How do anti-Trinitarians explain early Christian writings?

Question

Recent anti-Trinitarian questions have stated that the early Church did not believe in the Trinity. If that is your position, how do you explain these early Christian writings, some about the second person and some about all three persons of the Trinity?

1. Justin Martyr referred to the deity of Christ so often that space does not permit the reproduction of his statements here. But this statement of his sums it up succinctly: "We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God Himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third.” This is a clear description of the Trinity.

2. In the Huleatt Manuscript from 50 AD is found a description of Mark 14 (where a woman pours perfume on Jesus). It says “...But, when the disciples saw it, they were indignant.... God, aware of this, said to them,: “Why do you trouble this woman?’” Jesus is the speaker about whom the writer says, “God ... said to them ....”

3. The letter of Barnabas in 74 AD says, “And further, my brethren, if the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, 'Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,' understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men" (Letter of Barnabas 5).

4. In 140 AD, Aristides wrote, "[Christians] are they who, above every people of the Earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16).

The list goes on and on, but nobody likes a lengthy question and this one’s too long already.

Father K: I saw that in one of your questions and was astonied, if you know what I mean. :-)

Q&A Queen: I have read the Bible and there are a number of places that prove Jesus' deity. My personal favorite is John 8:58. If you know your Bible, you'll know exactly what it means.

58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

Dewcoons: Thank you and I completely agree with you. However, the question has been debated ad nauseum with regard to scripture. The recent attack has been on "early writings." This question addresses those early writings. Why does everyone assume that because I'm asking about early writings, I have not read and believed the Bible?

TeeM: (a) You're quoting people who gave their opinion ABOUT Justin Martyr, etc. I went to the source. (b) I'm an editor, so I understand English grammar. But the Bible wasn't written in English. English grammar does not apply.

Tzadiq: Yours is a really interesting answer. You believe in God. You believe in Yeshua's deity. But you have a problem with The Spirit of God, named in Genesis 1:2, Judges 3:10, Judges 6:34, Judges 14:6, 1 Samuel 10:6, 1 Samuel 16:13, Ezekiel 11:5. Most people who deny the Trinity, deny Yeshua, not the spirit. Interesting.

Answer 1

They don't. They do a hatchet-job on them because if they honestly faced up to the context and the implications, they would have to acknowledge that the Trinity doctrine had far more support from Christians at a far earlier date than they care to admit. They are forever blaming Constantine for this supposedly 'satanic doctrine', and political intrigues of his era. The fact is, Christians from the time the New Testament began to be written were wakening up as to just who Jesus was so that worship of Christ was part of their writing. But those who have been told that the Trinity is satanic, will not allow even the Bible to 'speak' to them about the person of Christ. Far less then will they listen to the early Church Fathers.

Answer 2

Once again I will answer this question.

There is a reason those manuscripts do not appear in our bible. Remember the people who canonized the scripture were Catholic and even by their suspect standards the bulk of the writings do not conform to the clear teaching of the Torah. Even in the time of the apostles heresy had crept into the church so it doesn't matter how early these writing are only if the agree with what the Torah has to say.

It is disingenuous to use extra biblical text to prove your doctrine. The trinity is a hoax and borrowed directly from paganism. I do not deny the deity of Yahshua because I feel he was God, The God of the Old testament in the flesh. This does not dismiss acknowledging the Father because I also acknowledge Him as supreme over all but you need to stop trying to squeeze your doctrine into a misinterpreted passage in Deut 6:5 and claiming that there is One God in Three manifestations.

Answer 3

Why go to authors after the time of the first generation?

Simply look at Matthew, who tells us that Jesus taught baptism in the "name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost".

Simply look at Acts 10, where Luke speaks of God anointing Jesus with the Holy Ghost to do good.

Simply look at Paul's benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen."

Simply look at 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

So you need look no further then Matthew, Luke, Paul, John and Jesus Himself to find examples of "early Christians" who believed in the Trinity.

Answer 4

Because they'd rather cut and paste some obscure sentence out-of-context from the old Catholic Encyclopedia that explains the gradual spread of the doctrine of the Trinity through traditionally Arian portions of the world than actually read a theology book with any substance in it

Answer 5

J. N. D. Kelly, in his Early Christian Doctrines, writes about the view of Hermas regarding the Son of God:
“In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God’s inner council, and who is regularly described as ‘most venerable’, ‘holy’, and ‘glorious’. This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael.”
“There is evidence also . . . of attempts to interpret Christ as a sort of supreme angel . . . Of a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense there is of course no sign.”

Dr. H. R. Boer, in his book A Short History of the Early Church, comments on the thrust of the Apologists’ teaching:
“Justin [Martyr] taught that before the creation of the world God was alone and that there was no Son. . . . When God desired to create the world, . . . he begot another divine being to create the world for him. This divine being was called . . . Son because he was born; he was called Logos because he was taken from the Reason or Mind of God. . . .
“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world but, nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father. The Apologists were subordinationists.”

R. P. C. Hanson, in The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, states:
“There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father.”

Dr. Alvan Lamson, in The Church of the First Three Centuries, adds this testimony regarding the teaching of church authorities before the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.):
“The inferiority of the Son was generally, if not uniformly, asserted by the ante-Nicene Fathers . . . That they viewed the Son as distinct from the Father is evident from the circumstance that they plainly assert his inferiority. . . . They considered him distinct and subordinate.”

Similarly, in the book Gods and the One God, Robert M. Grant says the following about the Apologists:
“The Christology of the apologies, like that of the New Testament, is essentially subordinationist. The Son is always subordinate to the Father, who is the one God of the Old Testament. . . . What we find in these early authors, then, is not a doctrine of the Trinity . . . Before Nicaea, Christian theology was almost universally subordinationist.”5


Oops, I forgot to copy the 'old Catholic'


As to John 8:58, Ask you english teacher if you can say

'You before you came, I am.'

The Jews were not asking Jesus' his name, they were asking how old is was.

"I am" in John's Gospel
The Expository Times, 1996, page 302 by Kenneth Mckay.

"The verb 'to be' is used differently, in what is presumably its basic meaning of 'be in existence', in John 8:58: prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi, which would be most naturally translated 'I have been in existence since before Abraham was born', if it were not for the obsession with the simple words 'I am'. If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction."

In the Greek Septugint Bible which is the bible Jesus is quoting from, Uses 'The Being' at Ex 3:14.

If Jesus was quoting this verse he would have had to say

"Before Abraham, the Being."


.

Answer 6

The person you should be quoting and whose words should carry the full weight of TRUTH is not one of these individuals above, The person you should be quoting and who would know whether or not Jesus was God himself IS Jesus. I encourage you to read the Gospels directly and with an open mind. If you do, you will see that either Jesus was either a separate and distinct entity from Almighty God, or he was mentally ill.

How do you explain his own words, such as at John 14:28 "the Father is GREATER than I am"; constant references to being sent by God and doing his FATHER'S will. If he IS God, who did he pray to before each miracle? Who did he ask the recipients of his miracles to glorify? him? No? He said "glorify GOD". His last prayer before his death is recorded at John 17:3. He said "I have magnified your name and made it known?" After he was resurrected he appeared to Mary. When she went to touch him he said not to touch him, "for I have not yes ascended to my Father and your Father. To MY God and YOUR God." Then there's a common sense question: If Jesus was GOD himself, and was dead, who resurrected him? For that matter, why did he die, since the scripturs say that God is from "everlasting to everlasting"? Finally, Jesus' own enemies, the Pharasees, never accused him of claiming to be God. I don't recall the scripture right now but I can look it up. It is where Jesus asks them "why do you say I blaspheme because I SAY I AM GOD'S SON."

The Book of Acts is the history of what happened with the early Christians after Jesus' death. Their preaching activity is recorded for us to examine. Why is it that in that history those that were taught directly by Jesus are not said to be teaching that he was God?

The Body of scripture tells the story on it's own. The Trinity predates Christianity and has it's roots in pagan beliefs.

Dew, with respect:

Matthew 28:19,20 were in fact words spoken by Jesus. However, where in that phrase does it say they were ALL one.
The same of Paul's words at 2 Corinthians. If you tell me you and your spouse and your child are doing something are you telling me that you are the same being when you do it?

1 John 5:7 - Where it says they are all one? It means they are unified in PURPOSE. If the phrase that Jesus is one with his father means they are all the same, what do you make of what he says in John 17 that all his disciples are one with him and that THEY are all one with God? Are they one big happy multi-deity?

=============

John 8:58. "Before Abraham WAS I AM" You say you're an editor. Does that english even make sense to you? The New Living Translation (from the Tyndale trust) put's it this way: "Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!" That is accurate. Jesus could say this because he was the only one created directly by his Father and was therefore in existence before ALL human creation.

Answer 7

The disciples did not believe in the trinity, NO Prophet ever preached about it. Jesus was a Prophet

Answer 8

because they only quote from sources that agree with them and take verses out of context.