Skip to main content

Did the early fathers know the Trinity

 In the name of God, the Most Gracious , the Most Merciful

, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of God.

Peace be upon you and God’s mercy and blessings.

In the following topic, God willing, we will present a study of the beliefs of the early fathers before the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.

The aim of this study is to prove that these fathers did not know the doctrine of the Trinity, and if they knew the Trinity, they did not know it in its current form.

We will discuss the sayings of the following fathers, God willing, in order to understand their beliefs:

Ignatius
Polycarp
Clement of Alexandria
Origen
Theophilus of Antioch
Tertullian
Macedonius
Basil
Arius and his followers,
as well as
the book The Shepherd of Hermas

, and God is the helper
and on Him we rely.



We begin with one of the oldest fathers, if not the oldest, from the first century AD
, Ignatius of Antioch .

First:
Who is Ignatius of Antioch? And what is his position in the history of the Church?

Saint Ignatius of Antioch


Ignatius , nicknamed the Illuminator or the Antiochian, who is also called Theophorus ( in Greek : Θεοφόρος, meaning God-bearer), is a saint and one of the Church Fathers . He was most likely one of the disciples of the apostles Peter and John . He is the third bishop or patriarch of Antioch after Peter and Evodius , who died around 68 AD. The father of church history, Eusebius of Caesarea, mentioned that Ignatius succeeded Evodius in a way that made his apostolic line closer. He mentioned that Peter himself appointed him to the See of Antioch .

Ignatius is generally considered one of the Apostolic Fathers (i.e. the first official group of Church Fathers) and is recognized as a saint by all Apostolic Churches. The Western Catholic Church commemorates him on October 17, and the Eastern Orthodox Church , along with the Eastern Catholic Churches , commemorates him on December 20.

Ignatius' philosophy of life was to live his life in imitation of Christ . Ignatius was arrested by the Roman authorities and sent to Rome under extremely harsh conditions of detention: "From Syria to Rome I fought against savage monsters, on land and in the sea, by night and by day, obliged to remain among ten leopards, and in the company of soldiers who grew worse and more rude the more they tried to show kindness" (Letter to the Romans 5) .

He died a martyr in the capital of the empire, where he was thrown into a Roman theater to be devoured by lions during the reign of Emperor Trajan [1] . The authorities intended to make him an example to other Christians so that they would fear and stop spreading their beliefs.


Quoted from
http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A5%...8A%D9%88%D8%B3



that Ignatius of Antioch denounced that Christ is God over all and considered the saying that Christ is God over all heresy.

Let us see what Ignatius of Antioch said about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
He confirmed that they are three and never indicated that they are one.

It came in his letter known as the Epistle to the Philippians
at the following link:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0114.htm

Chapter 2. Unity of the three divine persons

There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; And there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For the Lord your God , says [the Scripture ], is one Lord. Deuteronomy 6:4 ; Mark 12:29 And again, Has not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? Malachi 2:10 And there is also one Son, God the Word . For the only-begotten Son, says [the Scripture ], who is in the bosom of the Father. John 1:18 And again, One Lord Jesus Christ . 1 Corinthians 8:6 And in another place, What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know ? Proverbs 30:4 And there is also one Paraclete. For there is also, says [the Scripture ], one Spirit, Ephesians 4:4 since we have been called in one hope of our calling. 1 Corinthians 12:13 And again, We have drunk of one Spirit, Ephesians 4:4 with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers ] work one and the same Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:11 There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to baptize in the name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost , Matthew 28:19 not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [ persons ] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honor .

Translation:

There is only one God and Father, not two or three, only one and there is no other beside Him, the only true God. The Lord our God, as the Bible says, is one Lord (Deuteronomy 4:6 - Mark 29:12). And also, did not one God create us? Do we not all have one Father? (Malachi 10:2). And also, there is one Son, God the Word. The only begotten Son of the Father, as the Bible says, who is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18). And also, one Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:8). And in another place: What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, that we may know Him? (Proverbs 4:30). And also, there is one Paraclete. And as the Bible says, there is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4), for we have been called to the hope of our calling (1 Corinthians 13:12). Therefore, there are not three fathers, nor three sons, nor three Paracletes. There is one Father, one Son, and one Paraclete. Therefore, when the Lord sent the apostles to teach all nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), it was not one name that had three names, nor three who were all incarnate, but three who were equal in dignity.

Comment on the above:

Ignatius of Antioch believed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three and not one with three names.
Ignatius never said that the three are one God, but he confirmed that they are three.
Therefore, he did not know the doctrine of the Trinity in its current form, which calls for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be three gods, but one God.

It is worth noting that Ignatius believed that the Father is greater than the Son and that the Son is subject to the Father, which contradicts the current doctrine of the Trinity.

Epistle to
the Philippians

From the seventh chapter
we read the following:

And how, again, does Christ not at all appear to you to be of the Virgin, but to be God over all, and the Almighty? Say, then, who sent Him? Who was Lord over Him? And who will He obey ? And what laws did He fulfill, since He was subject neither to the will nor power of any one

Translation:

And also how does Christ not appear to you as born of a virgin but appears to you as God, the Almighty, the All-Powerful? Say then, who sent Him? Who was His Lord and Master? To whose will was He obedient? What laws did He fulfill, if He was not subject to anyone’s will or power?


From the above, we can say with confidence that Ignatius did not believe in the same doctrine as the Christians today. He believed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three, and he did not know that they are one. He also believed that Christ is subject to the Father and that the Father is the Lord and Master of Christ, which contradicts the absence of any distinction between the hypostases in the current doctrine of the Trinity.













First: Who is Polycarp?

http://st-takla.org/Saints/Coptic-Or...Story_616.html

Saint Anba Polycarp, the Martyr
Bishop of Smyrna (Izmir)


Saint Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna or the martyr Polycarp, was born around 70 AD. It is said that a pious lady named Callisto was visited by an angel in a dream, who said: "Callisto, wake up and go to the gate of the Ephesians. After a short walk you will meet two men with a little boy named Polycarp. Ask them if this boy is for sale. When they answer yes, pay them the price they ask, and take the boy and keep him with you..." Callisto obeyed, and acquired the boy, who later became the keeper of her storehouses. When she traveled on some errand, the poor and widows gathered around him, and he distributed generously until all the storehouses were empty. When Callisto returned, his fellow servant told her what he had done. She summoned him and asked him for the keys to the storerooms. When she opened them, she found them full as they were. She ordered the informer to be punished, but Polycarp intervened and told her that what his fellow servant had said was true, that the storerooms had been emptied, and that this good was a gift from God. She rejoiced and adopted him to inherit all her possessions after her death. As for him, material things did not occupy his heart.
Among his other deeds was that he would go to the road from which the wood carriers returned and choose the oldest of them to buy wood from him and carry it himself to a poor widow.

His ordination:


Bucolus ordained him a deacon. He preached by preaching as well as by his good example. Since he was popular and successful, he ordained him a priest while he was still young. Saint John the Beloved ordained him Bishop of Smyrna (Rev. 2:8-10), which is also historically called "Izmir". St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, testified to the holiness of his life (he was his teacher), and that he learned at the hands of the apostles, and that he spoke with St. John and others who saw the Lord Christ on earth.
He also struggled in his resistance to heretics, especially Marcion, the most prominent Gnostic figure, and during his stay in Rome in 154 AD, he saved many from error and turned them back from their following of Marcion.

But the question now is, what is the doctrine of Polycarp according to his writings? And did Polycarp know the Trinity?
believed that the Father is the God and Father of Christ
, and as long as Polycarp believed that the Father is the God of Christ, he naturally does not believe that Christ is God and does not believe in the Trinity.

Let us read what Polycarp wrote in his Epistle to the Philippians, Chapter 12
, at the following link:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...p-roberts.html

CHAPTER XII.--EXHORTATION TO VARIOUS GRACES.
But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who “raised Him from the dead.

Translation:

May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ , and Jesus Christ himself, who is the Son of God and our High Priest forever, strengthen you in doctrine and truth, and in all righteousness, and patience, and suffering, and purity, and may he grant you a portion and a share with his saints, and may he grant us a portion with you and with all those who are under heaven and believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and his Father who raised him from the dead.

Comment:

Since Polycarp believed that God the Father is the God and Father of Christ, he certainly did not believe that Christ was God. How could Christ be God for Polycarp and he say that God is his God?
Certainly, Polycarp did not know anything about the Trinity because he believed that the Father is the God of Christ.











First: Who is Saint Clement of Rome?
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.
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.
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















Clement of Rome also says in the same letter on the same link
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ent-hoole.html
in chapter 59, verse 4:

Let all the nations know that you art God alone and Jesus Christ thy Son

Translation:

So that all nations may know that you alone are God and Jesus Christ is your Son.

It is worth noting that the same text is translated on the Wikipedia website in another way.


“Let all the heathen know that thou [the Father] art God alone, and that Jesus Christ is thy Servant

Translation:

Let everyone know that you (the Father) are God alone and that Jesus Christ is your servant.

Glory be to God!
The same pure Islamic belief:
There is no god but God (the Father) and Christ is the servant and messenger of God.

To clarify, what is the reason for the difference in translation between your son and your slave? Which is more correct?

We say initially that there are two words in the Greek language,
one word meaning slave, child, or son, which is παισ and is pronounced pais.
By looking at Strong's dictionary,
we find its meaning:

quote
3816


Pronunciation:paheece

Origin:perhaps from 3817

Reference:TDNT - 5:636,759Part of Speech:nm/fIn

Greek:παιδα 5, παιδας 3, παιδος 5, παιδων 1, παισιν 1, παι

9In NET:servant 12, boy 4, slaves 2, children 2, Child 1, servants 1, child's 1, son 1

Definition:1) a child, boy or girl 1a) infants, children 2) servant, slave 2a) an attendant, servant , spec. a king's attendant, minister Synonym: See Definition 5868 and 5943

perhaps from 3817 ; a boy (as often beaten with impunity), or (by analogy), a girl, and (genitive case) a child; Specially, a slave or servant (especially a minister to a king; and by eminence to God):-child, maid(-en), (man) servant, son, young man. see GREEK for 3817

Variations:
It is clear from the red color that the word has a meaning ranging between slave, child, and son.

It is worth noting that Clement the Roman used the same word in the same letter, meaning slave, to describe Moses, peace be upon him, in Chapter 51.

For it is better that a man should make confession concerning his sins, than that he should harden his heart, even as the heart of them was hardened who made sedition against Moses the servant of God; whose condemnation was manifest

Translation:

It is better for a person to confess his sins so that his heart does not harden as the hearts of those who caused discord against Moses, the servant of God, hardened, and their condemnation was clear.

The same word here, when it came with Moses, peace be upon him, they translated it as slave, and when it came with Christ, we find some translators translating it as slave, and some of them are embarrassed to describe Christ as a slave, so they translate it as son.

There is another word that means nothing but son, which is υιου and is pronounced hoyios.

By searching for it in Strong's dictionary, we find the following:


quote
5207

quote




Pronunciation:hwee-os'

Origin:apparently a primary word

Reference:TDNT - 8:334,1206Part of Speech:n mIn Greek:υιε 9, υιοι 33, υιοις 7, υιον 85, υιου 35, υιους 13, υιος 160, υιω 15, υιων 17

In NET: Son 201 , son 75, sons 43, a son 16, people 11, wedding guests 3, descendants 2, Israelites 2, children 2, to a son 2, Son-of-God-in-power 1, Chosen One 1, a child 1, of people 1, the foal of 1, to son 1, person 1, one 1, nation 1, you son 1, like 1

Definition:1) a son 1a) rarely used for the young of animals 1b) generally used of the offspring of men 1c) in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother) 1d) in a wider sense, a descendant, one of the posterity of any one, 1d1) the children of Israel 1d2) sons of Abraham 1e)) used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower 1e1) a pupil 2) son of man 2a) term describing man, carrying the connotation of weakness and death 2b) son of man, symbolically denotes the fifth kingdom in Da 7:13 and by this term its humanity is indicated in contrast with the barbarity and ferocity of the preceding four kingdoms (the Babylonian, the Median and the Persian, the Macedonian, and the Roman) typified by the four beasts. In the book of Enoch (2nd Century) it is used of Christ. 2c) used by Christ himself, doubtless in order that he might intimate his Messiahship and also that he might designate himself as the head of the human family, the man, the one who both furnished the pattern of the perfect man and acted on behalf of all mankind. Christ seems to have preferred this to the other Messianic titles, because by its lowliness it was least suited to foster the expectation of an earthly Messiah in royal splendour. 3) son of God 3a) used to describe Adam (Lu 3:38) 3b) used to describe those who are born again (Lu 20:36) and of angels and of Jesus Christ 3c) of those whom God esteems as sons, whom he loves, protects and benefits above others 3c1) in the OT used of the Jews 3c2) in the NT of Christians 3c3) those whose character God, as a loving father, shapes by chastisements ( Heb 12:5-8 ) 3d) Those who revere God as their father, the pious worshipers of God, those who in character and life resemble God, those who are governed by the Spirit of God, repose the same calm and joyful trust in God which children do in their parents (Ro 8:14, Ga 3:26), and hereafter in the blessedness and of the eternal life will openly wear this dignity of the sons glory of God. Term used preeminently of Jesus Christ, as enjoying the supreme love of God, united to him in affectionate intimacy, privy to his saving councils, obedient to the Father's will in all his acts Synonym: See Definition 5868 and 5943Apparently a primary word; a "son" (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figuratively, kinship:-child, foal, son.

Variations:



It is clear from the red color that the word means son and offspring and is used to mean son of God and son of man, which are titles of Christ.

To give examples of the use of the two words,

we begin with υιου
, which can only be translated as son. We find it,
for example, in Matthew 28:19.

εορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη ονομα του πατρος

All translations translate it as “

baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

” It is impossible to find a translation that translates it as “baptize them in the name of the Father, the Servant, and the Holy Spirit.”

We come to an example of the use of the word “παισ.”
We read from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 12, Verses 17 and 18.

ινα ησαιου του προφητου λεγοντος

ιδου ο μου
​επ αυτον και κρισιν εοις εθνεσιν

We read it from the ERV-AR translation : 17 This happened to fulfill what God had spoken through the prophet Isaiah:

18 “Behold my servant whom I have chosen,”

we read it from the Life Translation

17 , that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, saying:
18 “Behold my servant whom I have chosen,”

and as we see, some translations have translated it as “my servant,” while others have resorted to translating it as “my young man,” out of embarrassment at describing Christ as the servant of the Lord, which contradicts the Christian doctrine based on the divinity of Christ. And because the Greek word can be translated as “my child” or “my son,” and the word “my young man” is not far from them,

and of course, to make sure that what is meant is “my servant,” we only have to go back to the Book of Isaiah, Chapter 42, to read the prophecy

, “Behold my servant whom I will exalt,
my chosen one in whom my soul rejoices.”

Certainly, the word “my youth” is nothing but a manipulation of translations to obscure the servitude of Christ to God Almighty in the Holy Bible.



The bottom line is that the word that is always translated as Son of God is υιου.
If Clement of Rome wanted to say (so that all nations may know that you alone are God and that Jesus Christ is your Son),

he would have used it. However, he used another word, παισ, which means slave, child, or son.
He used it to describe Moses, peace be upon him, in the same letter as a slave of God, which proves that he meant (so that all nations may know that you alone are God and that Jesus Christ is your slave).

This testifies that Clement of Rome believed that there is no god but God the Father and that Christ is the slave of God
. Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that Clement of Rome meant (so that all nations may know that you alone are God and that Jesus Christ is your Son), it is also clear that Clement believed that the Father is God alone and that Christ - even if he is the Son of God - is not God Himself because the Father alone is God.

In the end, we see that Clement of Rome, one of the early fathers, believed that the Father alone is God alone and that Christ is the slave of God and that He had never heard of the doctrine of the Trinity and did not believe that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.








First: What is the Didache Gospel?

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
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.
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:
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.
</B>

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.














We said before that the Greek word that translates to slave is παισ or pias

, which means servant, child, son, or specifically young son.

Therefore, we are not surprised when we find Arabic translations of the Didache using the word (your child) instead of (your slave)

, and we are not surprised either when we find other English translations using the word (your child) or (your son) instead of (your servant).

Perhaps Christians would say that we choose the translations that we like and ignore the translations that we do not like in order to prove that the early church believed that Christ was the servant of God . So be

it... We will assume that the correct translation is (your son) and not (your servant).

Let us read chapter nine again:

First, regarding 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. Glory to you forever.

Now let us replace the word “your servant” with “your son”:

First, regarding the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your son , which you made known to us through Jesus your son , to you be glory forever.

We now have Jesus the Son of God and David the Son of God!!!!

And indeed the translation is found in this form in many translations of the Didache, including the translation with comments by Ben Soet.

Translation with comments by Ben H. Swett

On the following link:


We actually read the text from it:

“We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of your son David , which you have made known to us through your son Jesus ; to you be the glory forever.”


Indeed, his comment on that sentence in the Didache is truly remarkable.

He says literally:

Direct comparison of "your son David" and "your son Jesus" must be a very early doctrine, predating the doctrine that Jesus is the only son of God and the doctrine set forth by Athanasius in AD 318 that Jesus was God Incarnate. This is probably one reason why Athanasius excluded the Didache when he finalized the list of New Testament books in AD 367.

Translation:

The direct comparison of your son David with your son Jesus is certainly a very early doctrine, predating the doctrine that Jesus is the only Son of God and the doctrine laid down by Athanasius in 318 AD that Christ is God incarnate. This may be one reason why Athanasius did not include the Didache in the canon when he completed his list of the New Testament canons in 367 AD.

There is no doubt that since the sonship of David, peace be upon him, to God in the view of Christians is a metaphorical sonship in the sense of selection and high status and position, and since the sonship of David, peace be upon him, is directly compared to the sonship of Christ, peace be upon him, then there is no doubt that the sonship of Christ, according to the writers of the Didache in the early church, meant selection and choice and did not take him out of the framework of servitude to God Almighty if we accept that the word “your son” is the correct translation. If we do not accept that translation, then the correct translation will be “your servant,” which testifies to the belief of the early Christians in the servitude of Christ to God Almighty. We leave the choice to the Christians.












And so that we have finished discussing the Didache in detail,

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.




In the upcoming interventions, God willing, we will discuss a book that was known to the early church and considered by some Christian clerics to be an inspired book in the first centuries of Christianity, which is the book of the Shepherd of Hermes.

The strange thing is that the book of the Shepherd of Hermes, despite being viewed as divine revelation in some early Christian circles, contained a doctrine that completely contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity, which is what is known as the doctrine of adoption,

which is a doctrine that views Christ as a righteous human being chosen by God,
and when he was baptized in the Jordan River, the Holy Spirit descended upon him, which is the divine element - according to their doctrine - in Christ.
That is, Christ, according to the adoptionists, is a creature, but God chose him and gave him the degree of divinity by the descent of the Holy Spirit in him.

We will discuss, God willing, the following points:
First:
Definition of the book of the Shepherd of Hermes

Second:
The legality of the book of the Shepherd of Hermes

Third:
What is the doctrine of the adoptionists?

Fourth: The
Christian references’ recognition of the existence of a corrupt doctrine in the book of the Shepherd of Hermes

Fifth:
Texts from the book of the Shepherd








First: What is the book of the Shepherd of Hermas?


Shepherd of Hermes
One of the ancient Christian texts. Written around 140 AD in Rome in Greek, it consists of three parts: visions, commandments and parables. The book deals with a fundamental topic, which is the forgiveness of sins committed after baptism; since the church knew a strict trend that rejected the possibility of forgiveness of sins after the sacrament of baptism, and another lenient trend that believed in the possibility of forgiveness only once.
The Shepherd of Hermas belongs to the second trend, which was recognized by most bishops at the time. In this book, the charismatic character prevails, but the role of the church as an institution does not appear clearly. It presents itself as a "revelation", and thus as an inspired book, and it was considered as such until the third century, when it was later included among the apocryphal books.
In Christology, the Shepherd of Hermas uses the Judeo-Christian expression, describing Christ as an "angel". As for his Trinitarian theology, it is not clear. Like the Didache, it mentions the prophetic service , giving some useful recommendations for distinguishing between true prophets and false ones.


Quoted from:
The Arab Christian Encyclopedia
http://www.christusrex.net/www1/ofm/...toredierma.htm

 



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)


Third: What is the doctrine of the structuralists?

We read from Wikipedia from the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptionism

Adoptionism , sometimes called dynamic monarchianism , is a minority Christian belief that Jesus was adopted as God's son at his baptism . According to Epiphanius 's account of the Ebionites , the group believed that Jesus was chosen because of his sinless devotion to the will of God. [1]
Adoptionism was declared heresy at the end of the 2nd century and was rejected by the First Council of Nicaea , which held to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity , identifying Jesus as eternally begotten of God . [2

Translation:

Sonship, sometimes known as dynamic monotheism, is a minority Christian doctrine that believes that Jesus was adopted by God as his son at his baptism. According to Epiphanius, the Ebionites believed that Jesus was chosen because of his absolute, sinless submission to the will of God.

Sonship was declared a heresy at the end of the second century and was rejected by the First Council of Nicaea, which maintained the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, defining Jesus as eternally begotten of God.

We also read from the same link:

Adoptionism and Christology
Adoptionism is one of two main forms of monarchianism (the other is modalism , which regards “Father” and “Son” as two aspects of the same subject). Adoptionism (also known as dynamic monarchianism ) denies the pre-existence of Christ , and although it explicitly affirms his deity, many classical trinitarians claim that the doctrine implicitly denies it. [10] Under Adoptionism Jesus is currently divine and has been since his adoption, although he is not equal to the Father, per “my Father is greater than I” ( John&verse=14:28&src=! John 14:28 ). [11]
Adoptionism was one position in a long series of Christian disagreements about the precise nature of Christ (see Christology ) in the developing dogma of the Trinity , an attempt to explain the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth, both as man and (now) God, and God the Father while identifying as monotheistic . It differs significantly from the doctrine of the Trinity that was later affirmed by the ecumenical councils .

Translation:

Structuralism and Christology (the science of the nature of Christ):

Sonship is one of two forms of monotheism (the other form is known as modalism, which considers the Father and the Son to be two sides of the same coin). Sonship (also known as dynamic monotheism) denies the eternal existence of Christ, and although it affirms his divinity, many Trinitarians claim that this doctrine denies the divinity of Christ. Under sonship, Jesus is now God and was God from the moment of his adoption, but he is not equal to the Father because “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).

Sonship is part of a long line of Christian controversies about the nature of Christ and the Trinity, which is an attempt to explain the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth - as man and (now) God - and God the Father while adhering to monotheism. It is clearly different from the Trinity doctrine that was later accepted in the Ecumenical Councils.


In short, Sonship doctrine says that Christ was born as a man and did not have an eternal existence, but that God adopted him at his baptism and he became God and the Son of God.











Fourth: Texts from the book The Shepherd of Hermes.

We will now look, God willing, at the texts that contradict the doctrine of the Trinity in the book The Shepherd.

We find the book at the following link:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd-lightfoot.html

. We read from the fifth parable:


2[55]:2 A certain man had an estate, and many slaves, and a portion of his estate he planted as a vineyard; and choosing out a certain slave who was trusty and well-pleasing (and) held in honor, he called him to him and said unto him; "Take this vineyard [which I have planted], and fence it [till I come], but do nothing else to the vineyard. Now keep this my commandment, and you shall be free in my house." Then the master of the servant went away to travel abroad.

2[55]:3 When then he had gone away, the servant took and fenced the vineyard; And having finished the fencing of the vineyard, he noticed that the vineyard was full of weeds.

2[55]:4 So he reasoned within himself, saying, “This command of my lord I have carried out I will next dig this vineyard, and it shall be neater when it is digged; and when it hath no weeds it will yield more fruit, because not choked by the weeds.” He took and digged the vineyard, and all the weeds that were in the vineyard he plucked up. And that vineyard became very neat and flourishing, when it had no weeds to choke it.

2[55]:5 After a time the master of the servant [and of the estate] came, and he went into the vineyard. And seeing the vineyard fenced neatly, and digged as well, and [all] the weeds plucked up, and the vines flourishing, he rejoiced [exceedingly] at what his servant had done.

2[55]:6 So he called his beloved son, who was his heir, and the friends who were his advisors, and told them what he had commanded his servant, and how much he had found done. And they rejoiced with the servant at the testimony which his master had borne to him.

2[55]:7And he said to them; "I promised this servant his freedom, if he should keep the commandment which I commanded him; but he kept my commandment and did a good work besides to my vineyard, and pleased me greatly. For this work therefore which he has done, I desire to make him joint-heir with my son, because, when the good thought struck him, he did not neglect it, but fulfilled it."

2[55]:8 In this purpose the son of the master agreed with him, that the servant should be made joint-heir with the son.

2[55]:9 After some few days, his master made a feast, and sent to him many dainties from the feast. But when the servant received [the dainties sent to him by the master], he took what was sufficient for him, and distributed the rest to his fellow servants.

2[55]:10 And his fellow-servants, when they received the dainties, rejoiced, and began to pray for him, that he might find greater favor with the master, because he had treated them so handsomely.

2[55]:11 All these things which had taken place his master heard, and again rejoiced greatly at his deed. So the master called together again his friends and his son, and announced to them the deed that he had done with regard to his dainties which he had received; and they still more approved of his resolve, that his servant should be made joint-heir with his son.”

3[56]:1 I say, “Sir, I understand not these parables, neither can I apprehend them, unless you explain them for me.”


A man had a farm and many slaves .

He planted a vineyard in it. He chose a certain slave whom he trusted and liked, and he treated him with special honor and dignity. He said to him, "Build a wall around the vineyard, but do nothing else in it until I return. Obey my command, and I will let you go free into my house." And he set out on a journey.

When the master departed, the slave built the wall around the vineyard. He noticed that there were rotten weeds in it.

The slave thought to himself and said, "I have done as my master commanded, but if you dig up the vineyard and remove the weeds, the vineyard will be better and produce more fruit because it will not be choked with weeds." So he removed the weeds, and the vineyard became beautiful and shiny, with no weeds choking it.

After a while, the master of the slave and the farm returned and went to the vineyard. When he saw that it was neatly surrounded by a wall and all the weeds removed and the vineyard was shining, the master was very happy with what the slave had done.

The master called his son, his heir, and his friends, his advisers, and told them what the slave had done. They all rejoiced with the slave at the testimony that his master had given him.

The master said to them: "I promised my slave freedom if he would keep my command, and he has kept it and done a good deed with my generosity and made me very happy. Because of his deed, I want to make him an heir with my son, because when the good idea came to him, he did not ignore it, but did it."

The master's son agreed that the slave should become an heir with him.

A few days later, the master held a celebration and sent sweets to his slave. The slave kept only what was enough for him and distributed the rest of the sweets to his fellow slaves.

His fellow slaves prayed that his master would increase his honor after he had treated them in such a good way.

The master learned what his slave had done and was very happy at what he had done. He called his friends and his son and told them what his slave had done, and they all agreed more and more that the slave should be an heir with the son.

I said: (Sir, I do not understand any of these examples and I will not understand anything until you explain them to me.)

Then we read the interpretation of the proverb:


The estate is this world, and the lord of the estate is He that created all things, and set them in order, and endowed them with power; and the servant is the Son of God, and the vines are these people whom He Himself planted;
5[58]:3 And the fences are the [holy] angels of the Lord who keep together His people; and the weeds, which are plucked up from the vineyard, are the transgressions of the servants of God; and the dainties which He sent to him from the feast are the commandments which He gave to His people through His Son; and the friends and advisors are the holy angels which were first created; and the absence of the master is the time which remaineth over until His coming."

5[58]:4 I say to him; "Sir, great and marvelous are all things and all things are glorious; was it likely then," say I, "that I could have apprehended them?" "Nay, nor can any other man, though he be full of understanding, apprehend them.

" guise of a servant?"

6[59]:1 "Listen," said he; "the Son of God is not represented in the guise of a servant, but is represented in great power and lordship." "How, Sir?" say I; "I understand not."
"Because," said he, "God planted the vineyard, that is, He created the people, and delivered them over to His Son. And the Son placed the angels in charge of them, to watch over them; and the Son Himself cleansed their sins, by laboring much and enduring many toilets; For no one can dig without toilet or labor.
6[59]:3 Having Himself then cleansed the sins of His people, He showed them the paths of life, giving them the law which He received from His Father. Thou seest," said he, "that He is Himself Lord of the people, having received all power from His Father.

6[59]:4 But how that the lord took his son and the glorious angels as advisors concerning the inheritance of the servant, listen.

6[59]:5 The Holy Pre-existent Spirit. Which created the whole creation, God made to dwell in flesh that He desired. This flesh, therefore, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was subject unto the Spirit, walking honorably in holiness and purity, without in any way defiling the Spirit.

6[59]:6 When then he had lived honorably in chastity, and had labored with the Spirit, and had cooperated with it in everything, having himself boldly and bravely, He chose it as a partner with the Holy Spirit; for the career of this flesh pleased [the Lord], seeing that, as possessing the Holy Spirit, it was not defiled upon the earth.

6[59]:7 He therefore took the son as advisor and the glorious angels also, that this flesh too, having served the Spirit unblamably, might have some place of sojourn, and might not seem to hare lost the reward for its service; for all flesh, which is found undefiled and unspotted, wherein the Holy Spirit dwelt, shall receive a reward.
6[59]:8 Now thou hast the interpretation of this parable also.”







Translation:

The farm is the world, and the master of the farm is the one who created everything, determined it, and gave it power, and the servant is the son of God, and the vineyard is the people, and God himself has grown them,

and the walls are the angels of God who protect the people, and the weeds that were removed are the sins of God’s servants, and the sweets that he sent to them at the celebration are the orders that he gave to the people through his son, and the consulting friends are the angels who were created first, and the master’s absence is the time remaining until he returns.

I said to him: (Sir, everything is great and wonderful, was it possible for me to understand these things?) He said: (No, nor any human being, even if he was full of understanding.) I said: (Sir, explain to me what I want to ask you about).

He said: (Ask whatever you want.) I said: (Sir, what is the reason for the appearance of the Son of God in the parable in the form of a servant?)

He said: (Listen, the Son of God did not appear in the form of a servant, but appeared with the power of divinity.) I said: (How? I do not understand.)

He said: (Because God planted the vineyard, that is, created people and handed them over to His Son, and the Son made the angels preside over them and watch over them, and the Son Himself washed away their sins with great effort and endured great hardships, for no one can dig without effort and toil.

And after He washed them from their sins, He showed them the ways of life by giving them the law that He received from His Father, so as you see, He Himself is the Lord of people because He received all power from His Father.

But how did the Lord take the opinion of His Son and His angels to inherit His servant? Listen.

The Holy Spirit, who existed from eternity and created all creation, God made Him dwell in the body that He chose. This body, therefore, in which the Spirit dwelt, was subject to the Spirit and proceeded with dignity in holiness and purity without defiling the Spirit in any way.

When He lived honorably in chastity and endured with the Spirit and cooperated with Him in everything and acted boldly and courageously, the Lord chose Him as a partner of the Holy Spirit because the mission of this body pleased the Lord and He saw that by possessing the Holy Spirit it would not be defiled on earth.

And He Therefore he took the opinion of his son and his counselor and his glorious angels also that since this body served the spirit without blame, it should have a place to reside and inherit its reward for its service. All bodies that are not defiled or polluted and inhabited by the spirit should receive their reward.

Now you have the interpretation of this parable also.)

Comment:

It is clear that the writer of this parable embraces the doctrine of the sons in Christ. He looks at Christ as a righteous servant chosen by God and sees that the son is the Holy Spirit and that Christ, due to his goodness and righteousness, the Holy Spirit dwelt in him, so Christ became a partner with the Son of God.
At the same time, he does not deny the divinity of Christ. He sees that everything was delivered to him from the Father. But it is clear that he is calling for the idea that Christ acquired divinity by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in him.

We read from the ninth parable:
After I had written down the commandments and parables of the shepherd, the angel of repentance, he came to me and said to me; “I wish to show thee all things that the Holy Spirit, which spake with thee in the form of the Church, showed unto thee. For that Spirit is the Son of God.
Translation:

After I wrote all the examples and commands of the shepherd, the angel of repentance came and said to me: I want to show you all the things that the Holy Spirit showed you, who spoke to you in the image of the church. That Spirit is the Son of God.

Commentary:

Here we find that the writer believes that the Holy Spirit is the Son of God. And in the fifth example we find him saying that Christ the servant became a partner of the Holy Spirit and an heir with him, and the Spirit dwelt in him. Which indicates that the writer believed that the Holy Spirit is the divine element in Christ, and he therefore embraces the doctrine of sonship and not the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is truly strange that a book that calls for the doctrine of adoption and not the Trinity finds its place among the canonical books of the early church, which testifies that the doctrine of the Trinity was not clear in the early church when the book was written.



Fifth:
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)













Wikipedia says in a topic about the book The Shepherd of Hermes at the following link:

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 .
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?

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?



We begin with who is Theophilus of Antioch?

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:

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 (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 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]
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:
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.


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.









Wikipedia says in a topic about Theophilus of Antioch at the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_of_Antioch

Trinity
It is most notable for being the earliest extant Christian work to use the word “Trinity” (Greek: τριας trias ) but not to refer to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Theophilus himself puts it as “God, his Word (Logos) and his Wisdom (Sophia).” [22] It is possible that the word may have been used before this time as many Greek Christian works before Theophilus were lost [???]. [23] The context for his use of the word Trinity is commentary on the successful work of the creation weeks (Genesis chapters 1-3). According to Theophilus, the sun is the image of God; the moon of man, whose death and resurrection are prefigured by the monthly changes of that luminary. The first three days before the creation of the heavenly bodies are types of the Trinity .
Theophilus explains the Trinity as follows:
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. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.
— Theophilus [24]
Alternatively, the references to the Logos and Sophia (wisdom) may be ideas taken from Greek philosophy or Hellenistic Judaism. The concept of intermediate divine beings was common to Platonism and heretical Jewish sects. In Proverbs 8 Wisdom (as feminine consort) is described as God's Counselor and Workmistress, who dwelt beside Him before the creation
of the world.
Translation:

It is interesting that the first Christian work containing the word Trinity does not refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but Theophilus himself uses it as follows: (God and his Word (Logos) and his Wisdom (Sophia)).

It is possible that the word (i.e. Trinity) was used before it, because many Greek Christian works before Theophilus are lost.

The context of the use of the word Trinity is in the interpretation of the successive works in the days of creation.

According to Theophilus, the sun is the image of God and the moon is the image of man, and the death and resurrection of man are symbolized by the monthly changes of the moon.

The first three days before the creation of the sun and moon are types of the Trinity.

Theophilus explains the Trinity as follows:

Likewise, the three days that preceded the creation of the two luminaries (sun and moon) are types of Trinities, like the Trinity of God, his Word, and his Wisdom.

The reference to the Logos and Sophia (Wisdom) may be ideas taken from Greek or Hellenistic Jewish philosophy. The idea of ​​the existence of intermediate divine beings was common in Platonism and Jewish heretics. In the Book of Proverbs, Wisdom is described as a counselor to God, working with him and living beside him before the creation of the world.

In the above discussion we find evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity arose under the influence of Greek philosophy, Platonism and Jewish heretics.



There is another point in which Theophilus of Antioch differed from the current Christian doctrine.

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.








Who is Origen?

The answer can be found on the following link:
http://st-takla.org/Saints/Coptic-Orthodox-Saints-Biography/Coptic-Saints-Story_363.html
The scholar Origen
(Origen Adamantius | Origen)


English: Origen Adamantius - Greek: Ὠριγένης. His personality remains puzzling, although some scholars such as Quastin and others testify to his effective role in the interest of the Bible , and he was influenced by even his opponents, but the Coptic Church , feeling the danger of his teachings, excommunicated him during his lifetime, while the Chalcedonian churches excommunicated him in the persons of his followers in 553 AD, because of what was found in their writings about the existence of the soul before the body, and that all rational creation, even demons, will be saved, etc. The scholar Origen was given the title "Adamantius", meaning "man of steel" ἀδάμας or man of steel, in reference to the irresistible strength of his argument and his perseverance.

Childhood:

Origen is considered a native son of Egypt , and it seems that he was born in Alexandria around 185 AD.

It is true that the Coptic Church excommunicated him during his lifetime because of his ideas that demons would be saved, but in the end he was a Christian cleric and it is okay to see his belief in Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Origen believed that the Holy Spirit was created.
We read from Origen’s interpretation of the opening of the Gospel of John
at the following link:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-john2.html

We read under the title:
6. HOW THE WORD IS THE MAKER OF ALL THINGS, AND EVEN THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS MADE THROUGH HIM .
Translation:

6- How the Word is the maker of everything, even the Holy Spirit, through whom

we read the following:
Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the Father? Now if, as we have seen, all things were made through Him, we have to enquire if the Holy Spirit also was made through Him. it appears to me that those who hold the Holy Spirit to be created, and who also admit that "all things were made through Him," must necessarily assume that the Holy Spirit was made through the Logos, the Logos accordingly being older than He. And he who shrinks from allowing the Holy Spirit to have been made through Christ must, if he admits the truth of the statements of this Gospel, assume the Spirit to be uncreated. There is a third resource besides these two (that of allowing the Spirit to have been made by the Word, and that of regarding it as uncreated), namely, to assert that the Holy Spirit has no essence of His own beyond the Father and the Son. But on further thought one may perhaps see reason to consider that the Son is second beside the Father, He being the same as the Father, while manifestly a distinction is drawn between the Spirit and the Son in the passage, “Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man. it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, he shall not have forgiveness, either in this world or in the world to come.” We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; And at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father. We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ.
Translation:

Therefore, if everything was made through the Word, as in this passage also, then everything was not made by the Word, but by a Creator more powerful and greater than Him. And who could this Creator be but the Father? Now, if, as we see, everything was made through Christ, we must ask, was the Holy Spirit also made through Him?
It seems to me that those who hold that the Holy Spirit is created and that everything was made through the Word must also hold that the Holy Spirit was made through the Word, which means that the Word is older than Him.
But those who avoid making the Holy Spirit made through Christ must, if they hold to the Gospel, make the Holy Spirit uncreated.
There is a third tendency besides the two preceding (the tendency that says that the Holy Spirit was made through Christ and the tendency that says that the Spirit is uncreated), which is to affirm that the Holy Spirit has no independent essence apart from the Father and the Son. But after deeper thought we may see logic in saying that the Son is second to the Father and similar to Him, but there is an apparent difference between the Son and the Spirit in the passage: (Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven him, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven him, neither in the present age nor in the age to come).
Therefore we consider that there are three hypostases: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and at the same time we believe that there is nothing uncreated except the Father.
Therefore, according to the most pious and correct approach, we acknowledge that everything was created through the Word and that the Holy Spirit is the best and first in everything that the Father did through Christ.

Comment:

First:
The previous statement confirms that Christ is not the Creator, but rather a means of creation, and that the Creator is greater and more powerful than Him, and He is the Father.

Second:
The previous statement confirms the existence of two trends in Christian thought in the time of Origen:
- The statement that the Holy Spirit is not created
, and
- The statement that the Holy Spirit is the first of the creatures and that He was created through Christ.

Third:
Origen chose to say that the Holy Spirit is created, which contradicts 180 degrees the current doctrine of the Trinity, which makes the Holy Spirit a god.

It is truly amazing that what Origen said is the same as what Macedonius said about a century and a half later, as we will see later, God willing, which is that the Holy Spirit is created.

The strange thing is that when Macedonius said that the Holy Spirit is created, an ecumenical council was held in Constantinople in 381 AD, which ended with Macedonius being considered a heretic and the adoption of the Trinity as the official doctrine of Christianity.

Our question to Christians:
Since what Macedonius said was heresy, it led to the establishment of the Athanasian Creed in the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD and the adoption of the Trinity as the official doctrine of Christianity.
So what was the reason for not holding the council or writing the Creed when Origen said the same heresy, which is that the Holy Spirit is created?
What is even worse is that Origen was talking about the existence of two trends among Christians, one of which is saying that the Holy Spirit is not created and the other is saying that he is created,
which indicates that the doctrine of the Trinity was not known in Origen’s time, or at least not all Christians adhered to it!!!



And now let us also learn about Origen’s sayings about Christ to see whether they agree or contradict the current doctrine of the Trinity?

Let us see Origen’s sayings in his commentary on the Gospel of John:

“He (John) uses the article, when the name of God refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos is named God...God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God himself); and so the Savior says in His prayer to the Father, ‘That they may know Thee the only true God;’ but all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without the article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of exalted rank than the other gods beside Him...The true God, then is 'The God', and those who are formed after Him are gods, images as it were of Him the prototype. 

Source:

Origen, Commentary On John , book 2.2, in Roberts & Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1979 edition) p. 323.
You can review:
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/06/trinity-and-development-of-doctrine.html


You can also read the previous words of Origen at the following link:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...gen-john2.html
Translation:
He (John) uses the definite article when the name God or God expresses the uncreated cause of all things and does not use the definite article when calling the word God. God on the one hand is the absolute God (God), so the Savior says in his prayer (that they may know you, the only true God), and everything that is not the absolute God (God) becomes God by participating in his divinity, and is not called simply God or God with the definite article but God without the definite article. Therefore, the firstborn of all creation (meaning Christ) is the first to be with God and the first to acquire divinity, glorified to a greater degree than all other gods beside him. The true God is God and those who came after him are gods, they are his image, he is the original. Origen’s



comment

here explains the opening of the Gospel of John:
(In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god).
Of course, Origen’s interpretation confirms reading the opening of the Gospel of John in this way, which is the same reading of Jehovah’s Witnesses,
while most Christians read it
(In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God)
. Origen confirms that God or God with the definite article is only used for the Father, while Christ is only God without the definite article.

Dr. Asad Rustum, the historian of the Antiochian See, comments on Origen’s faith, saying:


The book of the Church Fathers by Dr. Asad Rustum, the Antiochian historian, page 131.

Comment:
Although Origen believed that Christ was a God born or emanated from God, he saw that the Father is greater than him and the Holy Spirit to the same extent that the Son and the Holy Spirit are greater than the rest of creation. He did not believe in the absolute equality between the hypostases that Christians believe in today.

Also, Origen saw that prayer is directed only to God the Father, and he cites as evidence that Christ himself prayed to God Almighty.
We read Origen’s words:


If we understand what prayer really is, we shall know that we may never pray to anything generated–not even Christ–but only to God and the Father of all, to whom even Our Savior Himself prayed, as we have already said, and teaches us to pray...For if the Son, as shown elsewhere, is distinct from the Father in nature and person, then we must pray either to the Son, and not to the Father, or to both, or to the Father only...There remains, then, to pray to God alone, the Father of all, but not apart from the High Priest who was appointed with on oath by the Father...The saints, then, in Their prayers of thanks to God acknowledge their thanks to Him through Christ Jesus.
Source:

Origen, Prayer , chapter 15.1-2, Ancient Christian Writers volume 19 (New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1954) pp. 57-58.
See also:
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/06/trinity-and-development-of-doctrine.html

Translation:

If we knew what prayer is, we would know that we ought not to pray to any created thing - even Christ - but only to God and the Father of all things, even our Savior Himself prayed to Him, as we said before, and He (Christ) teaches us to pray to Him (God the Father). If the Son, as He appears in other places, is separate from the Father in person and nature, we ought to pray either to the Son and not to the Father, or to both of them, or to the Father only. It remains for us, therefore, to pray to God alone, the Father of all things, but not in separation from the High Priest appointed by the Father (Christ).
The saints in their prayers of thanksgiving to God offer thanks to Him through Christ Jesus.

Note:
What is written between brackets is my interpretation to clarify the words.

Comment:
Origen believes that prayer should be to God the Father alone because even Christ prayed to Him, and what the saints do is that they pray to God the Father only and not to the Son, but they offer thanks to the Father through the Son.

Conclusion:

Origen believes that the word God or God is only applied to the Father, while the Son is God, while Christians say that Christ is God.

Origen believes that the Father is greater than the Son to the same extent that the Son is greater than the rest of creation, while Christians today believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have the same greatness.

Origen believes that worship should only be to God the Father alone because even the Son prayed to Him, while Christians today believe that worship should be offered to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and Catholics also worship the Virgin Mary.
First, who is Tertullian?

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 .”
Link:

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:


Bible Dictionary - A Selection of Scholars and Theologians, Page 232.
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.






We saw in the previous post that Tertullian was the first to explain the doctrine of the Trinity and it was said that he was the first to use the term Trinity or Trinity.

But in addition to Tertullian Montaigne being a heretic according to Christians

, was Tertullian’s understanding of the relationship between the hypostases in the doctrine of the Trinity identical to what Christians currently believe?

Let’s see what Christian references say...



Encyclopedia of the Church Fathers by Professor Adel Farag Abdel-Masih, Part Two, Page 175.


It was also said in the Encyclopedia of the Church Fathers, edited by Professor Adel Farag Abdel-Masih, about Tertullian and his belief that Christ is a lesser god than God the Father and that the Father is greater than him:

Encyclopedia of the Church Fathers - Part One - Editor-in-Chief: Mr. Adel Farag Abdel-Masih, Page 235.

Dr. Priest Hanna Khadri explains in detail what Tertullian believes about the relationship between the Father and the Son, saying:




The History of Christian Thought - Dr. Priest Hanna Al-Khudary, pages 528, 529.

From the above, we see that Tertullian believed that the Word is the wisdom of God and that He was in God from eternity

and that He emanated or was born from the Father at the beginning of creation when God said: (Let there be light and there was) as in the Book of Genesis,

so the Father did not become the Father and the Son did not become the Son except at the beginning of creation

. The Catholic Encyclopedia describes Tertullian’s teachings about the Trinity as inconsistent and that his ideas later developed into Arianism.

We read from the Catholic Encyclopedia about Tertullian at the following link:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm
His Trinitarian teaching is inconsistent, being an amalgamation of the Roman doctrine with that of St. Justin Martyr . Tertullian has the true formula for the Holy Trinity , tres Personae, una Substantia . The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are numerically distinct, and each is God ; They are of one substance, one state, and one power. So far the doctrine is accurately Nicene. But by the side of this appears the Greek view which was one day to develop into Arianism : that the unity is to be sought not in the Essence but in the origin of the Persons. He says that from all eternity there was reason ( ratio ) in God , and in reason the Word ( Sermo ), not distinct from God , but in vulva cordis . For the purpose of creation the Word received a perfect birth as Son. There was a time when there was no Son and no sin , when God was neither Father nor Judge .
Translation:

Tertullian's doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent; it is a mixture of the Roman doctrine with that of Justin Martyr. Tertullian has the correct formula for the Holy Trinity: three persons and one substance. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are numerically distinct and each is God, but they are of the same substance, state, and power. So far his doctrine is identical with that of the Council of Nicaea. But alongside of this appears the Greek view which was to develop later into Arianism: that the unity is not in the substance but in the origin of the persons. He says that from eternity Wisdom was in God, and in Wisdom the Word was not separated from God. For the purpose of creation the Word was begotten perfect as the Son. There was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge.

From the above it is clear that Tertullian believes that the Son emanated from God at creation, so God became the Father and His wisdom or word became the Son.
Before the beginning of creation there was neither a Father nor a Son
, which contradicts the current belief among Christians, as appears from the previous words of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Tertullian also fell into the teachings of subordination, and he believed that the Father is greater than the Son. He gave the Father the first place, the Son the second place, and the Holy Spirit the third place.

 

 


First: Who is Saint Justin?
Let us read together the following words to learn about his status among Christians:


Lives of Saints and Martyrs in the Coptic Orthodox Church “Consider the outcome of their lives, and imitate their faith” (Hebrews 13:7)


Justin the Martyr, the Philosopher and Defender



Early life:


He was born around 100 AD in Flavia Neapolis in Judea, which is the present-day city of Nablus. His father Priscos and grandfather Baccheios were pagans of Greek origin, and he was raised in the pagan religion. He himself recounts in his book "Dialogue with Tryphon" how he converted from philosophy to Christianity, and that was in the city of Ephesus during the reign of Hadrian. Then he traveled the world in the manner of the philosophers of his time, preaching his faith, and lived in Rome during the reign of Emperor Antoninus, where he was martyred during the reign of Junius Rusticus, that is, between 163 and 167 AD.
Seeking knowledge:


Since his youth, he was inclined to deep thinking and searching for God and the origin of the world. He first studied under one of the Stoic philosophers, followers of the philosopher Zeno , but his teachings did not satisfy his mind, so he turned away from him and followed another philosopher from the group of Stoics , the Peripatetics, who began to bargain with him over the fee for his teaching, which made Justin despise him. He continued to seek knowledge and satisfy his mind until he found one of the Platonic philosophers, whom he became attached to and loved.
However, all these philosophies combined could not satisfy the mind and heart of this amazing man. He not only had an open mind, but he also had a hungry soul thirsty for light and truth. What is noteworthy is that while he was in his paganism, he was not blindly fanatical about it, but he had the mind with which he weighed matters. He wrote in his second defense about the deep impact that seeing the Christian martyrs left on him. “While I was enjoying the principles of Plato,” he said, “and while I was listening to the misfortunes that Christians were suffering, I said to myself, ‘Since I saw them not fearing death even in the midst of dangers that the world considers terrifying, it is impossible that they should be people living in lust and crime.’” Such a heart undoubtedly qualified him to accept God’s call.
The story of his faith: The story of his faith is the story of an encounter with God. While he was seeking solitude so that he could be without attachment to external things, and while he was immersed in his meditations walking on the seashore of his country, he was met by a dignified old man with a face that seemed attractive and sweet, and seemed like a philosopher who had found comfort in his philosophy. He greeted him and began to discuss matters of philosophy with him, and showed him that the Platonic philosophy that he admired was incomplete and had no effect on his moral life. Justin asked him eagerly and amazed: “Where then can I find the truth if I do not find it among the philosophers?” The elder answered him: "Long before the philosophers, in ancient times there lived happy and righteous men, men of God who spoke by His Spirit and were called prophets (You will find more about these saints here on the website of St-Takla.org in the sections on biographies, synaxariums and history . ) These people transmitted to people what they heard and learned from the Holy Spirit. They worshipped God, the Creator, the Father of all beings, and they worshipped His Son, Jesus Christ . So ask that the gates of light may be opened for you." The elder said these words to him and then disappeared from him. There is no doubt that this path that the elder had guided him to with his words was Justinus's hope since his youth. Now that Justinus had listened to the philosophers, he turned to the prophets, and even to the One who is higher than the greatest prophets, as the heavens are higher than the earth, the eternal Word, for whom Justinus would become from that time onward the faithful witness.







Justin devoted himself to reading the books that the unknown elder had directed him to, and he came to the conclusion that Christian philosophy was the only one that could satisfy his mind, so he believed in Christ and was baptized. From that time on, he began the life of a true philosopher, as he says about himself. He always considered Platonic philosophy to be a preparation for the pagan world to accept Christianity, and so Justin, as a Christian, did not stop appreciating philosophy, but continued to wear the garb of philosophy after his faith, and he did not do this to escape appearing as a disciple of Christ, as he says about himself: "I have cast aside all vain human desires and my glory now lies in being a Christian, and nothing I desire more than to face the world as a Christian."

His long and serious quest for the truth was a reason for appreciating this truth.




Testimony to the divine truth:


He experienced contemporary intellectual struggles, and thus, having known the disease and the cure, he was supremely prepared to be an effective apostle, and even one of the true comforters who learned from their own experience of suffering how to comfort others. He never forgot or neglected - even for a single day - his profound responsibility based on bearing witness to the truth, and this feeling was the same for Jews, pagans and heretics.
Thus Justin devoted himself to spreading and defending the Christian religion. He went to Rome where he opened a school, and he used philosophy as a means of preaching and defending Christianity. He held frequent meetings with Jews and pagans wherever he met them, as well as with heretics, and in these discussions he showed amazing patience and steadfastness.
His apologetic works:


The most important works he presented to Christianity at that time were his first and second apologetics and his dialogue with Trypho the Jew.
He submitted his first apologetics (68 chapters) and his second apologetics (25 chapters) to Emperor Antoninus Pius and his sons, and it is likely that he wrote it in 147 AD, if not before. His apologetics is full of courage, dignity and humanity. His approach in his defense was not to beg and fear brute force, and he says in his defense, addressing the Emperor Antoninus Pius: "You are called everywhere Pius (pious), guardian of justice, friend of truth, and your deeds will show if you are worthy of these titles. I do not mean by this to flatter you or obtain any favor from you. I simply ask you to treat us with the laws of accurate and enlightened justice and not by mere intuition or under the influence of a superstition that you believe in order to please people, for this condemns you."
Since he was sincerely convinced of the justice of his cause, he presented it with authority in the name of the eternal law of justice, in the name of which violence is used against Christians!
His book, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (142 chapters), is a debate with a moderate Jewish seeker of knowledge, whom he met in the city of Ephesus. This debate lasted two days. It is noted that Justin in his defense he appears as a philosopher speaking to philosophers, but in his dialogue with Trypho he appears as a believer in the Old Testament to a son of Abraham.
His martyrdom:


Justin was martyred in Rome in 166 AD during the reign ofMark Aurelius. The reason for his martyrdom may have been the defeat he inflicted on a false philosopher named Crescens in public, and this philosopher soon sought him out to the authorities, so Justin was brought to trial on charges of Christianity. He was beheaded along with six others.

Quoted from:
http://st-takla.org/Saints/Coptic-Or...tory_2046.html

After we know the status of Justin among Christians,
let us get to know his doctrine...

Initially, Justin confirmed that the Son is numerically different from the Father,
and while we see Christians likening what is mentioned in their books that God sent Christ as the sun sends its rays, we find Justin denying the previous comparison and confirming that the Son is numerically different from the Father.

Anba Bishoy says in:
Lectures to Simplify the Faith,
Lecture One,
Anba Bishoy,
The Trinity, Incarnation, and Redemption


How are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit one?
Fire has a flame; and from the flame comes light and heat. So the flame is called fire, and the light is called fire, and the heat is called fire, and the evidence for that is that we can say that we light the fire, or that we light the flame, sometimes we say that we are enlightened by the fire or we warm ourselves by the heat or we warm ourselves by the fire. So the flame, the light, and the heat coming out of it are one thing, i.e. one fire, and they are not three fires. But the flame is not the light, and it is not the heat. Although flame is not light and not heat, but if flame does not generate light and radiate heat, it is not fire at all. Flame with its light and heat is a real fire.
Thus, if we contemplate the Holy Trinity, we understand that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Just as flame is fire, light is fire, and heat is fire, so the Father is God the Father, the Son is God the Son, and the Holy Spirit is God the Holy Spirit. It can be said that God alone is without the Father. Just as we say that flame is fire, the naming is not a problem, but if there is no Son, there is no God. Because there is no Father without a Son, and there is no fire without heat; even if there is flame. Because flame without heat has no value, and likewise mind without thought has no value. A generator generates electricity, light generates a ray, mind generates thought, flowers generate a scent, a magnet generates a magnetic field, a plant generates buds, and there is nothing in all existence that does not generate anything but stone and inanimate matter. God revealed to us that He is one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


We see from the words of Anba Bishoy that he, like the rest of the Christians, believes in one God who has three hypostases: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, like one fire with its flame, light and heat.

Was what Anba Bishoy said and what the Christians say today known to the early Christians?

Let us see...

The surprise is that Saint Justin - a person of high status with them, as we have seen - denied the previous likeness, emphasizing the numerical difference between the Father and the Son.

We read the words of Justin from his dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 128
Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 128

On the following link:

CHAPTER CXXVIII -- THE WORD IS SENT NOT AS AN INANIMATE POWER, BUT AS A PERSON BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER'S SUBSTANCE.
"And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been fully demonstrated by what has been said." Then I repeated once more all that I had previously quoted from Exodus, about the vision in the bush, and the naming of Joshua (Jesus), and continued: “And do not suppose, sirs, that I am speaking superfluously when I repeat these words frequently: but it is because I know that some wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham, or to Jacob, is called an Angel because He came to men (for by Him the commands of the Father have been proclaimed to men); is called Glory, because He appears in a vision sometimes that cannot be borne; heavens; as when it sinks, the light sinks along with it; So the Father, when He chooses, says they, causes His power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself. In this way, they teach, He made the angels. But it is proven that there are angels who always exist, and are never reduced to that form out of which they sprang. And that this power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.

Translation:

Chapter 128: The Word was not sent as a solid force but as a person born from the Father’s substance:

and Christ as Lord and God (the Son of God) and He appeared previously as a human and as an angel and in the glory of the flame as at the tree (meaning the appearance of the Lord to Moses, peace be upon him, in the Old Testament) and He also appeared at the judgment against the people of Sodom, which was explained previously. And I repeated all that I had quoted before from the Book of Exodus about the vision of the tree and the naming of Jesus, and I continued saying: (Do not think, Sears, that I speak unnecessarily when I repeat those words so often, but because I know that some like to anticipate those remarks and say that the power that was sent from the Father of all and appeared to Moses and Abraham and Jacob is called an angel because he came to men and the commands of God were announced by him to men, and he is called glory because he appears in a form that sometimes may not be tolerated, and he is called a man and a human because he appears in those forms as the Father wills, and they call him the Word because he bears the good news from the Father to men, but they say that that power is not separated and not divided from the Father, just as the light of the sun on earth is not divided and not separated from the sun in the sky, so when the sun sets its light disappears with it, and they say that the Father sends that power when he wants, and when he wants, he returns it. And in this way they say that he created the angels. But it is certain that there are angels who are always present and do not return to the form from which they came. And that power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been explained at length, and ( The so-called angel is not only different like the light of the sun, but it is numerically different, as I briefly explained before, when I affirmed that this power was born from the Father by His power and will, but without interruption, as if the essence of the Father had been divided like all other things that are divided and are not the same thing before and after the division. For example, we liken the matter to fires that are kindled from one fire, which we see as different from it, but the first fire from which many fires were kindled is not diminished by any means, but remains as it is.

From the previous example we see the following:

1- Justin denied likening the birth of the Father to the Son as a ray coming out of the sun.

2- Justin affirmed that the Son is numerically different from the Father.

3- Justin likened the Son to the Father as a fire that was born from another fire without diminishing the first fire, which contradicts what Christians currently say about likening the Trinity to fire: its flame, heat, and light, and their denial of likening the Trinity to three fires, as we saw from the words of Anba Bishoy.


The final result is that Justin did not know the doctrine of the Trinity in its current form because he believed that the Son is numerically different from the Father and that his relationship with the Father is like a fire that was born from another fire and not like a ray sent from the sun, which is what Christians currently claim in their explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity.



Justin continues to emphasize that the Father and the Son are two, that the Son is Lord, and that the Father is Lord of Lords, citing passages from the Old Testament. He says in his dialogue with Trypho in the following chapter, 129:

“And now I shall again recite the words which I have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says, ‘The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven,’ the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom ;

Translation:

Now I will repeat the words I said to prove this point. When the Bible says, “The Lord rained fire from the Lord in heaven,” the prophetic words indicate that there are two of them: one on earth, which the Bible says came down because of the cry of Sodom, and the other in heaven, which is the Lord of Lords who is on earth because he is the Father and God and the cause of his strength (meaning that the God or Lord who is in heaven is the cause of the strength of the Lord who is on earth, i.e. Christ) and because he is Lord and God.

And of course it is clear here that Justin is proceeding in the same vein as what he said in the previous chapter, confirming that the Lord who is on earth, that is, Christ, and the Lord who is in heaven, that is, the Father, are two in number. And it is truly striking that Justin describes the Father as the Lord of the Lord who is on earth. Even though Justin believed that Christ was God, he believed that the Father was his Lord.

And Justin says in Chapter 56 of his dialogue with Trypho on the same link:

I shall endeavor to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,--numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world--above whom there is no other God--has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with .”

Translation:

I will try to convince you that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and who is called God, is different from He who created all things - I mean the difference in numbers, not in will. For I affirm that He never did anything at any time since the creation of the world, and there is no other god above Him that He does not want Him to do.

Here we see that Justin confirms that even if Christ is God, he is not the Father, the Creator of the world, and that they are two in number and their will is one.
It is clear that Justin does not know anything about the doctrine of the Trinity, which calls for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be one God.





In addition to Justin's belief contradicting the current Christian belief in that he believes that the Father and the Son differ from each other numerically and likens the birth of the Son from the Father to fire generated from another fire and rejects the claim that the relationship of the Son to the Father is like the relationship of a sunbeam to the sun, which is one of the traditional metaphors that Christians currently use to explain the Trinity.

In addition to all of the above, Justin was that the Son, even if he is God, is subject to the Father, and even goes so far as to describe the Father as the Lord of the Lord.


Justin says in the fifty-sixth chapter of his dialogue with Trypho:

"I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men the Maker of all things whatsoever--above whom there is no other God--wishes to announce to them."

Translation:

I will try to convince you as long as you have understood the books that testify to the truth of what I say that there is another God and Lord subject to the Creator of all things and he is called an angel because he tells people anything the Creator of all things - who has no other god above him - wants to tell them.

It is clear from the above that Justin believes in the existence of two gods and tries to prove that strange doctrine from the Jewish books that testify to the oneness of God!!
He believes that one of the two gods, who is Christ, is subject to the other
god. As for the other god, he calls him the Creator of all things and says that there is no other god above him.
Justin believes in two gods, one of them is a god less in divinity and subject to the other god, and the second god has no god above him!!!

Justin emphasizes that the Creator of all things who has no other god above him is the Lord of the Lord or the Lord of the god subject to him or the Lord of Christ

. Justin says in chapter 129 of his dialogue with Trypho:



“And now I shall again recite the words which I have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says, ‘The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven,’ the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom ;


Translation:


Now I will repeat the words I said to prove this point. When the Bible says, “The Lord rained fire from the Lord in heaven,” the prophetic words indicate that there are two of them: one on earth, which the Bible says came down because of the cry of Sodom, and the other in heaven, which is the Lord of Lords who is on earth because he is the Father and God and the cause of his strength (meaning that God or the Lord who is in heaven is the cause of the strength of the Lord who is on earth, i.e. Christ) and because he is Lord and God.


Of course, it is clear that Justin always talks about two gods, one of whom is subject to the other, and it is clear, of course, that he does not know that the two gods are one god,
and it is clear that he does not know anything about the doctrine of the Trinity, because if he believed in it, he would be talking about the existence of three gods, not two gods.
Dr. Priest Hanna Al-Khudari comments on this belief of Justin, saying: The History of Christian Thought book - Dr. Priest Hanna Al-Khudari, page 453. Wikipedia says about the belief of Justin on the following link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_...e_of_the_logos









Justin sees the Logos as a separate being from God and subordinate to him

Translation:

Justin sees the Logos as a being separate from and subject to God.

Wikipedia also says:

Justin very clearly distinguishes the Son, or Logos, as being an Angel and an Apostle of God, but not the one true God himself, the Maker of all things, as Justin calls him. Justin confers the title of Creator only to the Father in all of his writings. There is no indication of the trinitarian doctrine, or of Christ being the "one true God", as Justin gives this title only to the Father.

Translation:

Justin clearly distinguishes between the Son or Logos as an angel and as a messenger of God, but not the true God himself, the Creator of all things, as Justin calls him. Justin applies the title of Creator only to the Father in all his writings. There is no reference to the doctrine of the Trinity or to Christ being the true God. Justin applies the title of true God only to the Father.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says about Justin's faith:
At the following link:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cathol..._Justin_Martyr
under the title:
His Theology

The Word is God (I Apol., lxiii; Dial., xxxiv, xxxvi, xxxvii, lvi, lxiii, lxxvi, lxxxvi, lxxxvii, cxiii, cxv, cxxv, cxxvi, cxviii). His Divinity, however, seems subordinate, as does the worship which is rendered to Him

Translation:

The word is God, but his divinity seems low, and so does the worship directed to him.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that Justin's faith was a mixture of Christian and pagan ideas.

Two influences are plainly discernible in the aforesaid body of doctrine. It is, of course, to Christian revelation that Justin owes his concept of the distinct personality of the Word, His Divinity and Incarnation; but philosophic speculation is responsible for his unfortunate concepts of the temporal and voluntary generation of the Word, and for the subordinationism of Justin's theology .

Translation with modification:

There are two clear influences on the body of the doctrine mentioned above. Justin's belief in the personality of the Word, His divinity and His incarnation is due to Christianity, but philosophical ideas are responsible for the unsuccessful concepts of the voluntary and temporary generation of the Word and subordination in Justin's theology.
First: Who is Eusebius of Caesarea?

Lives of Saints and Martyrs in the Coptic Orthodox Church “Consider the outcome of their lives, and imitate their faith” (Hebrews 13:7)


Historian Eusebius of Caesarea



Eusebius Pamphilus was born in Palestine around 265 AD. He was called by the name of his teacher, Pamphilus, who was martyred in 308 AD, and considered his spiritual father.
This father is known as the "Father of Church History", as he recorded for us a book on "Church History", in which he gave us a list of the most important Christian writers and their writings. Despite the fact that it contained excerpts from books that were completely lost, and gave us the names of books that we know nothing about until now.
His spiritual father, the martyr Pamphilus, created in him an attachment to the scholar Origen of Alexandria , who opened his famous school in Caesarea Palestine and established a large library there, which Eusebius himself used in his writings.
When his spiritual father was martyred, he fled from persecution to Tyre, and from there to Egypt in the Theban Desert, where he was arrested and imprisoned for several months.
In 313, he was chosen as a bishop of Caesarea, and he played a major role in the Arian conflicts. He wanted to establish peace between the two parties at the expense of doctrine, so he took some Arian trends, and was considered a "semi-Arian". As for Saint Pope Athanasius, he was not appointed to him, but on the contrary, he was appointed to the owners of semi-Arian thought. Some attribute this tendency to his exaggerated fear of deviating to the Sabellians (followers of Sabellius who say that God is one hypostasis who appeared sometimes as the Father, other times as the Son, and a third time as the Holy Spirit).
In the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325, he was not inclined towards the Nicene Creed, but he signed it without internal acceptance, and he sided with the Arian side after the council was dissolved (You will find more about these saints here on the website of St-Takla.org in the sections of Biographies, Synaxarium, History, and Sayings of the Fathers) In 330 AD, Bishop Eustathius of Antioch was deposed in the Arian Council of Antioch; In 335 AD, he attended the Council of Tyre after the consecration of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, which decided to depose Pope Athanasius from his throne. The Pope challenged Eusebius's right to preside over the council and his decision, but the emperor - through slander - approved the decision and exiled him to Treves.
His writings:


Perhaps the secret of his fame throughout the Christian world is due to his book "Ecclesiastical History", which includes ten books containing the history of the church from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ to 323 AD, providing us with a comprehensive explanation of the disciples, preaching works, persecutions and heresies.
In addition to this book, he has a collection of historical books such as the history of the world since creation, the life of Constantine as the first Christian emperor in the Roman Empire and the martyrs of Palestine, and the life of his spiritual father Pamphilus.
He is also considered one of the Christian defenders of the later period, as he has several defensive books. He also has doctrinal and interpretive books, sermons and letters.

In short, Eusebius was a bishop and is considered the father of church history, but he was inclined towards Arianism and was not convinced by the Nicene Creed.

Now, to see the teachings of Eusebius of Caesarea about the Holy Spirit and his doctrine,

we read from the book
“Ecumenical Councils and Heresies”
by Anba Bishoy

at the link:
http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/C...ma3.html#_ftn2
Ecumenical Councils and Heresies - Anba Bishoy

15- The role of Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian before the Council of Constantinople




In the account of this period we must not neglect the role of Eusebius Pamphili, the famous historian, Bishop of Caesarea (b. 264-d. 340), who was a member of the semi-Arian sect and one of the enthusiasts of Origen. He was so imprecise in his theological expressions that he could easily be placed among the forerunners of the Arian heresy. He wrote the same concepts that we have given of Origen’s teaching on the Holy Spirit.
Eusebius believed and taught that the Holy Spirit is third in dignity and glory and also in degree, that is, in essence. He described the Holy Spirit as receiving his light from the Word, like the moon in the sphere of the Godhead, and that he derives all his being and attributes from the Son. Thus, he considered him not to be God, nor even on the level of the Son, that is, not uncreated, and since he does not derive his origin from the
Father like the Son, he must be one of the things created by the Son. He literally says: Oute qeoV oute uioV epi mh ek tou patroV omoiwV tw uiw kai auto thn genesin eilhfen en de ti twn dia tou uiou genomenwn [1]
Then Eusebius returns and corrects this excess, perhaps to restore to the Holy Spirit something of his evangelical majesty, saying: Although he is a creature, he is the highest and best of all creatures.. But what dignity is there for a creature!?
As is evident from the words of Eusebius, the procession of the Holy Spirit is only linked to His mission, that is, as a temporal event. For example, when the Lord Christ said, “When the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26), Eusebius considered that the Holy Spirit proceeded in order for the Son to send Him, that is, He proceeded in time and was sent, and thus he abolished His eternity. I wish that the defenders of Origen would study the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian, who is one of the greatest defenders of Origen, to discover the error of their defense. [2]
I have tried here to present a historical presentation of the events that preceded the emergence of the heresy of Macedonius and his followers, which led to it, and the repercussions that brought us to the Council of Constantinople.
[1] Euseb. De Eccl. Theol. III. 6.

First: Who is Arius?



The History of Christian Thought book - by Reverend Dr. Hanna Al-Khudari - page 619.

We also present his teachings from another source:







The Book of My Church, Doctrine and Faith - by Father Mina Gad Girgis, a priest in the city of Esna - Page 76.. Deposit No. 7363/2002.

Unfortunately, all of Arius’ writings were burned by Emperor Constantine:






Church History - by John Lorimer - Part Three, Page 50 - Deposit No. 8378/1988.

Of course, we do not need Arius and his followers to be Arians, as long as they denied the divinity of Christ, they do not believe in the Trinity, of course.

We read from the book:
Ecumenical Councils and Heresies - Anba Bishoy

at the link:
http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/C...Al-Magma3.html

quote
14- The Holy Spirit until the Council of Constantinople 381 AD




St. Athanasius declared from the beginning his opinion about the Arians’ attempts to distort the faith in the Holy Spirit in his first letter against Arianism (chapter eight), saying: “How can his faith in the Holy Spirit be true, since he speaks blasphemously against the Son” [1] , denying His equality with the Father in essence (homo asion to patri).
What St. Athanasius said here is considered a prophecy or foresight, because what he said actually happened. After the Council of Nicaea ended the conflict over the divinity of the Son, the conflict over the divinity of the Holy Spirit began, and St. Athanasius also began to fight against the denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit. In 360 AD, St. Athanasius issued the first comprehensive explanation of the person of the Holy Spirit and His procession from the Father.
We note, of course, that the first comprehensive explanation of the character of the Holy Spirit was written in the year 360 AD, more than 300 years after Christ, peace be upon him.

No comment!!
Christians may say that Arianism is heresy,

so how can we claim heresy against them?

The reality is that what Christians consider heresy was once official Christianity,

and once upon a time Arianism was the official religion of the Roman Empire,

and once upon a time all Christians were Arians.

What is above is not my words, but rather the words of Christian sources.

We read from the Arabic Christian Encyclopedia:

http://198.62.75.4/www1/ofm/1god/pen...arianesimo.htm

quote


Arianism
En. Arianism

Fr. Arianism
It. Arianesimo
A Christian heresy that arose in the fourth century, taught by the Alexandrian priest Arius, and because of it he entered into a dispute with his bishop. Arius said that the Word is not God, but since he is "born" of God the Father, he does not share his nature, but rather there is a relationship of "adoption" between them, so the Word is not eternal, but is merely a secondary or subject creation. Arius and his supporters were excommunicated at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325, and he was subsequently exiled. However, this did not prevent this heresy from expanding geographically and from being used by its proponents for political purposes.
In 334, Emperor Constantine brought Arius back from exile, and due to the influence of some important figures such as the Bishop of Constantinople, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Emperor Constantius II, this heresy became the official religion of the Roman Empire until 359.
Several trends of the same heresy later emerged. Some believed in the validity of the Nicene Creed , although they doubted the equality of the Son to the Father in essence. These were called quasi-Arians. Others challenged the validity of the Nicene Creed, considering that the nature of the Son was completely different from that of the Father. A third group also emerged who believed that the Holy Spirit was also a secondary creation.
With the accession of Valentinus to the throne in 361, things began to return to their natural course, that is, to what came in the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. After that, the Nicene Creed was declared in Vienna in 379 as the correct faith and the official religion of the empire thanks to Emperor Theodosius. This faith was confirmed by the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381.
Despite this, Arianism continued for two centuries, especially among the Germanic peoples who had been evangelized by Arian missionaries.
In every religion, heresies and innovations appear

, but for an innovation to become the official religion is something I do not understand!!

In the year 359, official Christianity did not recognize the divinity of Christ or the Trinity!!

And someone might say that the Roman Empire's recognition of Arianism as an official religion happened due to political pressures and not that the Christian clergy themselves believed in Arianism

, so be it... Let's move on to the next confession...
We read from the book:
Ecumenical Councils and Heresies - Anba Bishoy

from the fifth chapter:
5- The Council of Nicaea: 2) Arius and his heresy

at the following link:
http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/C...Hartakato.html

quote
The See of Rome and Alexandria at that time were largely united in faith, despite the periods of weakness of the Church throughout the world. At a limited stage, Athanasius alone held fast to the true faith. There was a time when almost the whole world would have become Arian had it not been for Athanasius. At one point, the Emperor deposed the Roman Pope and appointed another in his place to sign the Arian Creed. When the Pope returned from prison to his See, he signed the Arian Creed, which he had previously refused to sign. This was the stage when only Athanasius and his bishops in Egypt remained holding fast to the true faith. It is therefore not strange that the Prophet Isaiah said: “Blessed be Egypt, my people” (Isaiah 19:25). But at many other times the See of Rome supported the Alexandrian Pope, just as the popes contemporary with Pope Athanasius supported him.
Christianity throughout the world collapsed and submitted to Arian tyranny, and only the See of Alexandria remained, represented by the exiled Alexandrian Pope and his Egyptian bishops. We must follow in the footsteps of our fathers.
The evidence from the above is that we do not object to Christians merely because of heresy,
but rather we object to them because of a belief that prevailed among them for a period of time in their history,
a belief that in a period of time in history all the churches followed.





Who is Eusebius of Nicomedia?
Read from the following link:

http://st-takla.org/Saints/Coptic-Or...Story_370.html

Figures from Christian history

Eusebius of Nicomedia, head of the Eusebians

He represented the destructive force of the orthodox faith, and bore all hatred for the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 AD), although he had signed the Nicene Creed for no other reason than to find an opportunity to exert all his energy to resist it, and he called his followers the Eusebians.
In his early life, he and his colleague Arius were disciples of Lucian of Antioch, and he was later ordained bishop of Beirut, and shortly thereafter moved to the diocese of a dangerous position, Nicomedia. When the capital was transferred from Nicomedia to Constantinople, he made every effort to move to Constantinople in 339.
He had a special position in the palace because of the attachment of the Empress Constantia, the sister of Emperor Constantine, to him, and through her he reached Constantine to constantly incite him against Pope Athanasius , presenting him with all bitterness. He succeeded in deposing Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, in 330, Athanasius in 335 (at the Council of Tyre), and Marcellus, Bishop of Ankara in 336.

As we see, Eusebius rejected the Creed written in Nicaea and his followers were known as the Eusebius.

Since he rejected the Creed that says the Son is of the same essence as the Father, he naturally also did not believe in the Trinity.

To be sure that the Eusebius were like the Arians, they did not believe in the divinity of Christ, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the Trinity. Of course,

we read the expressions of the Eusebius and the Arians about their faith.

We read from the book of
the Ecumenical Councils and Heresies - Anba Bishoy

under the title:
Expressions of the Arians about the Holy Spirit

at the link:
http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/C...Ariosyeen.html

“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete , the Spirit of truth, promised by the prophets and by the Lord, and sent to the apostles to teach them all things and to comfort and sanctify And the believers complete. And the Son is the one who gave the Holy Spirit to the Church according to the will of God. Therefore, we anathematize everyone who says that the Holy Spirit is an uncreated God, and we anathematize everyone who confuses the person of the Holy Spirit with the person of the Son or says that he is from the Father, or says that he is from the Son who - the Holy Spirit - is through him (and not from him), that is, he was sent by him into the world. [1] We reject the unscriptural term “one substance” for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit . [1]

These definitions were written between the Council of Nicaea in 325 and 360. Both the Arians and the Eusebians were able to explain their view of their denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit in their many canons that they issued to the world after the councils they held . (It is known that Eusebius of Nicomedia (Bishop of Nicomedia in Turkey) is one of the leaders of the Arian movement.)
[1] N. & PN Fathers, series 2, Vol. IV, St. Athanasius, Eerdmans Pub. Com., Grand Rapids, Michigan, reprinted 1978, De Synodis, p. 454, 464-






From the above we see that both the Arians and the Eusebians did not believe that the Holy Spirit is God and they believed that He is a creature and they rejected the saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one substance.
That is, they do not believe in the Trinity.
To learn about Macedonius and his ideas, we read from:
(Dictionary of the Church Fathers and Saints)

at the following link:
http://popekirillos.net/ar/fathersdi...ad.php?id=1699

We read the following:

Macedonius or Macedonius the heretic

Arian at first, he was one of the Arians who were able, through their influence with Constantine, to appoint him Patriarch of the See of Constantinople in the year 343. He entered the city surrounded by soldiers, and a riot broke out between the believers and the Arians, in which many were killed. Macedonius persecuted the followers of Paul, the legitimate deposed Patriarch, and it was said that he sent to strangle him. Later, Constantine became angry with him because he moved the body of his father Constantine from one grave to another, so he ordered his expulsion from his See in the year 360 AD. An enemy of the Holy Spirit, as he was Patriarch, he only knew the teachings of Arius, but when he was deposed, he wanted to innovate a new heresy. The heretics who preceded him had denied the divinity of the Father and the Son, so he wanted to deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit, so he claimed that the Holy Spirit is a divine work spread throughout the universe and is not a distinct hypostasis from the Father and the Son, and he considered him a creature similar to the angels and of a higher rank than them. He began to spread his heresy among many, and he was exiled to a place called Bely Fashakh there, and God's wrath was hastened upon him, but his heresy continued after his death, and the most special one who spread it was his disciple Marantinos, Bishop of Nicomedia, and his heresy spread to many monasteries of monks and spread in Thrace and Bithynia, and the common people called the followers of Macedonius "enemies of the Holy Spirit." When Pope Athanasius the Apostolic returned from exile to his throne in the year 362, he held a council in Alexandria in which he condemned this heresy, and some bishops followed him and condemned it. When news of it reached the ears of Emperor Theodosius, he ordered the convening of the Council of Constantinople in the year 381, in which 150 bishops met and passed judgment on Macedonius, and the council ruled with his authority on that heresy. History of the Coptic Church, page 251.

To explain the evidence of the so-called Macedonian heresy, we read from the book:
The Ecumenical Councils and Heresies - Anba Bishoy

17- The Council of Constantinople: 1) The Heresy of Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Response to It


Macedonius, who was Patriarch of Constantinople Macedonius I of Constantinople, and because of whom the Ecumenical Council was held there, denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit , but he did not deny the divinity of the Lord Christ . He and his heretical teaching were condemned in the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.
Macedonius had relied on what was mentioned in the Gospel of John in the words of the Lord Christ about the Holy Spirit, “For he shall not speak on his own authority, but whatever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and he shall declare to you things to come” (John 16:13) and “He shall glorify me, for he shall take of what is mine and declare it to you” (John 16:14). Macedonius said that the Holy Spirit is less than the Son because He takes from what is the Son’s (John 16:14,15), and because He does not speak on His own authority (John 16:13), and because He testifies to the Son based on what the Lord Christ said: “But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you… He will testify of Me” (John 15:26). Also because He is sent from the Father and from the Son.
He is sent from the Father: “But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things” (John 14:26).
And He is sent from the Son: “But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth” (John 15:26).
This poor man forgot that the divine revelation also said about the Son: “The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father doing” (John 5:19). If this poor man had read this verse carefully, he would not have considered that the phrase that the Holy Spirit “does not speak on His own authority” leads to diminishing the importance of the Holy Spirit compared to the Son. The fact that the Son does nothing of Himself does not make the Son less than the Father. If we follow this rule that Macedonius followed, we would also deny the divinity of the Son because he said that “the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do” (John 5:19).
Both phrases mean that the hypostasis of the Son and the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit do not work separately from the other two hypostases. Neither the Son works separately from the Father and the Holy Spirit, nor does the Holy Spirit work separately from the Son and the Father.


Thus, we see that Macedonius was establishing the argument and evidence that testifies to what he says about the Holy Spirit from the Holy Bible!!
Bishop Bishoy responds that poor Macedonius cites evidence to prove the non-divinity of the Holy Spirit, and if he had adhered to the same approach in understanding Christ’s words, he would have denied Christ’s divinity as well because there are words in the Holy Bible that also suggest that Christ is not God!!!
Bishop Bishoy then continues to narrate the sayings of some of the fathers to give imaginary interpretations of Christ’s words until he reaches the conclusion that the fact that Christ is unable to do anything of Himself does not negate His divinity!!!


It is really strange that the teaching of Macedonius is called a heresy
, as heresy is what is introduced into religion without having a predecessor to follow in it.
As for Macedonius, he did not invent a new teaching.
As we saw before, Origen reported the existence of a dispute in his time in the late second and third centuries AD about the nature of the Holy Spirit and whether it is created or not.
He preferred to say that the Holy Spirit is created,
and Eusebius of Caesarea followed in his footsteps, denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit and proving that it is created.
The Arians and Eusebians followed the same approach, led by their leader Eusebius of Nicomedia, and wrote in the laws of their councils that they condemn those who believe in the Holy Spirit as a god.
Then Macedonius came and followed in their footsteps,
so how could he be an innovator?
It is worth noting that during a period in the fourth century, Arianism was the official religion of the Roman state, and all the churches were Arian, as we saw previously.
That is, during a period, all Christians believed that the Holy Spirit was not God.







We read from:
Encyclopedia of the History of the Copts of Egypt

, written by:
Ezzat Andraos


Sabellius was born at the end of the second century and died in 261 AD. He was a disciple of the heretic Notius, one of the bishops of Ptolemais in the Western Pentapolis. He was raised in the city of Rome, and was a disciple of the heretic Noetus and became a priest. He was a Libyan citizen. He studied in Rome and settled there. He took from him his teachings, which are limited to the fact that God is one person who gave the law to the children of Israel in his capacity as the Father, and became a human in the New Testament in his capacity as the Son, and descended upon the apostles in the upper room of Zion in his capacity as the Holy Spirit

. First: The content of the teachings of Noetus
This heresy began with the teachings of Noetus, where his followers believed that they were “the slanderers of the Father” (*). His heresy was simple, as he believed that God is one person who gave the law to the children of Israel in his capacity as the Father, and became a human in the New Testament in his capacity as the Son, and descended upon the apostles in the upper room of Zion in his capacity as the Holy Spirit. For this reason, he considered that the sufferings that befell the Son befell the Father, which is why this group was called “the slanderers of the Father.”
Second: The content of the teachings of Sabellius:
Sabellius explained what the Holy Books teach about the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is different from Noetus, he believed that part of the divine nature was separated from God the Father and formed the Son in union with the human Jesus Christ, and that another part separated from Him and formed the Holy Spirit, and this is heresy for the simple reason that it is part of God, and Sabellius believed that the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity in one God is a difficult and unacceptable doctrine and is completely rejected by the Jews and pagans, so Sabellius thought of simplifying and explaining this doctrine in a heresy consisting of three stages as follows: -
The first stage is the eternal God who created the world and everything in it came out of his silence and rest by creating this world, and when he created it, God the Father the Creator became one essence and one person, one unity and he is the same person from creation to incarnation.
The second stage: At the incarnation, God himself, the same person and essence is the one who was incarnated in the human Jesus of Nazareth, meaning that the God who was incarnated in Jesus of Nazareth is not the Son or the Logos but God himself, meaning that the Father became the Son and he is the one who was crucified, suffered and died.
The third stage : After the ascension, the Spirit who descended upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost is the same person who worked in the Old Testament, and he is the same who became a son, meaning that God took the form of the Father at the beginning of creation, and in the incarnation he took the form of the Son and then took the form of the Holy Spirit.
From the above, we can summarize our belief that he believes in the existence of a God who played three roles in three different periods of time. Sabellius' interpretation was very popular, so many called it Sabellian heresy, and many church teachers were convinced by his idea because of its simplicity and lack of complexity.
Why did Sabellius leave Rome and go to Egypt?
He spread the heresy of Sabellius in Rome and Egypt . The first to embrace the heresy of Notius and Sabellius Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome, and Callistus, his successor, helped the heretics spread their heresy until this heresy spread and spread throughout the West. However, Callistus ordained bishops, priests and deacons who had married a second and third time, then he permitted baptism for the forgiveness of sins and claimed that a bishop could not be removed from the priesthood no matter what sins he committed. When Sabellius did not agree with him on this, he excommunicated him, so he came to Egypt in 257 AD.
The Church’s position on Sabellius:
Pope Callistus issued an excommunication against Sabellius and his followers in 220 AD. Some historians say that Sabellius remained in Rome after his excommunication, but others believe that he came to Egypt and spread his teachings there. Despite the Church’s defense against this doctrine, it spread very quickly in many parts of the world.
It began to spread the heresy of the Patriarchs, attracting many to it. When Pope Dionysius learned of his affair, he resisted him strongly, and the matter finally ended with the excommunication of Sabellius in a council held in 261 AD. Sabellianism or Modelist or Monarchiaism, and in the West it is called Patripassianism. This movement dates back to the time of Justin the Martyr, who condemned those who said that “the Son is the Father” (Dialogue with Trypho 128). This movement came first as a wrong reaction to the resistance of Gnostic thought in the second century, as the Gnostics looked to the Son and the Holy Spirit as two aeons emanating from the Supreme God, and that they were less than Him, so some wanted to confirm the unity between the Trinity and fell into a kind of Sabellianism. It also came as a reaction against Arianism in the fourth century (Marcellus of Ancra used it to remove the idea of ​​gradualism in the Holy Trinity. Tertullian explained in the introduction to his essay Against Praxeas that this heresy appeared out of a desire to confirm the Orthodox faith.
Heresy of Sabellius

In the same letter he also refers to the heretical teachings of Sabellius that were becoming more widespread in his time and says: “As for the teaching that is now being raised in Pelomas in Pentapolis (3), which is full of blasphemy and blasphemy against the Almighty God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, and which includes many doubts regarding his only Son, the firstborn of all creation, the incarnate Word, and a great deficiency in the knowledge of the Holy Spirit, since letters have reached me from both parties and from the brothers to discuss the matter, I have written a few letters to address the subject in which I have put, with the help of the Lord, many teachings as I can, Here I am sending you copies of it
*************************************


The next part is quoted from the historian Father Mansa Yuhanna (4)
The spread of the heresy of Noetus
Sabellius was the first to embrace the heresy of Noetus and Sabellius Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome and Callistus, his successor, and he helped the heretics spread their heresy until this heresy spread in the West . What made matters worse was that Callistus ordained bishops, priests and deacons from those who had married a second and third time - then he permitted baptism for the forgiveness of sins - and he claimed that a bishop is not cut off from the priesthood no matter how many sins he has committed -
Sabellius in Egypt and his heresy of the “Painful Fathers ” But Sabellius did not agree with the latter works, so he excommunicated him, so he left Rome and went to Egypt in the year 257 AD and began to spread his heresy there, which was based on the heresy of Noetus and the heresy of the “Painful Fathers”
What is the content of the doctrine of the Painful Fathers?
They believe that it is the Self Himself, not one of His hypostases, who atones for the sins of mankind.
A local council
. Sabellius misled many believers and some bishops with this heresy, so Pope Dionysius stood up like a valiant hero and resisted their error in a decree he sent to the bishops Ammonius and Avrandar. When he was unable to bring Sabellius back, he excommunicated him in a council he held in Alexandria in 261 AD after he refuted in a letter all his corrupt teachings.
The Roman bishop excommunicated the Egyptian bishop.
The supporters of Sabellius saw that they needed someone to support them, so some Roman intruders tempted them to evil and discord, so they wrote a letter to Dionysius, the bishop of Rome, in which they accused their patriarch of heresy and innovation. The Roman bishop was a young man with little experience and knowledge compared to the Alexandrian patriarch, who was well-read and experienced in dealing with everyone. Dionysius the Roman proceeded in an arbitrary manner and committed an act of extravagance. He held a council in which he excommunicated Dionysius, the Egyptian patriarch. He even sent to inform him of the ruling and asked him if he had anything with which to defend himself, which the Egyptian patriarch considered audacity on the part of the bishop of Rome and an insult to him. However, due to his great piety and adherence to the commands of the Christian religion, he was not satisfied to meet evil with evil, but rather took to his pen and sent him a letter in which he explained to him the phrases that he had difficulty understanding. That letter was the limit. A break in the dispute that historians call "the Dionysian dispute" and the Roman bishop was convinced that he had been hasty and wrong in his work and respected the Pope of Alexandria and stood by him in refuting the heresy of Paul of Samasata, Bishop of Antioch.
***************************


============
References
(1) History of the Church - Eusebius of Caesarea (264 - 340 AD) - Translated by Father Markos Daoud - Deposit number at Dar Al-Kutub 5207 / 1979 - Modern Cairo Printing Press Ahmed Bahi El-Din El-Kharboutly Book Seven Chapter Six (K7 F6)
(2) He was the head of a Shiite in Rome during the episcopate of Zephyrinus (198-217 AD)
(3) The Five Western Cities (Libya now)
(4) History of the Coptic Church Father Mansi Youhanna Printed by Maktabat Al-Mahabbah in 1982 AD Third Edition p. 88
Heresies and heresies in the first Christian centuries (2) Father/Anton Fouad (5) Modalism A- Its definition: When we trace the history of Christian thought, especially the teachings related to the person of the Lord Jesus, we notice the emergence of a very large number of doctrines and teachers who try to answer the Lord’s question “Who do people say that I am?” As we have previously seen, many deviated from the right path when trying to answer this question. During this, some Jewish Christians called for the oneness of God and that God is one, supreme, great, and cannot be divided. Some teachers participated in this method, but after a while they came out with a new teaching called Modalism. Many appeared around the year 180 AD, including Notus Mesmerinus, and this doctrine spread in Rome during the days of Pope Zephyrnus (202-217).
(*) This paragraph is from the footnote of the historian Father Mansa Youhanna, p. 117: “The first to spread the heresy of ‘the father of the mortals’ was Apraxias, who came to Rome from Asia Minor and opened a school in which he spread error. He was able to attract Zenirinus, the bishop of Rome, and Callistus, his successor, to his heresy. After Apraxias, his disciple Nothitus spread his heresy. When Pope Dionysius learned that this heresy had begun to take hold of the minds of the Romans, he wrote a long letter to Theothitus in which he explained the correct teaching and refuted his heresy. History does not acknowledge the correctness of the two popes’ belief because they are the ones who call for the correctness of their popes’ (infallibility). If it were not for the popes of Alexandria, the Roman Church would have become a collection of heresies.”(Comment from the site: The Holy Spirit is the one who moves the leaders of the church in defending the faith, and the Lord Jesus is the one who makes us happy by serving His word, but the Lord uses us and is the one who develops, and there is no one who is infallible except the Lord Jesus who said, “Which of you convicts me of sin?” And the Scripture says, “They have all turned aside, they have become corrupt... There is none who does good, not even one.”) (5) History of the Coptic Church, Father Mansa Youhanna, printed by the Library of Love in 1982 AD, third edition, pp. 117-118






As we see from what we have quoted from the Encyclopedia of the Copts of Egypt, Sabellius did not know the current doctrine of the Trinity and believed that God is one person and not three persons
and that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are images of the one person of God.
We said that all religions show heresies and heresies, so there is no problem
, but the strange thing is that heresy spreads terribly as it happens in Christianity, unlike other religions.
Basil’s heresy dominated the Church of Rome and spread to the West, as we see.
Then Basil moved to Egypt and began to spread his heresy there.
The Church of Alexandria stood up to Basil’s teachings,
and we saw the historian, Priest Mansi Youhanna, admit that the popes are not infallible and that if it were not for the Church of Alexandria, the Church of Rome would have become a group of heresies!!!

It is clear that Basil's teaching and doctrine that God is one hypostasis, after it spread and covered the West in the third century AD, was not completely limited, but remained present until the fourth century, when it was anathematized again in the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.

We read from the book
Ecumenical Councils and Heresies - Anba Bishoy

at the following link:
http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/C...ios-Intro.html

26- Council of Constantinople: 10) Introduction to the Heresy of Sabellius

The heresy of Sabellius was judged in the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 AD.
Sabellius believed that God is one hypostasis and not three hypostases , that is, one hypostasis with three names. And that when this hypostasis created us, it is the Father, when it saved us, it is the Son, and when it sanctified us, it is the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we do not tend to the phrase: " The Father is our Creator, the Son is our Savior, and the Holy Spirit is our Sanctifier" although it is not wrong.
We do not deny that the Father is the Creator, that the Son is the Savior, and that the Holy Spirit sanctifies in the divine mysteries (i.e. in the mysteries of the Church ). But this phrase may give the impression that what Sabellius says is true. Or as if the Creator is the Father alone, without the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that the Son is the Savior alone without the Father and the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is the Sanctifier alone without the Father and the Son.

We also read from the same book at the following link:
http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/C...-Sabilios.html


31- The Council of Constantinople: 15) Condemning Sabellius



The Council of Constantinople anathematized the heresy of Sabellius , who lived before the Council ( Macedonius was the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time of the Council). That is, Sabellius was anathematized by the Council after his death, because his teachings were heretical, and he died while teaching them, so the Church anathematized him and his teaching. Just as Theodore of Mopsuestia ( Nestorius’ teacher and Diodore of Tarsus were anathematized after their deaths at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 AD, which followed the Council of Chalcedon (and our Church also anathematized them before that date).
Some have objected to anathematizing someone after his death, but the fact that the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople anathematized Sabellius after his death is evidence of the correctness of this procedure. These are heresies, and their proponents died while teaching them.





Ecumenical Councils and Heresies - Anba Bishoy

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 itAs 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.

[3] Hardouin and Mansi, ll. cc. § 29; Dorner, lcp52

Quoted from


http://st-takla.org/Coptic-History/C...obsoyesty.html








From the above it is clear that Theodore denied the divinity of Christ,
but Anba Bishoy was ashamed to declare this fact,

as he likened the union of God with Christ to the union of man and woman to become one body

. Where did Theodore get the idea of ​​the union of man and woman?
He got it from the Old Testament.

We read in Genesis, Chapter 2:

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

It is clear that the unity between the man and his wife is a metaphorical unity.
Theodore means that the unity between God and Christ is only a metaphorical unity and that it is a union in dignity and will
and that God dwelt in Christ with good will.
The man says that Christ is a human being and not God
, but the unity between him and God is a metaphorical unity
, meaning that he understood what was attributed to Christ in the Gospel of John: (I and the Father are one) that it is a metaphorical unity and not a real unity.
And the saying that when Thomas said (my Lord and my God) when Christ appeared to him after the alleged resurrection incident, he did not mean that Christ was his God, but he was saying it out of extreme astonishment,
the man simply says that Christ is not God.
And since Theodore did not believe in the divinity of Christ, he naturally did not believe in the Trinity.
It is truly strange that the Council of Chalcedon did not forbid his teachings,
and Anba Bishoy explains the non-forbidding of his teachings at the Council of Chalcedon by the intervention of the emperor.
We ask with astonishment: Where is the Holy Spirit? Why did He not descend upon the fathers to guide them to the truth?
What is the evidence that the Creed of Nicaea in 325 AD, which acknowledged the divinity of Christ, or the Creed written in Constantinople in 381 AD, were written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and not under pressure from the emperor?
Summary of the topic:

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.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why do angels not enter a house in which there are dogs and others?

| The philosophy of pornography in the Bible and the response to it! Only for Males