Trinitarian Interpolations

[Secret Alias]

As a result, I favor a later date for Celsus and the early layers of Irenaeus into the first parts of the 3rd century,

No. Celsus mentions the Bar Kochba revolt as if it recently happened.

[Peter Kirby]

For those who have been on this forum for more than a few years you will know I have spoken on the history of the Trinity among other things. My questioning of the logic of the mythicists on this subject is also well known. But, be as that may, the word Trinity is not found in any of the early scriptural manuscripts, rather it is simply a man-made twisted doctrine by 4th Century Cappadocian fathers, et al. Even so, a thousand years later it was still in much dispute when Erasmus translated the first Bible from Greek into English around 1516 and without the formula for Trinity. For what it may matter, if any, I have personally seen an 1st edition of Erasmus, has Peter? It was replete with translation errors, image that, but not as bad as the King James version.

No, I have not.

On a side note, I was always hoping to have a legitimate discussion with Peter on the history of Logos. That is, what it meant to the Greeks, Hebrews, Essenes, and Christians. To me, the nuance was not so subtle, they were very different and if you look at them closely it would explain a lot about the history of Christianity.

I wouldn't mind. I may also be able to learn this on my own, if it doesn't happen.

[MrMacSon]

fwiw

"Trinitas" is a Latinization of the Greek "he trias" (the Triad), a term [apparently] first used by Theophilus of Antioch in his Ad Autolycum 2.15 ... It seemed to have been picked up by Tertullian and used in his Adversus Praxean.

Apology to Autolycus Book II:

chapter XV - Of the Fourth Day

... For the sun is a type of God, and the moon of man. And as the sun far surpasses the moon in power and glory, so far does God surpass man. And as the sun remains ever full, never becoming less, so does God always abide perfect, being full of all power, and understanding, and wisdom, and immortality, and all good. But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection. In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. Wherefore also on the fourth day the lights were made. The disposition of the stars, too, contains a type of the arrangement and order of the righteous and pious, and of those who keep the law and commandments of God. For the brilliant and bright stars are an imitation of the prophets, and therefore they remain fixed, not declining, nor passing from place to place. And those which hold the second place in brightness, are types of the people of the righteous. And those, again, which change their position, and flee from place to place, which also are cared planets, they too are a type of the men who have wandered from God, abandoning His law and commandments.

chapter XVI - Of the Fifth Day

... the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration --as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book2.html

[Peter Kirby]

Thanks, MrMacSon. It's interesting that this reference includes a fourth, man.

Origen's references also mention man after the Father, Son, and Spirit. This is because it's clearly a hierarchy, not a unity in three.

[Secret Alias]

Justin Apology 13

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.

60 And the physiological discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timæus of Plato, where he says, He placed him crosswise in the universe, he borrowed in like manner from Moses; for in the writings of Moses it is related how at that time, when the Israelites went out of Egypt and were in the wilderness, they fell in with poisonous beasts, both vipers and asps, and every kind of serpent, which slew the people; and that Moses, by the inspiration and influence of God, took brass, and made it into the figure of a cross, and set it in the holy tabernacle, and said to the people, If you look to this figure, and believe, you shall be saved thereby. Numbers 21:8 And when this was done, it is recorded that the serpents died, and it is handed down that the people thus escaped death. Which things Plato reading, and not accurately understanding, and not apprehending that it was the figure of the cross, but taking it to be a placing crosswise, he said that the power next to the first God was placed crosswise in the universe. And as to his speaking of a third, he did this because he read, as we said above, that which was spoken by Moses, that the Spirit of God moved over the waters. For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was placed crosswise in the universe; and the third place to the Spirit who was said to be borne upon the water, saying, And the third around the third.

[MrMacSon]

Thanks, MrMacSon. It's interesting that this reference includes a fourth, man.

• Yes, indeed. And no mention of the Father, Son and the [Holy] Spirit.

Origen's references also mention man after the Father, Son, and Spirit. This is because it's clearly a hierarchy, not a unity in three.

• Yes, good point

Parts of Justin's Apology 13, above, are interesting, too.

[Peter Kirby]

Thanks, MrMacSon. It's interesting that this reference includes a fourth, man.

• Yes, indeed. And no mention of the Father, Son and the [Holy] Spirit.

And as to his speaking of a third, he did this because he read, as we said above, that which was spoken by Moses, that the Spirit of God moved over the waters. For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was placed crosswise in the universe; and the third place to the Spirit who was said to be borne upon the water, saying, And the third around the third.

There is something I read recently, forgetting the reference, but I found it very interesting.

Some ancient Christians identified the "Beginning" in the first words of Genesis, "in the beginning," with the Son.

Accordingly, they interpreted the first two verses of the Bible as referring to God (= the Father), the Beginning (= the Son), and the Spirit. Or, to use the terminology that MrMacSon pointed out: God, and His Word, and His Wisdom.

1 In the beginning [= Word], God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God [= Wisdom] was hovering over the waters.

And so we frequently find discussions of the "power" (dunamis) of God, specifying Word and Wisdom as each a "power" of God. As such, in this understanding, "God" applies to the unbegotten God alone. Everything else is dependent, a creation, the flourishing of God. The term "Thalia" (used by Arius) is a word that describes an abundance, like a banquet where everything is provided abundantly for all to enjoy. The person who throws the banquet asks for nothing, requires nothing, offers everything. There is a rich theological tradition here that Arius was steeped in and drawing on. This tradition was no doubt informed in some way by philosophy, as we see in some of the quotes provided in this thread.

I say this to reinforce that there was a development of the idea of a triad or trinity. "Word" and "Wisdom" are deliberate terms. It's no accident, they have meaning and fit into a definite theological scheme. Not every reference to a trinity had the same meaning.

[Leucius Charinus]

The word "Arian" seems anachronistic when projected back before 325, as that is one of the few things I've found so far. Although he (like anyone) had his own particularities, Arius stood in agreement with the majority of the church leadership in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire when he spoke of the unbegotten God and first-begotten Son.

It has been noted by many that Arius was the most thoroughly demonised heretic in all of Christian history. His person, his political memory and the books that he wrote, were subjected to imperial damnatio memoriae. From WIKI: "Damnatio memoriae. is a term we use to describe a Roman phenomenon in which the government condemned the memory of a person who was seen as a tyrant, traitor, or other sort of enemy to the state."

The following extract indicates that "Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing Plotinic logic within biblical creationism." His presence at the Nicene council and during the rule of Constantine suggests the Platonism he espoused was not Middle Platonism but the Neo-Platonism of Plotinus.

The three received "Ecclesiastical histories" of the Nicene council and the progress of the Arian controversy during the 4th century were written in the 5th century after the Theodosian edicts c.381 CE and the political establishment of a revised Nicene orthodoxy. What actually happened between 325-381 CE must IMHO be subject to debate. Including the generally accepted proposition that Arius stood in agreement with the majority of the church leadership.

INTELLECT and BEYOND

199-209

Is spent searching for any precedents in the beliefs expressed by Arius.

p.209

".... It should be fairly clear by now that these views were unusual
in the church of his day, if not completely without precedent of some
sort in Origen. Kannengeisser suggests [63] that we should look directly
at the fifth Ennead [of Plotinus] for the background to Arius's ideas,
and for the heresiarch's 'break with Origen and his peculiarity with
respect to all the masters of Middle-Platonism with whom he has been
compared. [64]

For Kannengiesser .... only the radical disjunction between first and
second principles for which Plotinus argues can fully account for Arius'
novel teaching in this area.

"Arius' entire effort consisted precisely in acclimatizing
Plotinic logic within biblical creationism." [66]


[63-66] Charles Kannengeisser

ARIUS: Heresy & Tradition by Rowan Williams
https://www.amazon.com.au/Arius-Heresy- ... 0802849695

[Peter Kirby]

What actually happened between 325-381 CE must IMHO be subject to debate. Including the generally accepted proposition that Arius stood in agreement with the majority of the church leadership.

What would you like to debate?

I have most certainly not presented what I'm saying as a mere "generally accepted proposition."

[Peter Kirby]

Adding here that the question is a real one, and that we don't have to "debate" it just now... I could just take some pointers on what you'd like to have investigated further...

I see your Philip of Side reference and will include it.

I also see the fifth Ennead of Plotinus reference.

I'm not sure why you quote secondary sources and highlight bold sentences in them to communicate your ideas. Ad fontes and all that.

Regardless, I will look up Charles Kannengeisser's arguments here.