Created Sat. July 13, 2002 - Last update, Sat. Oct 4, 2003

An Introduction Polycarp Mathetes Justin Ignatius of Antioch Irenaeus Athenagoras

Tatian Theophilus of Antioch Tertullian Clement of Alexandria Dionysius Hippolytus Summary

Related Articles

An Introduction
Back to Top

This is a significantly long article containing all the earlier Christian Ecclesiastical writers and teachers of the 2nd to mid 3rd centuries AD in the Roman Empire. The 2nd century (100 AD) began with the death of the Apostle John at that time. Revelation was a recent composition given him in Revelations from Christ in heaven, about 96 AD. His 3 letters came about 2 years later.

The Apostles had warned that apostasy was already at work in the church and being held back by them. John described the times as the last hour, with heresies already being revealed, such as the sects of Simon the magician, and the sect of the Nicolatians. Nicholas, the founder of that last sect, was said to be one of those appointed to divide the food among the widows, along with Steve and Phillip, early in the book of Acts. But Nicholas did not remain in the faith.

So with the death of John, the last remaining apostle who possessed the most extraordinary gifts of the spirit, as one of those directly appointed by Christ and anointed with the spirit in outstanding ways which made him a pillar and leader in the faith, died and left the "field" to be sown with weeds by the devil. And the devil did not waste any time in getting to work. This all begins with the turn of the century in about 100 AD, kicking off the 2nd century and apostasy, too. In this time, numerous writers would speak about the faith as they knew and understood it. What we focus on here is the trinity or lack of the trinity. We will be able to see it progress from a simple straightforward and uncorrupted doctrine based solely on the Bible. But over time, Greek philosophy and terms would be adopted into the writings and the faith. These would give the teaching of the trinity a foothold in the faith.

In addition to not being loyal to the Bible's definitions, terms, and teachings, politics and kings would manage to find some control over the faith which would be welcomed by those who could not win others over with their ideas, as they were not based on the Bible. So they welcome the political force that would substitute for truth. So the unholy alliance of politics and faith would also deal a blow that would pollute the faith in big ways, right up to the present. And it all became possible because writers did not understand their duty to stick very closely to the Bible.

Nevertheless, through all this, it is clear that no early writer embraced the trinity as defined by the standard we have today. This should be of great concern to those who were led to believe that the trinity was a traditional orthodox teaching of the church. If we are talking tradition and the church of Consstantine and the 4th century church, then they would be right. But if we are speaking of the first 3 centuries, then it is not traditional or orthodox, nor anything that won over people without the added force of the sword of the king.

I will add my commentaries with a set of these as follows: [{my comments}]. This so that you will not confuse them with other brackets in the text which are not mine. I try to follow the writers in order of their appearance, somewhat, going from earliest to later writers. What I think you will see is that there was no definition of the trinity in any of these writers. The word trinity does begin to appear about 200 AD. This just 100 years after John. But oddly, the term trinity was used by Tertullian and Origen, but not with the meaning later given to it. It started as a term of reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, since those 3 names are used together such as in Matthew 28:19.

But it is Tertullian who in a pronounced and prominent way deals with the trinity as a heresy to be avoided. This trinity that he deals with is more closely defined as the one that would later become accepted at the council of Nicaea under Constantine the Great. Tertullian' essay on this heresy will be given a separate treatment as its own page as it is rather long. It is known as Against Praxeas, who was allegedly the author of that trinitarian heresy in the time of Victor, the Bishop of Rome. Tertullian writes around 200 AD. Origen dies about 250 AD. He is the last writer I deal with. It is only about 75 years from then till when the council of Nicaea is convened. That mess will be dealt with in another article.

So in that 75 to 125 years, the trinity goes from a newly introduced heresy to becoming the standard Christian doctrine of Constantine's preferred brand of Christianity. I don't see much point in covering that last 75 years as it becomes obvious as to the outcome of this heresy. As I said, that will be another article.

So see what all the authors previous to that heresy have to say about the trinity. While they all seem to adhere to what the Encyclopaedia Britannica calls "Christology," there are some subtle departures, some Greek influences on terms and definitions that likely contribute and lead to the heresy gaining a stronghold among many. We are going to undue that damage be carefully pointing it out and exposing it for you to see so you can believe that the trinity was not what was originally believed by the faithful and was a later concoction which has no basis in scripture.

If you love and respect the scriptures, the word of God, then maybe you will want to reconsider your clinging to the trinity as a Christian doctrine and will dispose of this lie among the faithful.

I have modernized some archaic words in the translations of various writers to make reading easier. I have yet to compile a thorough chronology of Roman rulers and bishops of various churches to determine times for the various writers and writings. Some are given by others but I never accept anything for granted. Enjoy!

Polycarp was a rather famous martyr of those early times after the death of the Apostle John around the beginning of the 2nd century. Polycarp was one of those who personally knew John in his younger years, having been a hearer of John, as he puts it and no one in the faith anywhere is ever been known to dispute that. Polycarp died a cruel painful death at the hands of Romans and pagans. But his death by fire was said to be quite miraculous. Polycarp does not have much that survives him in written words. One epistle or letter to his name. But his one epistle represents him well.

He carefully quotes the words of the Apostles and Jesus, not offering anything beyond that. This is most to be admired. No wonder that God blessed him with a miraculous death. Many later writers go on to add all sorts of terms and meanings to the faith, helping to sow the seeds of distortion, confusion, and corruption of doctrine. Polycarp does not go near such things. If his letter is his only witness, we could still believe that he was worthy of a remarkable death whereby his skin did not burn. His executors being so worried about the outcome of his death, were quick to burn him again, and reduce him to ashes that were carefully disposed of so as to prevent him from being worshipped, too.

Polycarp is well known and mentioned in the works of Eusebius, the historian of Christian Ecclesiastical history up through much of 4th century.

Polycarp does not speak much of the relationship between the Father and the son, other than in a way we commonly hear in the scriptures. Nothing of the idea of a trinity even hinted at. Nor is the terms "father" or "son" indicated to be anything unusual or not meaning what they normally do. His words now follow.

Polycarp to the Philippians

But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who "raised Him from the dead. Pray for all the saints. Pray also for kings, and potentates, and princes, and for those that persecute and hate you, and for the enemies of the cross, that your fruit may be manifest to all, and that you may be perfect in Him.

Chap. 5

Then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God. For if He had not come in the flesh, how could men have been saved by beholding Him?

Mathetes does not have a lot surviving, either. One letter to an individual. In it, he clearly refers to Jesus, though not by name, but by some of his titles and other names such as The Word, Savior, Son. He is from the beginning and known as God's Son. Nothing to indicate any trinity, though.

Mathetes to Diognetus

Chap. 7

For, as I said, this was no mere earthly invention which was delivered to them, nor is it a mere human system of opinion, which they judge it right to preserve so carefully, nor has a dispensation of mere human mysteries been committed to them, but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one of those who bear sway over earthly things, or one of those to whom the government of things in the heavens has been entrusted, but the very Creator and Fashioner of all thingsby whom He made the heavensby whom he enclosed the sea within its proper boundswhose ordinances all the stars faithfully observefrom whom the sun has received the measure of his daily course to be observedwhom the moon obeys, being commanded to shine in the night, and whom the stars also obey, following the moon in her course; by whom all things have been arranged, and placed within their proper limits, and to whom all are subjectthe heavens and the things that are therein, the earth and the things that are therein, the sea and the things that are thereinfire, air, and the abyssthe things which are in the heights, the things which are in the depths, and the things which lie between. This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing?

Chap. 11

I minister the things delivered to me to those that are disciples worthy of the truth. For who that is rightly taught and begotten by the loving Word, would not seek to learn accurately the things which have been clearly shown by the Word to His disciples, to whom the Word being manifested has revealed them, speaking plainly [to them], not understood indeed by the unbelieving, but conversing with the disciples, who, being esteemed faithful by Him, acquired a knowledge of the mysteries of the Father. For which reason He sent the Word, that He might be manifested to the world; and He, being despised by the people [of the Jews], was, when preached by the Apostles, believed on by the Gentiles. This is He who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old, and yet who is ever born afresh in the hearts of the saints. This is He who, being from everlasting, is today called the Son; through whom the Church is enriched, and grace, widely spread, increases in the saints, furnishing understanding, revealing mysteries, announcing times, rejoicing over the faithful. giving to those that seek, by whom the limits of faith are not broken through, nor the boundaries set by the fathers passed over.

Justin also became a martyr for Christ in time. He was well versed in Greek philosophy, having once been a student of it before becoming a Christian. He has several works to his name. I quote from 2 of them for you. Justin is interesting in that he does not speak of the holy spirit as a person by calls it the "prophetic Spirit." He calls Jesus by name and makes it clear that he had a beginning from God and then becomes the creator of all things. Justin is no non-sense about it all. Absolutely nothing to give even the slightest hint of the trinity, either in name or meaning. This should be of great concern for those who are convinced of the trinity. Was Justin an apostate? He was certainly never considered that by any of his pears or successors. Justin believed in Jesus as the Bible taught and instructed in regards to him, the son of God. I have quite a few quotations from his works which amply demonstrate what he believed and taught.

THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN

CHAP. 6

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.

[{See how the Son came forth from the Father?}]

Chap. 13

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.

[{He even holds the Son to be in second place and the prophetic Spirit in 3rd. This is definitely not the trinity!}]

CHAP. 14

And thus do we also, since our persuasion by the Word, stand aloof from them (i.e., the demons), and follow the only unbegotten God through His Son.

[{Justin calls God unbegotten to emphasize why He takes first place in heaven and why the Son is given only 2nd, because he is not unbegotten and was created by the Father.}]

CHAP.21

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

CHAP. 22

Moreover, the Son of God called Jesus, even if only a man by ordinary generation, yet, on account of His wisdom, is worthy to be called the Son of God; for all writers call God the Father of men and gods. And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God.

[{There is no doubt here as in Chap. 21 reference, that Justin sees Jesus as being born. So co-eternal could not apply to the Son, Jesus.}]

CHAP. 23

And that this may now become evident to you--(firstly) that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by the prophets who preceded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who have existed; that we claim to be acknowledged, not because we say the same things as these writers said, but because we say true things: and (secondly) that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race.

[{Justin clearly recognizes that Jesus lived in heaven with God the Father long before coming to earth. And that he came to earth as a man. John wrote that one is an antichrist who denies Christ having come in the flesh. So Justin remains within the words of John.}]

CHAP. 25

and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impossible God.

CHAP. 32

And the first power after God the Father and Lord of all is the Word, who is also the Son; and of Him we will, in what follows, relate how He took flesh and became man.

[{This being Justin's 2nd reference to Jesus being flesh and man, and no mention of Jesus as being more than a man while on earth. Justin did not say fully man and fully God.}]

CHAP. 36

But when you hear the utterances of the prophets spoken as it were personally, you must not suppose that they are spoken by the inspired themselves, but by the Divine Word who moves them. For sometimes He declares things that are to come to pass, in the manner of one who foretells the future; sometimes He speaks as from the person of God the Lord and Father of all; sometimes as from the person of Christ; sometimes as from the person of the people answering the Lord or His Father, just as you can see even in your own writers, one man being the writer of the whole, but introducing the persons who converse. And this the Jews who possessed the books of the prophets did not understand, and therefore did not recognize Christ even when He came, but even hate us who say that He has come, and who prove that, as was predicted, He was crucified by them.

[{Here Justin points out the various roles Jesus performed as the giver of divine messages to prophets and other servants of God.}]

CHAP. 39

And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way:

CHAP. 44

And the holy Spirit of prophecy taught us this, telling us by Moses that God spoke thus to the man first created: "Behold, before thy face are good and evil: choose the good."

[{Note his reference to the Spirit or prophecy also called the prophetic Spirit in some places, pointing out its primary role through the ages. It is a rather impersonal reference, possibly indicating that Justin did not see the holy spirit as an actual person.}]

CHAP. 46

We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers.

CHAP. 48

And how it was predicted by the Spirit of prophecy that He and those who hoped in Him should be slain.

CHAP. 53

For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God, and Himself will pass judgment on the whole human race, unless we had found testimonies concerning Him published before He came and was born as man.

For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God, and Himself will pass judgment on the whole human race

CHAP. 63

And Jesus the Christ, because the Jews knew not what the Father was, and what the Son, in like manner accused them; and Himself said, "No one knows the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and they to whom the Son reveals Him." Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says, "He that hears Me, hears Him that sent Me."

But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race.

The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets.

[{Justin's next work follows}]

JUSTIN'S HORTATORY ADDRESS TO THE GREEKS

[{This next quote was noteworthy for Justin observes the difference between unity, sometimes called oneness in English, and one, as in th number of. And for Justin, the emphasis in on the unity of God, it being a first principle. Trinitarians like to see it as a number and not an indication of unity, but I believe they are wrong in doing so and do it, to further their argument, though without reasonable scriptural support.}]

CHAP. 19

And Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchus, who expounded the doctrines of his own philosophy, mystically by means of symbols, as those who have written his life show, himself seems to have entertained thoughts about the unity of God not unworthy of his foreign residence in Egypt. For when he says that unity is the first principle of all things, and that it is the cause of all good, he teaches by an allegory that God is one, and alone. And that this is so, is evident from his saying that unity and one differ widely from one another. For he says that unity belongs to the class of things perceived by the mind, but that one belongs to numbers. And if you desire to see a clearer proof of the opinion of Pythagoras concerning one God, hear his own opinion, for he spoke as follows: "God is one; and He Himself does not, as some suppose, exist outside the world, but in it, He being wholly present in the whole circle, and beholding all generations; being the regulating ingredient of all the ages, and the administrator of His own powers and works, the first principle of all things, the light of heaven, and Father of all, the intelligence and animating soul of the universe, the movement of all orbits." Thus, then, Pythagoras.

[{It shoulb be plainly obvious that Pythagoras makes a distinction between unity and one, with one belonging to numbers and not an indication of God and Christ being literally one as in a number. But in case youy are not convinced, see what Justin says in his next apology.}]

From Justin's Second Apology, which could be called Against Trypho.

Chap. 48

But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father's will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself."

Chap. 56

Then I replied, "Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavor to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,--numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world--above whom there is no other God--has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with."

CHAP. (61) LXI--WISDOM IS BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, AS FIRE FROM FIRE.

"I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following: [Proverbs 8].

chap. 62

I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with some one who was numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational Being.

These are the words: 'And God said, Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil.' In saying, therefore, 'as one of us,' [Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two.

Chap. 86

For indeed all kings and anointed persons obtained from Him their share in the names of kings and anointed: just as He Himself received from the Father the titles of King, and Christ, and Priest, and Angel, and such like other titles which He bears or did bear.

Chap. 100

For [Christ] called one of His disciples--previously known by the name of Simon--Peter; since he recognized Him to be Christ the Son of God, by the revelation of His Father: and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God, and since we call Him the Son, we have understood that He proceeded before all creatures from the Father by His power and will (for He is addressed in the writings of the prophets in one way or another as Wisdom, and the Day, and the East, and a Sword, and a Stone, and a Rod, and Jacob, and Israel); and that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin.

Chap. 124

Now I have proved at length that Christ is called God.

Chap. 125

And that Christ would act so when He became man was foretold by the mystery of Jacob's wrestling with Him who appeared to him, in that He ministered to the will of the Father, yet nevertheless is God, in that He is the first-begotten of all creatures.

CHAP. CXXVI.--THE VARIOUS NAMES OF CHRIST ACCORDING TO BOTH NATURES. IT IS SHOWN THAT HE IS GOD, AND APPEARED TO THE PATRIARCHS.

"But if you knew, Trypho," continued I, "who He is that is called at one time the Angel of great counsel, and a Man by Ezekiel, and like the Son of man by Daniel, and a Child by Isaiah, and Christ and God to be worshipped by David, and Christ and a Stone by many, and Wisdom by Solomon, and Joseph and Judah and a Star by Moses, and the East by Zechariah, and the Suffering One and Jacob and Israel by Isaiah again, and a Rod, and Flower, and Corner-Stone, and Son of God, you would not have blasphemed Him who has now come, and been born, and suffered, and ascended to heaven; who shall also come again, and then your twelve tribes shall mourn.

CHAP. CXXVII.--THESE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE DO NOT APPLY TO THE FATHER, BUT TO THE WORD.

"These and other such sayings are recorded by the lawgiver and by the prophets; and I suppose that I have stated sufficiently, that wherever God says, 'God went up from Abraham,' or, 'The Lord spoke to Moses,' and 'The Lord came down to behold the tower which the sons of men had built,' or when 'God shut Noah into the ark,' you must not imagine that the unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from any place. For the ineffable Father and Lord of all neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in His own place, wherever that is, quick to behold and quick to hear, having neither eyes nor ears, but being of indescribable might; and He sees all things, and knows all things, and none of us escapes His observation; and He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for He existed before the world was made. How, then, could He talk with any one, or be seen by any one, or appear on the smallest portion of the earth, when the people at Sinai were not able to look even on the glory of Him who was sent from Him; and Moses himself could not enter into the tabernacle which he had erected, when it was filled with the glory of God; and the priest could not endure to stand before the temple when Solomon conveyed the ark into the house in Jerusalem which he had built for it? 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; whom also it pleased Him to be born man by the Virgin; who also was fire when He conversed with Moses from the bush. Since, unless we thus comprehend the Scriptures, it must follow that the Father and Lord of all had not been in heaven when what Moses wrote took place: 'And the Lord rained upon Sodom fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven;' and again, when it is thus said by David: 'Lift up your gates, you rulers; and be you lift up, you everlasting gates; and the King of glory shall enter;' and again, when He says: 'The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.'

CHAP. CXXVIII.--THE WORD IS SENT NOT AS AN INANIMATE POWER, BUT AS A PERSON BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER'S SUBSTANCE.

"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." Then I repeated once more all that I had previously quoted from Exodus, about the vision in the bush, and the naming of Joshua (Jesus), and continued: "And do not suppose, sirs, that I am speaking superfluously when I repeat these words frequently: but it is because I know that some wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham, or to Jacob, is called an Angel because He came to men (for by Him the commands of the Father have been proclaimed to men); is called Glory, because He appears in a vision sometimes that cannot be borne; is called a Man, and a human being, because He appears strayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens; as when it sinks, the light sinks along with it; so the Father, when He chooses, say they, causes His power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself.

In this way, they teach, He made the angels. But it is proved that there are angels who always exist, and are never reduced to that form out of which they sprang. And that this power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.

CHAP. CXXIX.--THAT IS CONFIRMED FROM OTHER PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE.

"And now I shall again recite the words which I have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says,' The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven,' the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the Lord on earth, as He is Father and God; the cause of His power and of His being Lord and God. Again, when the Scripture records that God said in the beginning, 'Behold, Adam has become like one of Us,' this phrase, 'like one of Us,' is also indicative of number; and the words do not admit of a figurative meaning, as the sophists endeavor to affix on them, who are able neither to tell nor to understand the truth. And it is written in the book of Wisdom: 'If I should tell you daily events, I would be mindful to enumerate them from the beginning. The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth, and before He made the depths, and before the springs of waters came forth, before the mountains were settled; He begets me before all the hills.'" When I repeated these words, I added: "You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit."

Chap. 130

will through Christ,--whom He calls also Jacob, and names Israel,--and these, then, as I mentioned fully previously, must be Jacob and Israel.

[{Justin does not stray from the scriptures at all in his speaking of the Father and Son. And his teachings clearly conflict and contradict those of the trinity. And the holy spirit hardly gets any attention compared to how much is lavished upon it by the trinitarians. So much for the praiseworthy Justin, a martyr of Christ and reprover of trinitarians.}]

Ignatius is not my favorite writer. He strikes me the wrong way at times, especially in his demand for obedience to the leaders, translated as bishops by translators. But his views (lack of) on the trinity are clear. And regardless of what I think of him as a writer or teacher, it should be and is respected by me that he also became a martyr for Christ, which deserves the utmost and highest of respect. He proved his loyalty unto death. Not much better things can be said of someone than that.

Ignatius was a prolific writer or at least he was fortunate enough to have his many writings survive. I suspect this is largely due to his reinforcing the authority of the bishop in the church. But he goes way beyond scriptural authority in how much power he reserves for the bishop while failing to acknowledge the bishop as being accountable for his teachings and actions. Further, I quote his long versions which I believe are the only legitimate versions of his work. The shorter versions lack or omit most non-trinitarian references and are shortened as a result. We can no doubt thank wicked men of the past who did not hesitate to tamper and forge the works of the Bible and of writers like Ignatius. Such counterfeiters were well known and mentioned in those times.

The fact that trinitarians felt compelled to forge false epistles from Ignatius shows that their ideas could not stand up to the truth of his real writings. Why do I believe Ignatius was forged in shortened versions? First because they differ significantly from another version. Two versions make it clear there was hanky panky. And because he would have been the only writer among peers like Justin, Polycarp, or Irenaeus to have believed in the trinity, which will be proven not to have been an existing belief till later anyway. But since Jesus said that by their fruits you will know them, we can not think anything good of those who can only defend their beliefs by lying about the works of others. They are condemned by their own works.

In addition to the premature appearance of the trinitarian belief, the wording of the shortened versions is very suspect and does not sound like any teacher of the time. All considered together, I believe the longer versions to be the authentic ones. Even more noteworthy is that a number of his letters do not have two versions and they are clearly non-trinitarian and in harmony with the works of his peers of the time.

And if that is not enough, we find two fake letters addressed to John and Mary with John as care-taker of Mary and wishing him and her to pay Ignatius and his congregation a visit and with Mary having been made nearly an object of worship when she is barely even mentioned in the first 200 years of writers and teachers. Further, Mary was likely dead at the supposed time of the writing of the letter and even John might have been deceased by that time. John would have fried Ignatius with fire from heaven for the type of supposed letter he is supposed to have written. I don't for a second believe that Ignatius was the author of those 2 letters. So we have ample evidence of lying and tampering with the good name of Ignatius of Antioch, one of the more notable churches of the time.

So lets give Ignatius some consideration on his views of the Christ.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE EPHESIANS LONGER VERSION

Chap. 7

But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.

[{Like Justin, he mentions God as unbegotten to emphasize the distinction between God and Christ, where Christ was begotten, the only directly begotten thing of God, created, not co-eternal, as having no beginning or end. But only eternal as having no end and being co-eternal after having been made by the Father. The relationship between the two is made most obvious to us and it is clearly not trinitarian.}]

Chap. 9

But the Holy Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ, and that not from himself, but from the Lord; even as the Lord also announced to us the things that He received from the Father. For, says He, "the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's, who sent Me." And says He of the Holy Spirit, "He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever things He shall hear from Me." And He says of Himself to the Father, "I have," says He, "glorified Thee upon the earth ; I have finished the work which, you gave Me; I have manifested your name to men." And of the Holy Ghost, "He shall glorify Me, for He receives of Mine."

[{Ignatius carefully subjects that son to the Father, even as he subjects the Holy Spirit to the son. This kind of subjection does not indicate equality. There is a measure of equality between the Father and son, but not exact or absolute equality. The son subjects his will to that of the Father. The Father is clearly in charge of the son.}]

Chap. 16

how much more shall those suffer everlasting punishment who endeavour to corrupt the Church of Christ, for which the Lord Jesus, the only-begotten Son of God, endured the cross, and submitted to death!

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE MAGNESIANS, LONGER VERSION.

Chap. 6

are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ. He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever; for "of His kingdom there shall be no end," says Daniel the prophet.

[{Ignatius does make mention of Jesus as God the Word, which indeed, Jesus holds such a title as well as many others as we shall see in various writers. But Jesus is still said to be born and, though God, is not indicated as being the same as the Father.}]

Chap. 7

As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, for says He, "I can of mine own self do nothing,"

to one Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the unbegotten God.

[{He also makes note of Jesus' subjection to the will of the Father.}]

Chap. 8

there is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word, not spoken, but essential. For He is not the voice of an articulate utterance, but a substance begotten by divine power, who has in all things pleased Him that sent Him.

[{While there is nothing here to support the trinity, we see the first signs of psycho-bable, lawyer crap, Greek philosophy creep in with the phrase, "not spoken, but essential." I have no idea what that is supposed to mean or indicate. It has no place being used by Christians and it can not be found in the Bible. Jesus is called the Word of God and that is all we are given so it is all we really need to know. It gets worse with future writers.}]

Chap. 11

. . .but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages . . .

. . .wrought signs and wonders for the benefit of men; and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father.

TO THE TRALLIANS, LONGER VERSION

Chap. 6

For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person

[{There are so many things covered in these few words. Ignatius here is dealing with various heretic ideas floating around in his time as is apparent from reading. Among the more notable is that Christ is claimed to be unbegotten. Imagine that! And Ignatius clearly does not agree. But the so called heretics also do not see the spirit as a person, I assume, as I find it hard to believe they would think God did not have a spirit or power. So unlike Justin, Ignatius perhaps sees the spirit as more of a person than an influence or power from God. Ignatius takes Jesus' words too literally in reference to the spirit. So some of the heretics may not be so far off on this one, if I understand them correctly.

Also noteworthy is how Ignatius departs from Justin in accepting Jesus as a mere man. Ignatius believes Jesus to be more than a man while on earth, I gather. Well, he was a lot more while in heaven, but Paul tells us he gave up that form, emptied himself of that form and glory, and became fully a man, yes, a mere man, who had the spirit of God descend down upon him as a dove so as to be able to do the powerful works that he did. This idea of Jesus being half man half God, or fully man and fully God, will become common from here on in.

But most interesting of all is Ignatius finding fault with the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person! Beyond absolutely any shadow of a doubt this refutes the trinity. How devastating yet revealing for trinitarians, eh? So Praxeas must have been around at this time, said to be in the time of the Bishop Victor of Rome. You will learn all about Praxeas from Tertullian in Related Articles.}]

Chap. 9

He truly assumed a body; for "the Word was made flesh," and lived upon earth without sin. For says He, "Which of you convicts me of sin?" He did in reality both eat and drink. He was crucified and died under Pontius Pilate. He really, and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth.

[{This highlights the contradiction in the understanding of Ignatius in regards to what form Jesus had on earth, man, god, or a little of both. Here, it would seem to be fully man.}]

Chap. 10

But if, as some that are without God, that is, the unbelieving, say, He became man in appearance [only], that He did not in reality take unto Him a body, that He died in appearance [merely], and did not in very deed suffer, then for what reason am I now in bonds, and long to be exposed to the wild beasts?

But as for me, I do not place my hopes in one who died for me in appearance, but in reality. For that which is false is quite abhorrent to the truth.

[{Now some claimed, as John warned would happen, that Jesus did not come in the flesh and only had the appearance of being in the flesh. This would violate what I discuss about Jesus myself in fulfilling the role of being a sacrifice for Adam. So Ignatius and those after him need to make up their minds, is Jesus God or man while on earth?}]

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE ROMANS LONGER VERSION 

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son;

is named from Christ, and from the Father, and is possessed of the Spirit

[{Here is a non-trinitarian way of referring to the spirit.}]

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE PHILADELPHIANS LONGER VERSION

Chap. 4

Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism; and one Church which the holy apostles established from one end of the earth to the other by the blood of Christ

[{One of each, each being separate and distinct from the other but united in spirit, will, purpose, actions, etc.}]

Chap. 6

If any one says there is one God, and also confesses Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten God, and Wisdom, and the Word of God, and deems Him to consist merely of a soul and body, such an one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the destruction of men.

[{If we are referring to Jesus while on earth, he was a mere man in creation, but certainly not mere man in regards to the works of the spirit that took place through him. But we do not need to insist he is more just because of the holy spirit working through him. It also did the same for the apostles afterward, too.}]

If any one confesses the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and praises the creation, but calls the incarnation merely an appearance, and is ashamed of the passion, such an one has denied the faith, not less than the Jews who killed Christ.

[{In this statement he is right and is in harmony with the words of the Apostle John}]

If any one confesses these things, and that God the Word did dwell in a human body, being within it as the Word, even as the soul also is in the body, because it was God that inhabited it, and not a human soul

[{Certainly Jesus had the remembrance of his former glory in heaven, but he was fully a man, a human soul, indeed. It had to be in order for the law to be properly fulfilled in atoning as a ransom sacrifice equal and corresponding to that of Adam. Ignatius is lacking this elementary understanding of the nature of the sacrifice. Nevertheless, no trinity is supported but the seeds are sown to be further distorted to where it will later become the trinity when Jesus is said to be fully God while on earth.}]

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRAEANS LONGER VERSION.

Chap. 1

being fully persuaded, in very truth, with respect to our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the Son of God, "the first-born of every creature," God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh

Chap. 5

For what does it profit, if any one commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not owning Him to be God incarnate?

[{There is an uncertain problem here when Ignatius declares that Jesus must be considered to be God incarnate. Webster's dictionary gives a wide variety of flavors and meanings of that word, of itself and as it applies to Christ. It can be applied both as Christ representing God or embodying God's qualities; or it can mean that he literally takes human form while still being God.

Which definition is intended by Ignatius is not so clear. His writings otherwise seem to favor Christ embodying the things of God, which I would agree with. But if he intends that Christ was half God and half man or fully both, then I would clearly disagree.

Part of the problem here is that while Christ is said to be the image of the Father and the perfect representation of Him, arguing that he was also God while on earth could be easily challenged. But more of the problem is that the word incarnate, is not to be found in the Bible. It is a Greek and English convention used to convey the manner of Christ's existence without having to go into detail as the Bible does. But once you substitute that word, you can then change its meaning over time until you have violated and nullified the word of God. So it is dangerous to use words not supported in the word of God without carefully clarifying what they mean at all times, until it very clear and very well established in the minds of the people. I do not believe it was ever clear in the minds of the people and still is not. So I dispute it here, now.}]

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE TARSIANS

CHAP. V (5)

And that He Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son, He [shows when He] says, "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." And again, "When all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall He also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." Wherefore it is one [Person] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another [Person] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things, becomes subject [to the former].

Chap. 6

How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And in another place, "The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me."

[{Though his birth by a woman was the work of God, he was a man, just the same. He was God's son and existed in heaven previously but that glory was reduced to that of a man as Paul made clear.}]

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE ANTIOCHIANS

Chap. 5

Moreover, he who affirms Christ to be a mere man is accursed, according to the [declaration of the] prophet, since he puts not his trust in God, but in man. Wherefore also he is unfruitful, like the wild myrtle-tree.

[{Ignatius resorts to twisting, whether intentional or not. He says I/we trust in man and not God. Jesus was sent by the Father so we are not trusting in a mere man. We are trusting someone who once lived with God and is empowered by God and will yet be God again when he goes to heaven after having been killed. Ignatius betrays his thorough lack of understanding in these matters. This is why people are eventually wond over to the trinity because they don't get the basics, the milk of God's word. They are as babies in the faith if not worse.}]

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO HERO

Chap. 6

May I have joy of thee, my dear son, whose guardian may He be who is the only unbegotten God, and the Lord Jesus Christ!

Chap. 9

May the Father of Christ, by His only-begotten Son, preserve thee in good health

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE PHILIPPIANS

Chap. 1

For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, "of whom are all things;" and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], "by whom are all things;" and also one Holy Spirit, who wrought in Moses, and in the prophets and apostles; and also one baptism, which is administered that we should have fellowship with the death of the Lord; and also one elect Church; there ought likewise to be but one faith in respect to Christ. For "there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is through all, and in all."

[{One emphasizing the unity of those things which come from God or are related to Him such as faith and baptism. But we can hardly imagine that baptism is also God or that the church is also God and unbegotten eternal. They are all separate and distinct as are the Father and Son.}]

Chap. 2

There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For "the Lord thy God," saith [the Scripture], "is one Lord." And again, "Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father." And again, "One Lord Jesus Christ." And in another place, "What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know?" And there is also one Paraclete. For "there is also," saith [the Scripture], "one Spirit," since "we have been called in one hope of our calling." And again, "We have drunk of one Spirit," with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers] "worketh one and the self-same Spirit." There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour.

[{When it says "There is then one God and Father, and not two or three;" Ignatius refers to those heretics who claim there is more than one God or creator, some of which were not mentioned in the Bible but secretly made known to certain followers who came after the Apostles. It is a ridiculous suggestion but that was the nature of many heretics of the time. Ignatius confirms that is also one Son as well. His last statement is the one I want to emphasize. Again an absolutely clear and undisputable refutation of the trinity, not allowing one God or Godhead with 3 names or manifestations, nor 3 into one incarnate, but 3 separate distinct beings of equal honor. Sorry trinitarians, but there it is in black and white for ya! Read it and weep. Now as for the Paraclete, that is the Holy Spirit being referred to. Paraclete is a word which basically means comforter, consoler, advocate, or arbitrator, which is how Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as on several occasions, specifically as a comforter.}]

Chap. 3

For there is but One that became incarnate, and that neither the Father nor the Paraclete, but the Son only, [who became so] not in appearance or imagination, but in reality. For "the Word became flesh." For "Wisdom builded for herself a house." And God the Word was born as man, with a body, of the Virgin, without any intercourse of man.

Chap. 6

And how can He be but God, who raises up the dead, sends away the lame sound of limb, cleanses the lepers, restores sight to the blind, and either increases or transmutes existing substances, as the five loaves and the two fishes, and the water which became wine, and who puts to flight thy whole host by a mere word?

[{I will answer that by asking, "Shall we also call the Apostles God since they also raised the dead and did many of the other wonderful things that Jesus did and of who Jesus said that they would do works greater than his?" And again, what Ignatius means by incarnate is not clear to me. But regardless of what incarnate is, Ignatius does not think Jesus to be the Father but some sort of representation of the Father, being separate and distinct from the Father.}]

Chap. 7

And how, again, does Christ not at all appear to thee to be of the Virgin, but to be God over all, and the Almighty? Say, then, who sent Him? Who was Lord over Him ? And whose will did He obey? And what laws did He fulfill, since He was subject neither to the will nor power of any one? And while you deny that Christ was born, you affirm that the unbegotten was begotten, and that He who had no beginning was nailed to the cross, by whose permission I am unable to say. But thy changeable tactics do not escape me, nor am I ignorant that thou art wont to walk with slanting and uncertain steps. And thou art ignorant who really was born, thou who pretend to know everything.

[{Here is the argument that Jesus was God the almighty. If that is so, then who sent him? Who was his Lord who he obeyed, and did the will of, etc. Ignatius points out how stupid it was to suggest such a thing. Yet that is what the trinitarians suggest. And they do not have Ignatius to support their error of heresy. The next reference also brings out more errors of those who imagine Jesus to be the Father. In making him the Father, they deny everything he spoke or did. Such is the case for the trinity.}]

Chap. 8

For many things are unknown to thee; [such as the following]: . . .

the voice of God over Him that was baptized, as to who He was and whence [He had come]; the testimony of the Spirit and the Father from above; the voice of John the prophet when it signified the passion by the appellation of "the Lamb;" the performance of divers miracles, manifold healings; the rebuke of the Lord ruling both the sea and the winds; evil spirits expelled; you yourself subjected to torture, and, when afflicted by the power of Him who had been manifested, not having it in your power to do anything.

Irenaeus, being a contemporary of the previous 2 authors, wrote a long collection of essays dealing with the various heresies that had come into being by that time. There were a number of them, perhaps 5 major schools of thought. So what we are looking for is what those heretic ideas were and how they relate to the trinity. As with Ignatius, those who offered ideas which became the trinity were identified as heretics introducing something new and twisted. Irenaeus reinforces what Ignatius claims. The work of Irenaeus is written in 5 books as entitled below.

Against the Heresies

Book 1

Chap. 10

1. The Church, though dispersed through out the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God

3. It does not follow because men are endowed with greater and less degrees of intelligence, that they should therefore change the subject-matter [of the faith] itself, and should conceive of some other God besides Him who is the Framer, Maker, and Preserver of this universe, (as if He were not sufficient for them), or of another Christ, or another Only-begotten.

[{Apparent in this chapter is that Irenaeus, too, sees the 3 as separate and distinct in their various roles defined by scripture and by the previous authors. It is just my guess at this point that incarnate means Jesus came to earth in bodily form, though having formerly been in heaven. Whether Irenaeus saw him as half God and half man or fully God as well as man, or just the image and likeness of God in human form, as indeed, we are all made in God's image. At this point, it is not important, anyway. We will deal with this more later.}]

Chap. 22

1. The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist. Thus says the Scripture, to that effect "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth." And again, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." There is no exception or deduction stated; but the Father made all things by Him, whether visible or invisible, objects of sense or of intelligence, temporal, on account of a certain character given them, or eternal;

but is He who, by His Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence,--He who formed the world (for the world is of all),--He who fashioned man,--He [who] is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, above whom there is no other God, nor initial principle, nor power, nor pleroma,--He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we shall prove.

[{God reveals Himself through His "Word," that is, His Son, and by His Spirit, not even mentioned as a person}]

Book 2

Chap. 1

1. It is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important head, that is, God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein (whom these men blasphemously style the fruit of a defect), and to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own free will, He created all things, since He is the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence.

Chap. 28

6. But, beyond reason inflated [with your own wisdom], you presumptuously maintain that you are acquainted with the unspeakable mysteries of God; while even the Lord, the very Son of God, allowed that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgment, when He plainly declares, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the Father only." If, then, the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to the Father only, but declared what was true regarding the matter, neither let us be ashamed to reserve for God those greater questions which may occur to us. For no man is superior to his master. If any one, therefore, says to us, "How then was the Son produced by the Father?" we reply to him, that no man understands that production, or generation, or calling, or revelation, or by whatever name one may describe His generation, which is in fact altogether indescribable.

[{Jesus was clearly produced by the Father and acknowledged that the Father knew things that he, Jesus, did not. So how could they be the same God? Logic can be a real bummer, eh?}]

. . . but the Father only who begat, and the Son who was begotten. Since therefore His generation is unspeakable, those who strive to set forth generations and productions cannot be in their right mind, inasmuch as they undertake to describe things which are indescribable. For that a word is uttered at the bidding of thought and mind, all men indeed well understand. Those, therefore, who have excogitated [the theory of] emissions have not discovered anything great, or revealed any abstruse mystery, when they have simply transferred what all understand to the only-begotten Word of God; and while they style Him unspeakable and unnameable, they nevertheless set forth the production and formation of His first generation, as if they themselves had assisted at His birth, thus assimilating Him to the word of mankind formed by emissions.

Chap. 30

9. He (the Creator) made all things freely, and by His own power, and arranged and finished them, and His will is the substance of all things, then He is discovered to be the one only God who created all things, who alone is Omnipotent, and who is the only Father rounding and forming all things, visible and invisible, such as may be perceived by our senses and such as cannot, heavenly and earthly, "by the word of His power;" and He has fitted and arranged all things by His wisdom, while He contains all things, but He Himself can be contained by no one: He is the Former, He the Builder, He the Discoverer, He the Creator, He the Lord of all; and there is no one besides Him, or above Him, neither has He any mother, as they falsely ascribe to Him; nor is there a second God . . .

But there is one only God, the Creator--He who is above every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and Virtue: He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom--heaven and earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them: He is just; He is good; He it is who formed man, who planted paradise, who made the world, who gave rise to the flood, who saved Noah; He is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of the living: He it is whom the law proclaims, whom the prophets preach, whom Christ reveals, whom the apostles make known to us, and in whom the Church believes. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: through His Word, who is His Son, through Him He is revealed and manifested to all to whom He is revealed; for those [only] know Him to whom the Son has revealed Him. 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.

[{I suppose one could confuse what is last said about the son eternally co-existing with the Father. But in view of what Irenaeus previously said, he likely means that Jesus eternally co-existed with the Father after he was created by the Father, which would be true. But he was obviously not in a state of co-existence before he was even born or begotten. From the beginning is taken by me to mean that Jesus had a beginning. He was the beginning as earlier indicated in clear language.}]

Book 3

Chap. 1

2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.

[{Are you listening, trinitarians?}]

Chap. 6

1. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord.

For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name of God -- both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father.

[{No argument from me. They are both referred to and reveal as Lord. But they are separate and distinct with one being created from the other. But I do find fault with the Spirit being given a role that seems over and above the other 2. The spirit comes from God and from the son and reveals what they want. The spirit is in subjection to the other 2 and ought not to be quite so personified and liberated for its subjection to the other two. But I am being picky, I grant. But this is how the spirit comes to be a third person and equal in the later to blossom ripe idea of the trinity. In the next following discourse, Irenaeus is going to discuss how others are called gods by the Father and yet are no gods in the eyes of the Father.}]

2. Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God, or is called Lord, except Him who is God and Lord of all, who also said to Moses, "I AM THAT I AM. And thus shalt you say to the children of Israel: He who is, hath sent me unto you;" and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who makes those that believe in His name the sons of God. And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, "I am come down to deliver this people." For it is He who descended and ascended for the salvation of men. Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who is in the Father, and has the Father in Himself -- He who is, the Father bearing witness to the Son, and the Son announcing the Father. -- As also Isaiah says, "I too am witness," he declares, "says the LORD God, and the Son whom I have chosen, that you may know, and believe, and understand that I am."

3. When, however, the Scripture terms them [gods] which are no gods, it does not, as I have already remarked, declare them as gods in every sense, but with a certain addition and signification, by which they are shown to be no gods at all. As with David: "The gods of the heathen are idols of demons;" and, "Ye shall not follow other gods" For in that he says "the gods of the heathen"-- but the heathen are ignorant of the true God -- and calls them "other gods," he bars their claim [to be looked upon] as gods at all.

5. And the Apostle Paul also, saying, "For though you have served them which are no gods; you now know God, or rather, are known of God," has made a separation between those that were not [gods] and Him who is God.

He points out here those who are called gods, by such as know not God, that is, idols. For the Father of all is called God, and is so; and Antichrist shall be lifted up, not above Him, but above those which are indeed called gods, but are not. And Paul himself says that this is true: "We know that an idol is nothing, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth; yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we through Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him."

And Moses himself, being a man of God, was indeed given as a god before Pharaoh; but he is not properly termed Lord, nor is called God by the prophets, but is spoken of by the Spirit as "Moses, the faithful minister and servant of God," which also he was.

[{What we want to get from this is that many are called gods for one reason or another. So if these can be considered gods by anyone, how much more so could Jesus be viewed as God since he is the son of God and shares equally with God, the Father. And since Jesus was the creator of all things by will of the Father, Jesus, in effect, becomes a god himself, though not quite to the same degree as the Father. I also supply quite a bit of Irenaeus, not necessarily always dealing with the trinity. Some of it was very helpful in helping me to more fully appreciate the role of the son and the outworking of God's purpose so I included it for your reading, too.}]

Chap. 8

3. For that all things, whether Angels, or Archangels, or Thrones, or Dominions, were both established and created by Him who is God over all, through His Word, John has thus pointed out. For when he had spoken of the Word of God as having been in the Father, he added, "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made."

But the things established are distinct from Him who has established them, and what have been made from Him who has made them. For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He is Himself sufficient for Himself; and still further, He grants to all others this very thing, existence; but the things which have been made by Him have received a beginning. But whatever things had a beginning, and are liable to dissolution, and are subject to and stand in need of Him who made them, must necessarily in all respects have a different term [applied to them], even by those who have but a moderate capacity for discerning such things; so that He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word, properly be termed God and Lord: but the things which have been made cannot have this term applied to them, neither should they justly assume that appellation which belongs to the Creator.

Chap. 9

1. There is therefore one and the same God, the Father of our Lord, who also promised, through the prophets, that He would send His forerunner; and His salvation -- that is, His Word -- He caused to be made visible to all flesh, [the Word] Himself being made incarnate, that in all things their King might become manifest. For it is necessary that those [beings] which are judged do see the judge, and know Him from whom they receive judgment; and it is also proper, that those which follow on to glory should know Him who bestows upon them the gift of glory.

[{Irenaeus also makes claim to Jesus being incarnate as did Ignatius and as will most of those who come after. The word incarnate is not to be found in the Bible and we can only assume and hope it means what is described in the Bible and nothing more.}]

Chap. 11

5. showing that the God who made the earth, and commanded it to bring forth fruit, who established the waters, and brought forth the fountains, was He who in these last times bestowed upon mankind, by His Son, the blessing of food and the favour of drink: the Incomprehensible [acting thus] by means of the comprehensible, and the Invisible by the visible; since there is none beyond Him, but He exists in the bosom of the Father.

6. For "no man," he says, "hath seen God at any time," unless "the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him]."

"Behold My dearly beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He shall show judgment to the Gentiles.

Chap. 16

1. But there are some who say that Jesus was merely a receptacle of Christ, upon whom the Christ, as a dove, descended from above, and that when He had declared the unnameable Father He entered into the Pleroma in an incomprehensible and invisible manner: for that He was not comprehended, not only by men, but not even by those powers and virtues which are in heaven, and that Jesus was the Son, but that Christ was the Father, and the Father of Christ, God; while others say that He merely suffered in outward appearance, being naturally impassible.

[{Irenaeus here is refuting heretics who say that Jesus and the Christ were two different beings, which is absurd, of course, even by trinitarian standards. And they also believe that God and the Father were to different people with Christ being the Father, but not God. How's that for some tall tales. Heretics for sure.}]

6. There is therefore, as I have pointed out, one God the Father, and one Christ Jesus, who came by means of the whole dispensational arrangements [connected with Him], and gathered together all things in Himself. But in every respect, too, He is man, the formation of God; and thus He took up man into Himself, the invisible becoming visible, the incomprehensible being made comprehensible, the impassible becoming capable of suffering, and the Word being made man, thus summing up all things in Himself: so that as in super-celestial, spiritual, and invisible things, the Word of God is supreme, so also in things visible and corporeal He might possess the supremacy, and, taking to Himself the pre-eminence, as well as constituting Himself Head of the Church, He might draw all things to Himself at the proper time.

7. With Him is nothing incomplete or out of due season, just as with the Father there is nothing incongruous. For all these things were foreknown by the Father; but the Son works them out at the proper time in perfect order and sequence.

For He fulfils the bountiful and comprehensive will of His Father, inasmuch as He is Himself the Savior of those who are saved, and the Lord of those who are under authority, and the God of all those things which have been formed, the only-begotten of the Father, Christ who was announced, and the Word of God, who became incarnate when the fullness of time had come, at which the Son of God had to become the Son of man.

[{Irenaeus seems to agree that Jesus became a man, perhaps indicating that incarnate had for its meaning up to this point in time, the fact that Jesus became a man on earth. If I am right, this would be a legitimate term to apply to Jesus. But that term will change with time.}]

9. For He did Himself truly bring in salvation: since He is Himself the Word of God, Himself the Only-begotten of the Father, Christ Jesus our Lord.

Chap. 17

1. But what really was the case, that did they record, [namely,] that the Spirit of God as a dove descended upon Him; this Spirit, of whom it was declared by Isaiah, "And the Spirit of God shall rest upon Him," as I have already said. And again: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me." That is the Spirit of whom the Lord declares, "For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." )

[{Now here he makes my point. Jesus, while a man on earth, is annointed with the spirit of God and receives back the power he once had with the Father. He has the knowledge of his former existence with his Father so that he can reveal the Father to those whom the Father draws to Himself. But he is nevertheless a man while on earth so he can be the proper sacrifice for all men, as a corresponding sacrifice for Adam.}]

And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them," Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." For [God] promised, that in the last times He would pour Him [the Spirit] upon [His] servants and handmaids, that they might prophesy; wherefore He did also descend upon the Son of God, made the Son of man, becoming accustomed in fellowship with Him to dwell in the human race, to rest with human beings, and to dwell in the workmanship of God, working the will of the Father in them, and renewing them from their old habits into the newness of Christ.

2. This Spirit did David ask for the human race, saying, "And establish me with your all-governing Spirit;" who also, as Luke says, descended at the day of Pentecost upon the disciples after the Lord's ascension, having power to admit all nations to the entrance of life, and to the opening of the new covenant; from whence also, with one accord in all languages, they uttered praise to God, the Spirit bringing distant tribes to unity, and offering to the Father the first-fruits of all nations. Wherefore also the Lord promised to send the Comforter, who should join us to God. For as a compacted lump of dough cannot be formed of dry wheat without fluid matter, nor can a loaf possess unity, so, in like manner, neither could we, being many, be made one in Christ Jesus without the water from heaven. And as dry earth does not bring forth unless it receive moisture, in like manner we also, being originally a dry tree, could never have brought forth fruit unto life without the voluntary rain from above. For our bodies have received unity among themselves by means of that layer which leads to incorruption; but our souls, by means of the Spirit. Wherefore both are necessary, since both contribute towards the life of God . . .

The Lord, receiving this as a gift from His Father, does Himself also confer it upon those who are partakers of Himself, sending the Holy Spirit upon all the earth.

[{Here again is my point. What Jesus had received, the Spirit, was also conferred and given to the Apostles and in some measure, to all his people of that time.}]

3. This Spirit, again, He did confer upon the Church, sending throughout all the world the Comforter from heaven, from whence also the Lord tells us that the devil, like lightning, was cast down. Wherefore we have need of the dew of God, that we be not consumed by fire, nor be rendered unfruitful, and that where we have an accuser there we may have also an Advocate, the Lord commending to the Holy Spirit His own man, who had fallen among thieves, whom He Himself compassionated, and bound up his wounds, giving two royal denaria; so that we, receiving by the Spirit the image and superscription of the Father and the Son, might cause the denarium entrusted to us to be fruitful, counting out the increase [thereof] to the Lord.

4. The Spirit, therefore, descending under the predestined dispensation, and the Son of God, the Only-begotten, who is also the Word of the Father, coming in the fullness of time, having become incarnate in man for the sake of man, and fulfilling all the conditions of human nature, our Lord Jesus Christ being one and the same, as He Himself the Lord does testify, as the apostles confess, and as the prophets announce . . .

[{In all this, the Spirit is poured and given to all, so it hardly seems that the spirit is a person, although it is of great comfort and so called a comforter.}]

Chap. 18

1. For I have shown that the Son of God did not then begin to exist, being with the Father from the beginning; but when He became incarnate, and was made man, He commenced afresh the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam--namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God--that we might recover in Christ Jesus.

[{Now he is saying exactly what I have been saying. For if Jesus was to be a sacrifice that gained what was lost in Adam, then he had to be a man and man only. For to be half god or fully God as well as man, then he would be cheating and Satan would have had a fit. It would never have been allowed or considered of comparable exchange.}]

4. He made it clear that He, the Son of man, is Christ the Son of the living God.

Chap. 19

2. For this reason [it is ,said], "Who shall declare His generation?" since "He is a man, and who shall recognize Him?" But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him, knows Him, so that he understands that He who "was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man," is the Son of man, this is Christ, the Son of the living God. 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 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. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering; that He sat upon the foal of an ass; that He received for drink, vinegar and gall; that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men;--all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him.

3. For as He became man in order to undergo temptation, so also was He the Word that He might be glorified;

[{Well, if he wants to say that Jesus was also the Word, I say this: He was the word in that he knew and remembered his former glory and the Father so that he cold relate and reveal these to his disciples. In that sense, he was incarnate, for the word became flesh, the Bible says. Though anointed with the Spirit of God, he was a man, fully capable of being tempted, but resisting that temptation successfully so that he could become approved by the Father and be a truly acceptable sacrifice to God in place of Adam. Jesus nature was truly like the divine, and he was perfect but fully human, just the same, as John meant when he said that Jesus came in the flesh.}]

the Word remaining quiescent, that He might be capable of being tempted, dishonoured, crucified, and of suffering death, but the human nature being swallowed up in it (the divine), when it conquered, and endured [without yielding], and performed acts of kindness, and rose again, and was received up [into heaven]. He therefore, the Son of God, our Lord, being the Word of the Father, and the Son of man, since He had a generation as to His human nature from Mary--who was descended from mankind, and who was herself a human being--was made the Son of man. Wherefore also the Lord Himself gave us a sign, in the depth below, and in the height above, which man did not ask for, because he never expected that a virgin could conceive, or that it was possible that one remaining a virgin could bring forth a son, and that what was thus born should be" God with us," and descend to those things which are of the earth beneath, seeking the sheep which had perished, which was indeed His own peculiar handiwork, and ascend to the height above, offering and commending to His Father that human nature (hominem) which had been found, making in His own person the first-fruits of the resurrection of man; that, as the Head rose from the dead, so also the remaining pan of the body--[namely, the body] of every man who is found in life--when the time is fulfilled of that condemnation which existed by reason of disobedience, may arise, blended together and strengthened through means of joints and bands by the increase of God, each of the members having its own proper and fit position in the body. For there are many mansions in the Father's house, inasmuch as there are also many members in the body.

Chap. 20

4. Again, that it should not be a mere man who should save us,

[{Well, indeed, who could save us accept another man, since it was a perfect man who sinned and sold us into slavery and death to begin with. It would need to be another perfect man who would give his life in place of Adam's for us to be bought, repurchased out of slavery and death. Jesus had to be a perfect man but not much more. The difference being that he was not just any man but had been God's son formerly so he was not just your average perfect man but one sent from heaven by God the Father. So in that sense, I suppose you could say not a mere man but one who was the incarnation of God's heavenly son, in that sense God. But I do not detect that distinction and they should have made that distinction for as John makes it clear, Jesus came in the flesh to be offered in sacrifice, as good acceptable perfect unblemished sacrifice as the law requires. Perhaps by mere they mean not just any man of perfection but one who had formerly resided in heaven as God's son. I am not sure that is the case.}]

nor [one] without flesh--for the angels are without flesh--[the same prophet] announced, saying: "Neither an elder, nor angel, but the Lord Himself will save them because He loves them, and will spare them He will Himself set them free." And that He should Himself become very man, visible, when He should be the Word giving salvation, Isaiah again sap: "Behold, city of Zion: your eyes shall see our salvation." And that it was not a mere man who died for us, Isaiah says: "And the holy Lord remembered His dead Israel, who had slept in the land of sepulture; and He came down to preach His salvation to them, that He might save them."

10. For as by one man's disobedience sin entered, and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil ("for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground"), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for "all things were made by Him," and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin.

[{Given this last paragraph, I think when they say mere man that they mean a man begotten by a human of imperfection. To this I would say, your right, he is not a mere man. But neither can we say that he was anything more than a perfect man, except that this perfect man once "knew" another existense above, but emptied himself of that glory and allowed himself to be placed in a womb by the will and force of God and His spirit.}]

Book 4

Chap. 6

5. The Father therefore has revealed Himself to all, by making His Word visible to all; and, conversely, the Word has declared to all the Father and the Son, since He has become visible to all. And therefore the righteous judgment of God [shall fall] upon all who, like others, have seen, but have not, like others, believed.

7. He, therefore, who was known, was not a different being from Him who declared "No man knoweth the Father," but one and the same, the Father making all things subject to Him; while He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons, from the enemy, and last of all, from death itself. But the Son, administering all things for the Father, works from the beginning even to the end, and without Him no man can attain the knowledge of God. For the Son is the knowledge of the Father; but the knowledge of the Son is in the Father, and has been revealed through the Son; and this was the reason why the Lord declared: "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; nor the Father, save the Son, and those to whomsoever the Son shall reveal [Him]." For "shall reveal" was said not with reference to the future alone, as if then [only] the Word had begun to manifest the Father when He was born of Mary, but it applies indifferently throughout all time. For the Son, being present with His own handiwork from the beginning, reveals the Father to all; to whom He wills, and when He wills, and as the Father wills. Wherefore, then, in all things, and through all things, there is one God, the Father, and one Word, and one Son, and one Spirit, and one salvation to all who believe in Him.

[{Here's a simple math lesson. 1+1+1=3! There is no mention of them all being one as far as their number. They definitely are one as regards to unity, of course. They are separate and distinct as Irenaeus made clear earlier, along with all the other writers to this point. Since they are 3, you could call them a holy trinity but you could not say they are all the same in all aspects without twisting words and meanings way out of proportion. However, I would be very foolish to believe that many would and will be able to accept this, even though it is plainly in front of them.}]

Chap. 20

2. For no one was able, either in heaven or in earth, or under the earth, to open the book of the Father, or to behold Him, with the exception of the Lamb who was slain, and who redeemed us with His own blood, receiving power over all things from the same God who made all things by the Word, and adorned them by [His] Wisdom, when "the Word was made flesh;" that even as the Word of God had the sovereignty in the heavens, so also might He have the sovereignty in earth, inasmuch as [He was] a righteous man, "who did no sin, neither was there found guile in His mouth;" and that He might have the pre-eminence over those things which are under the earth, He Himself being made "the first-begotten of the dead;" and that all things, as I have already said, might behold their King; and that the paternal light might meet with and rest upon the flesh of our Lord, and come to us from His resplendent flesh, and that thus man might attain to immortality, having been invested with the paternal light.

[{I feel that passages like these help to establish the extreme importance and uniqueness as well as superiority of the son of God coming down to earth as opposed to perhaps another perfect man being created from the thin blue air or to send another angel down in human form. There was no one in heaven or on earth that had as close and meaningful a relationship with the Father as His first and only-begotten son who was with the Father in all things other than himself. He was best and only qualified. Only the son could reveal the Father as the Father chose to be revealed. I think Irenaeus does a much better job of making this clear than any other writer of early times did. So I have included much of his commentary on Jesus here, even though it is not directly related to the trinity.

But what his commentary also helps us to do is come to better grips with why Jesus can be spoken of as might God, prince of peace, wonderful counselor, and the many other titles he possesses, and yet is not to be confused with the Father who created Him and who Jesus remains in subjection to. The various titles which Jesus is accurately entitled do and deserving of does not mean that he is actually the Father or unbegotten, or co-eternal in having neither a beginning or any end. He has not end for sure. But her certainly did have a beginning.}]

3. I have also largely demonstrated, that the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with Him, anterior to all creation, He declares by Solomon: "God by Wisdom founded the earth, and by understanding hath He established the heaven. By His knowledge the depths burst forth, and the clouds dropped down the dew." And again: "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways in His work: He set me up from everlasting, in the beginning, before He made the earth, before He established the depths, and before the fountains of waters gushed forth; before the mountains were made strong, and before all the hills, He brought me forth." And again: "When He prepared the heaven, I was with Him, and when He established the fountains of the deep; when He made the foundations of the earth strong, I was with Him preparing [them]. I was He in whom He rejoiced, and throughout all time I was daily glad before His face, when He rejoiced at the completion of the world, and was delighted in the sons of men."

[{I have a problem with this section. Irenaeus applies Proverbs 8, speaking of wisdom, to the spirit. All other writers who deal with this passage apply it to Jesus with good arguments to support. First, God's spirit was always with God. It is co-eternal and is a part of God as our arms and legs are part of us. So it is also with God's wisdom. He always had it as He always had His power, etc. This Wisdom of proverbs 8 had a beginning, a beginning remarkably like the one Jesus had. SO it is not likely wisdom as an intellectual quality, but referring to something else, namely, Jesus. All writers after Irenaeus clearly see it as applying to Jesus. And there is no mistaking the description in Proverbs 8. Wisdom most definitely had a birth and creation. If it applies to Jesus, it removes all doubt that first-born or only-begotten applies only to his earthly birth. Of course, Colossians 1:15 would also do that but trinitarians do not like to listen to facts or good reasoning. They like the old wine they get from old wine skins.}]

4. There is therefore one God, who by the Word and Wisdom created and arranged all things.

6. For certain of these men used to see the prophetic Spirit and His active influences poured forth for all kinds of gifts; others, again, [beheld] the advent of the Lord, and that dispensation which obtained from the beginning, by which He accomplished the will of the Father with regard to things both celestial and terrestrial; and others [beheld] paternal glories adapted to the times, and to those who saw and who heard them then, and to all who were subsequently to hear them.

[{Here with Irenaeus, as we did with Justin, see a reference to the prophetic Spirit indicating "his" predominant role upon men. As just as wisdom was personified, as Jesus was given yet another title, this one being wisdom, so I believe the spirit was personified, even though it is merely God's active force and power, rather than imagining that His power was derived in some more crude or fleshly manner.}]

Thus, therefore, was God revealed; for God the Father is shown forth through all these [operations], the Spirit indeed working, and the Son ministering, while the Father was approving, and man's salvation being accomplished. As He also declares through Hosea the prophet: "I," He says, "have multiplied visions, and have used similitudes by the ministry (in manibus) of the prophets." But the apostle expounded this very passage, when he said, "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are differences of ministrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal." But as He who worketh all things in all is God, [as to the points] of what nature and how great He is, [God] is invisible and indescribable to all things which have been made by Him, but He is by no means unknown: for all things learn through His Word that there is one God the Father, who contains all things, and who grants existence to all, as is written in the Gospel: "No man hath seen God at any time, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; He has declared [Him.]"

[{I think Irenaeus does a good job here of making the point that both the Father and the Holy Spirit also had their share in testifying to the son and helping to reveal the Father to men. Therefore, there were 3 outstanding witnesses who made it clear that there was a new covenant being given to men, which they should accept for their own salvation. But as we know, most rejected it. I expect similar results in our day and age when spreading the truth of matters.}]

7. Therefore the Son of the Father declares [Him] from the beginning, inasmuch as He was with the Father from the beginning, who did also show to the human race prophetic visions, and diversities of gifts, and His own ministrations, and the glory of the Father, in regular order and connection, at the fitting time for the benefit [of mankind].

8. as the Spirit of God pointed out by the prophets things to come . . .

[{Here is one of those common expressions of the spirit we often see in the Bible. The "Spirit of God," in dictating that it is of God and belonging to God and not some separate distinct personal entity. So the spirit could be said to be both co-equal and co-eternal but not a person as I have discussed in my main article on the trinity. But perhaps it was the fact that they made the spirit a person who in all other aspects was the Father, so to speak, that they also decided to try to make the son that way, too.

But Jesus also possesses the spirit (i.e. power, among other things) of God, as did, too, the Apostles, who Jesus called his brothers and sons of God, known by the Father. The spirit of God is dispensed by the son as well. But early trinitarians chose to violate the word of God with their lawyer tricks and semantics to somehow concoct this incredible image they had chosen for God so that they could claim some strict definition of monotheism, something they seem to deem very essential as I discussed in my main article before this.}]

For the prophets used not to prophesy in word alone, but in visions also, and in their mode of life, and in the actions which they performed, according to the suggestions of the Spirit.

Chap. 38

3. With God there are simultaneously exhibited power, wisdom, and goodness. His power and goodness [appear] in this, that of His own will He called into being and fashioned things having no previous existence; His wisdom [is shown] in His having made created things parts of one harmonious and consistent whole; and those things which, through His super-eminent kindness, receive growth and a long period of existence, do reflect the glory of the uncreated One, of that God who bestows what is good ungrudgingly. For from the very fact of these things having been created, [it follows] that they are not uncreated; but by their continuing in being throughout a long course of ages, they shall receive a faculty of the Uncreated, through the gratuitous bestowal of eternal existence upon them by God. And thus in all things God has the pre-eminence, who alone is uncreated, the first of all things, and the primary cause of the existence of all, while all other things remain under God's subjection. But being in subjection to God is continuance in immortality, and immortality is the glory of the uncreated One. By this arrangement, therefore, and these harmonies, and a sequence of this nature, man, a created and organized being, is rendered after the image and likeness of the uncreated God, -the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing [what is made],

[{I just wanted to point out how all 3, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are all shown to have their part to play. And the son's role is very subordinate to the Father's role, by where the Father issues commands and the son carries them out. They act in harmony, but are separate and act separately. How else could the son have left heaven and become human and die on earth, and still have someone in heaven through it all?}]

but man making progress day by day, and ascending towards the perfect, that is, approximating to the uncreated One. For the Uncreated is perfect, that is, God. Now it was necessary that man should in the first instance be created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened, should abound; and having abounded, should recover [from the disease of sin]; and having recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see his Lord. For God is He who is yet to be seen, and the beholding of God is productive of immortality, but immortality renders one nigh unto God.

Book 5

Chap. 6

For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God.

Chap. 18

2. For the Father bears the creation and His own Word simultaneously, and the Word borne by the Father grants the Spirit to all as the Father wills.

And thus one God the Father is declared, who is above all, and through all, and in all. The Father is indeed above all, and He is the Head of Christ; but the Word is through all things, and is Himself the Head of the Church; while the Spirit is in us all, and He is the living water, which the Lord grants to those who rightly believe in Him, and love Him, and who know that "there is one Father, who is above all, and through all, and in us all."

[{This passage, I think, reinforces what I said earlier. And the son is shown in subjection to the Father, tough in some ways, he cn ans is spoken of as begin equal. Equal, that is, in a relative sense, but in subjection, in an absolute sense, as Irenaeus speaks of here.}]

Chap. 25

5. but also, that there is one and the same God the Father, who was declared by the prophets, but made manifest by Christ.

[{Overall, I was quite impressed with Irenaeus. He helped me to better appreciate and understand what gospel writers tried to make clear to me about Jesus. But being a little slow, I am grateful for a good and thorough teacher like Irenaeus. And like all earthly teachers, he is not perfect, but he is adequate, helpful, and valuable.}]

I am not sure if you noticed some of the names of Christians mentioned in the Bible, but many of the writers and those associated with them also bear the same things. Namely, that many of them have the names of Greek gods or goddesses in their names. Given that they were Greeks at one time, this should not be a surprised. And the apostles gave no instructions for them to change their names so being named after pagan gods was of no mentionable consequence in the eyes of God's holy servants. Here we have Athena-goras, Athena being the goddess for whom the city of Athens derives its name.

Not surprisingly, Athenagoras is also well versed in the poets and philosophers of the Greeks. And it is to the Greeks that he speaks, explaining the beliefs of the Christians.

The Writings of Athenagoras

Greek poets and philosophers testify to God.

CHAP. X (10)

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.

[{Logos is the original Greek word which we commonly translate into English as word, as in Word of God, applying it to Jesus. But you will notice all the Greek words and the accompanying philosophy that goes with it when the writer mentions impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, and apprehended, a word used to denote perceived or understood. Again, these philosophical words will help to muddy the waters of truth in time and open a door for trinitarians to come in and twist things even further. In a strict and absolute sense, considering all details, it is possible to say the Father is incomprehensible if we are to understand every little detail about Him. But we can understand the most essential and basic things that we need. For how else could Jesus be said to have revealed the Father to us? So he is comprehensible in the most important aspects, spiritual ones, anyway. But in an ultimte sort of sense, the greatness and majesty of God are indeed, beyond comprehension. We need to keep this in mind when considering the trinity and its loaded meanings and interpretations.}]

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 (<greek>nous</greek> <greek>kai</greek> <greek>logos</greek>) of the Father is the Son of God.

[{Here we see that word, "oneness" mentioned, as in unity. Oneness is clearly a quality not related to numbers. We don't go around say, wow, that guy has a real three-ness or four-ness about him. Numbers have not been assigned such attributes. Oneness means unity and they both possess the power of the spirit, as the Father wills for the Son. And we are about to get into some even more ridiculous splitting of hairs and speculation in the next paragrah.}]

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 [<greek>nous</greek>], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [<greek>logikos</greek>]; but inasmuch 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.

[{Well, here we have the beginnings of non-trinitarians not willing to stand firm in the truth and remain in the only words given in the Bible. But distinctions and details are related that are not in the Bible but are the contrivances of men as these are. Jesus is spoken of as the first product or produce, which is not really stretching anything too much but then he says that Jesus was not really brought into existence as he was eternally in the mind of God as the Logos. I grant it is hard to understand how God could have existed forever without any beginning and yet have a point where Jesus and then we, came into being. So they suggest or speculate that Jesus was always sort of in the Father in some form. But we do not know that.

It might have been but neither Jesus or the Father have ever made any such statements of those things. It is the desire of these writers to answer these things for the Greeks who desire such details. But earlier writers were willing to say that there are things we are not told and can not understand or know with any certainty. Even Athenagoras stated God was incomprehensible and yet now he is trying to make every last detail comprehensible for the Greeks without any real facts coming from qualified people. This is the beginning of the end of good sound unassuming doctrine.

Writers, wanting to imitate the Greeks and make their doctrine appealing to the Greeks, begin to do as the Greeks do and fill in where they have no real knowledge. Bad move for good Christians. They should have told the Greeks it was foolishness to venture into such matters. Often, that was precisely what they did say. But they did not say it enough! If they wanted to speculate, they should have made it clear that it was only mere speculation and not the revealed doctrine of Christ or his Apostles. But this was not what Athenagoras did here and should have. It would only get worse with Terteulian, Origen, and others, though not necessarily in regards to the trinity but in other doctrines.}]

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.

[{Athenagoras applies Proverbs 8 to Jesus, which clearly refers to a making and a beginning. And even more interesting perhaps, is that the Holy Spirit is said to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him and returning. The writer does not evidently see the Spirit as a person, which I agree with. Again, he emphasizes their power in union, further clarifying the earlier mentioned "oneness," and a distinction in their order. The trinitarians say there is no real distinction to be made and that all are co-equal in what I assume to be all aspects, at least many more than can be accurately argued for. So Athenagoras is no advocate of the trinity by any means but he is getting closer to that eventual idea in subtle ways. He is mired in the quicksands of Greek semantics and lawyer tricks.}]

CHAP. XII (12)

Are, then, those who consider life to be comprised in this, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die," and who regard death as a deep sleep and forgetfulness ("sleep and death, twin-brothers"), to be accounted pious; while men who reckon the present life of very small worth indeed, and who are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and their distinction in unity;

[{Now here the writer claims that Christians know what the oneness among the hand Son is. He does not include the Holy Spirit in this formula. He also says they know what the communion of the 2 is, what the spirit is, what the unity of the 3 is, as well as their distinction within that unity. Well, I don't think there is a clear knowledge and understanding in those times. Too much speculation and disagreement is apparent from Irenaeus' Against the Heresies, and other writers, too. There has been at least a small amount of dissention and disagreement on details, some of those details being nothing but philosophical speculation. But one thing they all seem to agree on at this point is that there was no belief in the trinity as it is given today. Not even close. There is much more agreement in general among these early writers, than there are differences. And those agreements are far from a trinitarian explanation.}]

CHAP. XXIV (24)

For, as we acknowledge a God, and a Son his Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, because the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, Wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence, as light from fire; so also do we apprehend the existence of other powers, which exercise dominion about matter, and by means of it, and one in particular, which is hostile to God:

[{"United in essence?" What the hell is that? Evidence of yet more Greek definitions and distortions being introduced into the pure doctrine of God, polluting and corrupting it. Essence is not very well defined and not to be found in the Bible. It is a Greek concoction all the way. Indeed, the 3 are united in goals, will, purpose, and action, for starters. But they are separate persons, but with the same goal or desired result and all in subjection to the Father. Essence only muddies the water and makes it easier for others to come along and twist it even further. If they can get everyone to agree to the big 3 having the same essence, then influence or expand the meaning of essence, they will be able to change the Bible's original meanings, in a very subtle manipulation of definitions not found in scripture.

It all begins and ends when we start introducing things beyond what the word of God, the Bible, has to say on a matter. We need to stick to the words used and the meanings that are conveyed by such words. If we don't, eventually we end up down a road that can not possibly be justified by any scripture. It just takes one small step in a presumptuous direction and after a few more steps, you are off the track. I am covering these early writers to show you precisely where those first small steps in the wrong direction were taken and this is one of those steps.

Athenagoras may not have meant harm but he clearly did not know and appreciate his limits of authority and prerogative. He took too many liberties in his discourse to the Greeks about Christian beliefs. This is how we ended up with the trinity. Athenagoras likely would have objected to the trinity as he makes distinctions that they do not. But his straying even the slightest from God's word gave them a foot in the door. But we are about to close the door on the trinity once and for all.}]

Tatian is looked down upon by others of his time as he disagreed with certain ideas and was considered to be a heretic. But I find him right in certain arguments with them. But in regards to the trinity, he is in harmony with the other writers of his times. So at least in the doctrine we are considering, there is no dissention. That is worthy of notice.

ADDRESS OF TATIAN TO THE GREEKS.

Chap. 4

Our God did not begin to be in time: He alone is without beginning, and He Himself is the beginning of all things. God is a Spirit, not pervading matter, but the Maker of material spirits, and of the forms that are in matter; He is invisible, impalpable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things. Him we know from His creation, and apprehend His invisible power by His works.

Chap. 5

God was in the beginning; but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Logos. For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground (<greek>npostasis</greek>) of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone; but inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things; with Him, by Logos-power (<greek>dia</greek> <greek>lpgikhs</greek> <greek>dunameps</greek>), the Logos Himself also, who was in Him, subsists. And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission; for what is cut off is separated from the original substance, but that which comes by participation, making its choice of function, does not render him deficient from whom it is taken.

[{Abscission means essentially to cut off or away, a sudden termination or separation. Tatian says that Jesus came into being, which would be correct but then he clarifies it in a way that can not be supported by the scriptures when he says by participation rather than by being cut away, I take it, from the Father, as a separate and distinct entity. But I would say Jesus was likely created as a separate distinct entity, so much so that he was capable of emptying himself of his heavenly siritual form and becoming a man, somehting the Father could never do. There had to a a division in order to accomplish that. Plenty of Greekisms and semantics to be found here, so it is difficult to be sure of what he is suggesting. How separate or distinct are the Father and Son? For sure, more separate and distinct than what the trinitarians would argue for.}]

For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Logos, coming forth from the Logos-power of the Father, has not divested of the Logos-power Him who begat Him. I myself, for instance, talk, and you hear; yet, certainly, I who converse do not become destitute of speech (<greek>logos</greek>) by the transmission of speech, but by the utterance of my voice I endeavour to reduce to order the unarranged matter in your minds. And as the Logos begotten in the beginning, begat in turn our world, having first created for Himself the necessary matter, so also I, in imitation of the Logos, being begotten again, and having become possessed of the truth, am trying to reduce to order the confused matter which is kindred with myself. For matter is not, like God, without beginning, nor, as having no beginning, is of equal power with God ; it is begotten, and not produced by any other being, but brought into existence by the Framer of all things alone.

[{As you can see, Tatian does not have lots to say about the Father and Son and nothing at all about the Spirit in relation to those two. No trinitarian ideas here! But some philosophying does inch closer to unsupported ideas that will help the trinity in the future.}]

There is not a lot written of our subject here by Theophilus. He is of Antioch, considered one of the 3 major churches/cities of that time along with Rome and Alexandria, so he represents a reputable congregation. He mainly addresses the Father in his letter. The Son is mentioned in the 2nd book. It is valuable for its high respect of the Father. Certainly there is no support for the trinity in this writing.

THEOPHILUS TO AUTOLYCUS.

BOOK I.

CHAP. 3

You will say, then, to me, "Do you, who see God, explain to me the appearance of God." Hear, O man. The appearance of God is ineffable and indescribable, and cannot be seen by eyes of flesh. For in glory He is incomprehensible, in greatness unfathomable, in height inconceivable, in power incomparable, in wisdom unrivalled, in goodness inimitable, in kindness unutterable. For if I say He is Light, I name but His own work; if I call Him Word, I name but His sovereignty; if I call Him Mind, I speak but of His wisdom; if I say He is Spirit, I speak of His breath; if I call Him Wisdom, I speak of His offspring; if I call Him Strength, I speak of His sway; if I call Him Power, I am mentioning His activity; if Providence, I but mention His goodness; if I call Him Kingdom, I but mention His glory; if I call Him Lord, I mention His being judge; if I call Him Judge, I speak of Him as being just; if I call Him Father, I speak of all things as being from Him; if I call Him Fire, I but mention His anger. You will say, then, to me, "Is God angry?" Yes; He is angry with those who act wickedly, but He is good, and kind, and merciful, to those who love and fear Him; for He is a chastener of the godly, and father of the righteous; but he is a judge and punisher of the impious.

[{Though this deals primarily with God, the Father, there are some notable things. "if I call Him Wisdom, I speak of His offspring." This could be alluding to Jesus, though not certain. As the Father is mentioned as being without beginning and unbegotten, we can likely assume the contrast that all the other writers have given.}]

And He is without beginning, because He is unbegotten; and He is unchangeable, because He is immortal. And he is called God [<greek>Qeos</greek>] on account of His having placed [<greek>teqeikenai</greek>] all things on security afforded by Himself; and on account of [<greek>qeein</greek>], for <greek>qeein</greek> means running, and moving, and being active, and nourishing, and foreseeing, and governing, and making all things alive. But he is Lord, because He rules over the universe; Father, because he is before all things; Fashioner and Maker, because He is creator and maker of the universe; the Highest, because of His being above all; and Almighty, because He Himself rules and embraces all. For the heights of heaven, and the depths of the abysses, and the ends of the earth, are in His hand, and there is no place of His rest. For the heavens are His work, the earth is His creation, the sea is His handiwork; man is His formation and His image; sun, moon, and stars are His elements, made for signs, and seasons, and days, and years, that they may serve and be slaves to man; and all things God has made out of things that were not into things that are, in order that through His works His greatness may be known and understood.

Book 2

CHAP. 10

And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coeval with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He is called "governing principle" [<greek>arkh</greek>], because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of God, and governing principle, and wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all other things.

[{Here we see a description of the Son similar to what Athenagoras taught and wrote. Again, passing on the teachings of men rather than carefully sticking to the Bible. God does not have real bowels but I assume the writer speaks figuratively. But however Jesus came into being, it is certain from the Bible that he did have a birth and a beginning, before the beginning of anything else and that he then created everything else at the will and command of the Father.}]

Tertullian would fit in right here. But as he did a complete work against the trinity, I thought the whole work should appear, but as a separate web page. It is a most excellent work. It apparently became necessary as the trinity was likely starting to spread. The trinity was very much in harmony with the works of Plato, one of the most famous Greek philosophers and very much the rage of this time. So the idea of the trinity was likely very appealing and so gained in popularity as well, even though not supported directly by scriptures. But this was to be, according to the scriptures. Apostasy would set in and they would cease to put up with healthful teachings. So we need not be astonished or surprised. It could not help but come to be. God knows what is going to happen and tells us all things before hand so that we will not be surprised.

Teretullian is well versed in Greek philosophy and deals with many issues of conflict between the Greeks and Christians. His writing is strongly influenced by Greek thought, for sure. Tertullian in his later years also became known as a heretic, favoring a Montanist brand of Christianity, a somewhat ascetic sect of a gnostic persuasion, which no doubt had several flavors of its own. But His work on the trinity refuting it is in harmony with the rest of these writers, with Ignatius and Irenaeus both also refuting the ideas of the trinity, though not referring to it by name as Tertuellian does.

Tertullian also does us the favor of relating at what time period and where this teaching got its start. It was in the church of Rome under the Bishop Victor, also known as Victorianus. Praxeas was the name given of the author of the trinity and its start. Evidently, the teaching was not very popular as Irenaeus did not even mention it by name or as a real threat to the churches in his time. He certainly did mention and condemn a number of movements by name and describe their founders, beginnings, and beliefs. Praxeas is nowhere to be found. But he is well mentioned and attacked by Tertullian.

Tertullian: AGAINST ALL HERESIES
CHAP. VIII (8):

"But after all these, again, one Praxeas introduced a heresy which Victorinus was careful to corroborate. He asserts that Jesus Christ is God the Father Almighty. Him he contends to have been crucified, and suffered, and died; beside which, with a profane and sacrilegious temerity, he maintains the proposition that He is Himself sitting at His own right hand."

Praxeas is beyond any doubt, way beyond the scope of any teaching existing in his time, or before, or even after. I have proven that beyond dispute by showing you all what all the writers who have survived down to our time have said about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. But within another 75 to 125 years after Tertullian refutes him, it would have a 50% acceptance among the Christians of that time. Perhaps because Tertullian became a heretic later in his life, his works, even the many before his heresy, fell into disrepute. And if there were others who opposed the trinity, their work did not survive.

In fact, even of the many writers I have quoted, many of their other works, bits and pieces quoted by later writers, did not survive. They may also have written works against the trinity. But since the "Church" was to become an adopter of the trinity, it would not like to have those works hainging around and so would make sure they did not survive or get reproduced. We see a clear meddling in the works of Ignatius and have every reason to suspect more of the same.

It was related by more than one writer, but most notably be Eusebius of Caesaria, that heretics often used to tamper with the Bible and more commonly, with writers of their times, adding things, changing things, taking out things, or even forging new works, claiming them to be of another such as the so called gospel of Thomas, a gnostic invention. It would be of no surprise if those who gained power and influence under Constantine, made sure anti-trinitarian documents never saw the light of day. But where Tertullian fell out of favor, no one gave him any attention and may have forgotten that he ever even said anything about the trinity. If so, it was a good break for truth seekers like myself and maybe you, eh?

So I will let Tertullian's fine work and service to us speak for itself at this point. Read it now or wait until your finished with the rest of the writers left as there are only a couple more. I link to it at the end of this article.

Clement had been and was a student of Greek philosophy and reason, not all of which was bad. He was a Christian teacher at Alexandria, one of the big three Church districts of that time. And his work is aimed at the Greeks so there is nothing really, that deals with the trinity directly. But there is enough to give us discernment on where he stood. What you can see in the works of Clement is a common trend at this time. A heavy does of Greek thinking, writing, and technique. That can be good, that can be bad. One has to be careful to point out what is Biblical and what is not. All the Christians writers fail to some degree to make any distinctions and therefore get bogged down in Greek thinking instead of strict obedience to scriptural thoughts and words. But with his words saved for us, we can pick out the good from the bad.

The Stromata 5

Chap. 3

Now the Word of God says, "I am the truth."

Now the Word issuing forth was the cause of creation; then also he generated himself, "when the Word had become flesh," that He might be seen.

[{He recognized the "Word" as issuing forth but I am not sure when credits the Word with having placed himself in Mary's womb. I suppose he could have but since it was the Father who gave him his first birth, why not the Father who also give him his second birth? But this is never said for sure in the Bible so either one of us could be right. The difference is that I won't say it is a fact or scriptural and unless it is. Clement does not make that distinction nor do some before him or after him.}]

Chap. 11

Wherefore also Moses says, " Show Thyself to me,"--intimating most clearly that God is not capable of being taught by man, or expressed in speech, but to be known only by His own power. For inquiry was obscure and dim; but the grace of knowledge is from Him by the Son.

Chap. 12

And was it not this which the prophet meant, when he ordered unleavened cakes to be made, intimating that the truly sacred mystic word, respecting the unbegotten and His powers, ought to be concealed?

Chap. 14

Nay, the philosophers. having so heard from Moses, taught that the world was created. And so Plato expressly said, "Whether was it that the world had no beginning of its existence, or derived its beginning from some beginning? For being visible, it is tangible; and being tangible, it has a body." Again, when he says, "It is a difficult task to find the Maker and Father of this universe," he not only showed that the universe was created, but points out that it was generated by him as a son, and that he is called its father, as deriving its being from him alone, and springing from non-existence. The Stoics, too, hold the tenet that the world was created.

For the image of God is the divine and royal Word.

[{We can see some obscure references to the son, the word, but Clement gives most of his attention to the great God of all things, the Father. But he does appear to recognize the son, though admittedly, his writings do not much deal with this subject. He is more preoccupied with refuting the Greeks and their ideas, while not realizing that in some ways, they have left their mark on him and other writers of the Christian faith.}]

Stromata 6

Chap. 15

The discovery, then, of what is sought respecting God, is the teaching through the Son; and the proof of our Saviour being the very Son of God is the prophecies which preceded His coming, announcing Him; and the testimonies regarding Him which attended His birth in the world; in addition, His powers proclaimed and openly shown after His ascension.

The proof of the truth being with us, is the fact of the Son of God Himself having taught us. For if in every inquiry these universals are found, a person and a subject, that which is truly the truth is shown to be in our hands alone. For the Son of God is the person of the truth which is exhibited; and the subject is the power of faith, which prevails over the opposition of every one whatever, and the assault of the whole world.

If, then, according to Plato, it is only possible to learn the truth either from God or from the progeny of God, with reason we, selecting testimonies from the divine oracles, boast of learning the truth by the Son of God, prophesied at first, and then explained.

Wherefore also the heresies of the Barbarian philosophy, although they speak of one God, though they sing the praises of Christ, speak without accuracy, not in accordance with truth; for they discover another God, and receive Christ not as the prophecies deliver.

And now also the whole economy which prophesied of the Lord appears indeed a parable to those who know not the truth, when one speaks and the rest hear that the Son of God--of Him who made the universe--assumed flesh, and was conceived in the virgin's womb (as His material body was produced), and subsequently, as was the case, suffered and rose again, being "to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness," as the apostle says.

Many also of those who called to the Lord said, "Son of David, have mercy on me." A few, too, knew Him as the Son of God; as Peter, whom also He pronounced blessed, "for flesh and blood revealed not the truth to him, but His Father in heaven," --showing that the Gnostic recognizes the Son of the Omnipotent, not by His flesh conceived in the womb, but by the Father's own power.

Chap. 16

But the expression "in the day that God made," that is, in and by which God made "all things," and "without which not even one thing was made," points out the activity exerted by the Son.

[{From these passages the role of the son becomes clear. Even the Greeks were aware of a son and their own gods had sons so it would be reasonable to expect that they would understand this. And if "our" son was in some way different from how the Greeks would have understood it, I would have expected Clement to point that out.}]

Stromata 7

Chap. 1

. . . the most ancient philosophy and primeval prophecy; and among intellectual ideas, what is oldest in origin, the timeless and unoriginated First Principle, and Beginning of existences--the Son--from whom we are to learn the remoter Cause, the Father, of the universe, the most ancient and the most beneficent of all . . .

[{Again, Clement says there was a more remote cause of the son who made all things, namely the Father.}]

Chap. 2

To know God is, then, the first step of faith; then, through confidence in the teaching of the Saviour, to consider the doing of wrong in any way as not suitable to the knowledge of God.

But the nature of the Son, which is nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One, is the most perfect, and most holy, and most potent, and most princely, and most kingly, and most beneficent.

[{There is no way to conclude that the two are equal and one in the same here. Only one almighty, not two or two in one.}]

For from His own point of view the Son of God is never displaced; not being divided, not severed, not passing from place to place; being always everywhere, and being contained nowhere; complete mind, the complete paternal light; all eyes, seeing all things, hearing all things, knowing all things, by His power scrutinizing the powers. To Him is placed in subjection all the host of angels and gods; He, the paternal Word, exhibiting a the holy administration for Him who put [all] in subjection to Him.

[{There is clearly a subordinate relationship between the Father and the Son here. Sorry trinitarians. Scriptures below also emphasize this.}]

And that He whom we call Saviour and Lord is the Son of God, the prophetic Scriptures explicitly prove.

He who is the Lord of all, and serves above all, the will of the good and almighty Father, ever be hindered by another.

For ignorance applies not to the God who, before the foundation of the world, was the counselor of the Father. For He was the Wisdom "in which" the Sovereign God "delighted." For the Son is the power of God, as being the Father's most ancient Word before the production of all things, and His Wisdom.

[{This last paragraph refers to the Son as God and as wisdom by quoting from Proverbs 8 as several other writers do, as well. But he also makes a distinction between God and Sovereign God, clearly indicating that one was superior to the other in some aspects as is confirmed from Jesus's own words when he says that the Father is greater than he is and that only the Father knows the day or the hour. Clement is very careful to get this right and does a good job, showing Jesus divine and powerful position and yet retaining the understanding and distinction of his subjection to the Father.}]

Now the energy of the Lord has a reference to the Almighty; and the Son is, so to speak, an energy of the Father.

Chap. 3

He is the true Only-begotten, the express image of the glory of the universal King and Almighty Father . . .

For He who prescribes the contest is the Almighty God, and He who awards the prize is the only-begotten: Son of God.

[{Beyond any shadow of a doubt, Clement sees a separateness and distinction between the 2, even though both are united, and therefore, in most respects equal as the Father saw it fitting that all His greatness and majesty should be manifest in the Son. We also see no mention of the Holy Spirit as being a significant part of this intimate relationship or discussion, possibly indicating that Clement does not see him as a person or being but only a force or energy of God and the Son. Impossible to concoct the modern definition of the trinity from these words!}]

[{I gather that it is not Dionysius who is the author here but someone not named who sent a letter to Dionysius with things to say about the trinity. It is not in favor of the trinity, for sure. Keep in mind that Rome was said to be the church whereby the heresy of the trinity as we know it today began with Praxeas under bishop Victor also known as Victorinus. Whether that heresy continued under Dionysius is not known.}]

IV.--EPISTLE TO DIONYSIUS BISHOP OF ROME

FROM THE FIRST BOOK.

1. There certainly was not a time when God was not the Father.

2. Neither, indeed, as though He had not brought forth these things, did God afterwards beget the Son, but because the Son has existence not flora Himself, but from the Father.

And after a few words he says of the Son Himself:--

3. Being the brightness of the eternal Light, He Himself also is absolutely eternal. For since light is always in existence, it is manifest that its brightness also exists, because light is perceived to exist from the fact that it shines, and it is impossible that light should not shine. And let us once more come to illustrations. If the sun exists, there is also day; if nothing of this be manifest, it is impossible that the sun should be there. If then the sun were eternal, the day would never end; but now, for such is not really the state of the case, the day begins with the beginning of the sun, and ends with its ending.

But God is the eternal Light, which has neither had a beginning, nor shall ever fail. Therefore the eternal brightness shines forth before Him, and co-exists with Him, in that, existing without a beginning, and always begotten, He always shines before Him; and He is that Wisdom which says, "I was that wherein He delighted, and I was daily His delight before His face at all times."

And a little after he thus pursues his discourse from the same point:--

4. Since, therefore, the Father is eternal, the Son also is eternal, Light of Light. For where there is the begetter, there is also the offspring. And if there is no offspring, how and of what can He be the begetter? But both are, and always are. Since, then, God is the Light, Christ is the Brightness. And since He is a Spirit--for says He, "God is a Spirit" --fittingly again is Christ called Breath; for "He," says He, "is the breath of God's power."

And again he says:--

5. Moreover, the Son alone, always co-existing with the Father, and filled with Him who is, Himself also is, since He is of the Father.

FROM THE SAME FIRST BOOK.

6. But when I spoke of things created, and certain works to be considered, I hastily put forward illustrations of such things, as it were little appropriate, when I said neither is the plant the same as the husbandman, nor the boat the same as the boatbuilder. But then I lingered rather upon things suitable and more adapted to the nature of the thing, and I unfolded in many words, by various carefully considered arguments, what things were more true; which things, moreover, I have set forth to you in another letter. And in these things I have also proved the falsehood of the charge which they bring against me--to wit, that I do not maintain that Christ is consubstantial with God.

[{I beg to ask, what is "consubstantial?" It is certainly not found in the Bible. It is another Greekism, of course. Notice that the writer also admits this next.}]

For although I say that I have never either found or read this word in the sacred Scriptures, yet other reasonings, which I immediately subjoined, are in no wise discrepant from this view, because I brought forward as an illustration human offspring, which assuredly is of the same kind as the begetter; and I said that parents are absolutely distinguished from their children by the fact alone that they themselves are not their children, or that it would assuredly be a matter of necessity that there would neither be parents nor children.

[{This was a good illustration. Too bad he will later betray and contradict it.}]

But, as I said before, I have not the letter in my possession, on account of the present condition of affairs; otherwise I would have sent you the very words that I then wrote, yea, and a copy of the whole letter, and I will send it if at any time I shall have the opportunity. I remember, further, that I added many similitudes from things kindred to one another.

For I said that the plant, whether it grows up from seed or from a root, is different from that whence it sprouted, although it is absolutely of the same nature; and similarly, that a river flowing from a spring takes another form and name: for that neither is the spring called the river, nor the river the spring, but that these are two things, and that the spring indeed is, as it were, the father, while the river is the water from the spring.

But they feign that they do not see these things and the like to them which are written, as if they were blind; but they endeavor to assail me from a distance with expressions too carelessly used, as if they were stones, not observing that on things of which they are ignorant, and which require interpretation to be understood, illustrations that are not only remote, but even contrary, will often throw light.

FROM THE SAME FIRST BOOK.

7. It was said above that God is the spring of all good things, but the Son was called the river flowing from Him; because the word is an emanation of the mind, and--to speak after human fashion--is emitted from the heart by the mouth. But the mind which springs forth by the tongue is different from the word which exists in the heart. For this latter, after it has emitted the former, remains and is what it was before; but the mind sent forth flies away, and is carried everywhere around, and thus each is in each although one is from the other, and they are one although they are two. And it is thus that the Father and the Son are said to be one, and to be in one another.

FROM THE SECOND BOOK.

8. The individual haines uttered by me can neither be separated from one another, nor parted. I spoke of the Father, and before I made mention of the Son I already signified Him in the Father. I added the Son; and the Father, even although I had not previously named Him, had already been absolutely comprehended in the Son. I added the Holy Spirit; but, at the same time, I conveyed under the name whence and by whom He proceeded.

But they are ignorant that neither the Father, in that He is Father, can be separated from the Son, for that name is the evident ground of coherence and conjunction; nor can the Son be separated from the Father, for this word Father indicates association between them. And there is, moreover, evident a Spirit who can neither be disjoined from Him who sends, nor from Him who brings Him. How, then, should I who use such names think that these are absolutely divided and separated the one from the other?

[{I am not sure but I think he is contradicting his earlier illustration and is saying they Father and Son can not be separated. I assume he says they are one in all senses of the term. We are clearly getting into lawyer like manipulations of the language and ideas. It is all non-sense. But at this late stage inthe game, we can see the corruption really set in and it seems to be set in Rome and its allies, no less.}]

After a few words he adds:--

9. Thus, indeed, we expand the indivisible Unity into a Trinity; and again we contract the Trinity, which cannot be diminished, into a Unity.

FROM THE SAME SECOND BOOK.

10. But if any quibbler, from the fact that I said that God is the Maker and Creator of all things, thinks that I said that He is also Creator of Christ, let him observe that I first called Him Father, in which word the Son also is at the same time expressed. For after I called the Father the Creator, I added, Neither is He the Father of those things whereof He is Creator, if He who begot is properly understood to be a Father (for we will consider the latitude of this word Father in what follows). Nor is a maker a father, if it is only a framer who is called a maker. For among the Greeks, they who are wise are said to be makers of their books. The apostle also says, "a doer (soil. maker) of the law." Moreover, of matters of the heart, of which kind are virtue and vice, men are called doers (scil. makers); after which manner God said, "I expected that it should make judgment, but it made iniquity."

[{Another lawyer trick in trying to pose that a maker is not a father nor a father a maker. One can be both. It is all in how you choose to look at it or define it. He sort of acknowledges this himself just ahead.}]

11. That neither must this saying be thus blamed; for he says that he used the name of Maker on account of the flesh which the Word had assumed, and which certainly was made. But if any one should suspect that that had been said of the Word, even this also was to be heard without contentiousness. For as I do not think that the Word was a thing made, so I do not say that God was its Maker, but its Father. Yet still, if at any time, discoursing of the Son, I may have casually said that God was His Maker, even this mode of speaking would not be without defense. For the wise men among the Greeks call themselves the makers of their books, although the same are fathers of their books. Moreover, divine Scripture calls us makers of those motions which proceed from the heart, when it calls us doers of the law of judgment and of justice.

FROM THE SAME SECOND BOOK.

12. In the beginning was the Word. But that was not the Word which produced the Word. For" the Word was with God." The Lord is Wisdom; it was not therefore Wisdom that produced Wisdom; for "I was that" says He, "wherein He delighted Christ is truth; but "blessed," says He, "is the God of truth."

FROM THE THIRD BOOK.

13. Life is begotten of life in the same way as the river has flowed forth from the spring, and the brilliant light is ignited from the inextinguishable light.

FROM THE FOURTH BOOK.

14. Even as our mind emits from itself a word, --as says the prophet, "My heart hath uttered forth a good word," --and each of the two is distinct the one from the other, and maintaining a peculiar place, and one that is distinguished from the other; since the former indeed abides and is stirred in the heart, while the latter has its place in the tongue and in the mouth.

And yet they are not apart from one another, nor deprived of one another; neither is the mind without the word, nor is the word without the mind; but the mind makes the word and appears in the word, and the word exhibits the mind wherein it was made. And the mind indeed is, as it were, the word immanent, while the word is the mind breaking forth. The mind passes into the word, and the word transmits the mind to the surrounding hearers; and thus the mind by means of the word takes its place in the souls of the hearers, entering in at the same time as the word.

[{He is making this whole thing way too complicated. They are distinct and yet not apart. This is the beginning of non-sense and irrational thought into the mainstream of the time.}]

And indeed the mind is, as it were, the father of the word, existing in itself; but the word is as the son of the mind, and cannot be made before it nor without it, but exists with it, whence it has taken its seed and origin. In the same manner, also, the Almighty Father and Universal Mind has before all things the Son, the Word, and the discourse, as the interpreter and messenger of Himself.

ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF THE TREATISE.

15. If, from the fact that there are three hypostases, they say that they are divided, there are three whether they like it or no, or else let them get rid of the divine Trinity altogether.

[{I gather that what he is saying here is that some felt that if 3 different hypostases (persons, natures, supporting foundations) claimed, then the trinity is divided, which they did not like. And he says, like it or not, there are 3 and if they prefer, they can get rid of the trinity as they call it, altogether. I like it! He, evidently, would prefer to drop the name altogether than to deny 3 beings or personalities of some sort. BUt certainly it was a sad time as the twisters of scriptures were beginning to have an effect on all the churches and followers, getting caught up with legalistic Greek philosophical terms and definitions rather than sticking with the scriptures.}]

AND AGAIN:

For on this account after the Unity there is also the most divine Trinity.

THE CONCLUSION OF THE ENTIRE TREATISE.

16. In accordance with all these things, the: form, moreover, and rule being received from the elders who have lived before us, we also, with a voice in accordance with them, will both acquit ourselves of thanks to you, and of the letter which we are now writing. And to God the Father, and His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Against All Heresies

Book 10

CHAP. XXIII (23).--NOETUS AND CALLISTUS.

But in like manner, also, Noetus, being by birth a native of Smyrna, and a fellow addicted to reckless babbling, as well as crafty withal, introduced (among us) this heresy which originated from one Epigonus. It reached Rome, and was adopted by Cleomenes, and so has continued to this day among his successors.

Noetus asserts that there is one Father and God of the universe, and that He made all things, and was imperceptible to those that exist when He might so desire. Noetus maintained that the Father then appeared when He wished; and He is invisible when He is not seen, but visible when He is seen.

And this heretic also alleges that the Father is unbegotten when He is not generated, but begotten when He is born of a virgin; as also that He is not subject to suffering, and is immortal when He does not suffer or die. When, however, His passion came upon Him, Noetus allows that the Father suffers and dies. And the Noetians suppose that this Father Himself is called Son, (and vice versa,) in reference to the events which at their own proper periods happen to them severally.

Callistus corroborated the heresy of these Noetians, but we have already carefully explained the details of his life. And Callistus himself produced likewise a heresy, and derived its starting-points from these Noetians,--namely, so far as he acknowledges that there is one Father and God, viz., the Creator of the universe, and that this (God) is spoken of, and called by the name of Son, yet that in substance He is one Spirit.

For Spirit, as the Deity, is, he says, not any being different from the Logos, or the Logos from the Deity; therefore this one person, (according to Callistus,) is divided nominally, but substantially not so.

He supposes this one Logos to be God, and affirms that there was in the ease of the Word an incarnation. And he is disposed (to maintain), that He who was seen in the flesh and was crucified is Son, but that the Father it is who dwells in Him. Callistus thus at one time branches off into the opinion of Noetus, but at another into that of Theodotus, and holds no sure doctrine. These, then, are the opinions of Callistus.

[{I bring this up not because Hippolytus refutes the trinity but because he defines it much as it has come down to us today and calls it a heresy. The heresy becomes established as such with names and places as well.}]

So we have managed to trace back history and find that the trinity was not always the belief of Christians. It takes about 200 years to finally appear in name and some of its definition. And even at that point, Origen, and a writer to Dionysius, did not go as far in his definition as the later trinitarians would go.

But even more important is why Origen and others got off the track. First, they failed to remain within the bounds of the scriptures, the word of God. If something is not stated in the word of God, there is no point and no right in asserting it as fact. Our logic and reasoning alone is not enough to give something the proper weight and authority. Only God's word had the proper authority, having been delivered in the presence of powerful works from God.

Second, the Christians like Origen were in love with Greek philosophy and reasoning, often taking it as fact and using Greek definitions instead of God's definitions as revealed in His holy word, the Bible. Some of what the Greeks offered was treated more like science and assumed indisputable. The wisdom of men preferred over the wisdom of God. Most sad of all was that God's servants like Paul warned about the dangers of accepting philosophy in place of God's word and that philosophy could be empty and vain. We can see how true those words became.

In addition, it is clear that various heretics and their clever manipulations and twisting deceptions of the application of God's word had begun to warp everyone's understanding and people had begun to get caught up in those legal definitions brought on by Greeks and heretics and started arguing over those rather than Bible definitions.

Lastly, it was foretold that soon after the Apostles died, there would be a great falling away, what I all a great apostasy, where the devil would sow weeds and poison in among Jesus' good seed and true doctrines as maintained by the Apostles while they were alive. The trinity was clearly one of those twisted poisons, weeds if you will, that messed up Jesus good garden.

But the solution to it all is to go back and carefully examine our beliefs to see it they are truly supported by God's word or whether they have another origin. But many have chosen to stick with what was handed down to them from their parents and not take careful stock of what they believe, seeing if it truly had the backing of the Bible without twisting and distorting words to ridiculous lengths.

But it is a part of maturity and growing up to stand on our own two feet and think for ourselves and not depend on our parents or teachers in the faith for what we believe. It is we who will be judged by God for what we believe and practice. If we turn our mind and thinking abilities over to another, or never bother to take over our minds for ourselves, then we will die all the same if we are in some way wrong in important matters.

And to reject good plain reasoning and not let the Bible speak for itself is not a good practice to recommend to anyone. So take control of your own mind and your own salvation and see for yourself what the truth of matters are.

The prediction of the prophets, according to angels who revealed it to them, was that the prophets who gave the prophecies did not understand them and were not entitled to understand them. But it was foretold that people near the end would understand them and become wise and prepared, though many would also not do that, even though they should have. So now is the time to awaken from our doctrinal slumbers and clean up our doctrinal understanding.

It is true that the trinity itself is not so much the problem. How we understand God is not apt to be a significant obstacle to salvation. But ignoring the plain words of the Bible is important. And if we are grossly distorting the understanding of God and His relationship with His Son and what His Holy Spirit portends to be, what else might we be seriously screwing up that might be a good deal more important than the trinity, such as whether we should bear arms, fight wars, deny Christ if threatened, obey important commands, such as baptism, and other such details of potentially great impact on our salvation.

So having good clean proper mental hygiene, sound logic and reasoning, a proper attitude and motivation, what we might call a pure clean holy spirit or heart, is essential in order for us to accurately discern God's word, the Bible. In order for His spirit to operate on us and reveal things to us, our spirit must also be as His, pure, holy, clean. When we are in harmony with Him, only in the relative sense, of course, since we can not be absolutely perfect and clean, then we receive His spirit of understanding.

So a belief in the trinity is not so important as it is just to make sure that our thought processes are holy, pure, clean, and healthy, as is to be expected of children of God, bought as sons, and possessed of God's spirit. And it is my firm conviction that the trinity is an indication that our spirit, our mental hygiene, is not so good and needs some improving so that we are better able to comprehend the things of God. Best wishes to those who make that effort to be as holy as possible before the great day of God the almighty at Armageddon.

The Trinity Page

Back to Top