You are on page 1of 81

A PATRISTIC STUDY OF THE

KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE


DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRINITY

By Juan Baixeras

INDEX

1. Greek Philosophies
2. Names to know
3. Apostolic Fathers
4. The Church Fathers
5. A Brief History of the Church After Nicaea
6. Summary

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to show that the Doctrine of the


Trinity is not something that was taught by Jesus and the
Apostles, but that it was, in fact, a doctrine that slowly
developed throughout several centuries due to the heavy
influence of Greek philosophy. It is also intended to show the
early Christian leaders’ beliefs on the nature of Jesus, the
kingdom of God, and what happens to Christians when they
die. Finally, it is for the reader to see the gradual change in
Christian theology (for the worse) on these topics as time
wore on.

One of the oldest and least credible arguments that


proponents of the Trinity try to pass off as fact is that the
Apostles taught the Trinity in the New Testament.

The Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD., made "Jesus of the same


substance as God." This is not the Trinitarian doctrine we
know of today, but it was a start. Fifty-six years later, at the

1
Council of Constantinople in 381 AD., the Holy Spirit was
added to the formula, bringing to life the modern day Trinity.
One can easily see that even at Nicaea the Trinity was not an
established doctrine by the absence of the Holy Spirit.
Trinitarians will argue that the belief in a triune God was
there from the Apostles, and that it was formalized as dogma
at Nicaea and Constantinople. But the fact is that the New
Testament does not anywhere teach the doctrine of the
Trinity. The Doctrine of the Trinity, as we shall see, was not an
established doctrine from Apostolic times, but a slowly
developing idea that took over three hundred years to
formalize.

Just to clear up the claim that the Apostles taught the Trinity
in the New Testament, we will conduct a careful analysis of
Patristic writings from the days of the Apostles all the way to
Nicaea. The logic is, that if the Apostles did indeed teach the
Trinity, then it would stand to reason that the early Christian
leaders of the church would also be Trinitarians, and their
letters should reflect that teaching. The problem that
Trinitarians will find is that these early Christian leaders (until
the late second century) had no idea of any Trinity. The latter
part of the second century is when we start hearing for the
first time of a Trinity of any kind, and even then, it is not very
similar to the Trinity that Christianity has today. If the
Apostles had actually taught the Trinity, then the Doctrine of
the Trinity should be a constant teaching from the Apostles all
the way to Nicaea. The problem with this thought is that the
Christian leaders which came right after the Apostles, and
who in some cases were appointed by the Apostles, are
strangers to the thought of a triune God. As we get farther
and farther away in time from the Apostles, we begin to see
changes in the writers’ Christology and their overall theology.
This is almost completely due to the incredible influence of
Greek philosophies such as Platonism, Neo-Platonism,
Stoicism, and Gnosticism on early Christianity. There are
probably a few more isms, but these are the major culprits.
Greek philosophy not only created the Doctrine of the Trinity,
but it was also responsible for several more near fatal
changes to true Christianity which we will also be examining.

You must realize that in those days Greek philosophy was the
major thought pattern of the civilized world. Anyone who was
anyone was educated in Greek philosophy. Another reason
why these philosophies were so quick to influence early
Christianity is that in the beginning of the church, the leaders
were for the most part Jewish, with the Jewish concept of God.

2
"The Jews conceive God as an absolutely simple unity
(inferring absolutely no constituent divisions)." (Jewish
Thought 6/12/96)

When Christianity started spreading, the leaders of the


churches were now Gentiles who had converted to
Christianity. These people, for the most part, had been
educated in Greek philosophies in their schools and
universities. As educated persons, they of course wanted to
find a place for their new religious beliefs within the
philosophical framework they had already acquired. So when
they read Hebrew Scriptures, they could not help injecting
Greek philosophical meanings into them. The Encyclopedia
Britannica says concerning Christian Platonist:

"They did not believe that truth could conflict with truth and
were confident that all that was rationally certain in Platonic
speculation would prove to be in perfect accordance with the
Christian revelation. Their unhistorical approach and
unscholarly methods of exegesis of texts, both pagan and
Christian, facilitated this confidence."

There was also the felt need of some Christians with Greek
philosophical training to express Christianity in those terms,
both for their own intellectual satisfaction and in order to
convert educated pagans.

What is needed today is to remove all the Greek influence


from what is called modern day Christianity, and return to the
Christianity that was preached by Jesus and his Apostles.

This paper will cover almost all the major Patristic writings
leading up to Nicaea. Some writings have been left out
because they had nothing to contribute to the topics at issue.

The study of the writings of the so-called "Fathers" (patres) of


the Church" is called "patristics." Do not be confused.
"Fathers" in this sense does not mean "priests," although
many of these individuals were priests. It also does not
exactly mean "fathers" in the sense of "founding fathers." It
means "teachers." This was a standard usage in ancient and
early Christian times. In the first few centuries, the term
"father" was primarily applied to the bishop, who had the
primary teaching role within the church. Gradually, the word
was extended to include all early Christian writers who were
taken as representing the authentic tradition of the church.
We will be concerned only with the Church fathers up to the
Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

3
This group of "fathers" will be divided up into what are known
as the Apostolic Fathers, and the Church Fathers. Apostolic
Fathers does not mean the Apostles. These are individuals
who are considered to be the disciples of the Apostles, or of
their immediate disciples. They are about as close as you can
get to the Apostles. As you will see, their theology for the
most part, has not been corrupted. Their writings basically
continue the preaching tradition of the Apostles. There is
little theoretical speculation. (History of Philosophy, Vol. 2,
Chpter 2.)

The ideal thing would be for a person to actually read the


original letters in this study. But since that is almost
impossible for most people due to time constraints and other
reasons, I have written down all the verses in these writings
that pertain to the three most important subjects that the
influence of Greek philosophy has corrupted.

1. The nature of Jesus Christ. (Who do the writers think that


Jesus is?)

2. The kingdom of God. (Do the writers think that the kingdom
of God is an earthly kingdom that is to come in the future at
the return of Christ, or do they think that it is a kingdom of
the heart?)

3. The nature of death and afterlife. (Do the writers think that
you go to heaven or hell when you die, or do they believe in
the resurrection of the dead upon Christ’s return?)

This paper is structured in the following manner:

1. I will briefly define the major Greek philosophies so that


the reader can have a working understanding of each
philosophy and see its influence in certain writings.

2. I will list a short biography of each writer before reviewing


his writings.

3. I will list all the verses dealing with the topics mentioned
above and a commentary for each verse.

4. I will summarize what I believe to be the writers' opinions


on those topics mentioned from only the verses listed in the
paper. The reader will be able to draw his or her own
conclusions based on the same verses.

CHAPTER 1

4
GREEK PHILOSOPHIES

In these definitions I will list only the points that have a direct
relationship to our topic. The purpose of this paper is not to
get a full understanding of these philosophies, but to see how
and in what capacity they have affected Christian theology.

These philosophies are not religions. In some regards they do


differ significantly, but in others they are very similar. In
other words, you could believe several of them to be correct
at the same time without any major conflict. You could also
pick and choose what you liked and disliked from each one. It
would be similar to being a registered voter in the U.S. and
believing in the social programs of the Democrats and also
the foreign policy of the Republicans. Some of the writers
that we will be studying were influenced by more than one
philosophy.

Pythagoreans - A group of early Greek scientist and religious


thinkers influenced by Pythagoras of Samos. Pythagoreans
believed that the soul is immortal and separable from the
body. (Greek Background to Medieval Philosophy)

This is where the concept of the Transmigration of Souls


began. This concept influenced Plato and later led to the
belief that when Christians die, their souls separate from
their bodies and go to either heaven or hell. It is bizarre for a
Christian to believe that his soul goes to heaven or hell after
death, when judgment comes only after Jesus’ return. Very
Greek, but definitely not Hebrew.

Platonism - Platonist believed that our physical world is far


from perfect. However , the ideal world is another world that
is separate and distinct from the physical one. Our minds or
souls must therefore be capable of existing in that separate
realm. We must be capable of existing apart from the physical
body. The flesh is evil. It is bad for the soul to be in the body.
The body is a prison. Death is a liberation. It allows us to
reach the realm where things are the way they ought to be.
(Radical Reformation Vol. 1, No.4, 1992)

You can obviously see how this way of thinking will ultimately
influence Christianity and change the goal of a Christian from
being at the first resurrection to heaven going.

5
Platonist also believe in the Doctrine of Recollection,
according to which, learning is the remembering of a wisdom
that the soul enjoyed prior to its incarnation.

This view suggests the immortality and pre-existence of the


soul, and the soul then becoming incarnate. Sound familiar? It
should. This is probably 99% of Christianity’s view of Jesus.

Neo-Platonism - This philosophy incorporates all the Platonist


framework and then adds a few twists of its own. It has a
different view of God. This is probably the most important
difference between them, and the most damaging to
Christianity.

The Neo-Platonist view of God is as follows: there is the


highest principle, which is called the One. The One produces
the Intelligence, and from it comes the Soul. This process is
called emanation. It would benefit us to get a visual picture of
this thought.

One / Intelligence / Soul

God / Word / Holy Spirit

This concept of God, that realities derive from higher


essentialities, was devastating to Christianity and essential to
the development of the Trinity. They also believe that the goal
of the human soul is to escape from the body and return to
the One. (Grolier’s Multimedia Encyclopedia)

Stoicism - One of the most influential traditions in the


philosophy of the Hellenistic world, Stoicism claimed the
following of a large portion of the educated persons in the
Greco-Roman world. It had considerable influence on the
development of early Christianity. (The Ecole Initiative)

Stoic philosophy insisted that the DIVINE principle of life


"logos" gave order to the world and could be found in all
creatures and substances. (Reading The Apostolic Fathers,
pg. 183) You can imagine what happens when someone who
has been educated in this philosophy, who believes that the
logos is the divine principle of life (which is basically a
definition of God) reads John 1:1-3: In the beginning was the
word (logos) etc. He is off to the races in the wrong direction.
The worst part is that it would make all the sense in the world
to Stoic Christians. They would inevitably end up with divine
pre-existent logos, which, of course, must be Jesus.

Stoic thought was extremely popular among Christian


theologians of Alexandria in Egypt. Egypt is where logos

6
Christology developed. And wouldn’t you know it, all the
major theologians who wrote about the logos being God were
from Egypt. What a coincidence!

Gnosticism - This philosophy has, in my opinion done more


harm to Christianity than all the rest of the Greek
philosophies put together. It is the most bizarre and
complicated philosophy I have ever read. I will try my best to
explain this belief, but I suggest that you have some aspirin
nearby.

I have read Irenaeus Against Heresies in which he goes into


great detail about this philosophy, but it is still very
confusing. If you can get someone to accept this philosophy,
you can get them to do anything. Well, here we go. First, the
formal definition, and then I will attempt to explain their
beliefs.

Gnosticism is a term derived from a Greek word for


knowledge (gnosis) and applied to a philosophical and
religious movement that influenced the Mediterranean world
from the 1st century BC to the 3rd century AD. Gnostics
claimed that salvation comes from a secret knowledge or
understanding of reality possessed only by its spiritually elite
devotees.

This saving knowledge was revealed to them by transcendent


messengers from the spirit world. Gnostics believed that
there were many mediators who brought this gnosis between
whom they consider their perfect, pre-existent Aeon, whom
they call Proarch, Propator, and Bythus, and describe as being
invisible and incomprehensible, and man. Jesus was just one
of those mediators. Jesus, to a Gnostic was not a human being
at all, but a spirit being. This problem of dehumanizing Jesus
was a problem even as early as the Apostle Paul, and John’s
time. Both of these authors wrote against this problem, as in
2 Corinthians 11:3, and 2 John v 7, and later Christians, such
as Ignatius, also wrote to stress the humanity of Jesus for
much the same reason.

Now we will begin a more specific, working description of


Gnosticism. First, let me start with the fact that there are
many variations of Gnosticism. There is the kind taught by
Valentinus, and by Ptolemy, and by Marcus, and by Simon,
and by Saturninus, and by Basildes, just to name a few.
Gnosticism was based on a certain knowledge, so
consequently, each leader wanted to prove that he possessed
this hidden knowledge. Therefore, each one put his own twist
to it.

7
The two most popular versions were the ones taught by
Valentinus and by Basildes. Of these two, Valentinus was the
most influential. Most of the others have similarities to these
two. I will be explaining Valentinus’ Gnosticism. This is the
Gnosticism Hippolytus of Rome and Irenaeus refuted in their
writings. Fasten your seat belts!

Gnostics maintain that there is a perfect, pre-existent Aeon,


whom they call Proarche, Propator, and Bythus. There existed
along with him Ennoea, whom they also called Charis and
Sige. At last, this Bythus determined to send forth from
himself the beginning of all things, and deposited this
production (which he had resolved to bring forth) in his
contemporary Sige. She became pregnant and gave birth to
Nous, who was both similar and equal to him who had
produced him. And was alone capable of comprehending his
father’s greatness. This Nous they also call Monogenes, and
father, and the beginning of all things. Monogenes perceiving
for what purpose he had been produced also sent forth Logos
and Zoe. After a few more births, there is what is called the
first-begotten Ogdad, the root and substance of all things,
and it is called by four names, Bythus, Nous, Logos, and
Anthropos.

First, we see Bythus impregnate Sige, and she then gave birth
to Nous who was equal to the one who had produced him, and
alone was capable of comprehending his father’s greatness.
This is a very close parallel to how Trinitarians explain the
relationship of Jesus (the second person in the Trinity) to God
the Father. Nous, who is also called father, the beginning of all
things, who also sends forth Logos, which is also a name for
the root and substance of all things.

If you have ever read Origen or Tertullian trying to explain


how the word (logos) proceeded from the Father (which is
called logos Christology), you can see exactly how Gnosticism
influenced their thinking. It is almost identical to how Nous
sends forth Logos. Trinitarians claim that the logos proceeded
from the Father and then became incarnate as Jesus. You can
see this is clearly a Gnostic explanation of John 1: 1-14. Logos
to a Gnostic is a personal name of one of the Aeons. But that
is not what logos means. According to Vine’s Expository
Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, "logos - as
embodying a conception or idea. The expression of thought." I
suggest you look it up for yourself. I think it is fairly easy to
see how someone with a Gnostic influence would read John
1:1-14 and take it completely out of context. But wait, it gets
worse. When you finally add up all the Aeons, there are thirty.
These thirty are called a Pleroma. Gnostics claim that their
Pleroma is a tripartite, being divided into an Ogdad, a Decad,

8
and a Duodecad. Does that ring a bell? Then Monogenes (aka
Nous) gave origin to another pair, namely Christ and the Holy
Spirit. Then, out of gratitude for the great benefit which the
Propator (aka Bythus) had conferred on them, the whole
Pleroma of the Aeons, with one design and desire, and with
the concurrence of Christ and the Holy Spirit, their father also
approving , brought together whatever each one had in
himself of the greatest beauty and preciousness, and uniting
all these contributions so skillfully to blend the whole, they
produced, to the honor and glory of Bythus, a being of most
perfect beauty, the very star of the Pleroma, and the perfect
fruit of it, namely Jesus. (Aspirin break) Him they also speak
of under the name of Savior, and Christ, and patronymically,
Logos. Then by way of honor, angels of the same nature as
himself were simultaneously produced to act as his
bodyguards. (Grolier’s Multimedia Encyclopedia and Irenaeus
Against Heresies)

No, I have not been drinking. There was a Christ and a Logos
who were not Jesus. Later, it is explained how the spirit of this
Christ enters the body of this Aeon created Jesus. It is very
Docetic (see next definition).

To a Gnostic, Jesus was not human at all. He was a spirit


being. Since he was not really human, he only appeared to
suffer on the cross.

I have briefly covered what I consider to be the essential


parts of this most illogical philosophy in its relation to
modern-day orthodox Christianity. If you have a large supply
of aspirin, I suggest you read all of Irenaeus Against Heresies.
Irenaeus does a wonderful job explaining all the different
forms of Gnosticism. They get much more complicated.

It is quite easy to see how logos Christology developed out of


Stoicism and Gnosticism. Logos Christology would have
completely baffled a Hebrew or a Gentile Christian who was
not educated in one of these philosophies. And as we shall
see later on in Tertullian’s writings, it did do just that.

One more point: take a wild guess where Valentinus and


Gnosticism in general was most popular. That’s right,
Alexandria, EGYPT! Which is where logos Christology came
from. What a great place for a Christian education. I think
not!

Docetism - Based upon a Greek word meaning "to seem," this


prominent third century heresy taught that the humanity of
Jesus of Nazareth was only apparent and not real. The early
church debated this issue vigorously, since such claims

9
denied that Jesus had truly suffered and died as a human
being. Docetism, a primary feature of the early Gnostic
theologies, persists today in the popular mind-set of
Christianity. (Reading The Apostolic Fathers, pg. 175)

Dualism - The view that reality may be divided into two


essential forces. There are two forms of this understanding.
From a cosmic perspective, the world struggles between two
opposing forces -- typically, one of evil and one of good. From
a philosophical approach, the essence of a person is divided
between two incompatible natures -- that of the body and
that of the soul. Early Christianity incorporated both views
from those religions and philosophies with which it came in
contact. (Grolier’s Multimedia Encyclopedia)

This is the exact definition that Trinitarians have used for


Jesus: He has two natures. He is fully God and fully Man. This
is stated in the Chalcedon Creed of 451 AD.

Logos Christology - This is not a Greek philosophy, but a


result of the influence of Greek philosophy. I will list it here
because it is crucial in understanding the development of the
Trinity.

Logos Christology came out of Alexandria Egypt, in the


second and third centuries. Philo of Alexandria laid the
foundations for it when he substituted the Logos, or "divine
word," for the Demiurge of Plato’s Timaeus (more on this in
the next chapter).

Logos Christology theologians believed that the logos in John


1:1-14 was a reference to Jesus. On this basis, they were led
into a series of false conclusions that formed the building
blocks for the Trinity.

This was an idea that developed in Alexandria, Egypt. In


Alexandria, before Christianity arrived, the main educators
were Gnostics. Alexandria was known for its great
universities, libraries, learned professors, and throngs of
eagerly inquiring and active-minded students. It is here that
the first serious attempt was made by Christians to adjust the
truths of the gospel and the relations of Christian doctrine to
reason and philosophy.

CHAPTER 2

10
NAMES TO KNOW

These are brief biographies collected mostly from


encyclopedias and a few books that are footnoted. These
biographies are of two individuals whose writings will not be
discussed in this paper because their importance on the
influence of Christianity is fairly low. However, having said
that, Philo of Alexandria has had a devastating indirect effect
on Christianity because of his direct effect on Judaism. These
names do appear here and there, and it would benefit the
reader to have a working knowledge of them. After the facts,
I will list some of my own conclusions about the individuals
from what is written.

Philo of Alexandria, 20 BC-50 AD, was the greatest Jewish


philosopher and theologian of the Greco-Roman period whose
writings still survive. Their preservation was largely due to
their influence on early Christian thought, especially the
theologies of Clement and Origen, both Alexandrines. Philo
was a significant figure in the development of Middle
Platonism, a philosophy that included elements of Stoicism in
a matrix largely derived from Plato. His principle contribution
was his allegorical interpretation of the Bible within this
philosophical context, one of the first attempts to reconcile
Greek philosophy with the Hebrew Scriptures. He was
convinced that Judaism and Greek culture could be
successfully welded into a coherent view of the world, a view
that was endorsed by the hidden meanings of the Hebrew
Scriptures. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

According to Aspects of Monotheism, while Philo insisted that


"He is that is truly God is one," he also recognized other
divine entities, such as the Logos, that existed under God. In
Philo’s Questions on Genesis, Philo states:

"For nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the Most


High One and Father of the Universe, but only in that of the
second "God," who is His Logos."

This is not the only passage in Questions on Genesis that he


gives the title "god" to the Logos. For the Demiurge (an
intermediary god in Greek philosophy) of Plato’s Timaeus,
Philo substituted the LOGOS, or "divine word," as both the
actual creator and the intermediary between a God (all spirit)
and a world (all matter). Philo’s writings became a source of
inspiration and study in early Christian Egypt. (Grolier’s
Multimedia Encyclopedia and Reading The Apostolic Fathers,
pg.181)

11
Philo comes from an area that is heavily influenced in
Stoicism and Gnosticism. Notice that it says that he welded
Judaism with Greek philosophy. The only possible outcome is
disaster. Philo’s method of interpretation only made things
worse. The allegorical method assumes that what is written is
not really what is meant by the Scripture. It assumes there
are hidden truths behind every text. People using this method
usually found three or four ways to interpret a specific text.

Philo already has the LOGOS as the actual creator (God) and
as the intermediary between God and man. This concept is
very Gnostic. It is also exactly how the second person of the
Trinity (the logos) is thought of in the later writings of Origen,
Tertullian and the other logos Christology theologians who
shaped the theology of the orthodox church. The logos in
Trinitarian Christianity is thought to be God himself, but also
the mediator between God and man. It also mentions that his
writings became a source of inspiration and study in early
Christian Egypt. You can almost visualize how this hybrid
teaching spread throughout the early church. People were
actually studying this Stoic-Gnostic view of the Hebrew
Scriptures.

Now imagine how someone who has these beliefs will


interpret John 1: 1-14. That’s right, they will make logos
(God), and also the mediator between God and man (Jesus).
Ready or not, here comes the Trinity.

Pantaenus of Alexandria ( late second century AD) -


Pantaenus is the founder of the famous catechetical school at
Alexandria. He attempted to link Christian principles with
Greek philosophy, a task which continued to develop in his
most famous pupil-Clement of Alexandria. Pantaenus believed
that religious knowledge, or gnosis, prepares one for the
stage of ecstasy in which perfect identity with God can be
achieved. He held that only true gnosis, however, was to be
found in the Christian faith. (Reading The Apostolic Fathers,
pg.181)

Pantaenus was an outright Christian Gnostic. He linked


Christianity with Greek philosophy. Clement succeeded
Pantaenus as the head of the catechetical school of
Alexandria. This catechetical school was the mixing bowl of
Christianity and Greek philosophy. Pantaenus was influenced
by Philo’s writings. Pantaenus in turn taught Clement of
Alexandria, Who in turn taught Origen of Alexandria.

12
CHAPTER 3

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

In this section we will be concerned with the writings of the


Apostolic Fathers. I will list them in chronological order for
the most part, the problem being that scholars are divided
and unsure about the exact date of most of these letters,
although they can give us a pretty accurate range of when
they think the letter was written. It is not important for this
study to have an exact date, an approximation will do just
fine. The exception will be Polycarp and Ignatius who will be
inverted for a specific reason. The Shepherd of Hermas has
been intentionally left out because it is too symbolic. You
cannot come to strong conclusions from this type of writing.
The best you can arrive at is an educated guess. That is not
the goal of this paper. We are trying to come to solid
conclusions on the views of these authors, and in most of
these letters it is very possible to achieve just that.

In this chapter I will list a brief biography of the author and


some basic information about the writing, and then we will
proceed into the study of the material. This will include the
verse in italics, and a brief comment underneath it. At the end
I will give you my overall conclusions based on what was
covered.

I hope you read these letters as they were intended to be


read. These were letters, just like the letters in the New
Testament that were written for instruction, or to clarify a
certain situation. When a person writes letters of this kind,
they try very hard to be as simple, and as clear as possible in
order for their message to be understood the way it was
meant. You do not write a letter to clarify something and then
put hidden meanings behind it. These letters are very easy to
read and understand, just as they were meant to be. What
you see is what you get.

THE FIRST LETTER OF CLEMENT OF ROME TO THE


CORINTHIANS

(1 CLEMENT)

13
Clement of Rome was the bishop of Rome, or pope, from AD
92 - 101. This letter to the Corinthians is considered the
earliest piece of Christian literature other than the New
Testament writings. The high esteem in which Clement was
held is evident from the fact that until the 4th century his
letter was accepted by some as Scripture. (Reading The
Apostolic Fathers, pg.98)

This letter was composed probably between AD 81 - 96. It was


written in Rome.

1:3 "To them which are called by the will of God through our
Lord Jesus Christ."

This implies a clear separation between God and Jesus. Notice


that it says, "the will of God," not Father. This is important to
note because in this sentence, Jesus is not included in the
term "God." It is the equivalent of someone saying, by the will
of the President through an act of Congress. You can see that
Congress is not considered to be the President, and just as
Congress is not the President, Jesus is not God.

1:4 "Grace and peace from Almighty God through Jesus Christ
be multiplied."

There is a clear separation between Almighty God and Jesus


Christ. Same conclusion as for verse 1:3.

14:6 "The good shall be dwellers in the land, and the innocent
shall be left on it; but they that transgress shall be destroyed
utterly from it."

This verse indicates Clement’s view on where the kingdom of


God will be. Right here on the land, not in heaven.

16:2 "The scepter of God, our Lord Jesus Christ came not in
the pomp of arrogance or pride..."

It states that Jesus is the scepter of God, not God. The scepter
of royal authority has symbolized the power of earthly rulers
since antiquity. In the mind of Clement, Jesus as the scepter
of God represents the power and authority of God. But a
representative is not the same person as the one he
represents, or else he would not be called a representative.

18:18 "Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not Thy
Holy Spirit from me."

14
Clement believes that the Holy Spirit is the presence of God.
This is correct. There is no indication of him believing it to be
a separate person of a triune God.

19:4 "And let us look steadfast unto the Father and Maker of
the whole world."

Clement is specific on creation. The Father is the Maker of the


world. Jesus had absolutely nothing to do with creation, either
directly, or as an agent. In Genesis 1:1 it says when God
created the heavens and the earth. To Clement, Father = God.

26:1 "Do we think it to be a great and marvelous thing, if the


Creator of the universe shall bring about the resurrection of
them that have served Him with holiness in the assurance of
a good faith."

The author believes in the resurrection of the dead, not in


going to heaven. Resurrection means to be raised from the
dead. If your soul is in heaven, then you are not dead and you
cannot be resurrected.

2:5-6 "By a word of His Majesty He compacted the universe;


and by a word He can destroy it."

Read this passage several times. The definition of word


(logos) was discussed earlier. This is the correct usage of this
word before its meaning was corrupted. Clement has no idea
whatsoever that logos is a reference to Jesus, because it is
not supposed to be. That idea came out of Egypt in the next
century. Clement considers "word" to be an expression of
thought.

36:6 "through him (Jesus) the Master willed that we should


taste of the immortal knowledge."

One can see that the Master and him are not the same being.
Same concept as 1:3-4.

36:11-12 "Thou art My Son, I this day have begotten thee. Ask
of Me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thine inheritance,
and the ends of the earth for thy possession."

Clement is quoting Psalms 2:7-9 that is a description of the


Messianic kingdom. That Messianic kingdom is just as it says
in Psalm 2:7-9, on earth. Clement believes in the kingdom of
God here on earth.

42:2-3 "Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is
from God, and the Apostles are from Christ."

15
This is an excellent verse in order to see that to Clement,
Jesus is by no means God. If you somehow force the
implication that Clement thinks that Christ is God, then in this
verse it stands to reason that Clement must also think that
the Apostles are Christ. Not very Biblical.

42:6-7 "They (Apostles) went forth with glad tidings that the
kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in
country and town."

This verse not only shows that he believes in the kingdom of


God, but it proves that the kingdom of God is a kingdom that
will come in the future, and not a kingdom of the heart. He
says that the Apostles went forth preaching the kingdom of
God should come. The Apostolic journeys took place after
Pentecost. If Pentecost was the arrival of the kingdom of God,
then why are the Apostles after Pentecost preaching that the
kingdom should come?

46:9 "Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of
grace that was shed upon us?"

One God and one Christ. You cannot get much more
separation between two individuals than this.

Obviously, the one Christ is not considered to be the one God.

49:13 "For the love which He had toward us, Jesus Christ our
Lord has given His blood for us by the will of God."

Here again, Jesus is not considered in the term God. Jesus


gave his blood by the will of someone other than himself,
which is God. If Jesus is God, then this sentence should end
as, Jesus Christ our Lord has given his blood for us.

50:4-8 "All the generations from Adam unto this day have
passed away: and they shall be made manifest in the
visitation of the kingdom of God. For it is written; Enter into
the closet for a very little while, until Mine anger and My
wrath shall pass away, and I will remember a good day and
will raise you from your tombs."

Clement believes that when a person dies, he dies completely.


He believes that the dead will be raised from their tombs in
the visitation of the kingdom (when the kingdom of God
comes). People will be raised from their tombs, they will not
come back from heaven. The kingdom also is a thing of the
future, it has not come yet.

16
50:13 "This declaration of blessedness was pronounced upon
them that have been elected by God through Jesus Christ."

Again, Jesus is not considered in the term "God."

59:28 "Let all the Gentile know that Thou art God alone, and
Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep
of Thy pasture."

Jesus is the Son of the being who is God alone. If you try to
include Jesus in the term "God," then by rule, you will also
have to include Thy people in the term "God." Doesn’t work,
does it?

62:4 "Even as our fathers, of whom we spake before, pleased


Him, being lowly-minded towards their Father and God and
Creator and towards all men."

This author considers the Father = God = Creator. Jesus is


nowhere considered in this equation. He is neither God nor
the Creator. Only the Father is. This verse agrees perfectly
with 1 Corinthians 8:6 – "Yet for us there is but one God, the
Father."

Conclusion - One can see why this letter until the 4th century
was considered by some to be Scripture. It is completely in
agreement with the New Testament. Clement does not believe
Jesus to be anyone but the Son of the only God. He does not
consider Jesus to be God. On the contrary, he distinguishes
between them completely. He believes in the dead being dead
until the coming of the kingdom of God in the future. I find
absolutely no evidence at all of any Trinitarian concept in his
theology, which would have been evident had he believed in
that doctrine. At this stage in time, Jesus’ Christianity was
still intact. I give Clement of Rome an A+ in theology.

THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP TO THE PHILIPPIANS

Polycarp AD 69 - 155, was the bishop of Smyrna. The date of


the letter is probably from AD 105 - 110. According to
Irenaeus, Polycarp is considered to have been a disciple of
the Apostle John. Furthermore, John was purported to have

17
appointed Polycarp to be bishop at Smyrna. Historically he
formed a link between the apostolic and patristic ages
(Encyclopedia Britannica). Also according to the Encyclopedia
Britannica:

"Polycarp was the beloved friend of Ignatius, the bishop of


Antioch."

Polycarp wrote against Gnosticism, especially against


Marcion.

Prologue:1 " mercy unto you and peace from God Almighty
and Jesus Christ our Savior be multiplied."

Polycarp distinguishes Almighty God from Jesus Christ. Peace


from God Almighty AND Jesus Christ. According to Webster’s
Dictionary the word "and" means - also, in addition, plus.

Polycarp does not consider Jesus to be the Almighty God. If he


did, why would he offer peace from the same person twice?
Just read it the way you would read anything else.

1:1 "That be truly chosen of God AND our Lord."

Same conclusion as in prologue.

1:2 "Unto our Lord Jesus Christ, who endured to face even
death for our sins, whom God raised, having loosed the pangs
of death."

Emphasis on whom God raised. Obviously, who ever God


raised is not God. This sentence states that Jesus was raised
by God, therefore, Jesus cannot be God. Acts 9:41 is where
Peter raises Tabitha from the dead. it reads, He gave her his
hand and raised her up. No one would argue that Tabitha who
was raised is Peter who raised her. Read 1:2 the same way.

1:3 "But by the will of God through Jesus Christ."

Jesus Christ is not considered in the term "God." Go to 1


Clement 1:3 for explanation.

2:1 "That ye have believed on Him that raised our Lord Jesus
Christ from the dead and gave unto him a throne on His right
hand."

Distinguishes between Him that raised Jesus from the dead


and gave him a throne at His right hand, and from Jesus.
There is no other way to read this, unless you think that the
same person who raised himself, then gave himself a throne

18
next to himself, so that he himself could sit next to himself.
This is exactly how a Trinitarian has to interpret this verse.
Extremely unlikely, to say the least!

3:3 "While hope followeth after and love goeth before--love


toward God and Christ and toward our neighbor."

There is a distinction between God AND Christ AND our


neighbor. If we claim that Christ is God, then our neighbor
must also be God.

5:2 "For if we well pleasing unto Him in this present world, we


shall receive the future world also, according as He promised
us to raise us from the dead, and that if we conduct ourselves
worthily of Him we shall also reign with Him."

Polycarp believes that we will be raised from the dead and we


will receive the kingdom of God in the future (it has not yet
come). We will also help the Messiah reign. In complete
agreement with Revelation 5:10 and 20:6.

7:1 "For everyone who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh, is antichrist."

This verse echoes 1 John 4:2 and 2 John verse 7. Polycarp is in


agreement with John that anyone who does not confess that
Jesus was truly a human being , is the antichrist. According to
Strong’s Greek Dictionary, flesh - Human being. The
Trinitarian definition of Jesus according to the Council of
Chalcedon is:

"That he is fully God and fully man undivided, inseparable."

Someone with that makeup is not truly a human being.


Obviously the Chalcedon Creed is not the definition of Jesus
that Polycarp believes in.

7:2 "Wherefore let us forsake the vain doing of the many and
their false teachings, and turn unto the word which was
delivered unto us from the beginning."

Polycarp is urging the people to turn away from false


teachings and turn unto the word. His usage of word is very
Jewish, and identical to the way John the Apostle uses it. This
is fitting because Polycarp was a disciple of John, and one
would expect his views to coincide with John’s, which they do.
Polycarp is saying , turn away from false teachings and turn
unto the word (plan, or will ) of God which was delivered unto
us from the beginning (from the time of the Patriarchs).
Polycarp has no idea of "the word" being Jesus. He even says

19
that the word was delivered unto us in the beginning. Jesus
was not delivered unto us in the beginning, Hebrews 1:2
states:

"In these last days He spoke to us through a son."

Ignatius who was a contemporary of Polycarp and a fellow


bishop says in his letter to the Magnesians in verse 6:2,
Christ...

"And appeared at the end of times."

But God’s plan, or will, was delivered unto us in the beginning


through the Patriarchs and the Prophets. This is a direct
parallel to John 1: 1-14. Polycarp would never have read all
that logos Christology into

John 1:1-14, as is evident by this verse.

11:2 "That the saints shall judge the world."

This shows his belief in the saints judging (administering) the


world when the kingdom of God comes.

12:2 "Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and the eternal high priest Himself the Son of God Jesus
Christ, build you up in faith and truth."

This is the clearest verse that shows who Polycarp thinks


Jesus to be. He thinks Jesus to be the Son of God, not God.
Polycarp says, the GOD and Father of Jesus Christ. Jesus has a
God. Jesus cannot have a God and be God at the same time
because that would mean that there are two Gods. Two God’s
are an impossibility for Christianity. Polycarp’s view that
Jesus has a God is in agreement with Jesus’ view in John
20:17, Matthew 27:46, and Revelation 3:12, with Paul’s view
in Ephesians 1:3, 1:7, and Corinthians 1:3, and with Peter’s
view in 1 Peter 1:1.

Conclusion - As one can easily see, Polycarp is in theological


agreement with Clement of Rome. Polycarp believes that
Jesus has a God, the Almighty. Jesus is not God. Polycarp
believes in the future coming of the kingdom of God and the
resurrection of the dead. There is no going to heaven. I found
absolutely no sign of any kind that would suggest that
Polycarp had even heard of the concept of a triune God. His
letter is completely contrary to that thought. Christianity is
still in good shape. I give Polycarp an A+ in theology.

20
THE SEVEN LETTERS OF IGNATIUS

Ignatius (?-108 AD) was the bishop of Antioch. He wrote these


letters after he had been arrested and was being transported
to Rome for trial. These letters were probably written around
AD 105 - 110. Ignatius is also said to have known the Apostle
John. He considered Polycarp to be his beloved friend.
(Encyclopedia Britannica and Reading The Apostolic Fathers,
pg.53)

Ignatius’ letters stress especially Jesus Christ’s humanity and


warn about false teachings.

His letters have been considered by some to be of dubious


value because they contradict themselves on one important
point, the person of Jesus Christ.

These seven letters are almost split right down the middle.
Three of them distinguish completely between Jesus and God,
three of them call Jesus "God," and the last one has two
versions of the same letter that are in opposition to each
other.

Some people claim that Ignatius is very confusing to


understand because of these opposing views. Others claim
that maybe he was influenced by Greek philosophy. I do not
think he is neither hard to understand, nor was his theology
influenced by Greek philosophy.

After much research, my conclusion is that one of these sets


of letters were forged by people trying to prove their own
theology. There is no logical explanation of how someone
could write a letter with definite opinions on certain topics,
and then write another letter at almost the same time, and
completely contradict himself. It would be the equivalent of
reading a letter on Abraham Lincoln which said, Abraham
Lincoln was a great man. He freed the slaves, and kept the
rebellious South from destroying the Union. Then, reading
another letter that said, Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant. He
violated the Southern States Constitutional rights, stole our
property, and forced us into a war that we did not want. You
would never think that the same author had written both, and
so it is with Ignatius.

21
The next question is, which group is the forged set? You will
have to do a little detective work, and use a lot of common
sense, but it will be quite obvious which group has been
tampered with.

My opinion is that the group of letters that claim that Jesus is


God are the ones that have been altered. You might then ask,
do you have any proof of this? Yes, I do. First, I would like to
state, that apart from the literary evidence that I have found
to be convincing, several outside sources state that Ignatius’
letters were forged. They do not however, say which one.

Clayton Jefford, author of Reading the Apostolic Fathers


writes:

"Unfortunately for modern scholars, however, some of the


manuscripts were edited and reshaped by copyists of devout
faith who wanted the writings to represent their own
theological perspectives or the doctrinal positions of the
institutional church. Perhaps the best illustration of this
process is found in the letters of Ignatius, which became
expanded and corrupted by scribes over the years."

The Encyclopedia Britannica writes:

"In the 4th century these letters were corrupted by the heavy
insertions of an interpolator, and the collection was
augmented by six letters forged under Ignatius’ name."

Ignatius stressed especially the humanity of Jesus. This does


not agree with someone who thinks Jesus to be God. The
Encyclopedia Britannica also states that Ignatius and Polycarp
were "beloved friends." They both had known John the
Apostle. During his journey to Rome, Ignatius stayed in
Smyrna with Polycarp for a sufficiently long time. Ignatius
while on his journey, asked Polycarp to write to the churches
in his name. Later, Polycarp made a collection of Ignatius’
letters, and along with his own letter, sent them to the church
in Philipi. This last fact is stated in Polycarp’s own letter to
the Philippians in verse 13:2. Here is where common sense
begins.

Both of them had known John the Apostle, so their theology


would probably be very similar. They both shared the same
views on the resurrection of the dead and the future coming
of the kingdom of God. While the jury is still out on Ignatius’
view of Jesus, it is in on Polycarp. Polycarp most definitely
does not think Jesus to be God. In fact, He believes that Jesus
has a God, just as the New Testament states that he does.
Polycarp distinguishes from Almighty God and Jesus over and

22
over again in his letter. If we allege that the unaltered letters
are the ones that say that Jesus is God, then Ignatius and
Polycarp’s view of Jesus are 180 degrees of each other. It is
highly unlikely that in that scenario they would be as helpful
to each other as they were. Both of these men wrote against
false teachings. If their views were so opposed to each other,
I do not think that Ignatius would ask Polycarp to write to the
churches in his name. I also do not think that Polycarp would
have made a collection of Ignatius’ letters (which he would
have considered false teachings) and then attached his own
letter to it, and sent them out to Philipi for them to be read
and studied. Notice how Polycarp in his letter to the
Philippians in verse 7:1, refers to people who do not share his
view of Jesus as, "Of the devil... that they are the firstborn of
Satan." Ignatius also states when speaking about false
teachers in his letter to the Smyrnaeans in chapter 7, "It is
proper, therefore, to avoid association with such people." Yet,
Polycarp and Ignatius are beloved friends. Ignatius mentions
Polycarp warmly in several of his letters. Ignatius associated
with Polycarp on his journey, and I do not think that Polycarp
considered Ignatius of the devil. Here are a few quotations
from Ignatius on Polycarp:

Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp 1:2 – "Welcoming thy godly


mind which is grounded as it were on an immovable rock."

7:3 – "It becometh thee, most blessed Polycarp to call


together a godly council..."

Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 15:3 – "And they have


comforted me in all things, together with Polycarp bishop of
Smyrna."

These reasons have lead me to believe that Ignatius shared


the same view of Jesus as did Polycarp, that he was not God,
but the Son of God. This is why I believe that the group which
consists of the letters to the Romans, Smyrnaeans, and the
Ephesians to be corrupted. In his letter to the Ephesians there
is a middle version and a long version. In this letter you will
see exactly where they have been altered, because the
middle version and the long version are almost identical,
except in the areas of the nature of Jesus. Of the same verse,
one will say, "Jesus our God," and the other will say "Jesus our
Lord and Savior." The letters that I believe to be corrupted
also contradict each other, while the other group does not.

I will first list those letters that I believe to be corrupted


except for Ephesians. Then I will list the non- altered letters
followed by Ephesians with both versions listed next to each
other.

23
You decide.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRNAEANS

0:1 "To the Church of God the Father and of Jesus Christ the
beloved."

This sentence states that the only God is the Father. Jesus is
not considered in the term "God" or "Father." He is neither
God, nor the Father.

1:1 "I extol Jesus Christ, the God who has granted you such
wisdom."

He refers to Jesus as God. Contradicts verse 0:1.

1:1 "He is really of the line of David according to the flesh,


and the Son of God by the will and power of God."

Ignatius states that Jesus is a human being from the line of


David. This contradicts the verse above that he is God. He
also says that Jesus is the Son of God by the will and power of
God. Jesus is His Son because of God’s (someone other than
Jesus) will and power. It does not say "Father," it says "God."
This means that Jesus is not God. If I said, Abel is the son of
Adam by the will and desire of Adam, you would not take that
sentence to mean that Abel and Adam are the same person.
This is the same sentence structure.

2:1 "And he suffered really, as he also really raised himself


from the dead."

This verse seems to say that Jesus raised himself up from the
dead. If this letter has not been altered, then he contradicts
himself in this same letter in 6:2 in which he writes," and
which the Father in His loving kindness raised from the dead."
He also says the same thing in his letter to the Trallians in
8:1, "his Father having raised him." The Father raising Jesus is
vastly different from Jesus raising himself. That would be the
Son raised the Son.

10:1 "Ye have done well in that ye have received as servants


of Christ, who is God, Philo and Rheus Agathopus."

This verse states Jesus is God. Contradicts verse 0:1 and 1:1

24
Conclusion - This letter contradicts itself. It states that Jesus
is God, but it also distinguishes between God and Jesus. It
states that the Son raised himself, and then says that the
Father raised Jesus. Even if we assume that the writer
believes Jesus to be God, there is still no evidence of a triune
God. My opinion is that this letter has been tampered with.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE ROMANS

0:1 "Majesty of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ, His
only Son."

The Father is considered Most High. Since the Father is the


Most High, the Son must therefore be subordinate. It is
apparent that this author does not consider the Father and
Jesus to be equal. The Doctrine of the Trinity does consider
the Father and Son to be equal.

0:2 "Good wishes for unimpaired joy in Jesus Christ our God."

Considers Jesus to be God.

3:3 "Nothing visible is good. For our God Jesus Christ, being in
the Father, is the more plainly seen."

This is a very Platonic view of the world, that all matter


(everything visible) is evil. This verse stands apart from all of
the other writings of Ignatius. Ignatius considers Jesus to be
flesh, of the line of David. Jesus is definitely visible, and I do
not think that Ignatius would consider Jesus to be not good.

6:3 "Permit me to be an imitator of my suffering God."

This author considers God to have suffered on the cross. This


is a Modalist view of God, it is not Trinitarian.

Conclusion - In this letter Ignatius considers Jesus to be God.


There is still no mention of any Trinity, or even of the third
member of the Trinity. As a matter of fact, this view that the
Father is above the Son is not even Trinitarian. This letter
shows signs of Greek philosophy. In my opinion, this letter
has been altered.

25
THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO POLYCARP

1:1 "Who hath for his bishop God the Father and Jesus Christ."

A clear distinction between God the Father AND Jesus Christ.


Only the Father is God in this sentence.

3:7 "The eternal, the invisible, who became visible for our
sake."

It sounds as if he thinks that Jesus pre-existed.

Conclusion - From this letter I do not think Ignatius thinks


that Jesus is God. I do however, think he is hinting at pre-
existence, which is a very Gnostic concept. Although his view
of Jesus and God as being separate beings is correct, I am
suspicious of his implication of pre-existence. It is possible
that this letter has been altered.

EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE MAGNESIANS

1:2 "Blessed through the grace of God the Father through


Jesus Christ our Savior."

As you will see repeatedly in this letter, is the fact that


Ignatius considers only the Father to be God. Jesus is never
mentioned in any way as to imply that he is God. This verse
states that God’s blessings come to us through His Son Jesus
Christ. This is identical to Genesis 12:3 where God tells Abram
, "All the communities of the earth shall be blessed through
you." The communities of the earth will be blessed because of
Abram, and likewise, we are blessed because of Jesus Christ.
In these sentences it is important to notice that Abram is not
the communities, and likewise, Jesus is not God the Father.

26
1:3 "And I wish her abundant greeting in God the Father and
in Jesus Christ."

There is a definite distinction between God the Father AND


Jesus Christ.

6:2 "Having been entrusted with the diaconate of Jesus


Christ, who was with the Father before the worlds, and
appeared at the end of times."

This verse might appear to give the impression that Jesus pre-
existed in heaven, but this is just a way of writing that was
common in those days. Take for example Revelation 13:8. It
says, "In the book of life of the Lamb who was slain before
the foundation of the world." In Matthew 25:34 it says,
"Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of
the world." Obviously, Revelation 13:8 does not mean that
Jesus was crucified before the world was created. It means
that the plan of salvation had been prepared by God before
the foundation of the world. It is the same concept with
Matthew 25:34, and also in this verse 6:2. Ignatius is saying
that the role of Jesus Christ as the Messiah was planned by
the Father before the worlds even existed.

8:5-6 "That there is one God who manifested Himself through


Jesus Christ His Son, who is His word that proceeded from
silence."

Jesus is again not included in the term "one God." Jesus came
to reveal God and His plan of salvation to us. In John 17:6
Jesus says, "I have manifested thy name ( your real self ) to
the men whom thou has given me out of the world." Jesus is
His word (the embodiment of God’s plan). He is not "The
Word," the second member of the Trinity. Ignatius in his letter
to the Romans says in 2:2, "I am the word of God." He does
not mean that he is the second member of the Trinity, he
means that he reveals the will of God. This must be kept in
consideration when reading John 1:1-14 because Ignatius and
Polycarp both knew John, and I am sure their usage of the
word logos is identical.

Conclusion - Ignatius distinguishes between God the Father


and Jesus Christ at least four times. He definitely does not
consider them to be the same person. I find no evidence or
any trace of the concept of the Trinity at all in this letter. I do
not believe this letter has been altered, and I also believe this
letter reflects Ignatius’ true beliefs.

27
THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE TRALLIANS

1:1 "Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that is


beloved by God the Father of Jesus Christ."

To Ignatius, God = Father. Very similar to Philippians 1:2,


"peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."A clear
distinction between God and Jesus.

1:6 "Polybius your bishop informed me, who by the will of God
and of Jesus Christ visited me."

There are two wills. One will is God’s, and the other is Jesus’.
Notice that it says that by the will of God AND of Jesus Christ.
It does not say Father and Jesus Christ. Therefore, God does
not equal Jesus. This verse is in agreement with Luke 22:42
where Jesus says, "Still, not my will but yours be done."

8:8 "Jesus Christ, who was of the race of David, who was the
son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly
persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and
died.."

Ignatius is stressing the full humanity of Jesus. He is in


complete agreement with his mentor John the Apostle who
says in 2 John vv. 7, "Those who do not acknowledge Jesus
Christ as coming in the flesh; (human being) such is the
deceitful one and the antichrist."

12:5 "And to the honor of Jesus Christ and of the Apostles."

I wrote this verse to make an obvious point. When a writer


uses and, he means - also, in addition to. Just as God and
Jesus are not the same being in verse 1:6, the Apostles and
Jesus are not the same being in this verse.

Conclusion - In this letter Ignatius separates God and Jesus


repeatedly. There is absolutely no hint of Jesus being God, or
any idea of a Trinity. On the contrary, their wills are not even
the same will. I find this letter to be representative of
Ignatius’ true beliefs on God and Jesus.

28
THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE PHILADELPHIANS

1:2 "To the church of God the Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ."

We have already mentioned the meaning of AND. God the


Father does not equal Jesus in this sentence.

1:9 "But by the love of God the Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ."

Same explanation as above.

3:3 "Surely, all those that belong to God and Jesus Christ..."

Same.

3:6 "If a man runs after a schismatic, he will not inherit the
kingdom of God."

Ignatius believes a person will inherit the kingdom of God, not


heaven. To me, when I use the word inherit, it is something
that will happen in the future. An example; when my rich
uncle passes away, I will inherit his estate. It’s a morbid
example, but it illustrates the point. I believe Ignatius is using
it in the same way.

Conclusion - This letter shows no conception of Jesus being


God or of any concept of a triune God. On the contrary. From
what he writes, we must come to the conclusion that he
considers them to be separate beings. He believes the goal of
an individual is to inherit the kingdom of God.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE EPHESIANS

This is the letter in which we will be able to actually see the


letter has been physically altered.

I will list what is known as the middle version, identified by an


M, and the long version that will be identified by an L.

M 0:1 "Of God the Father."

L 0:1 "Of God the Father."

29
Both think of God as the Father.

M 0:2 "By the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God."

L 0:2 "By the will of God the Father and of our Lord Jesus
Christ our savior."

Version L coincides with verse 0:1 above.

M 1:1 "Being imitators of God, and having your hearts kindled


in the blood of God."

L 1:1 "Being imitators of the love of God, and having your


hearts kindled in the blood of Christ."

Version L agrees with what he wrote in his epistle to the


Trallians in verse 8:2. Ignatius in his letters always refers to
the blood of Christ, never of God. Nobody in the New
Testament ever used this phrase, the blood of God. All the
New Testament writers always used the blood of Christ. Are
the Apostles wrong? Not likely.

M 7:8 "There is only one physician, of flesh and of spirit,


generate and ingenerate, God in man, true life in death, Son
of Mary and Son of God, first passable and then impassable,
Jesus Christ our Lord."

L is the same. The reason I wrote this verse is to show you


how he says, God in man, and not God is man. If Jesus is God,
than God is man. The Messiah is supposed to be a man
anointed by God’s Spirit, which is God in man.

M 9:5 "Prepared beforehand for a building of God the Father,


being hoisted up to the heights through the engine of Jesus
Christ."

L version is the same. Ignatius is distinguishing between the


two, God the Father and the engine, Jesus. It fits version L,
but it contradicts version M.

M 16:1 "Corrupters of houses shall not inherit the kingdom of


God."

L is the same. Ignatius believes in the future kingdom of God.

M 20:2 "In one faith and one Jesus Christ, who after the flesh
was of David’s race, who is the Son of Man and the Son of
God."

30
L version is the same. Ignatius is very adamant about the
humanity of Jesus. This is totally contrary to someone who
thinks that Jesus is God. This sentence fits L, but disagrees
with M.

M 21:9 "Fare ye well in God the Father and in Jesus Christ our
common hope."

L version is the same."

God = Father. Jesus is not included in the term "God the


Father." This statement contradicts M to a point where it
becomes very confusing to understand Ignatius’ view of
Jesus. On the other hand, it fits in perfectly with L.

Conclusion - The conclusion that this letter has been


tampered with is unmistakable. The question you must ask
yourself is which one? For me, the matter is easy. Apart from
the view of Jesus, version M is in conflict with the other
letters of Ignatius in other matters, such as the blood of
Christ. It also contradicts itself in the same letter. In one
instance it says that Jesus is clearly God, and it then turns
around and separates God the Father from Jesus. It is very
inconsistent and confusing. L on the other hand, does not
contradict itself in this letter, and neither is it in conflict with
his other letters in related topics. In my opinion the true
version of this letter is L. Version M has been highly tampered
with.

Final Conclusion - After a careful study of Ignatius’ letters, I


find him to be in complete agreement with his contemporaries
Polycarp, and 1 Clement. I do not think that Ignatius
considered Jesus to be God as some have suggested for the
reasons that I mentioned earlier. Ignatius is also very clear
that the goal of a Christian is to inherit the kingdom of God,
and not to go to heaven. He does not know or believe in the
concept of souls separating from the body at death. The only
difference that I noticed was in his epistle to Polycarp in
which there is a hint of the notion of pre-existence. Whether
this was altered is unclear, but I suspect it was.

There is absolutely no indication in any of his letters that


Ignatius knew anything of a Trinity. His thoughts of God
actually contradict that doctrine.

31
When you separate the altered letters from the originals, I
think Ignatius’ theology is very similar to his beloved friend
Polycarp’s theology. I give Ignatius an A- in theology.

THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES

( THE DIDACHE )

The Apostles did not write this letter as the title suggests. It
was written by a group of unknown Christian authors
probably around 80 -120 AD. in Antioch. It was written to
provide specific Christian instruction for community leaders.
(Reading The Apostolic Fathers, pg.48)

3:12 "The meek shall inherit the earth."

This shows a belief in the future kingdom of God on earth.

10:4 -5 "Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for Thy
name’s sake... but didst bestow upon us spiritual food and
drink and eternal life through Thy Son."

In this sentence Almighty Master and Thy Son are not the
same being.

10:9 "And (the church) gather it together from the four winds,
even the church which has been sanctified, into Thy kingdom
which Thou has prepared for it."

The authors believe in the future kingdom of God. They speak


of gathering the church and entering the kingdom. In other
words, it has not been gathered yet, which means they have
not entered the kingdom either.

16:14 -16 "First a sign of a rift in heaven, then a sign of a


voice of a trumpet, and thirdly a resurrection of the dead; yet
not of all, but as it was said: The Lord shall come and all his
saints with him."

This is very specific about the coming of Jesus and the


resurrection of the just first, (conditionalist view) and then at
the second resurrection the rise of everyone else for
judgment. It is in agreement with Revelation 21:4-15.

Conclusion - It is clear that these writers believed in the meek


inheriting the earth. This is a correct understanding of the

32
future kingdom of God in which the Messiah will rule the
world with his saints (his followers). There is no conception of
going to heaven. The writers do not believe the Son to be the
Almighty Master. There is no mention of any triune God. I give
them an A+ in theology.

THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS

This letter was written by a non-Jewish Christian who applied


the name of Barnabas for authority. It was probably written
around 96-100 AD in the city of Alexandria in Egypt (Reading
The Apostolic Fathers,, pg.11). There are some signs of a
Gnostic influence in the letter, which would not be surprising
because of the fact that Alexandria was the home for the
early Gnostic movement.

5:5 "Onto whom (Jesus) God said from the foundation of the
world, let us make man in our image and likeness."

This is a clear belief in the pre-existence of Jesus. The belief


in pre-existence is a very Gnostic concept.

5:10 "For if he had not come in the flesh neither would men
have looked upon him and been saved."

The author believes that Jesus was fully human. He repeats


this in 6:9. Although, how a pre-existent spirit can become a
truly human being is perplexing.

6:16 "For the Lord said again, For wherein shall I appear unto
the Lord my God and be glorified?"

This clearly states that the writer knows that Jesus has a God,
(God the Father). They are not the same being. There can only
be one God, and if Jesus is God and he has a God, that would
mean that there are two Gods.

6:17 "So in like manner we also, being kept alive by our faith
in the promise and by the word, shall live and be lords of the
earth."

This indicates a belief in the followers of the Messiah


inheriting the earth. This is the concept of the kingdom of
God.

7:11 "They that desire to see me, and to attain unto my


kingdom, must lay hold on me through tribulation and
affliction."

33
To attain implies something to be accomplished in the future.

9:2 "Hear O Israel, for thus saith the LORD (YHWH) thy God, "
who is he that desireth to live forever, let him hear with his
ears the voice of My servant."

This verse shows a definite distinction between the LORD and


His servant (Jesus).

21:1 "For he that doeth these things shall be glorified in the


kingdom of God... For this cause is the resurrection."

This implies glorification as something that will happen in the


future. It also mentions the resurrection of the dead.

Conclusion - The writer of Barnabas does not believe Jesus to


be God, but in fact acknowledges that Jesus has a God. He
believes in the future kingdom of God and the resurrection of
the dead. He also believes that Jesus pre-existed before
coming to earth. There is no mention of any triune God or in
going to heaven. There can be no doctrine of the Trinity if you
believe that Jesus has a God. It is an impossibility. I give the
writer of Barnabas a B+ in theology. Christianity for the most
part is still intact.

SECOND CLEMENT

This letter was written by an unknown author who attributed


the letter to Clement of Rome for authority. It was probably
written in Rome, Corinth, or Alexandria in about 120-140 AD.
(Reading The Apostolic Fathers, pg.117)

1:1 "Brethren, we ought to think of Jesus Christ, as of God."

This does not mean, to think Jesus is God. It means to think of


Jesus as if he were God, because Jesus represents God’s
authority on earth. It is the same as if the President of the
U.S. is taken ill, and the Vice President takes over. We will
think of the Vice President as the President because he now
possesses the authority of the President, but he is not in
reality the President.

In 15:3 of this letter it says, that we with boldness as of God.


This is the same sentence structure, and this obviously does
not mean that we are God.

34
9:6 "Let us therefore love one another, that we all may come
unto the kingdom of God."

A definite futuristic kingdom.

12:1 "Let us therefore await the kingdom of God betimes in


love and righteousness, since we know not the day of God’s
appearing."

You cannot be any clearer on the kingdom of God being in the


future. It is not of the heart. It has not happened yet. They
acknowledge that they do not know the day when it will
happen.

14:1 "If we do the will of God our Father."

God = Father.

17:5 "And they will be amazed when they see the kingdom of
the world given to Jesus."

Clearly the Messianic kingdom of the future that Christ will


inherit.

19:3 "They will gather the immortal fruit of the resurrection."

He believes in the resurrection of the dead.

19:4 "He (the godly) shall live again in heaven with our
fathers."

This implies a Gnostic belief in heavenly rest with the One. It


does not make sense with the writer’s belief in the kingdom
of God on earth, as is mentioned in 17:5.

20:5 "To the only God invisible, the Father of truth, who sent
forth unto us the Savior and Prince of immortality."

The only invisible God is the Father of truth. This being sent
the Savior. They are distinct beings.

Conclusion - This writer does not believe Jesus to be God, nor


does he have any idea of a triune God. Jesus has the kingdom
given to him. This implies subordination, which is not possible
in the Doctrine of the Trinity. He strongly believes in the
future kingdom of God and in the resurrection of the dead. He
then at the end implies a belief about going to heaven. There
might be more to this verse than I can gather. It makes no
sense at all for a person to write what he wrote in verses 12:1

35
& 17:5 and then to say that we go to heaven. Those two
beliefs are opposed to each other.

According to this letter, Christianity is still in good shape,


except for the heaven comment. I give second Clement a B+
in theology.

FRAGMENTS OF PAPIAS FROM THE EXPOSITION OF THE


ORACLES OF THE LORD

Papias (80-155 AD) was the bishop of Hierapolis in Anatolia


and is said to have been a disciple of John the Apostle and a
companion of Polycarp. His explanations of the Sayings of the
Lord, a work in five books that survives only in fragments
preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea and Irenaeus of Lyon is
important because it contains many oral traditions of
apostolic times (Grolier’s Multimedia Encyclopedia). These
fragments were probably written between 80-155, although I
think it is more likely to be toward the latter part of this time
frame, due to his view of heaven, which started to infiltrate
Christianity around that time.

V.2 "For the first will be taken up into the heavens, the
second class will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit
the city, and on this account the Lord said, "In my Father’s
house there are many mansions."

This is a middle of the road approach to the afterlife. It says


that some will go to heaven, some to paradise, (it does not
specify if it is on earth) and some to the city which is on
earth. This is probably a good indication of when the Platonic
concept of going to heavenly rest with the One started to
creep into the church. One thing to notice is the fact that as
of yet, there are still people who are not going to heaven but
are here on earth. Later, that would be removed completely,
and everyone would go to either heaven or hell. It was around
this time that Justin Martyr in 150 AD wrote in Dialogue with
Trypho, "If you meet some who say that their souls go to
heaven when they die, do not believe that they are
Christians." He wrote this in order to warn his fellow
Christians of a strange doctrine that was creeping into the
church.

36
This verse is confusing because Papias as you will read,
believes the kingdom of God to be here on earth. Maybe there
is another meaning to this verse that I am missing.

V.2 "For in the times of the kingdom the just man who is on
the earth shall forget to die."

This implies that the kingdom is here on earth.

V.2 "But when He saith all things are put under him, it is
manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under
him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then
shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all
things under him, that God may be all in all."

Papias is quoting 1 Corinthians 15:25 which shows that he is


in agreement with Paul. This verse shows Papias’ belief that
the Son and God are not the same being. It also shows a
belief in the Son being subordinate to God, which according to
the Doctrine of the Trinity they are said to be equal.

VI.10 "Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium


after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign
of Christ will be established on this earth."

This verse shows Papias to believe that the kingdom of God,


ruled by the Messiah is here on earth, and commences after
the resurrection of the dead and lasts for a millennium
(symbolic for a long period of time).

X.6 "Mary mother of the Lord."

I just wrote this to show you the view of Mary before it was
altered. She was the mother of Jesus. Later, because of
Trinitarian theology, she became the mother of God.

Conclusion - Papias distinguishes between the Messiah Jesus


and God. He believes in the millennium kingdom of Christ
here on earth. His views are contrary to any form of a
Trinitarian formula, and he shows no signs of even being
aware of any such thought. I give Papias a B+ in theology.

THE MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP

37
This letter was written by Christians of Smyrnea who
witnessed the martyrdom of Polycarp. It was written around
155-160 AD (Reading The Apostolic Fathers, pg.84). This
letter has not been listed with the usual chapter and verse, so
I will just list them numerically.

Prologue – "peace and love from God the Father and our Lord
Jesus Christ."

A clear distinction between God the Father AND Jesus Christ.

1. "O Lord God Almighty, the Father of Thy beloved and


blessed Son Jesus Christ."

God Almighty = Father. Jesus is not included in this term by


any normal rules of language.

2. "And glorifieth the Almighty God and Father, and blesseth


our Lord Jesus Christ."

Same as 1.

3. "Through His only begotten Son Jesus Christ."

"But in the reign of the Eternal King Jesus Christ."

"Lord Jesus Christ."

"Son of God."

Jesus is referred to by several different titles, but he is never


referred to as God. Only the Father is considered God. This
agrees with 1 Corinthians 8:6 where it says, yet for us there is
one God, the Father.

4. "In whose footsteps may it be our lot to be found in the


kingdom of God."

This verse shows the writers’ understanding and belief in the


kingdom of God.

Conclusion - This letter shows an obvious distinction between


Almighty God and Jesus Christ. The writers show no
knowledge of Jesus being God, or a triune God of any sort.
Their writings make that thought impossibility. They mention
the kingdom of Jesus, (the Messianic kingdom). These writers
were students of Polycarp and it shows. Their theology is
(from what I can tell from this short letter) identical to their
bishop’s. I give them an A+ in theology.

38
THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS

This letter was written by an unknown non-Jewish Christian


probably around the middle to late second century, although
some scholars place it as late as 310 AD. It is constructed
from two separate documents. One is an apology of the faith,
and chapters 11-12 are a homily for a specific event of
Christian worship. Chapters 11&12 show signs of being from a
much later time period than the first 10 chapters. Its setting
is unknown. (Reading The Apostolic Fathers, pg.159)

6:8 "The soul though immortal dwelleth in a mortal


tabernacle."

This is a very Neo-Platonic view of the soul. The Bible states


that only God is immortal.

7:2 "By whom he made the heavens... him He sent unto


them."

This verse is very long, but its main theme is that All Mighty
God made the universe through His Son whom he sent to us in
meekness. It shows a belief in pre-existence. It sounds Arian
in belief.

7:4 "Not so. But in gentleness and meekness has he sent him,
as a king might send his son who is a king. He sent him, as
sending God, He sent him, as a man unto men."

This writer does not believe the Son to be God. He says that
God sent him with the authority as if he were God. He further
states that the Son was a man.

8:5 "No one has either seen or recognized Him (God), but he
revealed Himself. And He revealed Himself by faith."

The author acknowledges that no one can see God, which


rules out Jesus as God.

8:8 "And He (God) alone is good."

This author is quoting Luke 18:19 where Jesus says to the rich
official, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except
God."

39
Jesus considers only God to be good and not himself. Jesus in
that verse does not include himself in the term "God," and
this is what the author in this verse means also.

9:1 "And having made clear our inability to enter into the
kingdom of God of ourselves."

This verse shows that we have to enter into the kingdom of


God, not that the kingdom of God enters into our hearts.

9:5 "That the iniquity of many should be concealed in one


righteous man."

He stresses the humanity of Jesus. Jesus to this writer is not


part God and part man.

10:2 "He sent His only begotten Son to whom He promised


the kingdom which is in heaven."

This sort of implies that the kingdom is in heaven, but God’s


treasures are said to be in heaven waiting to be given to us,
much like your money is in the bank, but you do not plan to
live in the bank. It is just being stored there. 1 Peter 1:4, "to
an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading,
kept in heaven for you."

11:5 "This Word, who was from the beginning, who appeared
as new and yet proved to be old."

This verse is implying the pre-existence of the Word. This


train of thought is from the third century, and is used later in
time to imply that Jesus is God. This would be in conflict with
what the writer wrote in 8:8.

11:5 "He, I say, who is eternal, who today was accounted a


Son."

This says that the Son is eternal. This is in opposition to


everything that was written in chapters 1-10.

Conclusion - Chapters 1-10 imply that Jesus is not God but His
representative on earth. Only God is good. They do imply pre-
existence and Jesus as the craftsman of the universe. The soul
is immortal to the author. Chapters 11&12 now have the
"Word" (which in the first 10 chapters was always referred to
as Son) as eternal. These two sources are definitely from
different time periods. Word (logos) Christology was a
primary concern of the third century theologians. There is still
no mention of a triune God. This writer does not mention the
Holy Spirit. He is in my opinion, from a time period which

40
should not include him as an apostolic writer. Chapters 1-10
shows the influence of Platonism, and later Arianism. I give
those chapters a C in theology. Chapters 11&12 are full of
Gnosticism, and I give them a D-.

Conclusion of the Apostolic Fathers - From what we have


covered, it should be quite obvious that the Apostolic Fathers
did not have any knowledge of a triune God. They
unanimously consider only the Father to be Almighty God, just
as the Apostle Paul and all the other writers of the New
Testament do. They are all in agreement about the Christian
goal of entering into the kingdom of God. Their theology
reflects the New Testament theology of the Apostles, and it
should, because some of them did know at least one of the
Apostles. They represent the Christian thought that existed
right after the Apostles. I think for the most part, the
Apostles would be in agreement with most of their views,
except of course the Epistle to Diognetus, which some
scholars do not believe to be from the same time period as
the rest of the Apostolic Father’s writings. The fact that the
Doctrine of the Trinity is completely missing should be of
great concern for those that claim that the Apostles taught
the trinity in the New Testament.

If the Apostles had taught the Trinity in the New Testament,


then these writers should have been familiar with it, and their
writings should have been reflective of that fact as it is in the
writers of the late 3rd and 4th centuries. But it is not present
in any shape or form. Their views actually contradict the
Doctrine of the Trinity.

You will see that as we get further away in time from these
writers, the more corrupted Christianity becomes.

CHAPTER 4

THE CHURCH FATHERS

JUSTIN MARTYR

41
Justin Martyr (100 - 165 AD) is considered one of the most
important Greek philosopher - Apologists in the early
Christian Church, whose writings represent the first positive
encounter of Christian revelation with Greek philosophy, and
laid the basis for a theology of history. Justin considers
himself a philosopher, his whole motivation in life, he says,
was to find the true philosophy. He was reared a pagan and
studied Stoic, Platonic, Pythagorean, and other Greek
philosophies, and then became a Christian (Encyclopedia
Britannica). According to Steve Mason of York University,

"Justin’s somewhat innocent identification of Christianity with


a philosophical school was a radical departure from earlier
Christian views. Few of his contemporaries and none of his
predecessors would have felt at all comfortable with such an
understanding of Christianity."

Although a Christian, Justin unfortunately brought with him a


lot baggage from his pagan days. This lead to his Stoic
interpretation of logos. He was martyred in Rome for his faith
in 165 AD.

THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN

V. "For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail
to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among
the Barbarians (Christians) were they condemned by Reason
(or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and
became man, and was called Jesus Christ."

Excellent example! Justin is comparing logos in John’s gospel


to the divine Logos of the Stoics. Justin believes that the
divine pre-existent logos became man because just about
anyone with his background would read John’s gospel in that
manner. It would make all the sense in the world to them.

VIII. "We seek the abode that is with God, the Father and
Creator of all."

42
For Justin God = Father, and He is the creator of all. This is
different from later Trinitarian belief that the Father planned
creation and the Son created it.

XI. "And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you
suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a
human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with
God."

This verse shows that Justin knows about the kingdom of God.
It does not however, give us enough information to determine
if he believes it to be here on earth.

XII. "And that you will not succeed is declared by the Word,
than whom, after God begat him."

Justin believes that God created Jesus. Jesus is not eternal like
modern Trinitarians believe.

XIV. "And follow the only unbegotten God through His Son."

God does not equal Son. Only God is unbegotten. Verse XII
states that Jesus was begat, and this verse says that God is
unbegotten. Therefore, Jesus cannot be God to Justin.

XIIL . "He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding him
in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we
will prove, for they proclaim our madness to consist in this,
that we give to a crucified man a place second to the
unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all."

In this verse Justin distinguishes between the Son and true


God, the unchangeable and eternal God, the creator of all. If
you follow the simple rules of language, you can see the
difference. He says Son OF the true God. The Son is not the
true God. Justin also believes in a hierarchy; God is above all,
in second place is Jesus, followed by the Spirit. This is not in
accordance with post Nicene Trinitarians (which is what exists
today) where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal.

XIX. "And like seeds resolved into earth, should in God’s


appointed time rise again and put on incorruption."

Justin believes in the resurrection of the dead in the future.

XXXII. "And the first power after God the Father and Lord of
all is the Word, who is also the Son."

To Justin, the Son is the pre-existent Word, but he is after the


Father.

43
XXXIX. "Strive to escape the power of God the Father and
Lord of all, and the power of Christ himself."

God the Father does not equal Christ.

XXXIX. "Tho art My Son; this day I have begotten Thee. Ask of
Me, and I shall give you Thee the heathen for Thine
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth as thy
possession."

This verse shows his belief in the future kingdom of God with
the Messiah as King.

LII. "He shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by


his angelic host, when also he shall raise the bodies of all
men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with
immortality."

Justin believes in the return of Jesus and the resurrection of


the dead.

LV. There is not one particular verse in this chapter that I


would like to single out. What I would like to point out
however, is the thought of the whole chapter. It is too long to
write out, so I will do my best to paraphrase it.

Justin believes that everything worthy in Greek philosophy


was stolen by the Greeks from Moses and the prophets. This
is an old and common view, going back at least to Philo of
Alexandria. Justin gives certain examples to try and prove this
theory. The reason I even mention this is to try and show you
Justin’s logic and how it is going to lead him in the wrong
direction concerning the logos. If he believes that Greek
philosophy stole some concepts from Judaism, it is going to
be much easier for him to fit Greek ideas into Christianity.

LXI. "For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the
universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy
Spirit, they then receive the washing with water."

This verse is obviously referring to Matthew 28:19. As you can


see, Justin does not imply in any way that these three are
one, in fact, he says that the Father and Lord of the universe
is God the Father, not the Son. Jesus is our Savior. There is no
Trinity in this verse. On the contrary, it is very anti-Trinitarian.

LXIII. "And the Angel of God spoke to Moses, in a flame of fire


out of the bush...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."

44
Justin believes the angel of the Lord to be Jesus before he
came to earth as a man. He obviously never read the first
chapter of Hebrews, or Matthew 2:19.

LXIII. "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."

This verse shows that he believes that when you die you are
dead, your soul does not go to heaven when you die. The goal
is resurrection. Combine this verse with what he said in LII.

FRAGMENTS OF THE LOST WORK OF JUSTIN ON THE


RESURRECTION

I. "And God, the Father of the universe, who is the perfect


intelligence, is the truth...And this is Jesus Christ, our Savior
and Lord."

God = Father, Jesus = Savior. God does not equal Jesus.

VIII. "And God has called man to life and resurrection, He has
called not a part, but the whole, which is the soul and the
body."

Justin believes in the resurrection of the soul and body. He


does not agree with the Pythagoreans’ view of the soul
departing from the body.

IX. "That it is not impossible for flesh to ascend to heaven"


(as he has said that our dwelling place is in heaven).

This verse claims that when you are resurrected in the flesh,
you will then go to heaven. This kind of thought will erase the
teachings of Jesus on the kingdom of God on earth.

X. "We are retrograding when we listen to such an argument


as this; that the soul is immortal, but the body mortal, and
incapable of being revived? For this we used to hear from the
Pythagoreans and Plato, even before we learned the truth."

45
Justin is actually telling us where the false Doctrine of the
Transmigration of Souls came from.

OTHER FRAGMENTS FROM THE LOST WRITINGS OF JUSTIN

II. "That he (Justin) would not have believed the Lord himself
if he had announced any other God than the Fashioner and
Maker of the world, and our nourisher."

Justin believes that the Lord Jesus came to announce God. He


states that if Jesus had announced any other God besides the
maker of the world he would not have believed him.
Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.

XVII. "As the good of the body is health, so the good of the
soul is knowledge, which is indeed a kind of health of soul, by
which a likeness to God is attained."

This is about as good a definition of Gnosticism as you are


going to find. Knowledge (gnosis) is how you attain a likeness
to God.

DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO

IIL. - IL. "Jesus may still be the Christ of God, though I should
not be able to prove his pre-existence as the Son of God who
made all things."

Justin admits he cannot prove Jesus’ pre-existence, and


without pre-existence there can be no Doctrine of the Trinity.

LXXX. "If you meet some who say that their souls go to
heaven when they die, do not believe that they are
Christians!"

46
Justin is very adamant about refuting the Pythagorean and
Platonic idea of the transmigration of souls at death.

Conclusion - Justin believes the only unbegotten God, the


Creator of the universe to have begat His Son, the Word. He
believes the Son to have pre-existed, although he admits that
he cannot prove it. He also believes that the Son is created,
not eternal. The Son is in second place, and the Spirit is in
third place, they are not co-equal as they are thought of
today. There is no concept of the Trinity in Justin’s writings.
He mentions the three of them, but that by no means implies
that they are one. Justin believes in the return of Christ and
the resurrection of the dead. He mentions treasures being
stored in heaven for us, and he always quotes Matthew’s way
of saying kingdom of God as kingdom of heaven.
Unfortunately, I think he makes a distinction between the
two. He seems to believe in the whole person going to
heaven, not just the soul. This is confusing since he mentions
the return of Jesus. Maybe he thinks that Jesus is returning to
collect his people and take them to heaven.

The main point of reading Justin is not to judge him on what


he believes, but to see that there was no concept of any
modern day Trinity in his theology. After having said this, I
will give Justin a C- in theology.

IRENAEUS

Irenaeus was born 140-160 AD in Asia Minor, probably Lyons.


Later he served as the bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul. He is
most famous for his efforts in combating Gnosticism, and his
great work (Against Heresies), was written for this purpose.
(Encyclopedia Britannica)

AGAINST HERESIES

BOOK 1

47
3:6 "Lead away from the truth those who do not retain a
steadfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

This is a clear separation of the two. Only the Father is God.

9:3 "That Jesus who suffered for us, and who dwelt among us,
is himself the Word of God."

This is definitely a leap from the belief of the Apostolic


Fathers. None of them ever mentioned this theory. The
Apostolic Fathers never considered the "Word" in John 1:1-3
to be a reference to Jesus.

10:1 "She believes (the church) in one God, the Father


Almighty, maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all
things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of
God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy
Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the
dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a
virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead,
and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved
Jesus Christ, our Lord, and his future manifestation from
heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one,"
and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race."

Irenaeus believes in the resurrection of the dead when Jesus


returns from heaven. He again equates the Father Almighty
as God. He mentions the dispensations of God proclaimed
through the prophets, but he has not elaborated on that yet.

BOOK 5

1:1 "For in no other way could we have learned the things of


God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become
man."

Irenaeus believes the Word to be Jesus.

1:1 "And bestowing upon us at his coming immortality."

48
Irenaeus believes in immortality at the coming of Jesus and
not at death, as Greek philosophy does.

2:3 "But he refers to the dispensation by which the Lord


became an actual man."

Irenaeus’ dispensation differs from other people who describe


the dispensation in that to him it just refers to the way the
Word became a man. There is nothing said about the Holy
Spirit.

6:1 "For that flesh which has been molded is not a perfect
man in itself, but the body of a man, and part of a man.
Neither is the soul itself, considered apart by itself, the man;
but it is the soul of man, and part of a man. Neither is the
spirit a man, for it is called the spirit, and not a man; but the
commingling and union of all these constitutes the perfect
man... he was aware of the future reintegration and union of
the three, and that they should be heirs of one and the same
salvation?"

Although Irenaeus is using the Greek definition of soul and


not the Hebrew definition, he still believes that all three parts
of man will be resurrected at the coming of Christ and not
separately, as the Pythagoreans and Plato believed about the
soul separating from the body at death.

3:2 "For they possess the Spirit of the Father, who purifies
man."

This verse describes the Spirit as the Spirit of the Father. This
view is anti- Trinitarian. The reason is that the Father and the
Holy Spirit are supposed to be equal and separate, but in this
case, the Spirit belongs to the Father, it is not separate.
Irenaeus might believe in the Word being God, but he is not a
Trinitarian in the post Nicene tradition.

3:4 "Blessed are the meek, for they shall posses the earth by
inheritance; as if in the future kingdom, the earth, from
whence exists the substance of our flesh, is to be possessed
by inheritance."

Irenaeus is explaining the verse about the meek inheriting


the earth. You can see he believes in a future kingdom on
earth for the believers.

18:2 "And thus one God the Father is declared, who is above
all, and through all, and in all. The Father is indeed above all,
and he is the head of Christ."

49
Irenaeus’ dispensation is hierarchical. The Father is above all,
including Christ. This is in major conflict from today’s Doctrine
of the Trinity that claims that all the members are equal.

20:1 "Since all receive one and the same God the Father, and
believe in the same dispensation regarding the incarnation of
the Son of God, and are cognizant of the same gift of the
Spirit."

The dispensation to Irenaeus has nothing to do with the Holy


Spirit. Irenaeus is not a Trinitarian in any sense of the word, if
anything, he is a binatarian. The Holy Spirit to him is a gift
from the Father.

20:1 "And await the same salvation of the complete man, that
is, of the soul and body."

He clearly believes in the salvation of the complete man and


not just of the soul.

21:3 "Who then, is this Lord God to whom Christ bears


witness, whom no man shall tempt, whom all should worship,
and serve Him alone? It is, beyond all manner of doubt, that
God who also gave the law."

This is puzzling. Irenaeus asks a very good question. Who is


this God whom Christ refers to as God? But then, he just says
that it is the same God who gave the law. But according to
Irenaeus Jesus (the Word) is God. In chapter 17:3 of this same
book he says, "He was himself the Word of God made the Son
of Man, receiving from the Father the power of remissions of
sins; since he was man, and since he was God." This is a
contradiction for Irenaeus, one I do not think he would have
been able to answer. According to Irenaeus, there are two
Gods, Jesus and the one whom Jesus bears witness to.

25:2 "Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is


termed God by the Apostles when speaking for themselves,
except Him who is truly God, the Father of our Lord."

Now I am really confused. Now, the only true God is the


Father of our Lord. God = Father. This contradicts 17:3.

31:2 "It is manifest that the souls of his disciples also, upon
whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go
away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and
there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then
receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is
bodily, just as the Lord arose."

50
He is very clear hear about how the resurrection takes place.
You are dead until the resurrection day, when you are
resurrected in your entirety. To Irenaeus there is no going to
heaven at death.

32:1 "And of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and


of the earthly kingdom which is the commencement of
incorruption, by means of which those who shall be worthy
are accustomed gradually to partake."

His belief is very clear about the kingdom of God on earth,


and the resurrection of the just.

33:3 "The predicted blessing, therefore belongs to the times


of the Kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their
rising from the dead."

Irenaeus believes in the just reigning with Jesus in the


kingdom of God.

36:3 "John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the first


"resurrection of the just," and the inheritance in the kingdom
of the earth.... the same God the Father is manifested, who
fashioned man, and gave promise of the inheritance of the
earth to the Fathers."

You cannot be any clearer than this. To Irenaeus the kingdom


is here on earth.

FRAGMENTS FROM THE LOST WRITINGS OF IRENAEUS

VIII. "For as the ark of the covenant was glided within and
without with pure gold, so was the body of Christ pure and
resplended; for it was adorned within by the Word, and
shielded without by the Spirit."

This is plain and simple dualism, and although Irenaeus was


very much against the Gnostics, one has to wonder is after all
the exposure he had to Gnosticism, if some of it did not rub
off on him. This sounds very much like the Gnostic Logos
when it descended on the Aeon created Jesus.

LIV. "God of God; Jesus Christ our Savior."

51
He believes Jesus to be God.

Conclusion - Irenaeus believes the Word to be the will and


reason of God, thus the Word is God. He also believes that the
Father is above Christ. Although he believes Jesus to be God,
he never mentions the Spirit as a separate member of a
triune God. He refers to it as the Spirit of the Father that is
given to us as a gift. This is not the present day belief of the
Trinity, which proves that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not
yet worked out, but in the process of development. With
Irenaeus, it is more like a binity.

Irenaeus is a definite believer in the resurrection and reigning


of the just in the kingdom of God on earth at the return of
Jesus. He does not believe in the soul going to heaven and
speaks out against that idea.

My conclusion of how Irenaeus arrived at his logos


Christology is that from his in-depth studies of Gnosticism,
some of it unfortunately crept into his theology. I heard
someone say once, "if you handle manure long enough, no
matter how much you dislike the smell, some of it is going to
rub off on you." This is what I think happened to Irenaeus.
Apart from his logos Christology, Irenaeus is on track about
the kingdom of God and death. I give Irenaeus a C in theology.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

Clement of Alexandria (AD 160-215) - was an early Greek


theologian who made an early attempt to synthesize Platonic
and Christian thought. Clement is one of the founders of the
typically Egyptian logos Christology. He was also one of the
first to use the allegorical method of interpretation on the
New Testament. He was a pupil of Pantaenus and regarded
him with the greatest praise, "the deepest Gnostic." One of
his most famous works is the Paedagogus (Tutor), an
explanation of the world in terms of the LOGOS, or mind of
God. Clement has sometimes been called a Christian Gnostic
(Reading the Apostolic Fathers, pg.173 and Grolier’s
Multimedia Encyclopedia). He is considered one of the
FATHERS OF THE CHURCH.

52
It is amazing to me that someone who has been called a
Christian Gnostic is considered to be one of the fathers of the
church.

COMMENTS ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER

1:3 "But that in the resurrection the soul returns to the body,
and both are joined to one another according to their peculiar
nature."

This view is a mixture of Platonism and Christianity. The soul


departing the body is pure and simple Platonism. The concept
of bodily resurrection is Christian. Clement simply fused the
two together. He has the soul departing, and then later on it
returns for the resurrection. To return from being with God in
heaven to this earth would be to me a step backwards. Why
would I look forward to the resurrection of the dead if I am
already with God?

COMMENTS ON THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JUDE

1:1 "There was; then, a Word importing an unbiginning


eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who
being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is
eternal and uncreated."

This is exactly what Origen will say in his writings, probably


because Clement was his teacher. It is also the formula that
will be formulated as doctrine at Nicaea.

FROM THE BOOK ON THE SOUL

53
MAXIMUS AND ANTONIUS MELISSA

1. "Souls that breath free of all things, possess life, and


though separated from the body, and found possessed of a
longing for it, are borne immortal to the bosom of God."

The Pythagoreans would have been proud of Clement. This is


exactly where this philosophy comes from. Plato learned it
from them.

THE BAROC

1. "All souls are immortal."

Same conclusion as the verse above.

Conclusion - Clement of Alexandria is a Christian Gnostic to


say the least. He believes that the Word and the Father are of
the same substance, and in the Pythagorean concept of the
immortal transmigration of souls. His greatest pupil was
Origen who held almost all the same views and was probably
the most destructive influence on early Christianity.

ORIGEN

Origen was born in 185 AD in Alexandria, the cradle of


Gnosticism. He is considered the greatest and most important
theologian and biblical scholar of the early Eastern church. He
was a pupil of Clement of Alexandria, and succeeded him as
head of the catechetical school in Alexandria. According to
Porphyry, Origen attended lectures given by Ammonius
Saccas, the founder of Neo-Platonism.

Origen attempted to synthesize Christian scriptural


interpretation and belief with Greek philosophy, especially
Neo-Platonism and Stoicism. His theology was an expression
of the Alexandrine reflection on the Trinity, and prior to
Augustine, he was the most influential theologian of the

54
church. His writings helped to create a Christian theology that
blended biblical and philosophical categories. He claimed that
a philosophical mind has a right to think within a Christian
framework. Origen sought to gather the fragments of pagan
philosophies and unite them to Christian teachings so as to
present the gospel in a form that would not offend, but rather
ensure the conversion of Jews, Gnostics, and cultivated
heathen. (History of Philosophy and Encyclopedia Britannica)

Christian theology and Greek philosophy do not mix together


very well. Actually, they are in complete opposition to each
other. By mixing the two you will get a hybrid that is neither
Christianity nor Greek philosophy.

Dr. Strouse of Maranatha Baptist Graduate School of Theology


says on the influence that Origen had on the early church:

"When we come to Origen, we speak of him who did the most


of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy
down through the ages. In fact, it may be said that he had a
greater corrupting influence on the early church and on the
Bible itself than any man." Dr. Strouse goes on to say, "Origen
was given to wild allegorizing of Scripture," saying - "The
Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as
they are written."

With this view, why even bother to read the Bible, lets just
make it up as we go along. According to the church historian
Eusebius, Origen as a young man allegorized Matthew 19:12
and castrated himself so he could work freely in instructing
female catechumens. Imagine if someone came up to you and
told you they had castrated themselves because of Matthew
19:12, what would you think of his ability to interpret the
Bible? What would you think of their mental stability?

Origen believes in the pre-existence of souls and in souls


departing to be with the One (God) after death. Another one
of his well thought out views was that he thought that John
the Baptist had a special relationship to God because of works
done before this life, or that he was an angel sent on a special
mission, like Gabriel. He was also influenced by a semi-
Gnostic writing, The Acts of John, and thought that Jesus’
body appeared differently to different observers according to
their spiritual capacities.

Origen believed that pre-existent souls had fallen by varying


distances, some to be angels, some descending into human
beings, and the most wicked becoming devils. One soul had
not fallen but had remained in adoring union with the Father.
Uniting himself with this soul, the divine Logos, (who is the

55
second person of the triad) became incarnate in a body
derived from the Virgin Mary. So intense was the union
between Christ’s soul and the Logos that it is like the union of
body and soul, of white-hot iron and fire (Encyclopedia
Britannica). You cannot get much more Gnostic than this.
Remember the Aeon Christ descending into the Jesus they had
created.

He claims that redemption restores fallen souls from matter


to spirit. This is clearly a platonistic view. The Platonist
considered matter (the body) to be evil, it was a prison for
the soul. It was the goal of an individual to have his soul
released from this prison and to return to the One.

The Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins says the


following about Origen:

"In his opinions about material things he played the Greek,


and introduced Greek ideas into foreign fables. For he was
always consorting with Plato, and was conversant with the
writings of Numenius, and Cronius, Appolophanes and
Moderatus, Nichomachus and the distinguished men of the
Pythagoreans, and he used also the books of Chaermon the
Stoic and Cornutus, from whom he learnt the figurative
interpretation, as employed in the Greek mysteries, and
applied to the Jewish writings."

Keep his association with the Pythagoreans in the back of


your mind, this is where he will get his idea of the
transmigration of souls. He did not believe in the resurrection
of bodies.

Origen’s basic conception of God is taken over from Neo-


Platonism as it was understood in 2nd and 3rd century
Alexandria. Remember the Neo-Platonist view of God, One/
Intelligence/Soul, this triad obviously suggests the Christian
Doctrine of the Trinity, which was just starting to get worked
out.

Let me explain the Neo-Platonist view of this triad God and


see if you can find any similarities to the teaching of the
Trinity. Observe, that Origen is going to try and explain John’s
gospel using this philosophy, remember, he believes a
philosophical mind has a right to think within a Christian
framework.

The One is above being. The One then generates Intelligence


which contains the exemplars (the Platonic Forms) of all
creatures, in imitation of which creatures are fashioned in

56
creation. The Platonic Forms are now in a mind which is
Intelligence, and are now thought of as divine ideas.

Now, Origen’s interpretation of John 1: 1-3. The logos


(Intelligence) "belches forth" from the heart of God. It is thus
with God and in all that he does. Logos later becomes flesh,
and since it was generated from God as a divine idea, it is
divine. The Soul is the Holy Spirit. Origen however, believes
that the Word and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God. This
will be in conflict with later Trinitarian thought.

If this sounds complicated and bizarre, it’s because it is.


Maybe you have to be castrated to get it’s full meaning, but
notice the similarities between the two, he is trying to explain
John’s gospel using his Neo-Platonist philosophy. Outcome?
Disaster!

Origen used the Valentinian Gnostic concept of "homoousia"


to explain the relationship between the Father and the Logos-
Son. Homoousia means, "Of the same substance." Origen
concluded that since the logos had been eternally generated
from the Father, he must be of the same substance. Now,
when you make a claim such as "of the same substance," this
of course will lead you to several conclusions that as you will
see, will lead you down the path to the Trinity.

First, if God is eternal, and since Jesus is of the same


substance, then Jesus must also be eternal. Second, Since the
logos took on flesh, and he is also of the same substance as
the Father, then only his human side can suffer, be tempted,
or die. This of course is the Gnostic concept of Dualism, which
today is the Christian description of Jesus’ nature.

Origen’s concept of "homoousia" was canonized at the Council


of Nicaea in 325 AD. Two thirds of the Trinity was in place, one
more to go. It is amazing to me that Trinitarians claim that the
Apostles taught the Trinity and yet, at this council, it did not
even occur to the participants who sided with Athanasius to
include the Holy Spirit.

This is the man who is considered to be the most important


theologian until Augustine. Origen was instrumental in the
development of the Trinity, his Gnostic ideas are the
foundation of the modern-day Trinity. He also played a crucial
role in determining how to interpret the Bible. The only
problem was that he was a Neo-Platonist, and believed that
somehow the two could be fused together and not be in
conflict. His method of allegorizing the Bible the way the
Greeks interpreted their fables was disastrous for

57
Christianity. I do not think that the majority of Christianity
has ever fully recovered.

BOOK 1 ON GOD

5. "God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a


body or as existing in a body, but as an uncompounded
intellectual nature, admitting within Himself no addition of
any kind."

This statement makes the Trinity as we know it today


impossible, it says that God allows no addition within Himself
of any kind.

6. "For we human beings are animals composed of a union of


body and soul."

This is a purely Greek philosophical way of explaining human


beings. To a Jew, the whole being is considered a soul. In
Genesis 2:7 it says, "And YHWH God formed the man out of
dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of
life (spirit); and man became a living soul."

9. "According to the words of Solomon, "You will find a divine


sense." For he knew that there was within us two kinds of
senses: the one mortal, corruptible, human; the other
immortal and intellectual, which he now termed divine."

This view of human nature is called Dualism, it was a primary


feature of early Gnostic theologies. As you can see, this is
how they later tried to explain Jesus, and for that matter still
do. This is basically the Trinitarian explanation of Jesus’
nature. Unfortunately, it is a Gnostic explanation. Also note
his concept of the immortal soul.

ON CHRIST

1. "In the first place, we must note that the nature of that
deity which is in Christ in respect of his being the only-
begotten Son of God is one thing, and that human nature
which he assumed in these last times for the purpose of the
dispensation (of grace) is another."

58
This is simple Gnostic Dualism.

2. "It is once rightly understood that the only-begotten Son of


God is His wisdom hypostatically existing... derives from Him
what he is, but without any beginning."

Origen believed the Son to be the pre-existent Wisdom and


Word of the Father which had always been with the Father
and which the father belched forth and thus created.

8. "The Son of God, divesting himself of his equality with the


Father."

This is in complete opposition to the Doctrine of the Trinity.


The doctrine states that the Father and Son are co-equal.
According to the Chalcedon Creed, the Son cannot divest
himself of his deity, he is fully God and fully man at all times,
inseparable, and undivided. Origen does not believe that to
be the case.

ON THE HOLY SPIRIT

2. "From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit
was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was
not complete except by the authority of the most excellent
Trinity of them all, by the naming of the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit."

You can see the Doctrine of the Trinity starting to take shape.
It is starting to develop, but the key word is starting, it was
not an already present teaching in Christianity as Tertullian
will so graciously point out. Origen’s Trinity is vastly different
from what is in place today. In fact, Origen centuries later was
condemned by the church for his views since they did not
stress equality for one thing.

Conclusion - We could spend an entire book on Origen and his


views, however, that is not the purpose of this paper. These
are only a fraction of the verses in which we can show that
Origen has no concept of the Trinity as it is taught today. He
does not consider the Son to be equal with the Father, and in
Origen Against Celsus he will speak of the Son as a "second

59
god." He will also say, "The Son is theos (god), but only the
Father is autotheos (absolute God, God in Himself)." Origen
believes in pre-existent and immortal souls.

We can say many things about Origen’s views, that they were
Gnostic, Stoic, Platonic, and definitely not Christian as Jesus
and the Apostles defined Christianity. But one thing is certain,
although Origen’s thoughts laid down much of the foundation
for later Trinitarian dogma, he is not a Trinitarian according to
the orthodox view of the Trinity.

Unfortunately, Origen was a very prolific author. Epiphanius


estimates the number of his writings at six thousand. Jerome
assures us that his writings contained nearly two thousand
works. Even two thousand writings are an incredible amount
of work. An idea of the magnitude of his work can be seen
from the fact that an explanation of John 1:1, "In the
beginning was the Word," furnished material for a whole roll.

Origen’s influence can be traced to two factors. First, is the


incredible amount of literature which

he produced. Second, is that he knew and convinced a lot of


important people in his time, and even after his death his
works were still being studied.

The following is a list of a few of these people and who they


were. I will include the term "St." as Catholics use it, just to
show that these people were influential people in their times,
and for no other reason. The term saint in the Bible refers to
all followers of Jesus, "Christians."

When he was expelled from Alexandria, Origen fled to


Caesarea and founded a new school there. He then resumed
his commentary on John’s gospel and was soon surrounded by
students. One of these students was St. Gregory
Thaumaturgus, later bishop of Neocaesarea, who with his
brother Apollodorus attended Origen’s lectures for five years.

Heracles, his disciple, and colleague, and who was also the
leader of the catechetical school in Alexandria and then
became Patriarch of Alexandria was a close friend of Origen.

Origen visited his friend St. Firmilian, the bishop of Caesarea


in Cappadocia who regarded himself as a disciple of Origen
and made him remain with him for a long time to profit from
his learning

St. Alexander of Jerusalem was his fellow pupil at the


catechetical school in Alexandria and his intimate faithful

60
friend according to Eusebius, as was Theoctistus of Caesarea
in Palestine who ordained him.

He was a friend of Theoctistus of Caesarea and St. Alexander


of Jerusalem who invited him to preach though he was still a
layman.

Beryllus of Bostra was deeply attached to him.

St. Anatolus said praises of him.

St. Dionysius was his pupil and successor at the catechetical


school. When he was Patriarch of Alexandria, he wrote praises
of him when he learned of his death.

Origen visited St. Hippolytus in Rome and according to St.


Jerome, he highly appreciated his talents.

The learned Julius Africanus consulted him.

Even after his death people were still studying his works. St.
Pamphilus composed an "Apology for Origen." The directors
at the catechetical school in Alexandria continued to walk in
his footsteps.

St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria and defender of the


Trinity at the Council of Nicaea, does not hesitate to praise
him.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus gave significant expression to his


opinions. In collaboration with St. Basil, they published
"Philocalia," a Volume of selections from the "master."

St. Gregory of Nissa called Origen the prince of Christian


learning.

St. Jerome thought very highly of Origen’s work. According to


St. Jerome, the principal Latin imitators of Origen are St.
Eusebius of Verceil, St. Hilary of Poitiers, and St. Ambrose of
Milan; St. Victorinus had set them the example. (St.
Jerome"Adv. Rufin.", Ad Augustine. Epistle. cxii, 20)

I am now going to list a very brief biography on a few of the


most prominent of these individuals so you can see how they
influenced Christian theology. Keep in mind that in Origen’s
time the concept of Jesus and God being of the same
substance is in the extreme minority, and will remain in the
minority until around the fifth century.

61
First of all, we have to notice all the people who I will not
write a biography on that were listed previously, some of
which had the tittle of St. These people were leaders of their
Christian communities, and when they fell in line with
Origen’s teachings, they did a lot of harm by spreading this
new theology to their congregation and to new believers.

Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 AD), was a leader in the Roman


Church from 199-217 AD. He was considered the most learned
Christian writer in the city. He was visited by Origen and is
considered to be part of the Logos sect. Hippolytus created
such a stir in Rome with his logos Christology that Kallistos,
the bishop of Rome, excommunicated Sabellius who was a
Monarchist and charged Hyppolitus with being a worshipper
of two gods. Hyppolitus wrote many liturgical treatises
throughout his life. In 217 AD Hippolitus was passed over for
pope, he was so angered by that decision that he left Rome
and started his own religious anti-pope community outside of
Rome. (The Ecole Initiative Encyclopedia)

Comment - Notice, if you are considered to be part of a sect,


then you are not part of the mainstream. The Trinity was in
the process of forming itself and spreading, this is why it
created such a stir in Rome. If it had been the norm, the
bishop would not have accused him of worshipping two gods,
he would have known what he was trying to say. But he
didn’t. Which is why he accused him of worshipping two gods.
Why? Because by making Jesus "God," you are worshipping
two gods. The bishop in Rome could see that clearly.

Athanasius of Alexandria (290-373 AD), regarded by many as


the most important theologian of the fourth century. He
began his career in 325 AD when he was ordained a deacon by
Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. During that same year he
accompanied Alexander to the council of Nicaea as his
secretary and deacon. In 328 AD he was named bishop of
Alexandria until his death in 373 AD. However, of his 45 years
of reign, Athanasius spent almost 16 years in exile because of
his unpopular Nicene position. While in exile he wrote several
works, many which stress the significance of the incarnation
of God in the person of Christ. (The Ecole Initiative
Encyclopedia)

Comment - First, he comes from that great line of Alexandrian


Gnostics, second of all, it says he was exiled for his unpopular

62
Nicene position. It was not the norm, it was actually
unpopular.

Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390 AD), one of the Cappaddocian


Fathers. He was educated broadly in Christian writings,
especially those of Origen, and in Greek philosophy. He and
Basil assembled the Phiocalia, an anthology of Origen’s
works. From 379-381 AD he served the Nicene minority as
bishop of Constantinople. His rhetorical skill and defense of
the Nicene position, as shown in his five Theological Orations,
earned him the tittle "The Theologian." (The Ecole Initiative
Encyclopedia)

Comment - He was greatly influenced by Origen and Greek


philosophy (which is the same thing). Again, we see the
Nicene minority. The Cappadocian Fathers are well known for
their Trinitarian theology. They wrote many works, and were
very influential in spreading this doctrine.

Gregory of Nyssa (330-395 AD), one of the Cappadocian


Fathers, he was the brother of Basil. He became bishop of
Nyssa in 371 AD. He was deposed in 376 AD. He attended the
Council of Constantinople in 381. During a trip to Jerusalem,
he was forced to defend his Christology, although he was then
well-known for his Trinitarian theology. (The Ecole Initiative
Encyclopedia)

Comment - He was in attendance in Constantinople. One has


to wonder how much influence he had in making the Holy
Spirit the third member of the Trinity. Probably a lot. If the
Doctrine of the Trinity was the norm, why would he be forced
to defend his Christology? The answer is, because it was not
the norm.

Basil the Great (330-379 AD), one of the Cappadocian Fathers,


was the bishop of Caesarea. He became the Father of Greek
Monasticism. He fought to uphold the Nicene Creed. (The
Ecole Initiative Encyclopedia)

Comment - Why would you have to fight to uphold something


that Jesus and the Apostles taught? The answer is, because
they did not teach it, it was a new way of looking at Scripture.

Ambrose of Milan (339-397 AD), was the provincial governor


of Rome. He was made bishop of Rome. He later converted
Augustine (who according to The Encyclopedia Britannica,
"was greatly influenced by Plato") and baptized him.

All these men contributed vastly to the spreading of the


doctrine of the Trinity. How? The reasons for combining

63
Christianity with Greek philosophy were covered earlier, and
this is one reason why it spread. A modern day hypothetical
situation can help us to illustrate the process.

Suppose that I am the leader in Miami of a relatively new


religion called Christianity. Bob is the leader of a similar
group in Tampa. Mike is the leader in Orlando. David is the
leader in Naples. And Tim is the leader in Jacksonville. None
of us are above the others. We together, are the church. Now,
Bob is a graduate of a highly prestigious university called
Gnostics R Us. After much consultation with his professors at
the university, Bob thinks he has found the true meaning of a
certain verse. It was probably not discovered earlier because
according to his professors, what is written is really not what
is meant. Bob is considered to be a very intelligent guy, and
he is very devoted to the faith. He then starts teaching this
new idea to his group, some believe him, and some do not. He
visits all the other leaders to show them what he has found,
and some agree with him, but most do not. Bob fortunately,
has a member of his group who loves to write, and he
produces thousands of works and circulates them to the other
groups. Bob creates a web site, and also does a little
traveling, promoting this new idea. After a few years this idea
has caught on a little, and there are small groups of people
within their congregations who agree with Bob, but they are
still in the minority, They are a sect within Christianity.

Tim who has always looked up to Bob, agrees with Bob. Tim is
a very good speaker and he teaches this idea to his
congregation, and the idea continues to spread. David, who
was a student of Bob’s also agrees with him, and tries to
convince his group of this new insight into the Scriptures. Bob
even appears on the Opra Show to discuss his findings.

Now the issue comes to the forefront and the leaders start to
fight among themselves as to who is right.

The Governor of Florida who likes Christianity but at the same


time worships the sun, tries to help settle the matter and
decides to have a meeting to settle this problem once and for
all. The Governor presides over this meeting, and when it
seems that nothing will be settled, he decides (for no specific
reason) in favor of Bob. All he is interested in is that there be
peace in Florida. Later, when he sees that the other view is
more popular, he reverses his decision. Years later, when his
grandson is Governor, he decides grandpa was wrong and
reverses his decision, and then creates a law that makes any
view other than Bob’s illegal and punishable by death. At
first, a lot of people protest against it, but they are brutally
suppressed and their writings are burned. After a few

64
centuries, due to the swift punishments and suppression, it is
uncontested and has now become the norm. This explanation
is very simplistic, but I think it you can get an overall picture
of how this doctrine spread.

Conclusion: Origen due to his Greek influence and his method


of allegorizing Scripture has every major point in Christianity
incorrect. I give Origen an F in theology.

TERTULLIAN

Tertullian (155/160-220 AD), was is considered one of the


greatest Western theologians and writers of Christian
antiquity. He is considered the Father of Latin Christianity. He
was instrumental in shaping the vocabulary and thought of
Western Christianity and the creation of Christian
ecclesiastical Latin. He was born in Carthage, Egypt, an area
(like Alexandria) which was very much influenced by
Gnosticism and Stoicism. He received an excellent education
in grammar, rhetoric, literature, Greek philosophy, and law.
Tertullian was a Stoic lawyer who in 195 converted from
paganism to Christianity. About 207 he broke with the church
and joined the Montanist. Soon after, however he broke with
them and created his own party known as the Tertullianists.
He was considered to be an extremist by nature.

His writings had a lasting effect on Christian thought,


especially through those who, like Cyprian considered him a
"master" (Encyclopedia Britannica and Grolier’s Multimedia
Encyclopedia). Tertullian’s most influential work was the
definition of Logos Christology:

"All are of one, by unity of substance, while the mystery of


the dispensation is still guarded which distribute this unity
into a trinity, placing in their order the three, the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit." (Logos Christology, The Root of
Arianism and Trinitariansim)

Tertullian was the first Christian writer to use the term


trinitas. He uses the term Dispensation to describe the
relations of the Godhead. In Chap. 2 of Against Praxeas he
says:

65
"The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity and Unity, sometimes
called the Divine Economy, or Dispensation of the personal
relations of the Godhead."

Tertullian is definitely a logos Christology theologian. He


differs slightly with Origen in that he is not thinking in a
purely static threeness. For Tertullian the second and third
persons proceed from the unity because they have a function
to fulfill. Only the Father remains completely transcendent.
(Development of Trinitariansim by Mark Mattison)

For Tertullian the Son has not always existed. He is


subordinate to the Father. The Son is also not omniscient. He
considers the Father the whole divine substance, and the Son
a part of it. To explain his views, he uses illustrations of the
sun and it’s beam, "He would not have two suns he says. The
sunbeam, too, in itself considered, may be called sun, but not
the sun a beam."

These three views are in opposition to the Doctrine of the


Trinity. Tertullian was not a Trinitarian in the modern day
sense, but he was instrumental in the development of the
Trinity.

AGAINST PRAXEAS

This is an incredible document in its testimony of where this


concept of God as a triune being was at during this point in
time. Was it the established teaching, or was it a developing
idea?

This letter was written to combat another view that was also
spreading called Modalism or Sabellianism. It argued that the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all just manifestations of
God. In other words, God came to earth as Jesus, and when He
comes into our hearts, He comes as the Holy Spirit. This might
almost sound as Trinitarian, and most people describe the
Trinity as such, but this is not the definition of the Trinity.
Modalism argues that God suffered and died on the cross.
This creates an immense problem since everyone knows that
God cannot die. This is one reason the Trinity describes God
as three separate persons and yet one. In this way the Son as
a separate person can die. Of course, is you consider Jesus to
be true God of true God as Trinitarians do, then God was still
the one who was crucified and died on the cross. Very
confusing to say the least. This is why it is referred to as a

66
mystery. An example of the difference between the two
doctrines can best be illustrated by a simple explanation. In
the Trinity, it is possible for the three of them to be present at
the same time and to have a conversation. For the Modalist, it
is not possible. God just becomes Jesus or the Holy Spirit
when it is necessary.

Tertullian will intensely argue that the Father and Son are
separate persons, unlike Modalism which argues that they are
all the same person. It is an excellent Unitarian argument. He
uses almost all the same verses that a Unitarian would use to
show you that Jesus is not God. He argues that the Father and
Jesus are not the same person, but when he comes across 1
Corinthians 8:6, "Yet for us there is one God, the Father," he
says that in this case the Son is included in the term "Father."
What reason does he give for this exception? None
whatsoever. He just dismisses it so that he can justify his
arguments. Just consider this, only God = Father, and then
listen to his arguments. They are fantastically Unitarian!

Chap. III. vv. 1. "The majority of believers, are STARTLED at


the Dispensation (of the Three in One)...They are constantly
throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods
and three gods...While the Greeks actually REFUSE to
understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation (of the Three in
One)."

These are incredible statements! Tertullian is acknowledging


that the majority of believers did not agree with the Doctrine
of the Trinity. They accused him of being a polytheist. The
Greeks refused altogether to believe him. These statements
are probably the best proofs that the Doctrine of the Trinity
was not taught by the Apostles. If it had been taught by
them, the majority of believers would have known about the
Dispensation and would not have been startled by it, neither
would they have accused him of worshipping two gods. This
doctrine was something new, it was not the established belief
of Christianity as you can see. It was starting to work itself
out, and at the same time some people were trying to spread
this new teaching to other Christians. But it was not in the
majority, in fact, it was very much in the minority.

Chap. III. "How comes it to pass that God should be thought


to suffer division and severance in the Son and in the Holy
Ghost, who have the second and third places assigned to
them."

Tertullian’s trinity is definitely hierarchical. The Son is in


second place, and the Holy Spirit is third. This is completely

67
different from today’s trinity which insists on them being
equal.

Chap. VII. "And while I recognize the Son, I assert his


distinction as second to the Father."

Tertullian considers the Son subordinate to the Father.

Chap. IX. "Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being
greater than the Son."

The Son is Subordinate.

Chap. X. "In order to be a father, I have a son, for I never can


be a son to myself; and in order to be a son, I have a father, it
being impossible for me ever to be my own father."

Tertullian will now start to show us that the Father and the
Son are two distinct persons. The only problem with that is
that he ignores 1 Corinthians 8:6, yet for us there is one God,
the Father, and all the other verses which say "God the
Father." You will never see one verse that says God the Son.
In the Bible, only Father = God.

Chap. X. "That He who speaks; and He of whom He speaks,


and to whom He speaks, cannot possibly seem to be One and
the same. So absurd and misleading a statement would be
unworthy of God, that, widen it was Himself to whom He was
speaking, He speaks rather to another."

Remember, I consider only Father = God, so from now on, in


these type of verses, I will just say, "I agree."

Chap XV. "Speaking of God, he says, "whom no man hath


seen, nor can see," because the man indeed would die who
should see Him. But the very same Apostle testifies that they
had both seen and "handled" Christ. Now, if Christ is himself
both the Father and the Son, how can he be both the visible
and the invisible?"

I agree!

Chap. XXI. "Everyone who saw the Son, and believed on him,
should obtain the life (everlasting) and the resurrection at
the last day."

It seems that he believes in the resurrection at the last day,


and not in going to heaven.

68
Chap. XXII. "You are not ignorant whence I came, and I am not
come of myself, But He that sent me is true, whom ye know
not; but I know Him, because I am from Him. He did not say,
Because I myself am He; and I have sent mine own self; but
his words are, "He hath sent me."

I agree!

Chap. XXII. "Now, if he were one, being at once both the Son
and the Father, he certainly would not have quoted the
sanction of the law, which requires not the testimony of one,
but of two."

I agree!

Chap. XXII. "When he was asked by the Jews if he were Christ,


meaning, of course, the Christ of God; for to this day the Jews
expect not the Father Himself, but the Christ of God, it being
nowhere said that the Father will come as the Christ."

I agree!

Chap. XXIV. "For in all these passages he had shown himself


to be the Father’s Commissioner, through whose agency even
the Father could be seen in his works, and heard in his words,
and recognized in the Son’s administration of the Father’s
words and deeds."

Perfect!

Chap. XXVI. "He is also ignorant of the last day and hour,
which is known only to the Father."

Tertullian does not consider Jesus to be omniscient, as the


Doctrine of the Trinity does today.

Chap. XXVIII. "For if Christ is God the Father, when he says, "I
ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and
your God," he of course shows plainly enough that there is
above himself another Father and another God."

Exactly!

Chap. XXVIII. "Paul in like manner everywhere speaks of "God


the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

I agree!

Chap. XXIX. "It plainly follows that the divine nature is


immortal, and that which is human is mortal, it is manifested

69
in what sense he declares "Christ died"... In short, since he
says that it was Christ (that is, the Anointed One) that died,
he shows us that that which died was the nature which was
anointed; in a word, the flesh."

This is classic Gnostic Dualism. Tertullian believes Jesus to


have two natures, and only the human side died on the cross.
But if this were true and only the human side of Jesus died
and not the divine side, then did Jesus really die on the cross?

Chap. XXXI. "But "whoever shall confess that (Jesus) Christ is


the Son of God" (not the Father), "God dwelleth in him, and he
in God."

I agree! Remember, Father = God.

Conclusion - Due to the strong influence that Stoicism had on


him, Tertullian believes in logos Christology, just as his
neighboring Alexandrians did.

Tertullian does a wonderful job of showing how the Son is


separate from the Father. His main problem is that he ignores
the fact that only the Father is God. He believes Jesus to be
subordinate, not eternal nor omniscient. This is vastly
different from today’s Trinity, which shows how it was not an
established teaching of the church.

Tertullian admits that the majority of believers do not believe


in the Dispensation. That statement should give you a pretty
clear picture of where the Trinity was at in that time period.
He considers Jesus to have a dual (Gnostic) nature. He
mentions the resurrection of the dead at the last day, so for
now I think he might believe in the kingdom of God on earth.

PRAYER

4:2 "That the will of God be done in us on earth, in order that


it may be done (by us) also in heaven."

Tertullian is commenting on the verse in the Lord’s prayer,


"Thy will be done in heaven and on earth," as he quotes it. He
seems to believe in going to heaven, although I am not sure
how he combines this with his belief in the resurrection of the
dead on the last day that he mentioned in Against Praxeas.

70
5:1 "Thy kingdom come," also refers to the same end as "Thy
will be done," namely, (May Thy kingdom come) in ourselves,
for when does God not reign?.... if the realization of our
Lord’s kingdom has reference to the will of God and to our
uncertain condition, how is it that some ask for an extension
of time, as it were, for this world, since the kingdom of God--
for the coming of which we pray tends toward the
consummation of the world? Our hope is that we may sooner
reign, and not be slaves any longer."

5:2 "Even if it were not prescribed to ask for in prayer for the
coming of His kingdom, we would, of our own accord, have
expressed this desire in our eagerness to embrace the object
of our hope."

5:4 "It is for the coming of this kingdom that we are harassed
now, or rather, it is for this coming that we pray."

I combined these three verses because they must be read


together in order to come to some sort of a conclusion. He
starts by implying that the kingdom of God is in ourselves,
but then he talks about the coming of His kingdom as the
object of our hope. This part implies something in the future,
if one has hope for something it means that that something
has not yet happened. He mentions that we are harassed now
for the kingdom that is to come.

It could be that he believes that the kingdom of God is in the


future, but that in a sense, it is in ourselves, in that God is
already reigning in our hearts. I cannot come to a definite
conclusion from these verses on his view of the kingdom of
God.

Final conclusion - Tertullian is not clear on the subject of


death and the kingdom of God. He makes statements that can
suggest both going to heaven or resurrection at the last day.
His view on the kingdom is just as vague. Tertullian believes
in a Trinity, but a much different Trinity than we have today.
Tertullian’s trinity is hierarchical, with the Father first, the
Son second, and the Holy Spirit third. They are not co-equal.
The Son is not eternal, nor is he omniscient.

Many historians regard Tertullian as having a primitive form


of Trinitarianism. His theological language will be used to
carve out the orthodox position in the Christological and
Trinitarian controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries.

From reading Tertullian one can come to two major


conclusions. First, is that the Trinity was not the established
belief of the majority of believers. Second, is that you can tell

71
that the Doctrine of the Trinity was something relatively new
and just starting to develop. This is suggested by the fact
that Tertullian’s Trinity is vastly different from the Doctrine of
the Trinity that was established as the orthodox position over
the next few centuries. If the Apostles had taught the
Doctrine of the Trinity, it would have been a solid teaching of
the church and would not have changed as drastically as it
did.

Tertullian was very much influenced by Greek philosophy,


especially Stoicism. He was a Stoic lawyer who found
Christianity and became a Stoic Christian. With his Stoic
background it is easy to understand how he reached his
views. The area in which he was born did not help matters at
all. The earliest teachers in Egypt before Christianity arrived
were the Gnostics.

Due to the fact that I am inconclusive on his view on death


and the kingdom of God, I give Tertullian a D- in theology.

ATHANASIUS

Athanasius (290-373 AD), he received a classical and


theological education in Alexandria, where he was also
ordained deacon and appointed secretary to the bishop
Alexander. As a theological expert he accompanied the bishop
Alexander to the Council of Nicaea. Athanasius explained how
the logos, the Word of God, was united with human nature.
He was the main proponent at Nicaea of the concept of
homoousios which was developed earlier by another
Alexandrian, Origen. Origen argued that Jesus and God were
of the same substance. In 328 Athanasius was named
successor of Alexander, becoming the bishop of Alexandria.
However, because of his unpopular Nicene position, he spent
15 years and 10 months in exile. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Comment - Notice how he was considered a theological expert


in Alexandria, Gnostic wonderland. It is here that he received
his theological education. It is expected that he would have
the same views as his fellow Alexandrian theologians, but his
views were not the norm in Christianity at that time, which is
why he was exiled for his unpopular Nicene position. His
position at Nicaea did not take into account the Holy Spirit as
the third member, it only dealt with Jesus. I have to ask

72
myself why? If it was the established belief of the church, why
did they have to wait until the Council of Constantinople fifty
six years later to include the Holy Spirit as a member? The
reason is because it was not the established teaching, it was
a doctrine that was trying to come into its own. It was making
a power grab at Nicaea.

If at Nicaea the church had just formalized the belief that was
already established by the church,

(as Trinitarians will argue) then there should have been no


further disputes after Nicaea. But this is not what happened
as we shall see in the next chapter.

I am going to cover Athanasius very briefly. Only his work On


the Incarnation. He is obviously a proponent of at least a
binity, so to speak, maybe even a trinity, although I have not
seen that thought reflective in his work, On the Incarnation.

ON THE INCARNATION

1:1 "We also, by God’s grace, briefly indicated that the Word
of the Father is Himself divine, that all things owe their being
to His will and power."

Athanasius is an adherent to logos Christology, just like his


predecessors in Alexandria.

1:1 "That mystery the Jews traduce, the Greeks deride, but
we adore."

Athanasius is saying something very significant here. He is


talking about the mystery of the dispensation of the three in
one. The Jews one would expect to traduce, because they do
not accept Jesus as the Messiah, but the Greeks that are
mentioned as deriding the mystery are Greek Christians.
According to Webster’s Dictionary, deride means; to laugh at
in scorn; ridicule. This is very similar to Tertullian’s statement
in Against Praxeas that says:

"While the Greeks actually refuse to understand the


oikonomia, or the Dispensation (of the Three in One)."

73
Even Athanasius admits that there were a lot of people who
did not accept this belief. As a matter of fact, the majority did
not believe this doctrine to be true.

1:6 "And after it the assurance of immortality in heaven."

Athanasius believes in going to heaven. This is basic


Platonism.

4:1 "Christ is revealed as God and Son of God."

Do I even have to comment on this verse? Recall how Philo


substituted the Logos for the Demiurge of Plato’s Timaeus,
thus making the Logos the actual creator and intermediary
between God and man.

4:9 "He re-opened the road to heaven."

He is very clear on his belief in going to heaven.

8:1 "And by taking refuge with Christ; and by worshipping


him as God they come through him to know the Father also."

Not one person in the New Testament ever worshipped Jesus


as God. I guess Athanasius knows more than the Apostles.

Conclusion - Athanasius believes in going to heaven. He does


not believe or know about the kingdom of God on earth. He
believes Jesus to be God and the Son of God. If I believed this
concept, I would have absolutely no way of explaining it to
someone. I guess I would also say that it is a mystery.

He believes Jesus and the Father to be of the same substance,


and he will be the proponent of this idea at Nicaea. I give
Athanasius an F in theology.

CHAPTER 5

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CHURCH AFTER NICAEA

325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order


to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The
Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the
Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor

74
Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan
religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the


discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula
expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed
issued by the council. "of one substance with the Father."

The American Academic Encyclopedia states:

"Although this was not Constantine’s first attempt to


reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had
used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement."

At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius


over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.

328 AD - Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria.

328 AD - Constantine recalls Arius from Illyria.

335 AD - Constantine now sides with Arius and exiles


Athanasius to Trier.

337 AD - A new emperor, Contantius, orders the return of


Athanasius to Alexandria.

339 AD - Athanasius flees Alexandria in anticipation of being


expelled.

341 AD - Two councils are held in Antioch this year. During


this council, the First, Second, and Third Arian Confessions
are written, thereby beginning the attempt to produce a
formal doctrine of faith to oppose the Nicene Creed.

343 AD - At the Council of Sardica, Eastern Bishops demand


the removal of Athanasius.

75
346 AD - Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.

351 AD - A second anti - Nicene council is held in Sirmium.

353 AD - A council is held at Aries during Autumn that is


directed against Athanasius.

355 AD - A council is held in Milan. Athanasius is again


condemned.

356 AD - Athanasius is deposed on February 8th, beginning


his third exile.

357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both


homoousios and homoiousios are avoided as unbiblical, and it
is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.

359 AD - The Synod of Seleucia is held which affirms that


Christ is "like the Father," It does not however, specify how
the Son is like the Father.

361 AD - A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius’ positions.

380 AD - Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity


the official state religion of the empire.

381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople is held to review


the controversy since Nicaea. Emperor Theodosius the Great
establishes the creed of Nicaea as the standard for his realm.
The Nicene Creed is re-evaluated and accepted with the

76
addition of clauses on the Holy Spirit and other matters.
(History of Arian Controversy)

If you believe that Nicaea just formalized the prevalent


teaching of the church, then there really should not have
been any conflicts. Why should there be? If it were the
established teaching of the church, then you would expect
people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It would be
like me being a member of the Communist Party. I would join
it knowing that they do not believe in the ownership of
private property, no conflict. But now, say after I have been a
member of the party for a few years, someone decides to
introduce a proposal that we allow the ownership of private
property, not everyone in the party is going to agree, the
result is conflict. This is similar to what happened in the
church. It was not the established teaching, and when some
faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was
major conflict.

It was mainly a theological power grab by certain factions of


the church. The major complication throughout all this was
that the emperors were involved. At Nicaea it was
Constantine that decided the outcome. Then as you can see,
we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that
Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on who is in
power. We even have in 357 AD the declaration that
homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the
Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180
degrees from Nicaea. It is definitely not the Trinitarian
formula.

In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declares Christianity the state


religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way
Theodosius favors, is the way in which it is going to end. This
is exactly what happened next. In 381 AD the struggle was
finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great,
who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the
EMPEROR again decided it. The emperors were dictating the
theology of the church. The big difference now was that there
was not going to be any more changing sides. It was now the
state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion
and then change its beliefs every few years, it would
undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now
the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up.
Debates however, would continue for years to come.

77
CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY

From the writings of these authors it is evident that the


Doctrine of the Trinity was not an established teaching set
forth by Jesus and the Apostles. The Apostolic Fathers had
absolutely no knowledge of a triune God. Even if you disagree
with my conclusions about Ignatius, he still did not know of
any triune God. He only stated that Jesus was God. It seemed
to be more of a Modalist view if anything. One would also
then have to wonder what he meant by the word "God." Back
in the first century it had more meanings than it does today.
It was used as a term for the Hebrew king, or rulers to whom
the word of God had come to. But Ignatius by no means was a
Trinitarian. He never once mentioned the Holy Spirit as a part
of anything, especially a part of a triune God.

The theology of the Apostolic Fathers is right on track. They


were all in agreement on God, His Son, the kingdom, and
death. They were one. The trouble really started even in the
Apostles time. Paul and John wrote against the Gnostics in
their epistles. It was kept in check by the Apostles and later
on by the men they had placed to lead their Christian
communities. As time went on and Christianity spread, the
leaders of the church were no longer Jews but gentiles. These
gentiles brought to Christianity the strong influence of Greek
philosophy that they had been educated in. They all tried to
explain Christianity in the framework of Greek philosophy.
The major push came in the late 2nd and 3rd century. Most of
the damage originated in Egypt, and mostly out of Alexandria.

Philo of Alexandria laid the groundwork for the coming


disaster.

Clement of Alexandria, Egypt, 155-220 AD.

Origen of Alexandria, Egypt, 185-254 AD.

Tertullian of Cartage, Egypt, 160-220 AD.

Athanasius of Alexandria, Egypt, 298-373 AD.

Hippolytus of Rome (he knew Origen), 170-236 AD.

78
As you will notice, the main contributors to the concept of a
triune God are all from the same time period. They were all
members of the logos Christology sect. Loofs, a historian of
Christology remarks:

"That the transference of the conception of Son to the


preexistent Logos by the Alexandrian theologians was the
most important factor in the establishment of the pluralistic
character of Christian doctrine." (The Doctrine of the Trinity
by Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting)

Here are a few more quotes from experts in this field:

The Encyclopedia Americana: "Fourth century Trinitarianism


did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding
the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from
this teaching."

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge: "Many say that the


trinity is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions,
and ingrafted on the Christian faith."

The Paganism in Our Christianity: "The origin of the trinity is


entirely pagan."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:


"The doctrines of the Logos and the trinity received their
shape from Greek Fathers, who were much influenced,
directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy. That errors
and corruptions crept into the church from this source cannot
be denied."

The Church of the First Few Centuries: "The Doctrine of the


Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation. It
had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the
Jewish and Christian Scriptures. It grew up, and was ingrafted
on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers."

Outlines of the History of Dogma: "Church doctrine became


rooted in the soil of Hellenism (pagan Greek thought).
Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of
Christians."

Logos Christology was a stepping stone to the Doctrine of the


Trinity. Yet, even these men were not Trinitarians in the
modern sense. One has to ask themselves why not? If it was

79
the established teaching of the church, there should not have
been any difference from the 2nd to the 4th century, or for
that matter to the present. But there was a great deal of
difference between their views. The reason being was that it
was not the established teaching of the church, but a new
idea, a new way of interpreting the Scriptures. It was in its
developing stage. This is why there was so much conflict. This
is why Tertullian said, "The majority of believers are startled
at the dispensation (of the three in one)." It must have been
just that, STARTLING! I am still startled today.

I do not claim that these men spread a false doctrine on


purpose. I think they really thought that that they were
correct. Most of these men were persecuted because of their
faith. Origen was tortured and eventually died from his
injuries. I think they were good men that were not able to
separate their Greek philosophical views from their new
Christian faith.

After the Doctrine of the Trinity was established as the


orthodox position, it was then maintained through the years
by suppression and fear.

A FINAL PLEA FOR RESTORATION

All this has lead to a near fatal blow to the Christianity that
Jesus and his Apostles preached. In order to restore
Christianity to its original form, we have to willing to remove
all the Greek philosophy from Christianity. We have to be
willing to challenge the status quo. We have to be willing to
read God’s instruction book, the Bible, and not let others tell
us what we should believe. We have to be willing to invest a
little time in order to find the truth, and we have to be willing
to share our findings with other Christians.

Satan’s lie is very well packaged, but it is very shallow.

I hope this paper has been of some use to you. May God Bless
you with the truth.

If you have any questions or comments please feel free to


contact us at:

baixeras@aol.com

80
BACK HOME

81

You might also like