave maria posted just as much evidence as you originally provided. I'll add my own. Here it is...wait for it...

Your claim is wrong.

There you go.

You could start with Tertullian and Theophilus. Neither of them would have supported the creeds.

Talkin' to the big T's with the Ouija boards again, eh? Thanks for your astounding psychoanalysis. Judging by their writings, Tertullian and Theophilus laid much of the theological groundwork for the Trinity.

I notice you have no examples.

I am reticent to blast my fellow posters with pages upon pages of quoted text, a reticence which you obviously don't share. If you want them, simply ask. Of course, with your "stomping" statement you effectively destroy any hope I (or anyone else) have of having anything approaching a respectful and decent conversation with you. The count has provided some references already.

Now, to your quotes. As far as baptism/preaching to the dead, as I expected, you were unable to find even five places in which any ECF states that preaching/baptizing the dead is within the realm of possibility for the follower of Christ. You found many about Christ doing it, but since mainstream Christianity has held that belief for two thousand years without your help, that was not unexpected.

Many of the quotes you post about the second God issue I see as proto-Trinitarian. Even the ECF you quote as referring to Christ as a second God also defended the monotheism of the Christian faith. Trinitarian in direction, if not in exact form.

And of course, there are quotes that I simply believe were mistakes on the part of the writer. I am under no obligation to take everything the ECF write as pure doctrine straight from God.

Want my list? Take care, everyone :P

I disagree Tertullian, from writings of his that I have read, does not appear to support trinitarian thought.

A good reference on some of Tertullian's writings can be gleaned from Dr. Bart Ehrman's book, "Lost Christianities, the battle for scripture and faiths we never knew."

Share this post


Link to post
My understanding of early Christianity is that it was not at the cohesive group that we are used to in modern times. Once it moved into the "gentile" world, it took off in a religious climate that embraced poytheism and cult worship. The apostles and the subsequent leadership was constantly trying to reign them in through letters and correction. Early Christian writings are full of interesting teachings, but probably full of outside influences as well. I think this is what the early leadership was up against when they banned certain writings as heretical.

I don't think at all that their writings are bad or useless. There may be gems of truth in them that isn't accepted in mainstream Christianity. I don't think they were forbidden though for any reason other than that they were considered heresy.

Kathrine I agree with you. It appears to me that following the death of Christ and the Apostles there were lots of thoughts floating around as to what Jesus taught as Gospel.

It wasn't until Emporer Constantine wrested power and called the 1st council of Nicea that "orthodox" doctrine was formed.

Not everyone at the 1st council of Nicea BTW agreed with the creed of the trinity. Those that did not agree were exiled and "excommunicated" as heretics.

Realize this council did not occur until the 3rd century AD. Lots of thoughts and copying of the eventual 27 books now cannonized as the new testamant occurred during this long time.

One prominent Church leader opposed to the trinity and exiled for it was Arius. After the "orthodox" church became not only the religious power but political power as well, the crusades started to ostensibly wipe out all "heretics" (like followers of father Arius) or convert them.

Any reasonable person cannot state that the "community of christians" following the death of the Savior and Apostles, were unified in theology that is simply hogwash.

The truth of the matter is the priesthood was taken from the earth following the death of the Apostles, a period of Apostacy of the Church ensued until the proper authority was restored and the Lord's church was reorganized in 1830.

Share this post


Link to post
Meta,

That's the same response that any Christian from the previous 2,000 years would have given. If they were wrong, then I don't see how you can be confident your faith isn't misplaced too.

Regardless, that's how I know it won't fall away. It has been revealed that it won't.

Share this post


Link to post
As I see you not contending with the idea, I will assume my assumption was correct and be done with this entire discussion.

See how well that works?  Now neither of us need to speak of it again here.

Wow. Thanks for that excellent lesson in revisionist history. :P

You'd better hope most amateur apologists are more principled than you are.

Still derailing the thread?

Share this post


Link to post
One prominent Church leader opposed to the trinity and exiled for it was Arius. After the "orthodox" church became not only the religious power but political power as well, the crusades started to ostensibly wipe out all "heretics" (like followers of father Arius) or convert them.

Actually, if you look at the history, Arians were actually the ones with the power for a while, and it was trinitarian believers who were being martyred. More proof for me that truth will eventually prevail, and that it was not primarily a political game as many love to say it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Now, here are some ECF positions on the divinity of Christ (from Catholic Answers):

As the following quotes show, the early Church Fathers also recognized that Jesus Christ is God and were adamant in maintaining this precious truth.

You proved nothing. LDS already recognize Jesus as God and just like the first Christians, not the only one. Picking and choosing is not the problem, the problem is that you've failed to take all statements on the subject into account.

Take Tertullian for example. Though he sounds trinitarian, he is not. You are forgetting that he is midway between the nature of God as taught by the Bible and the first Christians and the creeds......

1)Tertullian still believed that the "Divine Substance" was a 'material' substance, 2) he believed that there was once a time when the Son and Spirit did not exist as such:

"Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical.... Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were 'of one substance', beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it." [Hansen, R., "The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD", in Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy, pp. 151-152.]

"For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof. Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father." [Tertullian, Against Hermogenes 3, in ANF 3:478.]

3) The Son and Spirit were considered portions of the "Divine Substance", rather than interpenetrating "centers of consciousness" in a simple, indivisible "Divine Substance"

4)Consequently, the Father was considered first in rank and glory, while the Son and Spirit were considered second and third, respectively. Such "subordinationism" was suppressed by the end of the fourth century.

"For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I." [T]he Paraclete [is] distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy." [Tertullian, Against Praxeas 9, in ANF 3:603-604.]

"Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father." [Tertullian, Against Praxeas 7, in ANF 3:602.]

Once again, history shows the Universal Apostasy and therefore proves the LDS case. You've made the mistake of thinking that LDS use the ECF as examples of ancient Mormons. What we use them for is to show that the closer one gets to NT times, the more LDS the doctrine is, just as you would expect if the LDS claims are true.

Share this post


Link to post
You can't show otherwise.
Actually, ave maria posted just as much evidence as you originally provided.

Not at any time has she done so. At best, she simply proves the LDS case just as in my post above.

I'll add my own. Here it is...wait for it...

Your claim is wrong.

There you go.

Just as I thought. You have nothing.

You could start with Tertullian and Theophilus. Neither of them would have supported the creeds.
Talkin' to the big T's with the Ouija boards again, eh?

Nope. Just the same nonLDS Christian scholarship that anyone with access to the net can read.

Thanks for your astounding psychoanalysis. Judging by their writings, Tertullian and Theophilus laid much of the theological groundwork for the Trinity.

And your proof to gainsay the references I gave above is?

I notice you have no examples.
I am reticent to blast my fellow posters with pages upon pages of quoted text,

You are also reticent to gave a single one line example.... :P

a reticence which you obviously don't share.

It is not unreasonable to expect someone to back up their claims.

If you want them, simply ask. Of course, with your "stomping" statement you effectively destroy any hope I (or anyone else) have of having anything approaching a respectful and decent conversation with you.

Of course you failed to notice the humor I inserted in the form of a smilie. I think your problem is basic human communication.

The count has provided some references already.

None that haven't already been refuted. You're also making your own claims. back them up if you want to be taken seriously.

Now, to your quotes. As far as baptism/preaching to the dead, as I expected, you were unable to find even five places in which any ECF states that preaching/baptizing the dead is within the realm of possibility for the follower of Christ.

A strawman argument as such conditions are not required to show the doctrine existed in early Christianity by any stretch of your limited imagination. But I notice you failed to read them. To wit...

These Apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after falling asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached it not only to those who were asleep, but themselves also gave them the seal of preaching. Accordingly they descended with them into the water and again ascended. The Pastor of Hermas, Sim. 9:16

If you claim to be a Christian then you are one of the teachers as the command to the whole Church is to preach the gospel. In addition, notice that those dead who are converted are also ordained to preach the gospel.

You found many about Christ doing it, but since mainstream Christianity has held that belief for two thousand years without your help, that was not unexpected.

Notice you also found that the Apostles and other teachers did it as well as the converted dead. I notice also that this doctrine is not extant among most nonLDS Christian churches today.

Many of the quotes you post about the second God issue I see as proto-Trinitarian. Even the ECF you quote as referring to Christ as a second God also defended the monotheism of the Christian faith. Trinitarian in direction, if not in exact form.

Not a single one of them was trinitarian. The Trinity hypothesis applies a much different definition to "one God" than the first Christians and the Bible do.

And of course, there are quotes that I simply believe were mistakes on the part of the writer. I am under no obligation to take everything the ECF write as pure doctrine straight from God.

LOL! That's alot of mistakes........

Indeed, but you can't show any church closer to the ECF and Bible doctrine than the LDS Church.

Share this post


Link to post

Barry Bickmore raised an interesting question once and it has never been answered satisfactorily as far as I can tell:

If the Bible itself preaches "one substance" in the Nicene sense, why didn't ANYONE preach Nicene orthodoxy before the fourth century?

The massive changes in Christian theology over the first few centuries cannot be explained without a universal apostasy.

Share this post


Link to post
TomNosser wrote: On the other hand if LDS trace the development of doctrines from the earliest of the ECF to Nicea and beyond we can show how the earliest of ECF embraced something like the CoJCoLDS and unlike the developed orthodoxy. This is exactly what one would expect if the charism claimed by the Catholic Church is not present

Tom, would you agree that just about any sect with peripheral ties to Christiantiy could make the same claim you're making simply because there was a greater plurality of views among church leaders on some issues prior to the councils? In other words, the very reason for the councils was to bring about agreement--this PRESUPPOSES a variety of opinions. If there wasn't a variety of opinions, there would be no need for councils. The councils bring about agreement, a more homogenous view, and thus there are less bones, at least official bones, for latter day folks to pick over.

I do not believe that

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly.  Which is one of the reasons I'm so personally mystified you would give up Catholicism for Mormonism.

I long ago realized that we see the world as we are not as it is. I have tried to overcome this and see things through others eyes. This is why I do not totally dismiss Catholicism and I allow that Newman might have found a way to salvage the unsalvageable.

So I am no longer mystified nor even mystified by those who are mystified.

One of us is closer to the truth than the other one, but God loves us both. God never told me you were wrong or hellbound only that I was to follow Him.

Charity, TOm

Share this post


Link to post
Most Christians expect LDS to show exactly where in the 1st Century the LDS church in its entirety existed. However, I think this is an unrealistic approach to the sistuation.

That is correct. We simply show that those doctrines existed and they were more prevalent the closer one gets to NT times.

Its also a double bind because we look for our teachings and when they are found we get... "Yep, Gotcha! Theres where Joseph Smith Plagerized the Idea from." Add another book to his Library list.

Except that JS didn't have access to most of it. If he did, then the churches at the time did too and did nothing about changing their erroneous doctrines.

Share this post


Link to post
QUOTE 

You can't show otherwise.

QUOTE 

Actually, ave maria posted just as much evidence as you originally provided. 

Not at any time has she done so. At best, she simply proves the LDS case just as in my post above.

Yep... shes done that with me several times. :P

Share this post


Link to post
For example, I have seen Protestants argue that Clement of Rome embraced sola fide, but this is a partial reading of his writings. In fact, the separation of sanctification/justification implicit in sola fide teaching is theological novem and has no basis in any church father before the reformation.

Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words. Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 30, in ANF 1:13

I can't speak for quotes from Augustine at the moment, but I highly doubt he proves ECF sola fide.

Juliann said,

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, fine, sorry about the cut and paste everybody.

50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript

50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript "She poured it [the perfume] over his

[Jesus'] hair when he sat at the table. But, when the disciples saw

it, they were indignant. . . . God, aware of this, said to them: 'Why

do you trouble this woman? She has done [a beautiful thing for me.] .

. . Then one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the

chief priest and said, 'What will you give me for my work?' [Matt.

26:7-15]" (Huleatt fragments 1-3).

74 AD The Letter of Barnabas

74 AD The Letter of Barnabas "And further, my brethren, if the Lord

[Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the

world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, 'Let us make

man after our image, and after our likeness,' understand how it was

that he endured to suffer at the hand of men" (Letter of Barnabas 5).

80 AD Hermas

80 AD Hermas "The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that

he became the Father's adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is

ancient" (The Shepherd 12).

140 AD Aristides

140 AD Aristides "[Christians] are they who, above every people of the

Earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the creator and

maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit"

(Apology 16).

150 AD Justin Martyr

150 AD Justin Martyr "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also

being the first begotten Word of God, is even God." (Justin Martyr,

First Apology, ch 63)

150 AD Justin Martyr "Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts."

(Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36)

150 AD Justin Martyr "Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth

Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ: 'God went up with a shout,

the Lord with the sound of a trumpet." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 37)

150 AD Justin Martyr quotes Hebrews 1:8 to prove the Deity of Christ.

"Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch

56)

150 AD Justin Martyr "Therefore these words testify explicitly that He

[Christ] is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as

deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ." - Dialogue with

Trypho, ch. 63.

150 AD Justin Martyr in Chap. LXVI. He (Justin) Proves From Isaiah

That God Was Born From A Virgin. (Chapter Title, Chap. LXVI)

150 AD Justin Martyr "And Trypho said, "You endeavor to prove an

incredible and well-nigh impossible thing;[namely], that God endured

to be born and become man...some Scriptures which we mention, and

which expressly prove that Christ was to suffer, to be worshipped, and

[to be called] God, and which I have already recited to you, do refer

indeed to Christ." (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 68)

150 AD Justin Martyr "But if you knew, Trypho," continued I, "who He

is that is called at one time the Angel of great counsel, and a Man by

Ezekiel, and like the Son of man by Daniel, and a Child by Isaiah, and

Christ and God to be worshipped by David, and Christ and a Stone by

many, and Wisdom by Solomon, and Joseph and Judah and a Star by Moses,

and the East by Zechariah, and the Suffering One and Jacob and Israel

by Isaiah again, and a Rod, and Flower, and Corner Stone, and Son of

God, you would not have blasphemed Him who has now come, and been

born, and suffered, and ascended to heaven; who shall also come again,

and then your twelve tribes shall mourn. For if you had understood

what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that

He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God. For Moses

says somewhere in Exodus the following: `The Lord spake to Moses, and

said to him, I am the Lord, and I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and

to Jacob, being their God; and my name I revealed not to them, and I

established my covenant with them.' And thus again he says, `A man

wrestled with Jacob,' and asserts it was God; narrating that Jacob

said, `I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.'"

(Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, A Jew, Chap. CXXVI [see also The

First Apology of Justin, Chap. XIII; XXII; LXIII; Dialogue of Justin

with Trypho, A Jew, Chap. XXXVI; XLVIII; LVI; LIX; LXI; C; CV; CXXV;

CXXVIII)

[Trypho to Justin] "...you say that this Christ existed as God before

the ages, and that He submitted to be born and become man" - Dialogue

with Trypho, ch.48.

150 AD 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).

150 AD Justin Martyr "Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been

begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and,

becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the

conversion and restoration of the human race" (First Apology 23).

150 AD Justin Martyr "But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from

Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels

who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we

worship and adore." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 6) Notice what

else Justin say: "Worship God alone." (Justin Martyr, First Apology,

ch 16) "Whence to God alone we render worship." (Justin Martyr, First

Apology, ch 17)

150 AD Justin Martyr "God begot before all creatures a Beginning, who

was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit

calls . . . sometimes the Son, . . . sometimes Lord and Word ... We

see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter

some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would

diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence

when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the

enkindling of the other, but remains as it was" (Dialogue with Trypho

the Jew 61).

150 AD Justin Martyr "God speaks in the creation of man with the very

same design, in the following words: 'Let us make man after our image

and likeness' . . . I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses

himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed

with someone numerically distinct from himself and also a rational

being. . . . But this Offspring who was truly brought forth from the

Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father

communed with him" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 62).

150 AD Justin Martyr [Note: Justin never says Jesus is a created

angel. Justin never refers to Jesus as an angel before creation,

although JW's will falsely affirm such from the text below. Justin,

however, does refer to Jesus as the "angel of the Lord" after creation

in various appearances to man. Many but not all Trinitarians would

have no problem affirming, along side of Justin, that Jesus as

uncreated God, was referred to as the Angel of Jehovah.] "HOW GOD

APPEARED TO MOSES. And all the Jews even now teach that the nameless

God spake to Moses; whence the Spirit of prophecy, accusing them by

Isaiah the prophet mentioned above, said "The ox knoweth his owner,

and the *** his master's crib; but Israel doth not know Me, and My

people do not understand." And Jesus the Christ, because the Jews knew

not what the Father was, and what the Son, in like manner accused

them; and Himself said, "No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor

the Son, but the Father, and they to whom the Son revealeth Him." Now

the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called

Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is

sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says,

"He that heareth Me, heareth Him that sent Me." From the writings of

Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, "And

the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush,

and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the

God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring

forth My people." And if you wish to learn what follows, you can do so

from the same writings; for it is impossible to relate the whole here.

But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ

is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and

appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness

of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the

human race, He endured all the sufferings which the devils instigated

the senseless Jews to inflict upon Him; who, though they have it

expressly affirmed in the writings of Moses, "And the angel of God

spake to Moses in a flame of fire in a bush, and said, I am that I am,

the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," yet

maintain that He who said this was the Father and Creator of the

universe. Whence also the Spirit of prophecy rebukes them, and says,

"Israel doth not know Me, my people have not understood Me." And

again, Jesus, as we have already shown, while He was with them, said,

"No one knoweth the Father, but the Son; nor the Son but the Father,

and those to whom the Son will reveal Him." The Jews, accordingly,

being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who

spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God,

who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the

Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the

Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father,

are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to

know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the

first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the

shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the

other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we

before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the

Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both

to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He

might conquer death. And that which was said out of the bush to Moses,

"I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God

of Jacob, and the God of your fathers," this signified that they, even

though dead, are let in existence, and are men belonging to Christ

Himself. For they were the first of all men to busy themselves in the

search after God; Abraham being the father of Isaac, and Isaac of

Jacob, as Moses wrote." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch 63)

150 AD Justin Martyr "It is not on this ground solely," I said, "that

it must be admitted absolutely that some other one is called Lord by

the Holy Spirit besides Him who is considered Maker of all things; not

solely [for what is said] by Moses, but also [for what is said] by

David. For there is written by him: 'The Lord says to my Lord, Sit on

My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool,' as I have

already quoted. And again, in other words: 'Thy throne, O God, is for

ever and ever." (Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, ch 56)

150 AD Justin Martyr "Then I replied, "Reverting to the Scriptures, I

shall endeavor to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared

to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is

distinct from Him who made all things,

Share this post


Link to post

docrick,

It wasn't until Emporer Constantine wrested power and called the 1st council of Nicea that "orthodox" doctrine was formed.

Not quite so...

Deification of man was considered Christian Orthodoxy until Constantine wrested the power and set up the councils.

But whats even funnier... the very doctrine that was later stamped out. Was the Doctrine that won the debate at Nicea.

"How can he make us what he is, if he is not god himself"

--St. Athanansias

Share this post


Link to post

150 AD Justin Martyr "The Father of the universe has a Son, who also

being the first begotten Word of God, is even God." (Justin Martyr,

First Apology, ch 63)

Hmm sounds Mormon. Christ was begotten by God before the earth was... Ie God progened a son before the world was. thus Christ was... brought forth and subordinate to the father.

Share this post


Link to post
docrick,
It wasn't until Emporer Constantine wrested power and called the 1st council of Nicea that "orthodox" doctrine was formed.

Not quite so...

Deification of man was considered Christian Orthodoxy until Constantine wrested the power and set up the councils.

But whats even funnier... the very doctrine that was later stamped out. Was the Doctrine that won the debate at Nicea.

"How can he make us what he is, if he is not god himself"

--St. Athanansias

My definition of orthodoxy is "post nicene theology"

To me anything of pre creedal thought is "proto orthodoxy"

Bart Ehrman explains this thought best but in essence because there was no consensus of opinion between various christian "cults" and theology was widely different between said cults, there was no true orthodoxy, only the forunner to the eventual "post creedal" orthodoxy

I agree that there were christians that subscribed to the "diefication of man" theory but not all did.

Share this post


Link to post
I do not think it is responsible to deal with the positions put forth in this thread with a dismissive,

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...