Lampstand Christian Forum Community - Blogs http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/ Christian fellowship forum with a bible study. en Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:29:36 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/images/misc/rss.jpg Lampstand Christian Forum Community - Blogs http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/ The Early Church And The Deity Of Christ - Part Two http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/early-church-deity-christ-part-two-171/ Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:05:27 GMT *Tertullian* (died ca. 235) (1) But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of...
Tertullian (died ca. 235)
(1) But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially 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 Ghost 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 is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons-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. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds. (Against Praxeas, Chap. II)

(2) There are some who allege that even Genesis opens thus in Hebrew: "In the beginning God made for Himself a Son." As there is no ground for this, I am led to other arguments derived from God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone-being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call lo/gos, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning; because also Word itself consists of Reason, which it thus proves to have been the prior existence as being its own substance. Not that this distinction is of any practical moment. For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason, as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything which He was afterwards about to utter through His Word. Now, whilst He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason, He was actually causing that to become Word which He was dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse. (Against Praxeas, Chap. V)

(3) I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself. (Against Praxeas, Chap. V)

(4) Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I." In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being "a little lower than the angels." Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, "I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter ... even the Spirit of truth," thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality? (Against Praxeas, Chap. IX)

(5) That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God; but because in earlier times Two were actually spoken of as God, and two as Lord, that when Christ should come He might be both acknowledged as God and designated as Lord, being the Son of Him who is both God and Lord. Now, if there were found in the Scriptures but one Personality of Him who is God and Lord, Christ would justly enough be inadmissible to the title of God and Lord: for (in the Scriptures) there was declared to be none other than One God and One Lord, and it must have followed that the Father should Himself seem to have come down (to earth), inasmuch as only One God and One Lord was ever read of (in the Scriptures), and His entire Economy would be involved in obscurity, which has been planned and arranged with so clear a foresight in His providential dispensation as matter for our faith. (Against Praxeas, Chap. XIII)

(6) For although the Word was God, yet was He with God, because He is God of God; and being joined to the Father, is with the Father. "And we have seen His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father; " that is, of course, (the glory) of the Son, even Him who was visible, and was glorified by the invisible Father. And therefore, inasmuch as he had said that the Word of God was God, in order that he might give no help to the presumption of the adversary, (which pretended) that he had seen the Father Himself and in order to draw a distinction between the invisible Father and the visible Son, he makes the additional assertion, ex abundanti as it were: "No man hath seen God at any time." (Against Praxeas, Chap. XV)

(7) But what hinders them from readily perceiving this community of the Father's titles in the Son, is the statement of Scripture, whenever it determines God to be but One; as if the selfsame Scripture had not also set forth Two both as God and Lord, as we have shown above. Their argument is: Since we find Two and One, therefore Both are One and the Same, both Father and Son. Now the Scripture is not in danger of requiring the aid of any one's argument, lest it should seem to be self-contradictory. It has a method of its own, both when it sets forth one only God, and also when it shows that there are Two, Father and Son; and is consistent with itself. It is clear that the Son is mentioned by it. For, without any detriment to the Son, it is quite possible for it to have rightly determined that God is only One, to whom the Son belongs; since He who has a Son ceases not on that account to exist,-Himself being One only, that is, on His own account, whenever He is named without the Son. And He is named without the Son whensoever He is defined as the principle (of Deity) in the character of "its first Person," which had to be mentioned before the name of the Son; because it is the Father who is acknowledged in the first place, and after the Father the Son is named. Therefore "there is one God," the Father, "and without Him there is none else." And when He Himself makes this declaration, He denies not the Son, but says that there is no other God; and the Son is not different from the Father. Indeed, if you only look carefully at the contexts which follow such statements as this, you will find that they nearly always have distinct reference to the makers of idols and the worshippers thereof, with a view to the multitude of false gods being expelled by the unity of the Godhead, which nevertheless has a Son; and inasmuch as this Son is undivided and inseparable from the Father, so is He to be reckoned as being in the Father, even when He is not named. The fact is, if He had named Him expressly, He would have separated Him, saying in so many words: "Beside me there is none else, except my Son." In short He would have made His Son actually another, after excepting Him from others. (Against Praxeas, Chap. XXVIII)

(8) Therefore, if they have determined that the Father and the Son must be regarded as one and the same, for the express purpose of vindicating the unity of God, that unity of His is preserved intact; for He is one, and yet He has a Son, who is equally with Himself comprehended in the same Scriptures. Since they are unwilling to allow that the Son is a distinct Person, second from the Father, lest, being thus second, He should cause two Gods to be spoken of, we have shown above that Two are actually described in Scripture as God and Lord. And to prevent their being offended at this fact, we give a reason why they are not said to be two Gods and two Lords, but that they are two as Father and Son; and this not by severance of their substance, but from the dispensation wherein we declare the Son to be undivided and inseparable from the Father,-distinct in degree, not in state. And although, when named apart, He is called God, He does not thereby constitute two Gods, but one; and that from the very circumstance that He is entitled to be called God, from His union with the Father. (Against Praxeas, Chap. XIX)

(9) Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, "I and my Father are One," in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number. (Against Praxeas, Chap. XXV)

(10) Thus the nature of the two substances displayed Him as man and God,-in one respect born, in the other unborn; in one respect fleshly in the other spiritual; in one sense weak in the other exceeding strong; in on sense dying, in the other living. This property of the two states-the divine and the human-is distinctly asserted with equal truth of both natures alike, with the same belief both in respect of the Spirit and of the flesh. The powers of the Spirit, proved Him to be God, His sufferings attested the flesh of man. (On the Flesh of Christ, Chap. V)

(11) Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled. The material matrix remains entire and unimpaired, though you derive from it any number of shoots possessed of its qualities; so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence-in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. (The Apology, Chap. XXI)


Hippolytus (died ca. A.D. 235)
(1) The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. (Refutation of all Heresies, Book X, Chap. XXIX)

(2) For Christ is the God above all... (Refutation of all Heresies, Book X, Chap. XXX)

(3) For who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy. (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Section 3) [Economy is a theological term. It refers to the number and disposition of persons in the Trinity.]

(4) He who is over all, God blessed, has been born, and having been made man. He is God forever For to this effect John also has said, 'Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.' And well has he named Christ the Almighty. (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Section 6)

(5) As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine. In these things, however, which are thus set forth by us, we are at one. For there is one God in whom we must believe, but unoriginated, impassible, immortal, doing all things as He wills, in the way He wills, and when He wills. (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Section 8)

(6) God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world. And conceiving the world in mind, and willing and uttering the word, He made it; and straightway it appeared, formed as it had pleased Him. For us, then, it is sufficient simply to know that there was nothing contemporaneous with God. Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality. (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Section 10)

(7) These things then, brethren, are declared by the Scriptures. And the blessed John, in the testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account of this economy (disposition) and acknowledges this Word as God, when he says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy of harmony is led back to one God; for God is One. (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Section 14)

(8) The Father's Word, therefore, knowing the economy (disposition) and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth. (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Section 14)

(9) Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe on His name. (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Section 17)


Origen (died ca. A.D.250)
(1) From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit. (Origen de Principiis, Book 1, Chap. III, Section 2)

(2) Nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification. (De Principis, Book I, Chap. 3, Section 7)

(3) For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a substance outside Himself, so that there was a time when He did not exist. (De Principis, Book V, Section 28)

(4) We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not "reverence beyond measure one who has but lately appeared," as though He did not exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, "Before Abraham was, I am." Again He says, "I am the truth; " and surely none of us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, "who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person," has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself. (Against Celsus, Book VIII, Chap. XII)


Cyprian of Carthage (died AD 258)
[[b]One who denies that Christ is God]/b] cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . (To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics Letters 72:12


Dionysius, Bishop of Rome (died ca. 269)
(1) Now truly it would be just to dispute against those who, by dividing and rending the monarchy, which is the most august announcement of the Church of God, into, as it were, three powers, and distinct substances (hypostases), and three deities, destroy it. (Against the Sabellians)

(2) But neither are they less to be blamed who think that the Son was a creation, and decided that the Lord was made just as one of those things which really were made; whereas the divine declarations testify that He was begotten, as is fitting and proper, but not that He was created or made. (Against the Sabellians)

(3) That admirable and divine unity, therefore, must neither be separated into three divinities, nor must the dignity and eminent greatness of the Lord be diminished by having applied to it the name of creation, but we must believe on God the Father Omnipotent, and on Christ Jesus His Son, and on the Holy Spirit. Moreover, that the Word is united to the God of all, because He says, 'I and the Father are one;' and, 'I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me.' Thus doubtless will be maintained in its integrity the doctrine of the divine Trinity, and the sacred announcement of the monarchy. (Against the Sabellians)


Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neo-Caesareia in Pontus (died ca. A.D. 270)
(1) All (the persons) are one nature, one essence, one will, and are called the Holy Trinity; and these also are haines subsistent, one nature in three persons, and one genus. But the person of the Son is composite in its oneness (i.e. unita est), being one made up of two, that is, of divinity and humanity together, which two constitute one. Yet the divinity does not consequently receive any increment, but the Trinity remains as it was. (On the Trinity, Fragment from the Discourse)

(2) Nor less alienated from the true confession are those who hold not the doctrine of the Trinity according to truth, as a relation consisting of three persons, but impiously conceive it as implying a triple being in a unity (Monad), formed in the way of synthesis and think that the Son is the wisdom in God, in the same manner as the human wisdom subsists in man whereby the man is wise, and represent the Word as being simply like the word which we utter or conceive, without any hypostasis whatever. (A Sectional Confession of Faith, Section 1)

(3) But if they say, How can there be three Persons, and how but one Divinity?- we shall make this reply: That there are indeed three persons, inasmuch as there is one person of God the Father, and one of the Lord the Son, and one of the Holy Spirit; and yet that there is but one divinity, inasmuch as the Son is the Image of God the Father, who is One, - that is, He is God of God; and in like manner the Spirit is called the Spirit of God, and that, too, of nature according to the very substance, and not according to simple participation of God. And there is one substance in the Trinity, which does not subsist also in the case of objects that are made; for there is not one substance in God and in the things that are made, because none of these is in substance God. (A Sectional Confession of Faith, Section 14)


Novatian of Rome (died ca. A.D. 280)
For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God Himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. (A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Chapter XI) ]]> Origen http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/early-church-deity-christ-part-two-171/ The Early Church And The Deity Of Christ - Part One http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/early-church-deity-christ-part-one-170/ Sun, 06 Nov 2011 15:11:56 GMT Over the years I have debated many topics. The one topic, however, that I have addressed most often I believe is the deity of Christ. Much of the... Over the years I have debated many topics. The one topic, however, that I have addressed most often I believe is the deity of Christ. Much of the time this subject revolves around Constantine I (born A.D. 272, ruled A.D. 306 - 337) and the council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). Many people think that Constantine I and the council of Nicaea decided or proclaimed that Jesus was in fact God or that the belief in the trinity started at that time. Many think that up to that time no one thought Jesus was God. That claim is false. It is true that the council of Nicaea was called to address Arianism (i.e. the belief that the Son of God did not always exist but was created) but the deity of Christ was never in question. The early church long before Nicaea or Constantine I believed in the deity of Christ.

Below is a long list of quotes from the so-called Apostolic and Church fathers (Since the list is so long I will post it in two parts). Each quote shows that the deity of Christ was a belief and doctrine held long before Constantine I and the council.


Ignatius (died ca. A.D. 107)
The Epistle to the Ephesians
(1) Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God.

(2) There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.

(3) For our God, Jesus the Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.

(4) Hence every kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond of wickedness disappeared; ignorance was removed, and the old kingdom abolished, God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life.

The Epistle to the Smyraeans
(1) I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise.

(2) Ye have done well in receiving Philo and Rheus Agathopus as servants of Christ our God, who have followed me for the sake of God, and who give thanks to the Lord in your behalf, because ye have in every way refreshed them.

The Epistle to the Romans
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

The Epistle to the Trallians
And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles.

The Epistle to Polycarp
Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes.


Aristides (died ca. A.D. 129)
The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. (The Apology of Aristides)


Polycarp (died ca. A.D. 130)
The Epistle to the Philippians
...to all under heaven who shall believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.


Melito, Bishop of Sardis (died ca. 160 A.D.)
For, being at once both God and perfect man, he gave us sure indication of His two natures, His deity, by the miracles during the three years after his baptism, and his humanity, by the thirty similar periods before his baptism... (On the Nature of Christ)


Justin Martyr (died ca. A.D. 165)
(1) And I said, “As you wish, Trypho, I shall come to these proofs which you seek in the fitting place; but now you will permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts. . . (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap. XXXVI)

(2) Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ: 'God went up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet'. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap. XXXVII)

(3) Therefore neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man, saw the Father and ineffable Lord of all, and also of Christ, but [saw] Him who was according to His will His Son, being God, and the Angel because He ministered to His will. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap. CXXVII)

(4) 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 demonstrated fully by what has been said. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap. CXXVIII)

(5) Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [i.e. Christ] is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap. Chapter LXIII)


Tatian the Assyrian (died ca. A.D. 172)
We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales when we announce that God was born in the form of man. (Address of Tatian to the Greeks, Chap. XXI)


Athenagoras the Athenian (after A.D. 177)
That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being-I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind, had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos; but in as much as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. "The Lord," it says, "made me, the beginning of His ways to His works." The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points; but we recognise also a multitude of angels and ministers, whom God the Maker and Framer of the world distributed and appointed to their several posts by His Logos, to occupy themselves about the elements, and the heavens, and the world, and the things in it, and the goodly ordering of them all. (A Plea For the Christians, Chap. X)


Theophilus (died ca. A.D.181)
In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity [i.e. triados], of God, and His Word, and His Wisdom. (Theophilus to Autolycus, Book 2, Chap. 15)


Testament of Isaac (ca. 2nd century A.D)
In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the One God. (Testament of Isaac 1:1)


Irenaus (died ca. A.D. 200)
(1) God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. (Against Heresies, Book III, Chap. XXI)

(2) For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself [i.e. Jesus] in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. (Against Heresies, Book III, Chap. XIX)

(3) But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues, and all to whom He wills that God should be revealed. (Against Heresies, Book II, Chap. XXX, Section 9)

(4) Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). (Against Heresies, Book III, Chap. XXI, Section 4)

(5) Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spake to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers. (Against Heresies, Book IV, Chap. V, Section 2)


Clement of Alexandria (died ca. A.D. 215)
(1) There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated. (Fragments, Part I, Section 3)

(2) Now, O you, my children, our Instructor is like His Father God, whose son He is, sinless, blameless, and with a soul devoid of passion; God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father’s will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand, and with the form of God is God. (Instructor, Book I, Chap. II)

(3) But our Instructor is the holy God Jesus, the Word, who is the guide of all humanity. The loving God Himself is our Instructor. (Instructor, Book I, Chap. VII)

(4) Nothing, then, is hated by God, nor yet by the Word. For both are one--that is, God. For He has said, "In the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was God. (Instructor, Book I, Chap. VII)

(5) I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father. (Stromata, Book V, Chap. XIV)

(6) This very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man. (Exhortation to the Heathen, Chap. I)


Caius (died ca. AD 217)
Fragments of Caius - Preserved in Ecclesiastical History V. 28 - Eusebius of Caesarea (died ca AD 339)
For they say that all those of the first age, and the apostles themselves, both received and taught those things which these men now maintain; and that the truth of Gospel preaching was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop in Rome from Peter, and that from his successor Zephyrinus the truth was falsified. And perhaps what they allege might be credible, did not the Holy Scriptures, in the first place, contradict them. And then, besides, there are writings of certain brethren older than the times of Victor, which they wrote against the heathen in defence of the truth, and against the heresies of their time: I mean Justin and Miltiades, and Tatian and Clement, and many others, in all which divinity is ascribed to Christ. For who is ignorant of the books of Irenaeus and Melito, and the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man? All the psalms, too, and hymns of brethren, which have been written from the beginning by the faithful, celebrate Christ the Word of God, ascribing divinity to Him. Since the doctrine of the Church, then, has been proclaimed so many years ago, how is it possible that men have preached, up to the time of Victor, in the manner asserted by these? And how are they not ashamed to utter these calumnies against Victor, knowing well that Victor excommunicated Theodotus the tanner, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, who first affirmed that Christ was a mere man? For if, as they allege, Victor entertained the very opinions which their blasphemy teaches, how should he have cast off Theodotus, the author of this heresy? ]]> Origen http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/early-church-deity-christ-part-one-170/ Malachi 1:2-3 Jacob And Esau, Love And Hate http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/malachi-1-2-3-jacob-esau-love-hate-169/ Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:48:00 GMT *INTRODCTION* One must always keep in mind the cultural and linguistic context of a passage. For example, Abraham was married to his half-sister. In...
INTRODCTION
One must always keep in mind the cultural and linguistic context of a passage. For example, Abraham was married to his half-sister. In Abraham's cultural and historical context this was not strange at all. We, however, wonder how could anyone marry their half-sister. While that might be an important question to us, it in no way relevant to the context of a passage. The context tell us what it means and not the other way around. It is important that we do not force our social norms back onto the ancients. The same is true of language. What we think the English word means may not accurately reflect the Greek or Hebrew word or thought.

PART I
The sentence "I have hated Esau" seems very harsh, even cruel. But the truth is this type of speech is very common in Hebrew and need not reflect the harshness or cruelty of the English word. So then what does it mean when God says "I have hated Esau"? In order to understand how a word is used, and therefore its meaning, it is necessary to check other contexts in which the same word is used.

An excellent example comes from Gen. 29:30:

"He [i.e. Jacob] loved Rachel more than Leah."

According to this verse both women were loved by Jacob, only Rachel is loved more than than Leah. The very next verse states::

"When the Lord saw that Leah was hated..."

On the face of it this might appear to be a contradiction. Verse 30 clearly states that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, not that he hated her. It follows then that the word for "hate" (i.e. שָׂנֵא) in the next verse cannot be taken in an absolute or psychological sense. Keep in mind that Jacob has sexual intercourse with Leah. It is difficult to see how or why he would have sexual intercourse with someone he despised. Leah was not the wife Jacob wanted. Thus Leah was not the chosen or preferred wife.

Note another context were the love/hate distinction is made. The Torah made provisions for the firstborn son of a so-called rejected wife.

If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his. Deut 21:15-17

Now either there were a lot of men marring women they hated or the Hebrew word for "hate" in this type of context has more to do with being chosen or preferred over another. This passage makes provisions for the firstborn even if the mother is not the favored or preferred wife.

PART II
Lets examine another passage were the same Hebrew word for "hate" is used. This verse does not have the same type of love/hate distinction as the others passages but it serves to illustrate that a word need not always be understood literally.

"Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them." Proverbs 13:24

If we take this verse literally it can only means that any parent who does not use corporal punishment "hates" their child. Now I do not believe that is what this verse really teaches nor that it was ever necessarily meant to be taken literally. However on the face of it that is what the words mean. Surely the word "hate" here is not to be understood literally. I know many parents who do not use corporal punishment and love their child (as I am sure you do too). My only point is that the word "hate" need not refer to an emotional feeling. In context, like any word, it is nuanced as to its meaning.
[If anyone would like to discuss Proverbs 13:24 post a thread and I will be glad to address this verse]

PART III
What we have is a common Hebrew idiom. And like any idiom it is a way of speaking peculiar to a people. Jesus himself uses this same idiom.

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26

Does anyone really believe that Jesus desires that we emotionally hate our father and mother? No. Jesus knew the commandment "Honor your father and your mother" (Exodus 20:12). Did Jesus really want us to hate our spouse? No. Jesus himself taught that husband and wife are "one flesh" (Genesis 2:24; Mark 10:8). It seems counterproductive for Jesus to suggest we hate our families when Jesus himself says we ought to care and love others. As I pointed out above, what we have here is a common Hebrew idiom.

PART IV
Israel was not isolated from its cultural context. This is important to remember. Many non-biblical documents help shed light on events, customs, and the language that are not always explained in the O.T.
(For more information see Readings From The Ancient Near East: Primary Sources For Old Testament Study (Encountering Biblical Studies) by Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer, Ancient Israelite Literature In Its Cultural Context by John H. Walton, and Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating To The Old Testament (The Old Testament Library) by Walter Beyerlin.)

The Hebrew word for covenant is berith (i.e. בְּרִית). A berith is a treaty. However it is not necessarily a treaty between equals. Obviously the more powerful member would dictated the terms of the berith. George E. Mendenhall (Professor of Ancient and Biblical Studies and Semitic language scholar) demonstrated that the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy followed a form very similar to the treaties of the Hittite kings (See The Covenant Forms and Israelite Tradition).

This brings us to Malachi 1:2. The same type of terminology/language (i.e. love, hate) was used in treaties or covenants between kings and nations. Eugene H. Merrill points out:

"Modern studies of covenant language have shown that the word 'love' (אָהֵב 'aheb, or any of its forms) is a technical term in both the bibical or anncient Near Eastern treaty and covenant texts to speak of choice or election to covenant relationship, especially in the so-called suzerainty documents" (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Exegetical Commentary, p. 391).

Thus it is clear that Malachi is using covenant language, treaty language. Just as in the cases of two wives or Rachel and Leah the English word "hate" alone does not convey the nuance of meaning. It is clear from the context in regard to Jacob, he did not emotionally "hate" Leah. The text states he "loved Rachel more than Leah." Loving one person more than another does not mean the other person is hated. Rather Jacob's favorite, prefered, chosen wife was Rachel. If we apply this to Malachi's context, and given the fact it is covenant language, God told Israel that he chose Jacob over Esau. Thus the terms "love" and "hate" refers to the covenant relationship God has with Israel but was lacking with Esau. Jacob was chosen to be part of the covenant. Esau was not.

PART V
In Romans 9:11-12 Paul states:

Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

First note that Paul makes it very clear that Jacob's election had nothing to do with his deeds or works. Paul says that even before either Jacob or Esau was born, before either one had done anything good or bad, God chose Jacob. Now it might be suggested that God knew Esau was unfit to receive the covenant and therefore Jacob was chosen over Esau. That, however, has nothing to do with Paul's point. For Paul clearly says it was not by works that Jacob was chosen but by "Him who calls."

The second point that needs to be address is Jacob's character. Jacob was far from a shining example of good morals. While it is true that Esau was not the pick of the litter, Jacob was no angel by any means. I need not recount some of the deeds of Jacob here. I am sure most of you have read the account of his life. So given Jacob's character, which no doubt Paul knew, Paul's point perfectly fits his statement that it was "not by works" Jacob was chosen or for that matter Esau was rejected. It was by God's election.

So what is Paul point? Paul states:

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

It does not matter if it is Jacob, or Abraham, or David, or even Christians. They could not be good enough nor can anyone else. It is only by God's mercy that they or we have a any claim to be part of the covenant. God grants us the privilege of having a covenant relationship with him.

Malachi and Paul are emphasising two different points. Malachi's point is that Israel was chosen to be the covenant people while Esau was rejected. The love/hate distinction is covenant/treaty language in this context and does not reflect an emotional state. On the other hand, Paul is emphasising even though Jaocb was chosen it was not because of good deeds or who he was. Rather is was an act of election, a pure act of grace. Jacob had done nothing to make him worthy. ]]> Origen http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/malachi-1-2-3-jacob-esau-love-hate-169/ First Century Judaism - Dynamic Not Static http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/first-century-judaism-dynamic-not-static-168/ Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:37:09 GMT When speaking of Judaism there is a great need to define what is meant. If by Judaism we mean the religion practiced by Jewish follows of the O.T.,... When speaking of Judaism there is a great need to define what is meant. If by Judaism we mean the religion practiced by Jewish follows of the O.T., then that needs to be delineated from the practices of the Pharisees and Sadducees as found in the N.T. and those not found. The reason I say this is while they were followers of Judaism, as defined above, their version of Judaism (i.e. beliefs) were not identical with each other.

The book of Acts 23:8 makes at least some distinctions between the two groups clear.

"The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees believe all these things."

At once we can see that the two groups held very different views/doctrines. Yet these are not the only difference. The Sadducees rejected the oral law of the Pharisees. While there were major differences in doctrine, this did not excluded the Sadducees from service as priests or even as high priest.

Moreover these two groups were not the only forms of Judaism in the first century.

According to the first century Jewish historian Josephus:

"The Jews had for a great while had three sects of philosophy peculiar to themselves; the sect of the Essenes, and the sect of the Sadducees, and the third sort of opinions was that of those called Pharisees..." Antiquities of the Jews, Book 7, Section 2.

Josephus refers to the Essenes, a group not mentioned in the N.T. (Philo also mentions the Essenes in his work Every Good Man is Free). Many if not most scholars believe the Essenes are the group responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls. One key to understanding the Essenes is that they believed that others had corrupted Jerusalem and the Temple. Obviously this belief is in stark contrast to that held by the Pharisees and the Sadducees (and who also served as High Priests) who both held the temple in high regard.

So as anyone can see Judaism in the first century was not a unified whole or set of one beliefs. It was dynamic not static. The only group to have really survive was the Pharisees. After the destruction of the temple (the key to the power of the Sadducees) in A.D. 70 the Sadducees disappeared from the scene.

The end of the First Jewish-Roman War the beggining of the transition from pharisaical Judaism to Rabbinic Judaism. The temple was gone so a new focal was needed. The Mishnah gives us the information we need to understand what happened next.

"The Temple is destroyed. We never witnessed its glory. But Rabbi Joshua did. And when he looked at the Temple ruins one day, he burst into tears. "Alas for us! The place which atoned for the sins of all the people Israel lies in ruins!" Then Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai spoke to him these words of comfort: "Be not grieved, my son. There is another way of gaining ritual atonement, even though the Temple is destroyed. We must now gain ritual atonement through deeds of loving-kindness." (Avot D'Rabbi Nathan 4:5)

Since no one could atoned for their sins by means of sacrifice, good deeds became the means to gain atonement.

The idea for this blog entry came about because of some claims that were made in various posts here in which I was part of a debate. The thought suggested by those posts was that Judaism is and was a unified whole. It was suggested that first century Judaism somehow held the key to understanding the texts because the beliefs/view/doctrine of the Jews were one or unified. The fact is it was not then and it is not now. When we look at some of the beliefs of the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes anyone can see that claim is far from true. ]]> Origen http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/first-century-judaism-dynamic-not-static-168/ Suetonius http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/suetonius-167/ Thu, 18 Aug 2011 19:48:36 GMT Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (ca. A.D. 69/75 – ca. A.D. 130) was a Roman historian from the equestrian order. Suetonius wrote several biographies of... Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (ca. A.D. 69/75 – ca. A.D. 130) was a Roman historian from the equestrian order. Suetonius wrote several biographies of notable and important figures. He is perhaps best know for The Twelve Caesars (De Vita Caesarum).

While Suetonius does refer to Christians, there is only one place were it is possbile that he refers to Christ.

Latin Text
"Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit" C. Suetonius Tranquillus, Divus Claudius, chapter 25, section 4

English Translation
"He [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome, since they were always making disturbances because of the instigator Chrestus." See Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction To The Ancient Evidence, by Robert E. Van Voorst, p. 30.

An important point to note is that this statement agrees with Acts 18:2:

"There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them."

The book of Acts, however, does not give a reason for the expulsion for the Jews from Rome.


There are problems with Suetonius comment in regard to this being Christ.

(1) Chrestus is the not the correct spelling for Christ in Latin. It ought to be Christus.

(2) The context seems to imply that this Chrestus was the instigator at that time of the events.

Many if not most historians believe that Suetonius meant Christ. While it is possble there is no absolute proof one way or the other. Nevertheless it is most likely, given the evidence and arguments for an against, Suetonius meant Christ.

For the arguments for and against see Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction To The Ancient Evidence by Robert E. Van Voorst, pp. 29-39. ]]> Origen http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/suetonius-167/ Phiny the Younger http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/phiny-younger-165/ Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:38:11 GMT Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, better know as Phiny the Younger, was governor of the Roman province of Bithynia and Pontus. During the reign of... Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, better know as Phiny the Younger, was governor of the Roman province of Bithynia and Pontus. During the reign of the emperor Trajan, Phiny wrote to the emperor asking for instructions on how to deal with Christians. The letter is usually date around A.D. 111 or 112. See Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction To The Ancient Evidence, by Robert E. Van Voorst, p. 28.


Letters 10.96-97
"It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded." Pliny the Younger and Trajan on the Christians

The information is in keeping with the teaching found in the N.T.

(1) Christians Sang hymns to Christ as to a god.

(2) Christians refuse to curse or deny Christ.

(3) They refuse to worship other gods.

(3) Christians meet on a fix day before before dawn (No doubt the first day of the week, Sunday).

(4) Christians bind themselves by oath not to commit certain crimes:
a. not to commit fraud
b. not to commit theft
c. not to commit adultery
d. not falsify their trust
e. nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so

(5) Christians partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food (Perhaps the Lord Supper).

Most of what can gleaned from this letter concerning Christ is information most likely supplied by Christians or former Christians to Phiny. And there is little doubt that torture was used to extract and/or confirm information. Another possible source of information for Phiny might have been the historian Cornelius Tacitus (another source that will be address latter). The two men were close friends. However this is only speculation.

The two most important things, in my opinion, concerning this letter is that it confirms some of the practices/customs of the early Church. Second, it makes clear that Christ was believed to be God. ]]> Origen http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/phiny-younger-165/ The Mara bar Sarapion Letter http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/mara-bar-sarapion-letter-164/ Thu, 07 Jul 2011 22:26:48 GMT Mara was a Stoic philosopher who wrote a letter to his son (also named Sarapion) while in prison. The letter was was written from the Roman province... Mara was a Stoic philosopher who wrote a letter to his son (also named Sarapion) while in prison. The letter was was written from the Roman province of Syria in the Syriac language. Mara wrote this letter in order to encourage his son to pursue wisdom.

The letter has been dated any where between A.D. 73 to the third century. A number scholars date it to just after A.D. 73 but many feel that a date of the second half of the second century is best. If it is dated to the last half of the second century or the third century, given the content of the letter, it is of little or no help as a early historical source. See Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction To The Ancient Evidence, by Robert E. Van Voorst, pp. 56-57.
　

The Mara bar Sarapion Letter
"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from the murder of their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given."
Mara Bar-Serapion (Roberts-Donaldson)


Is the wise king Jesus? The person in this letter:

(1) was a King

(2) was wise

(3) was executed/murdered before the Jews' kingdom was abolished

(4) was executed/murdered before the Jews were dispersed

(5) lives on in his teachings

Is it Jesus? Given the information, it seems likely. If it is not, then it is incumbent upon those who claim it is not to supply a feasible alternative. Nevertheless if the letter is dated late, then clearly it could not be an early source for Jesus. If, however, it could be dated to the late first century, then that would go a long way in establishing this letter as an early and important source. At this time this is not possbile. ]]> Origen http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/mara-bar-sarapion-letter-164/ Josephus And The New Testament http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/josephus-new-testament-163/ Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:11:23 GMT I have decided to post the historical references to Jesus and Christianity outside the New Testament. I will post them chronologically. The work... I have decided to post the historical references to Jesus and Christianity outside the New Testament. I will post them chronologically. The work cited here is Antiquities of the Jews (ca A.D. 94).

There are at least three important citations in the works of Titus Flavius Josephus concerning the New Testament.

(1) John the Baptist
Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him. http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm

(2) James the brother of Jesus
And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. " http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm

(3) Testimonium Flavianum
The testimonium flavianum is the name given to the passage which refers to Jesus. There has been a great deal of debate over the authenticity of this citation. Most scholars believe it is only partially authentic. The reason is clear. Josephus says some things that only a Christian would say and Josephus was no Christian. Nevertheless scholars do think the passage from Josephus can be reconstructed from the partially authentic version. I will first give the partially authentic version follow by the reconstructed version.

Partially Authentic Version
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/wo...les/ant-18.htm

Reconstructed Version
"Around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and a teacher of the people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, [but] those that loved him did not cease [doing so]. To this day the tribe of Christians named after him not disappeared." See Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction To The Ancient Evidence, by Robert E. Van Voorst, p. 93 ]]> Origen http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/josephus-new-testament-163/ Who Are The Spirits In 1 Peter 3:19-20? http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/who-spirits-1-peter-3-19-20-159/ Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:59:05 GMT Basically there are two interpretations for 1 Pet. 3:19-20: (1) the spirits are O.T. saints to whom Jesus preached, (2) the spirits are fallen... Basically there are two interpretations for 1 Pet. 3:19-20: (1) the spirits are O.T. saints to whom Jesus preached, (2) the spirits are fallen angels/spirits/demons.

There are four reason why I do not believe that the spirits are O.T. saints to whom Jesus preached.

(1) Spirits in the N.T. refer to nonhuman beings and not disembodied human being. The word spirit is used for angels, demons, God, and the Holy Spirit.

(2) The spirits are imprisoned. There is no reason to believe that the O.T. saints were imprisoned.

(3) Verse 20 refers "to those who were disobedient. " The O.T. saints were far from perfect but they were not disobedient to God. They were followers of God.

(4) Verse 20 sets the time of the event. It was "when God waited patiently in the days of Noah" these spirits were imprisoned. Thus this passage could not have have anything to do with the O.T. saints.

For the above four reasons the spirits cannot be O.T. saints. The better explanation is that the spirits are fallen angels/spirits/demons.

Point One

Compare 1 Pet. 3:19-20 with Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4-5.

"After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits — to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built." 1 Peter 3:19-20

"And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day." Jude 1:6

"For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into tartaros and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly." 2 Peter 2:4-5

First, note in Jude 1:6 and 2 Peter 2:4-5 it is fallen angels, (i.e. spirit beings).

Second, note in Jude 1:6 they that are kept in "bonds" and "darkness" and in 2 Peter 2:4-5 they are cast into "tartaros, pits of darkness."

Third, note in Jude 1:6 they "did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode" and in 2 Peter 2:4-5 they "sinned."

If we compare these three passages we find a pattern of thought and ideas:

spirits - angels - angels
disobedient - not keep their own domain, abandoned their proper abode - sinned
imprisoned - kept in eternal bonds under darkness - cast them into tartaros, pits of darkness

Also both 1 Pet. 3:19-20 and 2 Peter 2:4-5 refer to the time of Noah. Given the evidence thus far I believe a strong case has been made for thinking the spirits are fallen angels/spirits/demons.

(Most translations use the word "hell" in 2 Peter 2:4-5. However the verb is ταρταρόω. Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon)

Point Two

Jesus is Lord over all creation, even those parts of it that are invisible to us.

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him." Col 1:16

The "thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers" are considered by most scholars to refer to fallen spiritual beings. See Philippians, Colossians, Philemon - Richard R. Melick

If you would like more evidence on this point see:
The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. Pillar Commentary, by Douglas J. Moo, pp. 121-123.
Colossians & Philemon. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament, by Murray J. Harris, p. 45
Colossians & Philemon. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, by N. T. Wright, pp.71-73

Point Three

Every knee must bow before the Lord Jesus Christ, be they human beings saved or unsaved, or spiritual beings fallen or not.

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth." Philippians 2:10

Point Four

Christ made an example of those principalities and powers by triumphing over them and doing it openly and publicly.

"And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it." Colossians 2:15

Conclusion
Jesus did not preach the Gospel to O.T. saints but made a triumphal proclamation to the forces of evil that they are defeated. Note all the passages above concerning Christ's victory and that every creature must bow before him that created the universe, defeated death, and made atonement. ]]> Origen http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/who-spirits-1-peter-3-19-20-159/ The Greek Text And The English Text: Part Three http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/greek-text-english-text-part-three-154/ Thu, 26 May 2011 22:59:06 GMT A word study can be very helpful in understanding how a word is used. The Greek noun hypokritēs (ὑποκριτής) is the word from which we get our English word hypocrite. The interesting fact about hypokritēs is that is was the Greek word for an actor. Now keep in mind that Greek actors in ancient times would wear masks. In other words, actors pretended to be someone else, someone they were not, and in order to help them convince others they wore masks.

The only time the verb form of hypokritēs is found in the N.T. is Luke 20:20. The verb form is hypokrinomai and is translated pretended in the NAS.

"So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, in order that they might catch Him in some statement, so that they could deliver Him to the rule and the authority of the governor."

As we can see, the spies pretended to be righteous. That is, they played a part, they wore a mask, they put on another face if you will.

While a word study can be helpful and fascinating, understand that individual words are not static but dynamic. Etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time. Which bring me do my point, the root meaning of a word may not reflect the meaning of that word in any given context. Some people believe if they know the root meaning of a word then they know its true meaning. This is false and it is called the root fallacy. The root fallacy presupposes that every word has a meaning bound up with it and this is not the case.

A good example is found in John 3:16. The noun monogenēs (μονογενής) is translated "only begotten." The noun monogenēs is made up of two words "mono" meaning "single, only, alone" and ginomai a verb which means "to become, beget, to bear." Therefore we get the translation "only begotten." Yet that does not accurately convey the meaning of monogenēs. By N.T. times it meant "unique, one of a kind, special." It does not however mean the only one born. Isaac is, according to the book of Hebrews, Abraham's "only begotten son" (Heb. 11:17). It is the same word, monogenēs. In that case it could not mean "only begotten son" in the sense of one and only son. We know that Abraham had other sons. He had Ishmael (Gen. 16:11) and six other sons (Gen. 25:1-2). So Isaac was Abraham unique, one of a kind, special son, not his one and only son.

Lexicons can only give us the potential meaning of a word. Context determines word meaning. If we force what we think a word means upon the context of a passage, then we will never be able to understand it. ]]> Origen http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/greek-text-english-text-part-three-154/ The Greek Text And The English Text: Part Two http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/greek-text-english-text-part-two-153/ Wed, 18 May 2011 22:26:25 GMT As we saw in Part One it is very important to get behind the English text. Many times different Greek words are translated by the same English word.... As we saw in Part One it is very important to get behind the English text. Many times different Greek words are translated by the same English word. If you know the Greek word behind the English it can help you understand the meaning of a text.


Example One
In the N.T. two different nouns are translated "life." The Greek noun "Bios" (βίος) is very common in English words such as biography and biology. Greek also has another noun translated "life" in the N.T. and that is "zōē" (ζωή).

While both mean "life" they are not synonymous in meaning. "Bios" has more to do with physical life while "zōē" has more to do with the quality of life. One of the best verses to illustrate this is John 10:10.

"I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

Jesus is not speaking of physical life in this verse. After all, we are alive so how much more physical life could we possess. Even if someone were to suggest that Jesus is talking of the next life I fail to see how anyone could possess more physical life, even in the next. Either a person has physical life or they do not. The word in this verse is "zōē" and it has to do with the quality of life. Now Jesus' words make perfect sense. He increases the quality of our lives. We now have life abundantly. Also keep in mind what this means. It is not that we have to wait for it in the next life. This is a present eschatological reality and not a future event.


Example Two
In the N.T. two different nouns are translated "crown." The word "diadēma" or diadem (διάδημα) is a kingly or imperial crown. The noun "stephanos" (στέφανος) refers to a victory crown/wreath. The verb form is used in 2 Timothy 2:5 and the NIV does a good job of bring out the meaning.

"Similarly, anyone who competes as an athlete does not receive the victor’s crown except by competing according to the rules."

And there are other examples in the N.T. of believers receiving a "stephanos."

"crown of rejoicing" 1Th 2:19
"crown of righteousness" 2Ti 4:8
"crown of life" Jam 1:12
"crown of glory" 1Pe 5:4

However, no believer is ever given a kingly or imperial crown in the N.T.


Example Three
Greek uses four different words for "love." They are agapē (ἀγάπη), philos (φίλος), érōs (ἔρως), and storgē (στοργή). Only agapē and philos (and their verb forms) appear in the N.T. The word storgē only appears once as part of a compound word in the N.T. In Romans 12:10 we find "philostorgos" (φιλόστοργος). As yo can see the first part of the word is built off the word philo (φίλος) while the second half is built off storgos (στοργή). The noun érōs never appears in the N.T. but does occur in the Septuagint.

The noun érōs refers to sensual love, sexual.

The noun storgē has to do with natural affection, the affection among family members.

A great verse to illustrate the difference agapē and philos is Matthew 5:44.

"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"

Here we have the verb form of agapē. The word philos is closer in meaning to storgē. It has more to do with friendship or brotherly love. The noun agapē is more an act of the will. We do not friendship, brotherly love, or natural affection for our enemies. I am not even sure it is possbile. But we can have agapē for them. We can choose to love them out of obedience to God.

There are many other examples just like these in the Bible. Once we know the Greek word behind the English we can better understand what the N.T. ]]> Origen http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/greek-text-english-text-part-two-153/ The Greek Text And The English Text: Part One http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/greek-text-english-text-part-one-152/ Fri, 13 May 2011 02:35:03 GMT It is important to get behind the English to the Greek. There are a number of reasons for this but the number one reason is so we may better... It is important to get behind the English to the Greek. There are a number of reasons for this but the number one reason is so we may better understand the N.T. That is the goal.

(1) The first thing to know is that not every word found in the Greek text may be found in the English. For example the subject of a sentence In Greek will often have an article. Now this does not sound strange until you know articles are often used with proper names.

"Τότε ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνήχθη..."
"Then the Jesus led up..." (Mat 4:1)

The above example is a word for word translation of the Greek. The words in red are the articles. I have used this example because it is a none theological. This is just the way Greek grammar is and English translations always leave this feature out. Note also that two words "lead up" translates the one verb ἀνήχθη. This is not unusual. English translations never reflect a true word for word translation. There is no way they can for in many cases it would make no sense in English if they did.

(2) Greek is a case system language. Greek indicates grammatical functions with case endings. The genitive case indicates possession (this is just one function and there are others). Many times this relationship is express by the word "of" in English.

"Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ Δαβὶδ, υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ."
"Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham." (Mat 1:1)

The above example is a word for word translation of the Greek. The words in bold are understood from the genitive case. There is no preposition "of" in the text. The word "son" (υἱοῦ above) is in genitive case and denote possession. There is no need for a preposition. It could be translated "David's son, Abraham's son" and the same thought would be conveyed.

(3) The second thing to know is that not every word found in the English text may be found in the Greek. Two verses that come to mind are two that someone on this forum tried to use in order to prove a point. The argument being made was that there were no women present at Pentecost. The person used these two verse from the KJV.

"And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? (Acts 2:8)
"Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine." (Acts 2:13)

The problem is there is no word for "men" in the Greek text. The Greek literally translates: "we hear them, each one of us" in verse 8, and "these are full" in verse 13. Thus the verses someone tried to use to prove a point did not prove what they thought.　

Always keep three points in mind. First, before you claim something about the English text makes sure it is there in the Greek. It may be the case that the English does accurately reflect the Greek. Second, there are no true word for word translations. Third, there is no substitute for research and study. ]]> Origen http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/greek-text-english-text-part-one-152/ Context, Context, Context, It Is All About The Context http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/context-context-context-all-about-context-151/ Sat, 07 May 2011 15:14:51 GMT What do you do when someone throws around a group of Bible verses when they clearly have no real link with one another? This is a common phenomenon... What do you do when someone throws around a group of Bible verses when they clearly have no real link with one another? This is a common phenomenon with those who do not care about the historical, literary, or theological context of a passage. Some seem to believe that any verse with the same English word speaks to the same subject. However this is far from true. These types of connection are not based on real links but are more imagined than anything else and can be proven false beyond all doubt.

The problem with this so-called method of interpretation is more often than not it actually hinders interpretation/exegesis of a passage and is therefore detrimental to understanding God's Word. It does not enlighten but often clouds meaning because elements that are not part of the context are forced upon it.

Now this is not to say that other verses, passages, books in the Bible cannot help and/or should never be checked. That is not what I am talking about here. Two points need to be address here. First, a person ought to take care before they make a claim based solely on the English text without checking the languages behind it. Second, a document can deliver its message on its own without having resort to such things. Keep in mind there was not a Bible in every home. A person could not just pick one up anywhere. Therefore it was up to the author/speaker to make sure their message was understood.

A good rule of thumb is, it must have made sense to the audience that heard/read the message. Keep in mind before the Gospels were written Paul was sending letters to the Church. They had no Gospels to check. Therefore a letter or any document must have made sense to the audience to which it was sent. If the recipients, did not or could not understand it, then there would be no point in sending a letter no one could understand. And that is why the historical, literary, and theological context of a passage is so important. They provide for us today the information needed understand a document in its correct context without bringing elements that were never part of the text into it. ]]> Origen http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/context-context-context-all-about-context-151/ Hebrew Poetry Part Two: Antithetical Parallelism http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/hebrew-poetry-part-two-antithetical-parallelism-150/ Thu, 05 May 2011 21:45:43 GMT Just as with synonymous parallelism, antithetical parallelism is build upon a two line/sentence structure. With synonymous parallelism the second... Just as with synonymous parallelism, antithetical parallelism is build upon a two line/sentence structure. With synonymous parallelism the second line repeats the sense/idea/thought of the first line in different words. With antithetical parallelism the second line expresses a contrast in thought/idea/meaning. In other words the second line is antithetical to the first.

Proverbs 15:1 is an excellent example.

(1) A gentle answer turns away wrath,
(2) But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Note the contrast in thought between each line but also note how both lines work together to make a single point.

The parallel structure can clearly been see even thought the ideas in line 1 and line 2 are meant to express the opposite meaning.

Parallel
answer = word
wrath = anger

Contrast
gentle - harsh
turns away - stirs up

Proverbs 14:34 is a great example because it stresses the antithetical structure.

(1) Righteousness exalts a nation,
(2) But sin is a disgrace to any people.

Parallel
nation = people

Contrast
righteousness - sin
exalts - is a disgrace

Notice that the same idea is express but from two different/opposite points of view.

Just as synonymous parallelism can help us understand one line of poetry of by restating the sense/idea/thought in the second, so too antithetical parallelism can help us understand one line of poetry by comparing to a second line with the opposite meaning in order to contrast the two thoughts. ]]> Origen http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/hebrew-poetry-part-two-antithetical-parallelism-150/ Hebrew Poetry Part One: Synonymous Parallelism http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/hebrew-poetry-part-one-synonymous-parallelism-149/ Wed, 04 May 2011 15:06:35 GMT One type of literature found in the Bible is poetry and a common feature of Hebrew poetry is synonymous parallelism. Hebrew poetry has a repetitive... One type of literature found in the Bible is poetry and a common feature of Hebrew poetry is synonymous parallelism. Hebrew poetry has a repetitive style. It is redundant.

Hebrew poetic structure (in most cases) is build upon a two line/sentence system. The second line repeats the sense/idea/thought of the first line in different words.

Example Genesis 5:23
1. Adah and Zillah,
2. Listen to my voice,
3. You wives of Lamech,
4. Give heed to my speech

Note that the 1st and 3rd lines are synonymous. Adah and Zillah are the wives of Lamech, thus the two lines express the same thought. Note that lines 2 and 4 repeat the same idea but with different words.

Listen to = Give heed to
my voice = my speech

There is no difference in the meaning and that is why this is important. When one understands what synonymous parallelism is and how it works then mistakes in interpretation are less likely.

Another good example of synonymous parallelism is Joel 2:28-29 which I have color coded so that anyone can see the word pairs, the synonymous verbs and the structure.

I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions.
Even on the male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.

So when you are reading the Psalms look for examples of synonymous parallelism. It will give you insight you never had and an understanding of Hebrew poetry as a whole. ]]> Origen http://www.lampstandstudy.com/forum/blogs/origen/hebrew-poetry-part-one-synonymous-parallelism-149/