Did the early fathers know the Trinity
In the name of God, the Most Gracious , the Most Merciful
Quoted from
http://st-takla.org/Saints/Coptic-Or...Story_174.html
Saint Clement of Rome, Bishop of Rome
Saint Clement of Rome (or Clement of Rome, Clement) is described by St. Irenaeus , a man of the second century: "He saw the blessed apostles and talked with them, their preaching was still resounding in his ears, and their tradition was before his eyes."
Opinions differed about his person, as some see him as one of the apostle Paul's assistants in the service (Phil. 4:3), and some see him as the consul Flavius Clemens, a member of the royal family, the grandson of Emperor Vespasian and cousin of Emperor Domitian , and some see him as just a relative of the consul, or a Jewish slave of his who freed him and bore his name.
In any case, he is considered the third bishop of Rome after Linus and Anacletus, he was ordained bishop in the twelfth year of the reign of Domitian, and died in the third year of the reign of Trajan.
Some believe that the Santo Council in Rome could not bear to see among them a nobleman who had become a Christian bishop, attracting the nobles to Christianity, so they met, invited him, and advised him to abandon his Christianity. When he refused, they presented a report about him to Trajan, who ordered his exile to the Crimean Peninsula and assigned him to cut stones . (You will find more about these saints here on the website of St-Takla.org in the sections on Biographies, Synaxarium, History, and Sayings of the Fathers . ) There in exile, he met about two thousand exiled Christians and was a caring father to them. When they were in need of water, he met with some believers and began to pray, so the Lord guided him to a rock with a spring of water from which they could draw water.
Many pagans believed at his hands, and the exile became a center of worship and preaching, which filled the governors with anger, so they put an anchor around his neck and threw him into the sea, where he drowned in the year 101 AD ( 29 Hathor ). It was said that his body remained in the sea for a whole year without decay until the Lord revealed it.
Thus his biography presents us with a picture of the life of faith that transformed exile into something like a sanctuary for the Lord, and distress into a source of joy, so that the believer lives amidst suffering, rejoicing in God’s work with him.
His message:
His message to the Corinthians had its weight, and is read in the churches... It bears the stamp of his friend, our teacher Paul the Apostle, and his way of thinking. It is considered the first of the patristic writings that occupied a special place in the Church.
* Also written: Clement, Clement, Clement, Clement, Clement, Clement, Bishop of Rome.
* Wrongly written: Clement, Clemens.
Now let us see if Clement of Rome knew anything about the Trinity or not?
The surprise is that Clement of Rome believed the following:
First:
That Christ was sent by God and that God sent Christ just as Christ sent the twelve apostles.
Second:
That the Father is God alone and that Christ is His servant.
Let us read what Clement of Rome says.
It came in his first letter to the Corinthians
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS
In chapter 42
CHAPTER 42
The Apostles received for us the gospel from our Lord Jesus Christ; our Lord Jesus Christ received it from God.
Christ, therefore, was sent out from God, and the Apostles from Christ; And both these things were done in good order, according to the will of God.
The Apostles received for us the gospel from our Lord Jesus Christ; our Lord Jesus Christ received it from God.
Christ, therefore, was sent out from God, and the Apostles from Christ; And both these things were done in good order, according to the will of God.
Translation:
The apostles received the Gospel from our Lord Jesus Christ and our Lord Jesus Christ received it from God.
Christ was sent by God and the apostles were sent by Christ and both were done in order according to God’s will.
It is clear, of course, according to the previous words of Clement of Rome that he believes that Christ was sent by God and that he is the Messenger of God and does not believe that Christ is God himself, of course.
Christ received the Gospel from God and God sent him, so he is not God in any way.
The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that the words of Clement of Rome about Christ being sent by God and the apostles being sent by Christ have raised a lot of discussion and controversy.
We read from the following link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm
, which is a link from the Catholic Encyclopedia that talks about Clement of Rome
under the title Doctorine or Doctrine.
The apostles received the Gospel from our Lord Jesus Christ and our Lord Jesus Christ received it from God.
Christ was sent by God and the apostles were sent by Christ and both were done in order according to God’s will.
It is clear, of course, according to the previous words of Clement of Rome that he believes that Christ was sent by God and that he is the Messenger of God and does not believe that Christ is God himself, of course.
Christ received the Gospel from God and God sent him, so he is not God in any way.
The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that the words of Clement of Rome about Christ being sent by God and the apostles being sent by Christ have raised a lot of discussion and controversy.
We read from the following link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm
, which is a link from the Catholic Encyclopedia that talks about Clement of Rome
under the title Doctorine or Doctrine.
His words on the Christian ministry have given rise to much discussion (42 and 44): “The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ ; Jesus Christ was sent from God . So then Christ is from God , and the Apostles from Christ. Both [missions] therefore came in due order by the will of God
http://st-takla.org/Coptic-Faith-Cre...y__Didach.html
The Greek word διδαχή (Didache) and in English Didach - Didache means "teaching". It is an important ancient document called in Greek Διδαχή των ΙΒ 'Αποστόλων , meaning "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles". Its common title is: "The Teaching of the Apostles", while its long title is: "The Teaching of the Lord to the Nations through the Twelve Apostles ". The date of writing this document dates back to the end of the first century AD or the beginning of the second, and it is believed to be older than the Gospel of St. John .
The Didache is considered the "first church organization" that has come down to us, as it is one of the most important and oldest documents in religious education and church legislation, as it contains the oldest liturgical texts after the books of the New Testament . It thus occupies a middle position between the books of the New Testament and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.
This document was discovered in a single Greek manuscript in 1871 AD. Its discovery in the late nineteenth century had a huge impact on the church's academic circles . Patristic scholars knew that there was something called "the teaching of the apostles" without being able to find any trace of it until that time.
We saw that the Didache is one of the oldest church documents and that it expresses the doctrines of the early church.
Did the Gospel of the Didache know the Trinity or did it know the servitude of Christ to God, the Lord of the worlds?
We read the texts and let them speak.
We read the texts of the Didache from
Robert Donaldson's English
at the following link:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...e-roberts.html
We read from Chapter 9:
The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy Servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant ; to Thee be the glory for ever
And concerning the broken bread
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant , to Thee be the glory for ever
And concerning the broken bread
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant , to Thee be the glory for ever
Translation:
Chapter Nine
1- Concerning the Eucharist, give thanks thus:
2- First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus your servant , to you be glory forever.
Chapter Nine
1- Concerning the Eucharist, give thanks thus:
2- First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus your servant , to you be glory forever.
3- Regarding the breaking of bread: We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge that you have shown us through your servant Jesus , to you be glory forever.
We read from Chapter 10:
<B>
Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion. But after you are filled, give thanks this way:</B>
We read from Chapter 10:
<B>
Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion. But after you are filled, give thanks this way:
We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modestly known to us through Jesus Thy Servant ; ToThee be the glory forever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Servant . Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; ToThee be the glory forever.
Translation:
Chapter 10
1- After you are filled, give thanks thus:
2- We thank you, O Holy Father, for your holy name which you have made dwell in our hearts. And for the knowledge, faith, and immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant , glory be to you forever.
3- O Lord Almighty, you created all things for your name’s sake. You gave people food and drink to enjoy so that they might thank you. As for us, you have given us spiritual food and drink, and eternal life through your servant .
4- We thank you before all things; because you are able; glory be to you forever.
and so that Christians do not say that we read what we like and leave what we do not like,
let us read the seventh chapter of the Didache from one of the Arabic translations:
Chapter 7
1- Concerning baptism, baptize thus: After we have said it before, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit , with running water.
2- If you do not have running water, baptize with another water, and if you can with cold water, then with hot water.
3- If you do not have both, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit .
4- Before baptism, let the baptizer, the one who is baptized, and whoever among others is able to do so fast, and advise the one who is baptized to fast for a day or two before baptism.
Christians may say that the presence of the formula (in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) in the Didache is evidence of the early church’s belief in the Trinity.
In response, we say:
First:
The most that can be proven from the text is the early church’s glorification of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in the text that proves that the church believes that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are gods, or that they are all hypostases of one God.
Second:
The Didache Gospel proves Christ’s servitude to God Almighty in more than one place, or that describing him as the Son of God is like describing David, peace be upon him, as the Son of God, i.e. in the sense of choice and election.
So how can we say that the Gospel proves the Trinity?
Third:
It is worth noting that some researchers considered baptism with the formula (in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) to be added at a later time to the Didache.
We return again to Ben H. Swett and see what he says in his comments on chapter seven:
The Trinity formula “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” appears only once in the New Testament (Matthew 28:19). It is probably a later insertion (redaction) in both the Didache and Matthew's Gospel, because the Trinity was not defined until AD 362. The original reading was probably “In the name of the Lord” (see the Didache 9:5).
Translation:
The formula of the Trinity (in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit) appears only once in the New Testament (Matthew 28:19). It is probably a late addition in both the Didache and the Gospel of Matthew, since the Trinity was not defined until AD 362. Perhaps the original reading was (in the name of the Lord). See Didache 9:5.
Let us read Didache 9:5 to see why some scholars think that (in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit) is a later addition and that the original reading is (in the name of the Lord)?
Didache 9:5: - Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist unless he has been baptized in the name of the Lord ; for the Lord has said concerning this, “Do not give what is holy to the dogs.” That is, the Didache itself testifies that baptism was in the name of the Lord or Master (i.e., Christ) and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In general, whether the text is an addition or not, it does not prove that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all gods, nor that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three hypostases of the one God. The Didache also states that Christ is a servant of God or that he is a son of God, just as David, peace be upon him, was a son of God, meaning chosen by God. The bottom line is that the Didache expresses the belief of the early Christians and the early church in the servitude of Christ to God Almighty, and proves that their calling Christ the Son of God is like their calling David, peace be upon him, the same title, and that they understood the Son of God to mean chosen and beloved by God. The Didache also proves that the early church knew nothing about the Trinity.
Second: The legality of the book of the Shepherd of Hermes:
Just to clarify, the word “legality” of a certain book means whether Christians consider it a divine revelation or not.
For example, when I say:
The Gospel of John is a legal book, it
means that Christians believe that it is a divine revelation.
When I say:
The Gospel of the Nazarenes is not legal,
it means that Christians do not consider it a divine revelation.
When I say:
The Book of Enoch is legal for the Ethiopian Church and not legal for the rest of the churches,
it means that only the Ethiopian Church considers the Book of Enoch a divine revelation, while the rest of the churches do not consider it a revelation.
The important thing is that we return to the book of the Shepherd of Hermes to prove from Christian references that it was legal in some Christian circles...
We read from
the sources of church rituals: The Didache (Teachings of the Apostles), Dar Nubar - p. 57.
Under the title of The Shepherd of Hermas: [ It is the most widely circulated of the books of the Apostolic Fathers that have reached us, and the book belongs in its subject to the style of vision, and it occupied a prestigious position in the first centuries of Christianity, and was elevated by some fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullianus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen to the level of the dignity of the divine books . ] We read from other Christian sources: The book entitled The Shepherd appears to be the work of a writer called Hermas, the brother of Pope Pius (140-155). The author enjoyed great esteem in the East, to the point that he was sometimes placed among the sacred books [1]. The book met with great success and unparalleled popularity, to the point that Irenaeus, Tertullianus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen placed it on the level of the sacred books. In the early fourth century, Eusebius mentioned that "The Shepherd" was recited in some churches and used in the education of catechumens or those seeking baptism. [2] The Shepherd of Hermas is one of the non-canonical works that had a prestigious position in the early Christian centuries. It was quickly translated from Greek into Latin in the second century. Some even considered it a canonical book. Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria praised it and considered it a holy book. Origen also considered it inspired, although he knew that some did not appreciate it. Tertullian, who was a Catholic, classified The Shepherd among the holy books, but when he embraced Montanism, he rejected it strongly and dogmatically, calling it "a book of adultery and the master of adulterers." As for the Muratorian Canon, it is recommended to read it, but not publicly in the church, but in private [3]. Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, wrote “A Defense Against Gnosticism” between 180-189 AD, in which he acknowledged the existence of the Epistles: First Peter, First, Second, and Third John, and he also acknowledged the canonical nature of the Book of Revelation and the Shepherd of Hermas [4].
1- Adelbert Hamann, A Guide to Reading the Church Fathers , First Edition (Beirut: Dar Al-Mashreq , 2002, page 12)
2- Bishop Kyrollos Bustros, History of Christian Thought among the Church Fathers , First Edition ( Beirut: Al-Boulisiya Library , 2001, page 78)
3- Translated by George Nassour, The Oldest Christian Texts , ( Beirut: Theological Studies Association, Kaslik, 1975, page 80)
4- Monastery of Saint Anba Macarius, A General Idea about the Holy Bible , First Edition ( Cairo: Dar Majallat Markos, 2003, page 72)
The Christian references acknowledge the existence of a corrupt doctrine in the book of the Shepherd of Hermas:
As for the other book, the historian of the Antiochian Church, Dr. Asad Rustum, tells us these words: Scholars and researchers doubt Hermas’ position on Christ and the Holy Trinity. He does not refer to “the Word” nor does he mention the name Jesus Christ, but rather calls the Lord the Son of God or the Lord and stops at this point. What calls for doubt about his position on Christ and the Holy Trinity is what the angel of repentance said to him in the ninth parable: “I want to show you what the Holy Spirit has shown you, who spoke to you in the name of the Church, because this Spirit is the Son of God.” Thus, the Holy Spirit is the Son of God in Hermas’ view, and the relationship between God and the Holy Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son. What is more important than this is what is stated in the fifth parable: “God made the Holy Spirit, who existed before all ages and created everything, dwell in a body that He Himself chose, and this body in which the Holy Spirit dwelt served the Holy Spirit with complete purity and holiness without defiling the Spirit with anything.” Thus, in Hermas’ view, the Trinity is composed of God the Father, a second divine person, the Holy Spirit, who is the Son of God, and the Savior, who was made a partner of the Holy Spirit as a reward for what was deserved [1] . Bishop Bustros
returns to confirm this dangerous statement, saying: However, Hermas confuses the Son of God with the Holy Spirit: “The Son is the Holy Spirit (Proverbs 5:2-9:1). The Holy Spirit was inhabited by God in a body of His choice, the body of a servant, and from this glorified body, from this servant who served the Spirit in a wondrous manner, God will make an heir with the Son (Proverbs 57). Hermas may have even confused the leader of the angels, Michael, the great and glorified angel, with the Son of God, the leader of the angels. Scholars have wondered about the reasons for this ambiguity and lack of precision in Hermas’ teaching, and how a book with such questionable teaching could gain popularity. It seems that the confusion between the Holy Spirit and the Son of God was common in that era. It also seems that Hermas’ goal was not theological education, but moral education [2] .
The above is, of course, a dangerous admission
. To say that the confusion between the Holy Spirit and the Son of God was common in an era of early Christianity indicates the lack of clarity in the doctrines of the Christian religion and that arriving at a doctrine The Trinity in its current form took ages and centuries
[1] Dr. Asad Rustum, The Church Fathers, Second Edition (Lebanon: Al-Boulisiya Library, 1990, pp. 45-46)
[2] Bishop Kyrollos Bustros, History of Christian Thought in the Church Fathers, First Edition (Lebanon: Al-Boulisiya Library, 2001, pp. 93-94)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherd_of_Hermas
Christology
In parable 5, the author mentions a Son of God , as a virtuous man filled with a Holy “pre-existent spirit” and adopted as the Son. [4] ] In the 2nd century, adoptionism (the view that Jesus Christ was only a mortal man) was one of two competing doctrines about Jesus' true nature, the other being that he pre-existed as a divine spirit ( Logos ); Christ's identity with the Logos (Jn 1:1) was affirmed in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea .
Christology
In parable 5, the author mentions a Son of God , as a virtuous man filled with a Holy “pre-existent spirit” and adopted as the Son. [4] ] In the 2nd century, adoptionism (the view that Jesus Christ was only a mortal man) was one of two competing doctrines about Jesus' true nature, the other being that he pre-existed as a divine spirit ( Logos ); Christ's identity with the Logos (Jn 1:1) was affirmed in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea .
Translation:
Christology (the science of the nature of Christ):
In the fifth parable, the author refers to the Son of God as a righteous man filled with the pre-existent Holy Spirit. In the second century AD, the doctrine of adoption (the view of Jesus Christ as a mortal man) was one of two competing doctrines about the true nature of Jesus. The other was that he pre-existed as a divine spirit (the Word or Logos). The identification of Christ as the Word in the opening of John was confirmed at the Council of Constantinople in 325 AD.
Here is Wikipedia as a neutral source that acknowledges that the book of the Shepherd refers to the doctrine of adoption that was present in Christian circles in the second century.
Our questions to Christians:
A book that promotes a heresy - according to you - regarding the nature of Christ, which is the doctrine of adoption that contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity,
how do some of your scholars consider it divine revelation?
Christology (the science of the nature of Christ):
In the fifth parable, the author refers to the Son of God as a righteous man filled with the pre-existent Holy Spirit. In the second century AD, the doctrine of adoption (the view of Jesus Christ as a mortal man) was one of two competing doctrines about the true nature of Jesus. The other was that he pre-existed as a divine spirit (the Word or Logos). The identification of Christ as the Word in the opening of John was confirmed at the Council of Constantinople in 325 AD.
Here is Wikipedia as a neutral source that acknowledges that the book of the Shepherd refers to the doctrine of adoption that was present in Christian circles in the second century.
Our questions to Christians:
A book that promotes a heresy - according to you - regarding the nature of Christ, which is the doctrine of adoption that contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity,
how do some of your scholars consider it divine revelation?
Doesn't the above indicate that your scholars in the early centuries did not have the doctrine of the Trinity clear to them or that it was not a fundamental pillar of their faith?
Lives of Saints and Martyrs in the Coptic Orthodox Church “Consider the outcome of their lives, and imitate their faith” (Hebrews 13:7)
Saint Theophilus of Antioch
According to Eusebius, this father was the sixth bishop of Antioch in Syria , and a man of the second century (late century). He was born near the Euphrates River to pagan parents, and was educated in Hellenistic (Greek) culture. As he studied the Bible, he realized that the Holy Spirit had given the prophets prophecies of future things, so he believed and obeyed God.
His writings:
He is one of the Christian apologists. All that remains of his writings is his defense in three books addressed to his pagan friend Autolycus, in which he aimed to present the Christian thought about God and creation before the pagan world with its false myths. Among his lost writings are articles against Marcion and Hermogenes.
Among his words:
God cannot be seen except by those who are able to see Him, when the eyes of their soul are open. When there is dirt on a mirror, a man cannot see His face in it, so he who has sin in him cannot see God.
Truly, I honor the emperor, not by worshipping him, but by praying for him.
Quoted from:
http://st-takla.org/Saints/Coptic-Or...Story_737.html
It is worth noting that Theophilus of Antioch was the first to use the word Trinity
, but his Trinity was not like the Trinity that currently exists in Christianity.
The Trinity in the Christian religion today is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
As for Theophilus of Antioch’s Trinity, it was God and His Word, that is, the Son, and His Wisdom
. The text of Theophilus of Antioch’s words is:
Source:
Translation with modification:
Similarly, the three days that preceded the creation of the two lights (the sun and the moon) are considered types of trinities, such as the trinity of God, His Word, and His Wisdom.
Commentary:
Theophilus of Antioch believes that the three days that preceded the creation of the sun and the moon refer to the trinity of God and His Word, i.e. the Son or Christ, and His Wisdom.
We read from the book of
the Ecumenical Councils and Heresies - Anba Bishoy :
http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/C...m-El-Abaa.html
We notice that the writer here resorts to words closer to wishful thinking to reach the conclusion that Theophilus meant the Holy Spirit by wisdom!!!
In general, where did Theophilus get the word wisdom to include it in the Trinity?
He got it from the Old Testament, from the Book of Proverbs, Chapter 8.
We read from the beginning of the chapter:
1 Behold, wisdom cries, and insight lifts up her voice.
2 She stands on the high peaks, in the streets and at the intersections of the highways.
3 By the gates, at the entrances of the city, and
at the entrances of the streets, she cries out and says:
4 “I cry against you, O men;
My voice speaks to man.
5 You fools, learn wisdom;
you fools, learn understanding.
<B> Listen, for I have great words to say, and on my lips are the words of truth.
Wisdom continues her speech throughout the chapter until we reach:http://st-takla.org/Saints/Coptic-Or...Story_737.html
It is worth noting that Theophilus of Antioch was the first to use the word Trinity
, but his Trinity was not like the Trinity that currently exists in Christianity.
The Trinity in the Christian religion today is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
As for Theophilus of Antioch’s Trinity, it was God and His Word, that is, the Son, and His Wisdom
. The text of Theophilus of Antioch’s words is:
In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God , and His Word , and His wisdom .
Source:
Theophilus, Apologia ad Autolycum , Book II, Chapter 15
Translation with modification:
Similarly, the three days that preceded the creation of the two lights (the sun and the moon) are considered types of trinities, such as the trinity of God, His Word, and His Wisdom.
Commentary:
Theophilus of Antioch believes that the three days that preceded the creation of the sun and the moon refer to the trinity of God and His Word, i.e. the Son or Christ, and His Wisdom.
We read from the book of
the Ecumenical Councils and Heresies - Anba Bishoy :
http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/C...m-El-Abaa.html
quote
Theophilus of Antioch applied the term Trinity to theology in his writings, explaining that it is God, His Word, and His Wisdom. [3] It seems that he meant the Spirit of Wisdom when he referred to the Holy Spirit when he called Him Wisdom . However, since these things were at the dawn of Christianity (in the second century AD), the title Spirit of Wisdom had not yet become established in the name of the Holy Spirit. Theophilus of Antioch says the following phrase:
tou qeou kai tou logou autou kai thj sofiaj autou triado V (Triados tou Theouki tou Logou aftuki tis Sophias aftou), meaning “The Trinity of God and His Word and His Wisdom.” [4]
The importance of this statement by Theophilus of Antioch is that he spoke of the title “Trinity” for the first time in relation to the three hypostases. In the Gospels it is mentioned that the Apostolic Fathers used to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and they spoke about the Holy Spirit, the Son, and the Father. But the first to combine the three in one expression called the Trinity triado V was in the writings of Theophilus of Antioch. Although Theophilus of Antioch called the Holy Spirit “Wisdom,” because he said “God, the Word, and Wisdom,” it is understood that the third title refers to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. We do not deny that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Wisdom. At that time, as we mentioned earlier, theological terms had not yet been established, so each person expressed the faith that lived in his conscience with specific expressions. However, we acknowledge the merit of Saint Theophilus of Antioch that he introduced the expression “Trinity” to theological expressions in the Church. [5]
tou qeou kai tou logou autou kai thj sofiaj autou triado V (Triados tou Theouki tou Logou aftuki tis Sophias aftou), meaning “The Trinity of God and His Word and His Wisdom.” [4]
The importance of this statement by Theophilus of Antioch is that he spoke of the title “Trinity” for the first time in relation to the three hypostases. In the Gospels it is mentioned that the Apostolic Fathers used to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and they spoke about the Holy Spirit, the Son, and the Father. But the first to combine the three in one expression called the Trinity triado V was in the writings of Theophilus of Antioch. Although Theophilus of Antioch called the Holy Spirit “Wisdom,” because he said “God, the Word, and Wisdom,” it is understood that the third title refers to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. We do not deny that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Wisdom. At that time, as we mentioned earlier, theological terms had not yet been established, so each person expressed the faith that lived in his conscience with specific expressions. However, we acknowledge the merit of Saint Theophilus of Antioch that he introduced the expression “Trinity” to theological expressions in the Church. [5]
In general, where did Theophilus get the word wisdom to include it in the Trinity?
He got it from the Old Testament, from the Book of Proverbs, Chapter 8.
We read from the beginning of the chapter:
1 Behold, wisdom cries, and insight lifts up her voice.
2 She stands on the high peaks, in the streets and at the intersections of the highways.
3 By the gates, at the entrances of the city, and
at the entrances of the streets, she cries out and says:
4 “I cry against you, O men;
My voice speaks to man.
5 You fools, learn wisdom;
you fools, learn understanding.
<B> Listen, for I have great words to say, and on my lips are the words of truth.
22 “God formed me from the beginning; I am the first of his works. 23 He prepared
me in ancient times, in the beginning, before the earth began. 24 I came out before there was a sea, and before there was water in the springs. 25 I came into being before the mountains and the hills stood in their place, 26 when the earth and the fields had not yet been made, and not a speck of the dust of the world had been formed. 27 I was when he set the heavens in their place, and when he marked the rim of the horizon on the face of the sea. 28 I was present when he fixed the clouds on high, and when he made the springs of the sea spring up and fixed them. 29 I was present when he set the boundaries of the sea so that the waters could not pass through, and I was present when he laid the foundations of the earth. 30 I was with him like a skilled craftsman, and I was his joy every day, and I rejoice before him always. 31 I rejoice among His creation, and my delight is with the children of men.
Of course, it is clear that the entire chapter is metaphorical in the words of wisdom, and what preceded indicates that God Almighty is wise
, but unfortunately the Christians claimed that what is meant by wisdom is Christ!!!
We read from the interpretation of Father Antonious Fikry for the previous chapter:
Verses (22-31): “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his way, before his works of old. From eternity I was established from the beginning, from the beginning of the earth. When there was no deep, I was brought forth, when there were no springs of abundant waters. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills I was brought forth, when he had not yet made the earth, nor the deserts, nor the first dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there. When he outlined a circle upon the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above, when the springs of the deep were strengthened, when he set the sea its boundary, that the waters should not pass its border, when he marked the foundations of the earth, I was with him, and was his delight daily, rejoicing always before him, rejoicing in the inhabited land of his earth, and my delight with the sons of men.”
From here we find the speech transformed to become completely clear that it is about Christ the Word, the Son of the Father, who was in the beginning with God, equal to the Father in his nature and essence, eternal and uncreated, for he is the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24). Therefore, it is inconceivable that the Father created him, so how could God create his wisdom, and with what wisdom would he create wisdom for himself ? (See more about this topic here on St-Takla.org in the articles and other commentaries sections). He is the power of God, so how could God create power for himself when he has no power? Wisdom here is clear that he is a person with his own characteristics and works, and not just an attribute of God. Solomon was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and he thought he was writing about wisdom, and then he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit about Christ, the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24).
We read from the commentary of Father Tadros Yacoub Malti:
3. Eternal Wisdom
In this chapter, the person of Christ is revealed with all his power, as the wisdom of God, who calls all humanity to acquire him and enjoy his superior capabilities. Now he reveals himself as one with the Father, the Creator of the world, who is concerned with the salvation of his corrupted creation, and finds his pleasure in calling sinners to salvation.
me in ancient times, in the beginning, before the earth began. 24 I came out before there was a sea, and before there was water in the springs. 25 I came into being before the mountains and the hills stood in their place, 26 when the earth and the fields had not yet been made, and not a speck of the dust of the world had been formed. 27 I was when he set the heavens in their place, and when he marked the rim of the horizon on the face of the sea. 28 I was present when he fixed the clouds on high, and when he made the springs of the sea spring up and fixed them. 29 I was present when he set the boundaries of the sea so that the waters could not pass through, and I was present when he laid the foundations of the earth. 30 I was with him like a skilled craftsman, and I was his joy every day, and I rejoice before him always. 31 I rejoice among His creation, and my delight is with the children of men.
Of course, it is clear that the entire chapter is metaphorical in the words of wisdom, and what preceded indicates that God Almighty is wise
, but unfortunately the Christians claimed that what is meant by wisdom is Christ!!!
We read from the interpretation of Father Antonious Fikry for the previous chapter:
Verses (22-31): “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his way, before his works of old. From eternity I was established from the beginning, from the beginning of the earth. When there was no deep, I was brought forth, when there were no springs of abundant waters. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills I was brought forth, when he had not yet made the earth, nor the deserts, nor the first dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there. When he outlined a circle upon the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above, when the springs of the deep were strengthened, when he set the sea its boundary, that the waters should not pass its border, when he marked the foundations of the earth, I was with him, and was his delight daily, rejoicing always before him, rejoicing in the inhabited land of his earth, and my delight with the sons of men.”
From here we find the speech transformed to become completely clear that it is about Christ the Word, the Son of the Father, who was in the beginning with God, equal to the Father in his nature and essence, eternal and uncreated, for he is the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24). Therefore, it is inconceivable that the Father created him, so how could God create his wisdom, and with what wisdom would he create wisdom for himself ? (See more about this topic here on St-Takla.org in the articles and other commentaries sections). He is the power of God, so how could God create power for himself when he has no power? Wisdom here is clear that he is a person with his own characteristics and works, and not just an attribute of God. Solomon was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and he thought he was writing about wisdom, and then he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit about Christ, the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24).
We read from the commentary of Father Tadros Yacoub Malti:
3. Eternal Wisdom
In this chapter, the person of Christ is revealed with all his power, as the wisdom of God, who calls all humanity to acquire him and enjoy his superior capabilities. Now he reveals himself as one with the Father, the Creator of the world, who is concerned with the salvation of his corrupted creation, and finds his pleasure in calling sinners to salvation.
The bottom line is that Christians believe that wisdom is Christ, so how can they say that Theophilus of Antioch meant the Holy Spirit by wisdom?
Of course, Theophilus did not know, as they claim, that wisdom is the Word or the Son, otherwise he would not have said (the Trinity of God, His Word, and His Wisdom).
At the same time, there is nothing to prove that he thought that wisdom was the Holy Spirit. If he had meant the Holy Spirit, he would have said very clearly (the Trinity of God, His Word, and His Spirit).
The unfortunate result is that Theophilus of Antioch was the first to use the word Trinity. His doctrine of the Trinity was not like the current doctrine of the Trinity. Theophilus was talking about the Trinity of God, His Word, and His Wisdom, and not the traditional Trinity of Christians: God, His Word, and His Spirit.
Of course, Theophilus did not know, as they claim, that wisdom is the Word or the Son, otherwise he would not have said (the Trinity of God, His Word, and His Wisdom).
At the same time, there is nothing to prove that he thought that wisdom was the Holy Spirit. If he had meant the Holy Spirit, he would have said very clearly (the Trinity of God, His Word, and His Spirit).
The unfortunate result is that Theophilus of Antioch was the first to use the word Trinity. His doctrine of the Trinity was not like the current doctrine of the Trinity. Theophilus was talking about the Trinity of God, His Word, and His Wisdom, and not the traditional Trinity of Christians: God, His Word, and His Spirit.
His teachings tended towards subordination, i.e. the son’s subordination to the father and his submission to him, and that the father is greater than the son, which contradicts the absolute equality between the hypostases in the current Christian doctrine.
The History of Christian Thought book - Dr. Priest Hanna Al-Khadri, page 464.
Quoting from the Dictionary of Church Fathers and Saints:
Tertullian the scholar
Quintus Septimius Floren Tertullianus, a priest of Carthage, is considered the father of theology in the Latin Church, in terms of his contribution to the development of theological terminology, and one of the first Christian apologists. He was born in Carthage, Africa, about 160 AD, in a frivolous and corrupt pagan atmosphere. His father was the commander of a Roman legion in Africa, and was called "Proconsula Centurion." He lived a corrupt life, which he confessed when he became a Christian, saying: "Truly I know that the same body with which I committed adultery is now making every effort to preserve chastity." He practiced violent sports in the theaters (his Apology 15:5), and other things he did that he did not want to mention, saying: "I would rather not speak of them, so as not to revive their memory in me." He acquired a high level of Latin and Greek education, and his writings show a great knowledge of history, philosophy, poetry, ancient literature, judicial terminology, and all the arts of advocacy. After devoting his life to the study of law, he practiced law, and later became a professor of rhetoric in his country. While he was immersed in physical pleasures and a life of luxury, his heart was drawn to the holy life of Christians and the steadfastness of their martyrs and their endurance of pain with patience and joy, so he embraced Christianity when he was thirty years old. All the energies of his knowledge, abilities and eloquence were turned to the service of the Church, and he began to argue with all its opponents, pagans, Jews and heretics, with great zeal. Unfortunately, between the years 202 and 205 AD, he fell into the heresy of Montanism, as Montanius claimed to be the Paraclete promised in the Gospel; we do not know whether he returned to the universal Church again before his death or not.St. Jerome believes that he was ordained a priest before his fall into Montanism, although some scholars believe that he remained a layman (of the people). Some believe that he died around 225 AD, and others that he lived until around 240 AD. His writings and their characteristics provided a rich store of philosophical, historical, dialectical, defensive, and practical writings. In his writings, he was hostile to philosophy, unlike most of the fathers of the Alexandrian school of his time, who saw philosophy as a means of winning philosophers and Greeks to the faith (see Clement of Alexandria). Among his words: "What fellowship is there between the philosopher and the Christian? Between the disciple of the Greeks, the ally of falsehood, and the disciple of heaven, the enemy of falsehood and the ally of truth?!" His defense 46. While he fought philosophy as a source of corruption, but sometimes in his resistance to it, he used it as a means of defense against philosophers, although he tended more in his theology to use the texts of the Holy Bible. As for his defensive writings, he wrote "A Letter to the Gentiles", "A Letter of Defense or Remonstrance", and "Answer to the Jews". He has a letter in defense of martyrdom called "The Scorpion's Antidote". He urged martyrdom and patience in persecution in a letter called "Ad Martyras"... When Emperor Septimius Severus died, his sons distributed money to the soldiers, and the soldiers advanced in the camps to receive their share of the money, placing a crown on their heads. But one of them advanced holding his hand, refusing to place it on his head because he was a Christian. He was sentenced to death and received the crown of martyrdom, so Tertullian wrote a letter "On the Crown". A branch of the letter on the crown was a letter on fleeing from persecution, in which Tertullian answered the question: Is it permissible for a Christian to flee and hide during persecution? From his words: Whoever wants to teach and preach virtue must begin with practical practice, and seek the right to preach through the authority of imitation, otherwise he will be disgraced if his actions contradict his words. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God. Where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and every grace, and the Spirit is the truth. The Church seals this faith (the Creed of Baptism) with water, clothes it with the Holy Spirit, and nourishes it with the Eucharist. She urges martyrdom, and does not accept anyone who contradicts this teaching. (In his letter to the martyrs) Do not let your separation from the world frighten you... No matter where you are in the world, you are not of this world. God knows that it is not good for a man to be alone, He knows that it is good for a man to have a wife, namely Mary, and after that the Church.
Quoted from:
http://popekirillos.net/ar/fathersdi...ead.php?id=694
In the book (Martyrdom in the Thought of the Fathers) by Father Athanasius Fahmy George, we find what expresses Tertullian’s status in Christian thought.
The priest wrote in his book:
The Book of Martyrdom in the Thought of the Fathers by Father Athanasius Fahmy George
From the Alexandrian mystic thought we move to the African scholar Tertullian (from the second century AD), who wrote many apologetic writings, and also wrote on urging martyrdom , and a letter called Scorpiace and urged martyrdom in the letter called Ad Martyras, and also wrote his letter on the crown De Corona, and from the letter on the crown branched another letter on fleeing from persecution De Fuje in Persecutione, in which Tertullian answered the question: Is it permissible for a Christian to flee and hide during persecution? Tertullian
also wrote against the Jews Adversus Judoeos and the accusations that were directed at Christians.
In a letter to the apologist Tertullian , which he had addressed to those imprisoned for the faith, he says:
“Do not let your separation from the world in prison terrify you, because the world is the real prison. You have not entered a prison, but you have been released from the real prison. Even if the prison is full of darkness, you yourselves are light. In prison there are chains, but God has set you free. There is a foul odor in it, but you yourselves are a sweet odor. You await the trial, not at the mouth of a judge, but at the mouth of God, because you will judge the judges themselves.” The scholar Tertullian
continued in his article to describe the prison as the wilderness of the prophet and considered it a place of seclusion, where the body is confined but the soul is free. The scholar
spoke at length about the blessings of martyrdom and how it is a battle of honor, in which God is the watcher, the Holy Spirit is the trainer, and the reward is an eternal crown and the right of heavenly citizenship. Tertullian
denounced the pagans in his defense of Christianity, because he considered the persecution of Christians only a battle of name, and because Christians alone are forbidden from speaking to exonerate themselves, in defense of the truth.
Regarding torture, he says, “In the case of other accused who deny, you resort to torture until they confess, but Christians are the only ones who are tortured until they deny...” The scholar Tertullian
described the prison as the dwelling place of Satan and his soldiers, but when the confessors enter it, they throw evil under their feet. Tertullian
urged martyrdom and wrote his articles to dedicate them to catechumens on their way to it, and even the Gnostics who despised martyrdom and preferred to flee from it, he wrote for them the Scorpion's Antidote, to explain to them that martyrdom is a new birth in which the soul gains its eternal life. Tertullian
considered the blood of martyrs to be the seed of faith.And he addressed his words to the pagan rulers, saying: Continue to torture us, grind us to powder, for our numbers increase as you harvest us! The blood of Christians is the seed of their harvest, your stubbornness is in itself a teacher, for who is not moved by contemplation of what you do to learn the truth of things, and who, after joining us, does not long to suffer? The African scholar
wrote a lengthy defense of Christianity, addressing the pagans, saying: “We are one body held together by our common pious behavior and our common hope... ( See more about this topic here on the website of St-Takla.org in the articles and other books sections) . “We pray for emperors and their ministers, and for all who are in authority, and the treasury is where contributions are collected, which each one gladly puts in... These gifts are intended for works of mercy, not for banquets and taverns, but for the relief and burial of the poor and the supply of the want of the destitute... In general, all who suffer shipwreck in their lives, or are persecuted for no other reason than their devotion to the Church of God, we care for them as a mother cares for her infant because of their profession of faith .”
http://st-takla.org/Full-Free-Coptic...rtelianos.html
We saw that Tertullian was a person who converted from paganism to Christianity and became one of its most ardent defenders, then fell into the Montanist heresy and believed that Montanus was the Paraclete or the Comforter promised in the Gospel.
The strange surprise is that the heretic Tertullian was the first to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, and some Christian references consider him the first to invent the term Trinity!!!!!
An heretic who was the first to explain the doctrine of the Trinity!!!
We read from Wikipedia at the following link:
http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AA%...8A%D8%A7%D9%86
Tertullian
Tertullianus (in Latin Tertullianus) or Tertullian (c. 160 to 220 AD) [1] is an early Christian Punic author, [2] and the first to write Christian writings in the Latin language. He was important in defending Christianity and combating heresies.
Perhaps his greatest claim to fame is his coining of the word Trinity (Latin trinitas) and giving the first explanation of the doctrine. [3] Other ideas that appear in his writings are "three persons or hypostases, one substance" in Latin: "tres Personae, una Substantia" from the Koine Greek "treis Hypostases, Homoousios", and also the Old Testament phrase "vetus testamentum" and the New Testament "novum testamentum".
In his later life he embraced Montanism , and has been described as the first Protestant .
Here is Tertullian's explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity in his famous work
Against Praxeas :
http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/publ...he_trinity.htm
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance , but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost .
Translation:
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three, not in state but in degree, not in matter but in form, not in power but in appearance, but they are one in state, matter, and power. Just as He is one God, but three degrees, forms, and appearances are known from Him under the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Here are pictures of Christian references that proudly attribute to Tertullian the invention of the word Trinity:
http://popekirillos.net/ar/bible/dictionary/read.php?id=4318
Also, the Encyclopedia of the Bible says the same thing:
(And the Church was guided in all situations by the formula of baptism) (Matthew 28:19), and made it the basis of the "Creed . " Tertullian had the greatest influence - through the power of his dialogue - in expressing the doctrine of the Trinity in a strong and specific formula . Perhaps he was the first to use the word "Trinity " (
Encyclopedia of the Bible, Elite of Scholars and Theologians - Part Two, Page 439)
. As we see, Tertullian was the first to formulate expressions such as the Old and New Testaments and the first to explain the doctrine of the Trinity.
What is strange is that the first to explain the doctrine of the Trinity was born in 160 AD and converted to Christianity at the age of thirty,
meaning that he did not explain the doctrine of the Trinity before 190 AD.
It is known that the Lord Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, ended his affair with his people in the early thirties of the first century. The Christian era,
that is, there is no one who explained the doctrine of the Trinity for 160 years after the end of Christ’s affair with his people
, and we do not find any explicit teachings of Christ regarding the Trinity,
and we do not find in any of the writings of the New Testament texts explaining the doctrine of the Trinity except for the Johannine comma, which their references acknowledged was added to support a theological thought.
The Biblical Encyclopedia - A Selection of Scholars and Theologians - Part Three - Page 295.
The only explicit text in the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible has been proven to be distorted!!!!!
We saw in the previous topic that the doctrine of the Trinity was not clear to the early fathers.
Ignatius confirms that the Father is God over all and describes those who say that Christ is God over all as ministers of Satan. He confirms that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three and does not refer to their unity in essence
. Polycarp confirms that the Father is the God of Christ
. Clement of Rome confirms that the Father is God alone and that Christ is the servant of God.
The Didache Gospel confirms that Christ is the servant of God.
The Shepherd of Hermas promotes the doctrine of the Sons and says that the Son is the Holy Spirit.
The Trinity for Theophilus of Antioch was God, His Word, and His Wisdom instead of the Holy Spirit.
After all these confusions, the heretic Tertullian came to explain the doctrine of the Trinity.
However, the doctrine of the Trinity in its current form seems not to have gained much popularity in Tertullian's time. Origen was almost at the same time as him and reported the existence of a disagreement among Christians as to whether the Holy Spirit was created or not. He chose to say that it is a creation
and there is no power or strength except with God, the Most High, the Almighty,
and praise be to God for the blessing of Islam.
Note on Montanism - (the heresy embraced by Tertullian, who first expounded the doctrine of the Trinity):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism
Montanism is an early Christian movement (mid-2nd century) named after its founder Montanus . It flourished primarily in and around Phrygia , then spread rapidly throughout the Roman Empire when Christianity became legal. Although the traditional Christian church defeated Montanism after a few generations and branded it a heresy, the sect survived in isolated communities until the 8th century. Some people liken Montanism to the modern Pentecostal movement , which is called modern Montanism. The most famous Montanist is Tertullian , who was the most important Latin Christian writer before his conversion to Montanism.
It is generally agreed that the movement arose from Montanus' reading of the Gospel of John: "I will send you the Paraclete , the Spirit of truth." [1] Christians were divided in their response to the claim of continuous revelation, and most traditional clerics fought it. But there was real doubt in Rome, to the point that Pope Eleutherus wrote letters in support of Montanism, although he later took it back. It is
truly remarkable that Tertullian, the first to explain the Trinity, and the Pope in Rome both supported, if only for a limited period, Montanism, which claims that Montanus is the Paraclete. Indeed, as Wikipedia says, Montanism spread rapidly in the Roman Empire, which testifies that Christians did not agree throughout their history that the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, but some of them thought that he was a human being, namely Montanus, just as we Muslims think that he is a human being, namely the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace.
39- The Heresy of Theodore of Mopsuestia
Theodore of Mopsuestia wanted to confirm the complete humanity of Christ, and he considered that complete humanity is not achieved unless Christ is a human person because he believed that there is no complete existence without a personality. Thus, he was not satisfied with confirming the existence of a complete human nature for the Lord Christ, but he went on to confirm that God the Word took a complete human being to use him as an instrument for the salvation of humanity. He considered that God the Word had dwelt in this human being by good will, and that he had united with him only in an external union. He used the term conjoining-sunafeiainstead of the word e{nwsi õ union. Thus, he made two persons in Christ, one divine and the other human, and together they formed one person, which is the person of union (external union), likening it to the union of man and woman. [1] The historian C.J. Hefele [2]
said: [Theodore in his fundamental error.. not only maintained the existence of two natures in Christ, but two persons as well, and he himself said that there is no subsistence that can be thought to be complete without a person. But as he did not ignore the fact thatthe conscience of the Church had rejected this duality in the person of Christ, he sought to get rid of the difficulty and repeated the statement explicitly: "The two natures that were united together formed only one person, as man and woman are one body .. If we think deeply about the two natures in their distinction, we must know the nature of the Word as complete and perfect, and also his person. And also the nature and person of man as complete and perfect. And if, on the other hand, we look at the connectionsunafeia, we say that he is one person" [3] . The same picture of the unity between man and wife shows that Theodore did not assume a real union of two natures in Christ, but his conception was of an external connection between the two. Moreover, the expression "conjoining" - sunafeia which he chooses here instead of the word "union" enwsi V .. is derived from sunaptw ( dancers holding hands in a circle - i.e. connecting each other) expresses only an external connection, and a bonding together. Therefore it is clearly rejected .. bythe Church's scholars.]
Theodore of Mopsuestia speaks of the union of God the Word with the man Jesus, and not of the union of the divinity with the humanity, and says that it is a union in dignity, authority, and will, and that it is an external union in the image. But when he speaks of the relation between the two natures he says "conjoining." And when he speaks of God and man he says "union," but he describes the kind of this union by saying that it is an external union in the external image. As for the divinity and humanity he says "conjoining" and not "union," and he considers that the human spirit is the link of communication between the Logos and the body.
The Fifth Ecumenical Council, 553 AD, condemned Theodore of Mopsuestia and his teachings. Among the things that were said against him was that his use of the analogy of the union of man and woman to the union of God the Word and the man Jesus was considered impudence.Among what Theodore also said was that when Thomas the Apostle said, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28), he did not say it in the sense that Christ was his Lord and God, but rather he said it out of extreme amazement, as someone sees a treasure of jewels or a painful accident.
We had anathematized Theodore long before that date, because in our anathematization of Nestorianism, we anathematized Nestorius and his teachings and everything related to it. As for the Fifth Council, 553 AD, it was held to please our churches, as the emperor tried to reconcile the Chalcedonians with the non-Chalcedonians. This council anathematized the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, and Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, which are called the Three Chapters Controversies. That is, they did in the Fifth Council what should have been done in the Council of Chalcedon, and it was the reason for our objection to it. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, and Ibas, Bishop of Edessa (435-457 AD) wrote againstSt. Cyril the Pillar of Faithand against Orthodox teaching. Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, wrote a letter to Maris the Persian against the teachings of St. Cyril the Great, and for this reason he was anathematized by the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 AD, headed by Pope Dioscorus. Unfortunately, Pope Leo I, Pope of Rome, absolved him before the Council of Chalcedon was held. In Chalcedon, he was accepted in the eighth session of the Council after he signed the anathematization of Nestorius, but his letter was read and not anathematized. This was done at the next Council in Constantinople in 553 AD in an attempt to reform the image of the Chalcedonians.
In this Council, the writings of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, and Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, against the teachings of St. Cyril the Great, were anathematized, as were Theodore of Mopsuestia and his teachings. Unfortunately, Ibas ascended the throne of Edessa after the death of Bishop Rabula, one of the strongest defenders of the teachings of Saint Cyril the Great.
In Chalcedon, Pope Dioscorus was deposed and the anathemas he had imposed on Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, and Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, were revoked. We now have the following problems: At the Council of Chalcedon, they did not anathematize the person and teachings of Theodoret of Mopsuestia, nor did they anathematize the teachings of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, and Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, which were against the teachings of Saint Cyril the Pillar of Faith. This is in addition to the deposition of Pope Dioscorus, and they did not speak about the one nature taught by Pope Cyril the Great, nor did they mention the hypostatic union. They said that Christ is one hypostasis, but they did not mention anything about the natural or hypostatic union. We considered that the Council of Chalcedon was tainted with Nestorianism, especially in its acceptance of two of the greatest enemies of Orthodoxy , who had been anathematized by an ecumenical council headed by the Pope of Alexandria, then Pope Leo I of Rome accepted them before the Council of Chalcedon, and pressured the council to bring them in and include them in it, as the emperor’s soldiers forced the council to accept them. Saint Cyril the Great had suffered a lot because of them, and the schism between Saint Cyril and John of Antioch was because of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, who wrote twelve anathemas against the anathemas of Saint Cyril, the Pillar of Faith. When the emperor ordered the burning of Nestorius’ books, there was a wave in the East towards the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who is considered the father and teacher of Nestorius, and his writings were published.
9. What the writer of the book “The Bridegroom” mentioned, that the Logos or divinity is the bridegroom and that the humanity is the bride or the church, and thus the church was born in Bethlehem, is many times further than Theodore’s concept. Because the writer of the book “The Bridegroom” said that we were all united with the divinity in the womb of the Virgin and the church was born in Bethlehem. As for the correct faith, it is that Christ with his divinity and humanity is the bridegroom and the church is the bride considering that he redeemed her and bought her with his blood. Theodore said the same idea, which is that the union of the divinity with the humanity in Christ is not a union but a connection and that it is only an external union like the union of man with woman.
[2] C.J. Hefele , A History of the Councils of the Church , Vol III, AMS Press 1972, reprinted from the edition of 1883 Edinburgh p.6,7.
Quoted from
http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/C...obsoyesty.html
Christians imagine that the doctrine of the Trinity was the doctrine of Jesus Christ and his followers
, and when we review the sayings of the fathers, we are surprised that many of them did not know the doctrine of the Trinity and their sayings contradicted it.
The first century AD:
Ignatius denounces that Christ is God over all, although he sees that Christ is God, but he confirms that the Father is the Lord of Christ and that Christ is subject to God and describes those who say that Christ is God over all as ministers of Satan.
Ignatius also confirms that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three and does not indicate that they are one God.
The Didache describes Christ as a servant of God, and if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the word servant in Greek may also mean son, he described David, peace be upon him, with the same word and in one sentence, which means that the early Christians called Christ and David, peace be upon him, the title of Son of God and that they wanted metaphorical sonship.
The second century AD:
The first half:
Polycarp confirms that the Father is the God of Christ.
Clement of Rome says that the Father is God alone and Christ is his servant and confirms that God sent Christ as Christ sent his followers. The Twelve
Justin talks about the existence of two gods, describing one of them, the Father, as the creator of everything, and the other, Christ, confirming that he is subject to God the Father, the creator of everything, according to his expression. He even goes so far as to describe the Father as the Lord of the Lord, meaning that Christ, although he is a god in his view, the Father is his Lord.
Justin confirms that the Son is a Lord and the Father is another Lord, so he never indicates that they are one God.
The book of the Shepherd of Hermas spread, and some Christian clerics considered it a canonical inspired book. The book of the Shepherd refers to the doctrine of the Sons, which says that Christ was born as a servant of God and acquired divinity when he was baptized. He also describes the Holy Spirit as the Son. The
second half of the second century:
Theophilus of Antioch, for the first time, uses the word Trinity, but he says that the Trinity is God, His Word, and His Wisdom, and not the Holy Spirit.
Tertullian, for the first time, explains the doctrine of the Trinity after the year 190 AD, in the late second century or early third. It is worth noting that Tertullian believed that the Paraclete was Montanus, not the Holy Spirit, meaning that he followed a person called The prophecy, as he said that the Word was born from God when God said, “Let there be light,” and it was at the beginning of creation and before that, the Word was inside God, which contradicts the traditional Christian belief that the Son was born from God from eternity and that there is no time in which the Son was not born.
Basil began to spread his teachings that God is one person and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different images in which the same God appeared.
The third century AD:
In its early days, Sablinism (Basil’s teachings that God is one person) dominated the Church of Rome and spread throughout the West.
Origen told us that there was a disagreement among Christians: Is the Holy Spirit created or uncreated? He chose to say that the Holy Spirit is created.
He also emphasized that worship is only directed to the Father through the Son because the Son himself prayed to God.
The late third and fourth centuries:
Arius and the Arians appeared and denied the divinity of Christ, even though they described him as the Son. They said about him that he was created and that God created the world through him.
The teachings of Arius were rejected at the Council of Nicaea in 325, and the Creed was written stating that the Son is of the same essence as the Father, and did not mention the Holy Spirit.
However, the Pope returned and accepted Arianism in the thirties of the same century in another council, and Arianism became the official religion of the Roman state until the sixties of the same century. All churches became Arian, denying the divinity of Christ, and no one remained who rejected Arianism except Athanasius, according to the words of Anba Bishoy.
One of the most prominent Arians or quasi-Arians was Eusebius of Caesarea, known as the Father of Church History, who confirmed that the Holy Spirit was created.
The same was said for Eusebius of Nicomedia, the leader of the Eusebians, and they, like the Arians, rejected the expression that the Son is of the same essence as the Father, and considered it an unbiblical term. They confirmed that the Holy Spirit was created.
Then Macedonius appeared in the second half of the fourth century to confirm that the Holy Spirit was created, but his teachings were rejected at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. For the first time, he wrote a Creed stating the doctrine of the Trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God,
and from that time the Trinity became the official doctrine of the Christian religion.
The fifth century:
Theodore of Moses appeared to confirm that Christ is a human being and that God’s union with him is only a connection and not a union, and that the unity between him and God is a metaphorical unity like the unity of a man with his wife. He confirms that God inhabited Christ by good will.
It is clear, of course, from the above that there were many doctrinal differences among the early Christians
and that the early fathers did not all believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. Some of them believed that God is the God of Christ and that Christ is the servant of God, and some of them believed that Christ is a God but that God is his Lord and Master, and some of them believed that the Holy Spirit is a creature.
There were periods in the history of Christianity in which Sabellianism, which calls for God to be one person, spread throughout the West and dominated the Church of Rome.
There were periods in the history of Christianity in which Arianism, which denies the divinity of Christ, was the official Christianity.
The first to use the word Trinity said that the Trinity is God, His Word, and His Wisdom, not God, His Word, and His Holy Spirit.
The first to explain the doctrine of the Trinity was Tertullian. In the year 190 AD, that is, 160 years after the end of the affair of Jesus Christ with his people,
and the doctrine of the Trinity was not considered an official doctrine of Christianity until the year 381 AD based on the decisions of the Council of Constantinople
, and it is impossible in any way to say that the Trinity was the doctrine of all Christians from the time of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him.
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment