Christian Tradition

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.”

Well, Justin Martyr in The First Apology wrote in chapter 33 -

"It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the Firstborn of God."

This would agree with Second Corinthians 3:17 "Now the Lord is the Spirit" and with First Corinthians 15:45 - "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit".

I am not expert on everything Justine Martyr wrote. Probably neither is Robbie Carrobie. But the trinitarian concept that the Son lives in the Holy Spirit seems borne out as Justin Martyr's view also.

No one said the Trinity was easy to write about. And often writers were accused on one side and on the opposite side by different critics.

Here the Spirit is equal to the Son and experience is the underlining concern, I think, of Justin Martyr's quotation. He knew the firstborn resurrected Christ as the Spirit.

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.”

I would like to see his quotation in context. Irenaeus was a related to the Apostle John through Polycarp and was strong to follow only the writings of the Apostles and the churches founded by the Apostles.

Ireneaus, also speaking much of experience of God, wrote in Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book V, 8:1 that to receive the Holy Spirit was to hold and carry God -

"We receive now a portion of the Spirit of Christ to perfect us and prepare us for immortality, and this by degrees we become accustomed to hold and carry God; which also the Apostle terms "an earnest" . . . This earnest, therefore, thus dwelling in us, renders us spiritual even now, and the mortal is swallowed up by immortality. "For ye," he declares, "are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." This, however, does not take place by a casting away of the flesh, but by the impartation of the Spirit."

Irenaeus is expounding Romans 8:9 and 2 Cor. 3:17,18. And to receive the Holy Spirit - the Third of the Father-Son-Holy Spirit is to hold and carry God.

Again, I be no expert on all Irenaeus wrote. But here too a significant aspect of trinitarian teaching and experience is upheld by him.

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.

Now we come to Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-220). I'd like to see Robbie's reference. Of course Jesus spoke of the Father being greater than He as He stood on the ground of the human Man that He has become.
What else did Clement of Alexandria say?

Here he comments on Isaiah 9:6 in The Instructor (remind you of anyone ? ) Book I, 6. He is speaking of the inadequacy of human language to utter God.

"The Spirit calls the Lord Himself a child ... who, then is this infant child ? He according to whose image we are made little children. By the same prophet is declared His greatness: "Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." O the great God! O the perfect Child! The Son in the Father, and Father in the Son . . . . For just as far as man is inferior to God in power, so much feebler is man's speech than Him; although he does not declare God, but only speaks about God and the Divine Word. For human speech is by nature feeble, and incapable of uttering God."

The phrase of Clement above - "The Spirit calls the Lord Himself a child ..." I believe indicates that Clement considered Isaiah 9:6 to say that God became a child. That is trinitarian. And to Clement the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father is also trinitarian.

Furthermore Clement of Alexandria said that Christians were persons mingled with the regal gold - the Holy Spirit. In The Stromata, Book V, 14 he writes:

" Christians, with whom has been mingled the regal gold, the Holy Spirit."

Originally posted by sonship
What specifically do you want me to look out for in that chapter ?

read the entire chapter , it traces the trinities journey from ancient Babylon, through Egypt and into Greece, from which the Hellenistic Greeks imposed upon scripture and of which you yourself are now a recipient. Hislop demonstrates that a single deity with three manifestations was the norm from ancient times, he writes,

In India, the supreme divinity, in like manner, in one of the most ancient cave-temples, is represented with three heads on one body, under the name of "Eko Deva Trimurtti," "One God, three forms

In Japan, the Buddhists worship their great divinity, Buddha, with three heads, in the very same form, under the name of "San Pao Fuh." All these have existed from ancient times.

http://ldolphin.org/PDFs/The_Two_Babylons-Alexander_Hislop.pdf

page 20

Next Robbie refers to Tertullian the lawyer theologian from North Africa (A.D. 160-220).

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.”

Let's examine Tertullian's words to explain the Trinity is Against Praxeas (A Modalist) II. Here he acknowledges the need to guard the mystery of God's economy in the Trinity.

" ... in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also One were not All, in that All are of One, by unity [that is] of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation [economy] is still guarded which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: 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 Spirit."

"Tertullian was the first to write concerning the Trinity using the words "Substance: and "Persons," which have been taken into traditional language of Christianity to explain the Triune God." - Bill Freeman

He used these words in order to defend the teaching of the Triune God against the heresy of Modalism which made the Trinity into merely a trinity of names or titles of one Person. Tertullian spoke of Modalism's concept as " ... putting to flight the Paraclete and crucifying the Father."

In other words here he is carefully upholding the distinction between Holy Spirit and Father. Yet above he maintains that there is only One God.

Originally posted by sonship
Next Robbie refers to Tertullian the lawyer theologian from North Africa (A.D. 160-220).

[quote] 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 sa ...[text shortened]... e distinction between Holy Spirit and Father. Yet above he maintains that there is only One God.

rather interestingly Hyslop also states that the ancient ritual of the Chaldeans were knows as mysteries.

the mystery of Gods trinity - jaywill

Robbie includes Origen (A.D. 185-254) to criticize trinitarian teaching with this comment.

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.”

Origen is reputed to be the first systematic theologian in Church history. he was the first to use the term "God-man" in describing John 1:1 and 14 that the Word became flesh.

In De Principus, Book I Origen speaks of the limits of man's ability to comprehend the mystery of the Triune God. Note that he and other theologians spoke not of limitation to experience the Trinity but to comprehend or utter in human language fully the mystery.

"According to strict truth, God is incomprehensible and inestimable ... for among all intelligent, that is, incorporeal beings, what is so superior to all others - so unspeakable and incalculably superior - as God, whose nature cannot be grasped or seen by the power of any human understanding, even the purest and brightest."

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
rather interestingly Hyslop also states that the ancient ritual of the Chaldeans were knows as mysteries.

the mystery of Gods trinity - jaywill

Get yourself a Strong's Concordance and examine how many times the writers of the New Testament employed the term "mystery" for such things as

the great mystery - Christ and the church

the mystery of the faith

the glory of this mystery .. Christ in you

great is the mystery of godliness

the mystery which has been hidden ...

and other passages. I and the church "fathers" were only repeating what was there in the New Testament. The experience of God - Father-Son-Holy Spirit was to experience and enjoy a mystery.

Originally posted by sonship
Get yourself a Strong's Concordance and examine how many times the writers of the New Testament employed the term "mystery" for such things as

the great mystery - Christ and the church

the mystery of the faith

the glory of this mystery .. Christ in you

great is the mystery of godliness

the mystery which has been hidden ...

and other p ...[text shortened]... Testament. The experience of God - Father-Son-Holy Spirit was to experience and enjoy a mystery.

read the chapter that I cited, then we can talk. As for Strong, he's another trinitarian, what do you expect, anything less than a bias? I have both The new Strongs exhaustive concordance of the Bible and The new Strongs complete dictionary of Bible words. He is not the most accurate of writers, in fact, i think the watchtower Bible and tract societies similar publication are far superior.

Robbie, I am reading through. I am going to collect some portions that we can discuss.

Here is the first. Tell me if you think it is relevant or not.

i.e., "
only
Jehovah." When it is intended to assert the Unity
of the Godhead in the strongest possible manner, the Baby
lonians used the term "Adad."
Macrobii Saturnalia
.
In the unity of that one Only God of the Babylonians, there were three persons, and to symbolise that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of Layard prove, the equilateral triangle, just
as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day. *
* LAYARD's
Babylon and Nineveh . The Egyptians also used th
e triangle as a symbol of their "triform divinity."
In both cases such a comparison is most degrading to the King Eternal, a
nd is fitted utterly to pervert the minds of those who contemplate it, as if there was or could be any similitude between such a figure and
Him who hath said, "To whom will ye liken God,
and what likeness will ye compare unto Him?"
The Papacy has in some of its churches, as, for instance, in the monastery of the so-called Trinitarians of Madrid, an image of the Triune God, with thre
e heads on one body. * The Babylonians had something of the same. Mr. Layard, in his last work, has given a specimen of such
a triune divinity, worshipped in ancient Assyria. **
* PARKHURST'S
Hebrew Lexicon

I will add other portions that I assume you think are relevant. And we will settle this matter of Hislop's view on trinitarian teaching.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
read the chapter that I cited, then we can talk. As for Strong, he's another trinitarian, what do you expect, anything less than a bias? I have both The new Strongs exhaustive concordance of the Bible and The new Strongs complete dictionary of Bible words. He is not the most accurate of writers, in fact, i think the watchtower Bible and tract societies similar publication are far superior.

Mr. Strong and his team simply allowed people a way to trace the usage of words anywhere and everywhere in Scripture - a great service.

I have NEVER considered what Mr. Strong's personal theology was. What difference does it make to a concordance of WORDS found in the Bible ?

What possible BIAS could there be in simply indicating the passages in the KJV which use a certain English word and a number to indicate which Hebrew, or Chaldean or Greek word is being translated there?

There is no BIAS in a catalog of that nature. That is paranoia and conspiracy theory on your part. The information as I have used it for many years is objective.

Here's where the English word is used.
Here is what word is being translated in either Hebrew or Chaldee or Greek.
And here is the definition and usages of that word in the original language.

I have never read any Preface or other discussion in that Concordance as the means of my usage are very straightforward and simple. It is as objective as the Yellow Pages. And I do not think Strong has in mine to push any particular theological viewpoint. That does not seem to be the passion that motivated him.

That is your conspiracy theory paranoia speaking.

Robbie, here is another section.

PARKHURST'S
Hebrew Lexicon
, "Cherubim." From the following extract from the
Dublin Catholic Layman
, a very able Protestant paper,
describing a Popish picture of the
Trinity, recently published in that city, it will be
seen that something akin to this mode of
representing the Godhead is
appearing nearer home: "At th
e top of the picture is a
representation of the Holy Trinity. We beg to
speak of it with due
reverence. God the
Father and God the Son are represented as a MAN with
two heads
, one body, and two
arms. One of the heads is like the ordinary pi
ctures of our Saviour.
The other is the head
of an old man, surmounted by a triangle. Out
of the middle of this figure is proceeding
the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. We think it must be painful to any Christian mind,
and repugnant to Christian feeling, to l
ook at this figure." (17th July, 1856)
**
Babylon and Nineveh. Some have said that the plural form of the name of God, in the Hebrew of Genesis, affords no argument of the doctrine of plurality of persons in the Godhead, because the same word in the plural
is applied to heathen divinities. But if the supreme divinity in almost all ancient heathen nations was triune, the futility of this objection must be manifest.

Originally posted by tim88
What does the bible say about judging other people?

I'm not judging, I'm stating a fact.

Read what I quoted from his post.

First he says, "You really should research your prejudices rather than invent them." Notice how he pre-empts what comes next. Then he says, "Sooooo you are a pagan masquerading as a Christian, how is that going to work out for you, long term?"

As he himself says, he should research his prejudices rather than inventing them. Not to mention flat-out lying. Yes, lying. And the sin of providing false witness. All to 'prove' a point. A point smaller than the point he proves by ignoring what he just said in the previous sentence.

I daresay it is his own 'Christianity' that is in question now. But some of us already knew this. A few others are a bit slow to come to the party, I see.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes and calling them idiots is way worse, not to mention an offence under the terms of service of this site!

http://www.timeforchess.com/help/index.php?help=forumguide

Calling another poster an "idiot" will leave a post subject to immediate removal.

such lawlessness, doesn't bode well for our Suzzi

Let me help you out here, jackass.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/core/feedback.php

Knock yourself out.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Thank you Jesus, the spirit of warmth and love you display draws me towards you like a warm fire on a wintry evening. Do you also approve of other pagan festivals? you know sucking little children in with gifts of sweets and other treats in your time honoured fashion? Lets have a look,

ah yes, you celebrate the festival to the goddess Astarte, ...[text shortened]... ts, candy and gifts, how cunning.

Once again, reality is not optional, get a reality check!

If your conscience is weak in these matters then you should not compromise it, but you should also recognise that there is no righteousness to be gained in abstinence from these cultural niceties. Your corporation has indoctrinated you to believe that in denying your children the joy of birthday parties, Christmas presents with their parents and the excitement of the season, is a good thing. You really need to take a BIG step back and look again.

Originally posted by galveston75
Christmas has nothing to do with Christianity and is full of pagainistic traditions that are not bible based.
The bible makes it clear that a Christian is to be "no part of the world" and to not defile ones bible based beliefs with untruths.

It is possible to enjoy Christmas and to not make our children feel deprived of the joy of the season, without being in the world.

This time of year reminds me of why I find your cult so repellant.