Ante-Nicene Fathers/Apostolic Fathers...For TATM...

[praetorian]

TATM:

I came across some information on the Apostolic Fathers, which I will here refer to as Ante-Nicene Fathers, as to what they expressed regarding God and Jesus that I would like to get your view on.

Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a “created angel” who is “other than the God who made all things.” He said that Jesus was inferior to God and “never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say.”

Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the “One true and only God,” who is “supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other.”

Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called God “the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.” He said that the Son “is next to the only omnipotent Father” but not equal to him.

Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: “The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.” He also said: “There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone.”

Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is “the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all,” who “had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before,” such as the created prehuman Jesus.

Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that “the Father and Son are two substances . . . two things as to their essence,” and that “compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light.”

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

When you get a moment, please let me know your thoughts on this.

Many thanks,

TonyP

[orthodox]

TonyP, I just noticed your excellent post and find you still active on the board. So forgive this late reply.
To start, It helps to understand the motivation of the question. It's a good one, but the agendas span everything from anti trinitarians to christian apologists and everything in between and to the left and right.
I would first state asking the question and receiving an answer depends on YOU and ME. I am by choice Orthodox. I have accepted, on faith primarily the TRINITY. Trinitarianism is one of those concepts you can stay awake at night trying to grasp until the room starts to rotate and the white ceiling sound insulation starts revealing visions of the first PLAYBOY centerfold ever seen in 7th grade P.E. class.
It's a toughy, and metaphors and similes of gas-water-ice one nature sugar pills etc don't help. Academics will advance the idea Christianity is a creation of SAUL/PAUL and what was merely a jewish sect repackaged into a new religion entirely. And you can certainly look at these church fathers full of opinion and see the coming great council of Nicea that solidified the creed and rejected various 'heresies.'
Religions, empires, people: We all grow and mature and what we write in 7th grade annuals about centerfolds may seem juvenile to an older man.
Ideas about Jesus have been carried forward for 2009 years +- and used for good and evil.
Personally, I prefer to follow the ideas of Jesus instead. And when people start conversations about him I must first ask 'what are they selling to replace my version, and is it better or dangerous?' Sometimes spam isn't a brit selling electronics on FACTNET.

[praetorian]

TonyP, I just noticed your excellent post and find you still active on the board. So forgive this late reply.
To start, It helps to understand the motivation of the question. It's a good one, but the agendas span everything from anti trinitarians to christian apologists and everything in between and to the left and right.
I would first state asking the question and receiving an answer depends on YOU and ME. I am by choice Orthodox. I have accepted, on faith primarily the TRINITY. Trinitarianism is one of those concepts you can stay awake at night trying to grasp until the room starts to rotate and the white ceiling sound insulation starts revealing visions of the first PLAYBOY centerfold ever seen in 7th grade P.E. class.
It's a toughy, and metaphors and similes of gas-water-ice one nature sugar pills etc don't help. Academics will advance the idea Christianity is a creation of SAUL/PAUL and what was merely a jewish sect repackaged into a new religion entirely. And you can certainly look at these church fathers full of opinion and see the coming great council of Nicea that solidified the creed and rejected various 'heresies.'
Religions, empires, people: We all grow and mature and what we write in 7th grade annuals about centerfolds may seem juvenile to an older man.
Ideas about Jesus have been carried forward for 2009 years +- and used for good and evil.
Personally, I prefer to follow the ideas of Jesus instead. And when people start conversations about him I must first ask 'what are they selling to replace my version, and is it better or dangerous?' Sometimes spam isn't a brit selling electronics on FACTNET.


Hi Orthodox:

No worries for the tardy reply as I, like you, simply do not have the time nowadays, that I used to, in order to make posts, though thank you for your post.

I am not sure what question you refer to in my post, as it was more of a question on prospective specifically related to the information I provided to TATM, primarily as quotes from the Ante-Nicene/Apostolic Fathers (meaning non Apostles and or inspired writers of the Bible) that I wanted to get TATM’s view on, which was never addressed by him.

What you express is true when you state, “It's a good one, but the agendas span everything from anti trinitarians to christian apologists and everything in between and to the left and right” however, I was looking for a more direct and simplistic reply from him again, as to his personal thoughts on the Ante-Nicene (Apostolic Fathers) as TATM has quoted them before in other posts, by only quoting expressions from them that serve his point-agenda, instead of presenting both sides or a more complete contextual post of what is often expressed by a particular Apostolic Father (Ante-Nicene and or later etc).

When you express that you are “orthodox” what do you mean by the use of this word? Are you Jewish or a particular group of Christian, to which you refer to as “orthodox?” As just stating “orthodox” is simply not enough information for one to understand where it is you are coming from, when making your post-point; and if it is, then I apologize in advance for missing it altogether.

I understand that you accept the Trinity, however, why do you do so? And if so, are you aware of all of the factors surrounding the same, and even more importantly what the Bible has to say about this directly on point, all by itself, without the use of spinning (interpreting) the plainly stated words themselves. I can clearly state that I do not believe in the Trinity for several reasons including but not limited to; it’s origin, as it can be clearly traced to people, outside the Bible. Also, it is not mentioned in the Bible at all, not once as clearly contrasted by Bible expressing things, that are not in support of the same, as for example scriptures that clearly tell you that Jesus has a God etc., as these and many other scriptures tell one, grammatically speaking that Jesus is not God let alone part of a God that is Triune.

What academics and others opine is all well and good, but in the end, we are all left with “one” Bible, giving off a set of words, grammatically speaking that tell you “one” thing and the choice to accept the plain and simple words of the Bible itself verses, what others opine about what the words themselves mean, that most of the time take one away from the plain and simple words of the Bible itself. The Bible does tell us that Christianity is a form of spiritual Judaism (Judaism from the Bible OT that is; not outside it) enhancing and or completing what the Jews believed, as that is part of what the promised role of the Messiah would entail. But this is another subject matter.

In the end I agree with your sentiments, when you express, “Personally, I prefer to follow the ideas of Jesus instead” though would respectfully add, ‘as clearly, plainly and simply stated in the Bible,’ rather than allow one to spin their own ideas as to what the “ideas of Jesus” are, when again, Jesus tells us in the Bible. And this makes sense since as after all, we get Jesus from the Bible, and no where else.

Thank you for your post.

Tony