Monday, September 17, 2012

A CHANGE IN DOCTRINE THROUGH CHANGE OF DOXOLOGY

GREEK TEXT: “...Ὅτι [3.13] φησὶ τὸν Ἀντιοχείας Φλαβιανόν, πλῆθος μοναχῶν συναγείραντα, πρῶτον ἀναβοῆσαι· «δόξα πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ καὶ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι». τῶν γὰρ πρὸ αὐτοῦ τοὺς μὲν «δόξα πατρὶ δι' υἱοῦ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι» λέγειν, καὶ ταύτην μᾶλλον τὴν ἐκφώνησιν ἐπιπολάζειν· τοὺς δὲ «δόξα πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι.»...” - (3.13, 14; Historia ecclesiastica (fragmenta ap. Photium) ΕΚ ΤΩΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΩΝ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΩΝ ΦΙΛΟΣΤΟΡΓΙΟΥ ΕΠΙΤΟΜΗ ΑΠΟ
ΦΩΝΗΣ ΦΩΤΙΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΙΑΡΧΟΥ.)

PHILOSTORGIUS (circa. 368-439 C.E.): “...He says that Flavian of Antioch --- ( WAS [Gk., ( πρῶτον )] THE FIRST ) --- who collected together a large band of monks, and uttered aloud the doxology: “Glory be ( to ) the Father, and ( to ) the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.”{58} For among those who had gone before him, some had been accustomed to say: “Glory be ( to ) the Father ( through ) the Son ( in ) the Holy Ghost,” and that this latter form of doxology was [Gk., ( ἐπιπολάζειν )] the one more customarily received. He says that others again used a different form, saying: “Glory be ( to ) the Father, ( in ) the Son, and ( in ) the Holy Ghost...” - (Book 3, Chapter 13, EPITOME OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF PHILOSTORGIUS, COMPILED BY PHOTIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE. TRANSLATED BY EDWARD WALFORD, M. A. LATE SCHOLAR OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD. London: Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden. MDCCCLV.)
[FOOTNOTE 58]:
p. 454 n. 2 Compare Theodoret, Eccl. Hist. b. ii. ch. 24.

PHILOSTORGIUS (circa. 368-439 C.E.): “... He says that Flavian of Antioch, having gathered together a crowd of monks, --- ( WAS [Gk., ( πρῶτον )] THE FIRST ) --- TO CRY: “Glory be ( to ) the Father and ( to ) the Son and ( to ) the Holy Spirit!” For some of those before him had said: “Glory be ( to ) the Father ( through ) the Son ( in ) the Holy Spirit,” this [Gk., ( ἐπιπολάζειν )] being the more popular acclamation, while others had said: “Glory be ( to ) the Father and ( to ) the Son ( in ) the Holy Spirit{50}...” - (Book 3, Chapter 13, WRITINGS OF THE GRECO-ROMAN WORLD, “Philostorgius: Church History,” Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Philip R. Amidon, S.J. 2007.)
[FOOTNOTE 50]: On different forms of the doxology heard in Antioch at the time, see Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 2.24.3; Sozomen 3.20.8. Bishop Leontius used to suffer from convenient fits of coughing during the doxology, and the lay ascetics Flavian and Diodore, Nicene partisans who opposed the patronage of Aetius, taught the people the enormously popular antiphonal singing of Psalma, to which, one may guess, the doxology was attatched (see Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. 2.24.7-11).

ἐπιπολάζειν =
ἐπιπολάζειν verb pres inf act attic epic contr
to be uppermost, to be prevalant, prevailing, promenent, common, conspicuous, popular, most-fashionable + ( upper or most ) etc. as opposed to deep down, or buried, out of sight;

ἐπιπολάζω 1 ἐπιπολή
I. to come to the surface, float, Xen.
2. to be uppermost, to be prevalent, id=Xen.
3. to be forward; c. dat. pers. to behave insolently to, Luc.
II. to be engaged upon a thing, c. dat., id=Luc.
1 fut. σω
Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889.

"...[ἐπιπολῆς] is the genitive of a substantive ἐπιπολή ‘a surface’, only used by later and non-Attic writers; ‘veteribus illis...ἐπιπολῆς adverbii vicem fuit, Herod. I 187, Arist. Plut. 1207, Eccles. 1108, Thucyd. VI 96, et compluries Xenophon. Neque eius substantivi alius tum casus in usu fuit’. Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 126—7. It is an adverb of place or position, after the analogy of Ἀθηνῶν ‘at Athens’, λαιας χειρός (Aesch. P. V. 720) ‘on the left hand’, &c.; see Matth. Gr. Gr. § 377: (this seems to be omitted in Jelf's Grammar, though there are articles on the ‘genitive of position’; §§ 524—528, which however is illustrated only by the genitive of relative position, not that which expresses place itself. The genitive, it is to be presumed, is in both cases partitive, denoting a point in space;) it is also after the analogy of the local adverbs, οὗ, ὅπου, ὁμοῦ, οὐδαμοῦ, ποῦ and πού, ἀγχου, τηλοῦ, πανταχοῦ. ἐπιπολή itself not being in use, the substantive ‘surface, superficies’ is formed by the addition of the definite article, as Plat. Phileb. 46 D, (ὁπόταν) τὸ...ἐπιπολῆς μόνον διαχέῃ. Ar. περὶ ἐνυπνίων 2. 8, τὸ ἐπιπολῆς τοῦ ἐνοπτροῦ, ‘the surface of the mirror’. Its derivatives ἐπιπολαῖος and ἐπιπολάζειν (to be on the surface), have three different senses all arising from the properties attributable to things on the surface; either (1) ‘popular’, ‘prevalent’, ‘fashionable’, ‘current’, like things that come to the top, come uppermost, and so ‘prevail’ over the rest, as δόξαι μάλιστα ἐπιπολάζουσαι, Arist. Eth. N. I 2, 1096 a 30, ἐπιπολάζοντος τοῦ γελοίου, ib. IV. 14, 1128 a 13, Hist. Anim. IV 1. 26, τὸ μάλιστα ἐπιπόλαζον ‘the most abundant kind’, VI 37. 2, de Gen. Anim. I 20. 11, οὐ μὴν ἐπιπολάζουσί γε αἱ καθάρσεις ὥσπερ ἀνθρώποις: or (2) (if indeed there be any difference between this and the preceding) ‘conspicuous’, ‘prominent’, compared with such as are deep down, or buried, out of sight; Rhet. bis, Hist. Anim. quoted above on ἐπιπολῆς: and (3) ‘superficial’, opposed to βαθύς; either literally, de Insomn. (περὶ ἐνυπνίων) 2. 12, οὐχ ὁμοίως εἰσδύεται ἡ κηλὶς ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιπολαιότερον, or metaph., as Rhet. III 11. 10, ἀληθὲς καὶ μὴ ἐπιπόλαιον. II 23. 30, above referred to. III 10. 4, τὰ ἐπιπόλαια τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων, followed by the explanation, ἐπιπόλαια γὰρ λέγομεν τὰ παντὶ δῆλα, καὶ α<*> μηδὲν δεῖ ζητῆσαι, is doubtful; for an enthymeme may be too easy to follow and therefore unacceptable, either because it is intellectually ‘superficial’ (this I think is the more probable meaning, because more applicable to an intellectual process) or because it is ‘prominent and conspicuous’, saute aux yeux, and therefore is δῆλον πᾶσιν, Top. A 1, 100 b 27. Similarly in Pol. III 3, 1276 a 19, ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐπιπολαιοτάτη τῆς ἀπορίας ζήτησις (the most obvious and apparent, the clearest and plainest) περὶ τὸν τόπον καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐστίν, and again, ib. c. 12, 1282 b 30, ἢ τοῦτο ἐπιπόλαιον τὸ ψεῦδος; (evident on the surface). In these two last instances the literal sense of the word is uppermost.
Commentary on the Rhetoric of Aristotle. Edward Meredith Cope. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 1877.

FEEL FREE TO COMMENT

Members comments and thoughts are always welcome.

Genuine questions are always welcome.

Verbal abuse of Jehovah's Witnesses is not welcome.

DISCLAIMER: THIS WEBSITE IS --- ( NOT ) --- AN OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY This is a personal website that is not officially supported nor endorsed by the WBTS. The Watchtower Society cannot be held responsible or liable for the content found on this blog/website. Links are offered here for additional reading, however the manager of this site does not necessarily support every comment on all of these sites. You are invited to conduct your own research. To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information on beliefs, practices and news releases you should look to the source at http://www.watchtower.org/

CONSTANTINE MURDERS CRISPUS & FAUSTA

GREEK TEXT: “...Ὅτι φησὶ τὸν Κωνσταντῖνον ἀνελεῖν τὸν ἴδιον παῖδα Πρίσκον, διαβολαῖς τῆς μητρυιᾶς συναρπασθέντα· κἀκείνην δὲ πάλιν φωραθεῖσάν τινι τῶν Κουρσώρων μοιχωμένην, τῇ τοῦ λουτροῦ ἀλέᾳ ἐναποπνιγῆναι προστάξαι. καὶ τῷ παιδίῳ τοῦ ξίφους διδοῦντα Κωνσταντῖνον τὴν δίκην μετ' οὐ πολὺν χρόνον ὑπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν φαρμάκοις κατὰ τὴν Νικομήδειαν διατρίβοντα ἀναιρεθῆναι...” - (Book 2, Chapter 4, Historia Ecclesiastica (Fragmenta ap. Photium) ΕΚ ΤΩΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΩΝ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΩΝ ΦΙΛΟΣΤΟΡΓΙΟΥ ΕΠΙΤΟΜΗ ΑΠΟ
ΦΩΝΗΣ ΦΩΤΙΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΙΑΡΧΟΥ.)

PHILOSTORGIUS (circa. 368-439 C.E.): “...asserts that Constantine was induced by the fraudulent artifices of his step-mother to put his son Crispus to death;{18} and afterwards, upon detecting her in the act of adultery with one of his Cursores, ordered the former to be suffocated in a hot bath. He adds, that long afterwards Constantine was poisoned by his brothers during his stay at Nicomedia, by way of atonement for the violent death of Crispus...” - (Book 2, Chapter 4, EPITOME OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF PHILOSTORGIUS, COMPILED BY PHOTIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE. TRANSLATED BY EDWARD WALFORD, M. A. LATE SCHOLAR OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD. London: Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden. 1855.)
[FOOTNOTE 18]: p. 435 n. 1 Compare the account given in Aurelius Victor, chap. 41, Ammianus Marcellinus, book xiv. 6, and others, who state that Crispus and Fausta were put to death by Constantine. It is to be observed, however, that Eusebius, in his Life of Constantine, and Socrates, in his History, make no mention of the fact, which is entirely discredited by Sozomen (Eccl. Hist. b. i. ch. 5) and Evagrius (Eccl. Hist. b iii. ch. 40, 41). Vales.

PHILOSTORGIUS (circa. 368-439 C.E.): “...Constantine, he says, did away with his own son Priscus after being taken in by his stepmother's slander. She in turn was caught in adultery with a cursor [“courier”], and he ordered her suffocated in the heat of the bath. Constantine not long afterwards paid the penalty for executing the boy when he was poisoned to death by his brothers while staying in Nicodemia{9}...” - (Page 17, Book 2, Chapter 4, WRITINGS OF THE GRECO-ROMAN WORLD, “Philostorgius: Church History,” Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Philip R. Amidon, S.J. 2007.)
[FOOTNOTE 9]: Aurelius Victor 41.11; Eutropius 10.6.3; Epit. Caes. 41.11-12; Zosimus 2.29.2

FEEL FREE TO COMMENT

Members comments and thoughts are always welcome.

Genuine questions are always welcome.

Verbal abuse of Jehovah's Witnesses is not welcome.

DISCLAIMER: THIS WEBSITE IS --- ( NOT ) --- AN OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY This is a personal website that is not officially supported nor endorsed by the WBTS. The Watchtower Society cannot be held responsible or liable for the content found on this blog/website. Links are offered here for additional reading, however the manager of this site does not necessarily support every comment on all of these sites. You are invited to conduct your own research. To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information on beliefs, practices and news releases you should look to the source at http://www.watchtower.org/

Friday, September 14, 2012

JUSTIN MARTYR'S ANGEL WORSHIP - DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO CHAPTER 93

Note this Tri{3}nitarian claim below concerning Justin Martyr:

PETER R. CARRELL: “...Bakker, however, has observed that while giving Christ the title 'Angel' did not necessarily imply his identification with one of the angels, nevertheless 'as the title “Angel” conveyed the whole cyclus of conceptions implied in it, the danger of Jesus being identified with ( an angel generally ), or even with ( a special angel ) was not imaginary'.{8} In another passage Justin appears to court this very danger with an apparent implication that he worshiped angels: “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 the prophetic spirit, we worship and adore” (Apol I.6). BUT SINCE ELSEWHERE JUSTIN GIVES NO HINT OF SUCH A PRACTICE (e.g. Apol. I.13,16,61), IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT ( THERE MAY BE SOME CARELESSNESS ) IN JUSTIN'S EXPRESSION, which could be remedied by supposing that he meant to say either: “the Son … taught us ( about ) these things and ( about ) the host of the other good angels,” or “the Son … taught us ( and ) the host of other good angels … ( about these things),”. Yet we cannot be sure that Justin was careless ; he may have ( meant what he said ), however anomalous and inconsistent it appears to be...” - (Page 99, “Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John,” By Peter R. Carrell 1997.)

This claim is made by others as well, that Justin, apart from the well known passage in his 1st Apology chapter 6, that he did not give any hint of adoration or worship of angels.

BUT I DISAGREE! 

Why?

Because of the following passage from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho:

LATIN TEXT: “...nullum alium deum colet, sed tamen Angelum etiam illum, Deo jubente, colet, quem ipse Dominus et Deus diligit...” - (Page 696, Vol. 6, MPG.)

GREEK TEXT:...ὅθεν μοι δοκεῖ καλῶς εἰρῆσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡμετέρου κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐν δυσὶν ἐντολαῖς πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην καὶ εὐσέβειαν πληροῦσθαι· εἰσὶ δὲ αὗται· Ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου, καὶ τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν. ὁ γὰρ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος ἀγαπῶν τὸν θεόν, πλήρης θεοσεβοῦς γνώμης ὑπάρχων, οὐδένα ἄλλον τιμήσει θεόν· καὶ ἄγγελον ἐκεῖνον ἂν τιμήσῃ θεοῦ βουλομένου, τὸν ἀγαπώμενον ὑπ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ θεοῦ...” - (Chapter 93: ; Dialouge ed. E. J. Goodspeed, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1915)

JUSTIN MARTYR (circa. 110 to 165 C.E.):...For whoever loves God with all his heart, and with all his strength, and is full of pious thoughts towards him will not worship any other God ; BUT YET ACCORDING TO THE COMMAND OF GOD WILL ALSO - ( WORSHIP ) - HIS ANGEL (OR MESSENGER), WHICH IS THE WELL BELOVED OF THE LORD GOD...” - (Page 84; Chapter 93, “JUSTIN MARTYR'S: DIALOGUE with Trypho the Jew,” Translated from the Greek into English, with notes, by Henry Brown, Oxford, 1745.)

JUSTIN MARTYR (circa. 110 to 165 C.E.): “...For, he who loves God with all his heart and all his strength has a mind that is devoted to God, and HE – ( WILL WORSHIP ) – NO BUT HE WILL, SINCE GOD DESIRES IT, – ( REVERE ) – THE ANGEL WHO IS LOVED BY THE SAME LORD AND GOD...” - (Chapter 93, “Dialogue With Trypho A Jew,” Translated by Kevin Edgecome, Berkely, CA., 2002.)
JUSTIN MARTYR (circa. 110 to 165 C.E.): “...For the man who loves God with all the heart, and with all the strength, being filled with a God-fearing mind, WILL REVERENCE NO OTHER GOD; AND SINCE GOD WISHES IT, HE WOULD REVERENCE THAT ANGEL WHO IS BELOVED BY THE SAME LORD AND GOD...” - (Chapter 93, “Dialogue With Trypho A Jew,” Translated by Marcus Dods and George Reith. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)

JUSTIN MARTYR (circa. 110 to 165 C.E.): “...For he that loves God with all his heart and with all his strength is full of devout sentiments, AND WILL NOT HONOUR ANY OTHER GOD, BUT WILL HONOUR THAT ANGEL OF GOD ACCORDING TO HIS WILL WHO IS [Gk., ( τὸν ἀγαπώμενον )] BELOVED BY THE LORD AND GOD...” - (Chapter 93, “Dialogue With Trypho A Jew,” in “THE WORKS NOW EXTANT OF JUSTIN MARTYR,” A Library Of Fathers Of The Holy Catholic Church, Anterior To The Division Of East And West: Translated by Members of the English Church 1861.)

It is interesting to note that only one out the four translations, take note of the definite article in the phrase Gk., ( τὸν ἀγαπώμενον ).

Which is more correctly: “...( THE ) BELOVED...” or “...( THE ) BELOVED ONE...” 

So, the question remains who is this ...ANGEL...” who is Gk., ( τὸν ἀγαπώμενον ) ...( THE ) BELOVED ONE...” of God that Justin refers to? 

Perhaps this may give you a hint: 

ALEXANDER SOUTER (circa. 1873-1949 C.E.): “...Gk., ( ἀγαπητός ), Loved, beloved, with two special applications, (a) Gk., ( ὁ ἀγαπητός ), The Beloved, a title of the Messiah (Christ), as beloved beyond all others by the God who sent him ; (b) of Christians, as beloved by God, Christ, and one another...” - (Page 3, “A POCKET LEXICON TO THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT” By Alexander Souter, 1916.) 

Something for Tri{3}nitarians to think seriously about when it comes to reading Justin Martyr! 

FEEL FREE TO COMMENT 

Members comments and thoughts are always welcome.

Genuine questions are always welcome.

Verbal abuse of Jehovah's Witnesses is not welcome.


DISCLAIMER: THIS WEBSITE IS --- ( NOT ) --- AN OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY This is a personal website that is not officially supported nor endorsed by the WBTS. The Watchtower Society cannot be held responsible or liable for the content found on this blog/website. Links are offered here for additional reading, however the manager of this site does not necessarily support every comment on all of these sites. You are invited to conduct your own research. To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information on beliefs, practices and news releases you should look to the source at http://www.watchtower.org/

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

DID TERTULLIANS THEOLOGY CHANGE WHEN HE BECAME A MONTANTIST?

Before Tertullian broke with mainstream Christianity and joined the Cult of Montanus he wrote an Apology in behalf of Christians. 

Did he preach a:

( TWO ) --- IN --- ONE GOD CONCEPT?

Or a:

( THREE ) --- IN --- ONE GOD CONCEPT?

Before he converted to Montantism?

LATIN TEXT: “...ita [13] et quod de deo profectum est, deus et dei filius et unus ambo...” - (Chapter 21:7-15; “Tertulliani Liber Apologeticus,” Text edited by F. Oehler, as revised by T. R. Glover, 1851-53.)

LATIN TEXT: “...Ita [13] et quod de deo profectum est, deus et dei filius et unus ambo...” - (Chapter XXI.1-31, Tertulliani Apologeticum. Text edited by Carl Becker 1961.)

TERTULLIAN PRE-MONTANTIST (before circa. 185 C.E. ): “...so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, AND THE TWO ARE ONE...” - (Chapter XXI. THE APOLOGY. Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall, Late Scholar of Christ's College, Cantab.)
http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-05.htm#P344_139064

TERTULLIAN PRE-MONTANTIST PERIOD (before circa. 185 C.E.): “...Thus it is that the Logos which came forth from God is both God and the Son of God, AND THOSE TWO ARE ONE...” - (Pages 61-69, CHAPTER XXI. CONCERNING THE BIRTH AND CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS CHRIST. The Apology of Tertullian, tr. and annotated by W. Reeve; and the Meditations of the emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, tr. by J. Collier. pp. xvi. 270. [1889.] Series: Ancient and modern library of theological literature 31.)

JAROSLAV JAN PELIKAN (circa. 1923–2006 C.E.): “...In any case, the crucial place for an examination of the significance of Montanism for the history of the doctrine of the trinity is Tertullian. Is it correct to say that “WHAT INDIVIDUAL ADHERENTS OF THE NEW PROPHECY DID FOR THE THEOLOGICAL ARTICULATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY DID ( NOT ) COME FROM THEIR MONTANISM?” - OR – IS IT ( MORE – ACCURATE ) TO SUGGEST THAT MONTANISM ( TAUGHT ) TERTULLIAN TO THINK OF THE PARACLETE IN ( MORE – PERSONAL ) TERMS THAN HE HAD IN HIS EARLY WORKS, SO THAT HE CAME TO A ( MORE - METAPHYSICAL ) DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY? With certain reservations, the second alternative seems preferable, partly for sheer chronological reasons. THE EARLY WRITINGS OF TERTULLIAN TENDED TO STRESS THE FATHER AND THE SON ( AT – THE - EXPENSE – OF ) THE HOLY SPIRIT; those which definitely dated from the Montanist period, on the other hand, did contain a ( more - metaphysical ) doctrine of the “Trinity”-- a word which Tertullian seems to have been the first theologian to employ in Latin. THE EMPHASIS ( IN MONTANISM ) ON THE SPIRIT ( IS – THE – EXPLANATION ) OF THIS ( SHIFT ) THAT SUGGESTS ITSELF MOST INSISTENTLY...” - (Page 105, “The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition: (100 – 600),” By Jaroslav Jan Pelikan Published August 15th 1975 by University of Chicago Press.)
[PERSONAL NOTE]: He goes on in the following paragraphs to play down, (at least in my opinion), and without any real substantial, or even convincing arguments, the demonic role in the new prophecy of Montanus.

FEEL FREE TO COMMENT

Members comments and thoughts are always welcome.

Genuine questions are always welcome.

Verbal abuse of Jehovah's Witnesses is not welcome.

DISCLAIMER: THIS WEBSITE IS --- ( NOT ) --- AN OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY This is a personal website that is not officially supported nor endorsed by the WBTS. The Watchtower Society cannot be held responsible or liable for the content found on this blog/website. Links are offered here for additional reading, however the manager of this site does not necessarily support every comment on all of these sites. You are invited to conduct your own research. To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information on beliefs, practices and news releases you should look to the source at http://www.watchtower.org/

GK., ( DIA ) --- VS --- GK., ( HUPO )!

JOHN 1:3: “...All things [Gk., ( διὰ )] through His intermediate agency came into being, and without Him there came into being not even one thing which has come into existence...” - (Wuests New Testament: An Expanded Translation By Kenneth S. Wuest, Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Co. 1961.)

JOHN 1:10: “...In the universe He was, and the universe [Gk., ( διὰ )] through His intermediate agency came into existence, and the world of sinners did not have an experiential knowledge of Him...” - (Wuests New Testament: An Expanded Translation By Kenneth S. Wuest, Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Co. 1961.)

1ST CORRINTIANS 8:6: “...Yet to us there is one God, the Father, [Gk., ( ἐξ οὗ )] out from whom as a source are all things and we for Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, [Gk., ( δι’ οὗ )] through whose intermediate agency all things exist and we through Him...” - (Wuests New Testament: An Expanded Translation By Kenneth S. Wuest, Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Co. 1961.)

COLOSSIANS 1:16: “...All things [Gk., ( διὰ )] through Him as intermediate agent and with a view to Him stand created...” - (Wuests New Testament: An Expanded Translation By Kenneth S. Wuest, Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Co. 1961.)

HEBREWS 1:2: “...Whom He appointed heir of all things, [Gk., ( διὰ )] through whom also He constituted the ages...” - (Wuests New Testament: An Expanded Translation By Kenneth S. Wuest, Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Co. 1961.)

ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA (circa 185-253 C.E.): “...Thus also here, if all things were made [Gk., ( διὰ )] ( THROUGH ) the Word, they were not made [Gk., ( ύπὸ )] ( BY ) the Word, but [Gk., ( ύπὸ )] ( BY ) one more powerful and greater than the Word...” - ([Book , Chapter , “COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN,”] Origenis Opera, Ed. De La Rue, Vol. IV. p. 6, Quoted on Page 85, Chapter 7, “Gk., ( διὰ ) AND Gk., ( ύπὸ ),” A VINDICATION OF UNITRARIANISM, In Reply To The Rev. Ralph Wardlaw, D. D. By James Yates, Fourth Edition, London: Edward T. Whitfield, 2 Essex Street, Strand, 1850.)

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (circa. 260-340 C.E. ): “...And when he says, in one place,[John 1:10] that the world, and in another,[John 1:3] that all things, were made [Gk., ( διὰ )]( THROUGH HIM ), he declares the ministration of the Word ( to ) God. For, when the Evangelist might have said, “All things were made [Gk., ( ύπὸ )] ( BY HIM ),” and again, “The world was made [Gk., ( ύπὸ )] ( BY HIM ),” he has not said, [Gk., ( ύπὸ )] “( BY HIM ),” but, [Gk., ( διὰ )] “( THROUGH HIM ),” in order that he might raise our conceptions to the underived power of the Father as the original ( cause ) of all things...” - (Book 1, Chapter 20, DE ECCLES. THEOL. Quoted on Page 85, Chapter 7, “Gk., ( διὰ ) AND Gk., ( ύπὸ ),” A VINDICATION OF UNITRARIANISM, In Reply To The Rev. Ralph Wardlaw, D. D. By James Yates, Fourth Edition, London: Edward T. Whitfield, 2 Essex Street, Strand, 1850.)

CORNELIUS LAPIDE (circa. 1567-1637 C.E.): “...You will ask, - ( WHY THEN ) - does S. John use the preposition Gk., ( διὰ ) Ltn., ( per ), or “...through...” instead of Gk., ( ύπὸ ) “...by...” when he says that all things were made Gk., ( διὰ ) through Him?...” - (Notes on John 1:3, “SCRIPTURE COMMENTARY,” 1616.)


FEEL FREE TO COMMENT

Members comments and thoughts are always welcome.

Genuine questions are always welcome.

Verbal abuse of Jehovah's Witnesses is not welcome.

DISCLAIMER: THIS WEBSITE IS --- ( NOT ) --- AN OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY This is a personal website that is not officially supported nor endorsed by the WBTS. The Watchtower Society cannot be held responsible or liable for the content found on this blog/website. Links are offered here for additional reading, however the manager of this site does not necessarily support every comment on all of these sites. You are invited to conduct your own research. To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information on beliefs, practices and news releases you should look to the source at http://www.watchtower.org/

Monday, September 10, 2012

CONSTANTINE & PLATO & THE INFLUENCE ON THE NICENE CREED

What on earth was Constantine thinking -- when he proposed the idea of the Son being: Ltn., ( consubstantialem ) or Gk., ( ὁμοούσιον ) from Gk., ( ὁμός ) homós “...same...” and Gk., ( οὐσία ) ousía “...being...” as the Father?

I'll tell you what he was thinking!

PLATO!

GREEK TEXT: “...∆ιὸ χρὴ τοῖς δυνατοῖς ἐγχειρεῖν καὶ τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν φύσιν. τὸ γάρ τοι πιθανὸν τῶν ἐν τοῖς διαλόγοις γινομένων ζητήσεων ἀπάγει τὸ πλεῖστον ἡμῶν ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν ὄντων ἀληθείας, ὃ δὴ καὶ πολλοῖς τῶν φιλοσόφων συμβέβηκεν ἀδολεσχοῦσι περὶ τοὺς λόγους καὶ τὴν τῆς φύσεως τῶν ὄντων ἐξέτασιν. ὁσάκις γὰρ ἂν τὸ μέγεθος τῶν πραγμάτων τῆς ἐξετάσεως αὐτῶν ἐπικρατήσῃ, διαστρόφοις τισὶ μεθόδοις τὸ ἀληθὲς ἀποκρύπτονται· συμβαίνει δὴ αὐτοῖς ἐναντία δοξάζειν καὶ μάχεσθαι τοῖς ἀλλήλων δόγμασι, καὶ ταῦτα σοφοῖς εἶναι προσποιουμένοις. ὅθεν στάσεις τε δήμων καὶ δυναστευόντων χαλεπαὶ κρίσεις οἰομένων τὸ πατρῷον ἔθος διαφθείρεσθαι· καὶ αὐτῶν ἐκείνων ὄλεθρος πολλάκις ἐπηκολούθησε. Σωκράτης γὰρ ὑπὸ διαλεκτικῆς ἐπαρθεὶς καὶ τοὺς χείρονας λόγους βελτίους ποιῶν, καὶ παίζων παρ' ἕκαστα περὶ τοὺς ἀντιλογικοὺς λόγους, ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν ὁμοφύλων τε καὶ πολιτῶν βασκανίας ἀνῄρηται. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ Πυθαγόρας σωφροσύνην ἀσκεῖν προσποιούμενος ἐξαιρέτως καὶ σιωπὴν καταψευσάμενος ἑάλω· τὰ γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν προφητῶν πάλαι ποτὲ προλεχθέντα, ἐπιδημήσας τῇ Αἰγύπτῳ, ὡς ἴδιά γε αὐτῷ ὑπὸ θεοῦ ἀναπετασθέντα τοῖς Ἰταλιώταις προηγόρευεν. [9.3] αὐτός τε ὁ ὑπὲρ πάντας τοὺς ἄλλους ἠπιώτατος Πλάτων, καὶ τὰς διανοίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρῶτος ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθήσεων ἐπὶ τὰ νοητὰ καὶ ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχοντα ἐθίσας ἀνακύψαι ἀναβλέψαι τ' ἐπὶ τὰ μετάρσια διδάξας, πρῶτον μὲν θεὸν ὑφηγήσατο τὸν ὑπὲρ τὴν οὐσίαν, καλῶς ποιῶν, ὑπέταξε δὲ τούτῳ καὶ δεύτερον, καὶ δύο οὐσίας τῷ ἀριθμῷ διεῖλε, μιᾶς οὔσης τῆς ἀμφοτέρων τελειότητος, τῆς τε οὐσίας τοῦ δευτέρου θεοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἐχούσης ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου· αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ δημιουργὸς καὶ διοικητὴς τῶν ὅλων δηλονότι ὑπεραναβεβηκώς, ὁ δὲ μετ' ἐκεῖνον ταῖς ἐκείνου προστάξεσιν ὑπουργήσας τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς τῶν πάντων συστάσεως εἰς ἐκεῖνον ἀναπέμπει. [9.4] εἷς ἂν οὖν εἴη κατὰ τὸν ἀκριβῆ λόγον ὁ τὴν πάντων ἐπιμέλειαν ποιούμενος προνοούμενός τε αὐτῶν θεὸς λόγῳ κατακοσμήσας τὰ πάντα· ὁ δὲ λόγος αὐτὸς θεὸς ὢν αὐτὸς τυγχάνει καὶ θεοῦ παῖς· ποῖον γὰρ ἄν τις ἄλλο ὄνομα αὐτῷ περιτιθεὶς παρὰ τὴν προσηγορίαν τοῦ παιδὸς οὐκ ἂν τὰ μέγιστα ἐξαμαρτάνοι; ὁ γάρ τοι τῶν πάντων πατὴρ καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου λόγου δικαίως ἂν πατὴρ νομίζοιτο. [9.5] μέχρι μὲν οὖν τούτου Πλάτων σώφρων ἦν· ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἑξῆς εὑρίσκεται διαμαρτάνων τῆς ἀληθείας, πλῆθός τε θεῶν εἰσάγων καὶ ἑκάστοις ἐπιτιθεὶς μορφάς, ὅπερ καὶ παραίτιον ἐγένετο τῆς μείζο νος πλάνης παρὰ τοῖς ἀλογίστοις τῶν ἀνθρώπων, πρὸς μὲν τὴν πρόνοιαν τοῦ ὑψίστου θεοῦ μὴ ἀφορώντων, τὰς δ' εἰκόνας αὐτῶν ἀνθρωπείοις τε καὶ ἑτέρων ζώων τύποις μεταμορφουμένας σεβόντων. συμβέβηκε δὲ μεγίστην τινὰ μεγάλου τ' ἐπαίνου ἀξίαν φύσιν τε καὶ παιδείαν τοιοῖσδέ τισι μεμιγμένην πταίσμασιν ἀκαθάρτως τε καὶ μὴ εἰλικρινῶς ἔχειν. [9.6] δοκεῖ δέ μοι ὁ αὐτὸς ἐπιλαμβανόμενος ἑαυτοῦ διορθοῦν τὸ ἁμάρτημα, ἐν οἷς φανερῶς διαβεβαιοῦται τὸν θεὸν ἡμῖν ἐμπνεῦσαι τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λόγον, τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ σαφῶς δηλῶν λογικὴν ψυχὴν ὑπάρχειν, διϊστῶν δὲ τὰ πάντα εἰς δύο εἴδη, νοητόν τε καὶ αἰσθητόν, τὸ μὲν.... τὸ δὲ συγκείμενον ἐκ σώματος ἁρμογῆς καὶ τὸ μὲν νῷ καταληπτόν, τὸ δὲ δόξῃ μετ' αἰσθήσεως δοξαστόν· ὥστε τὸ μὲν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος μετέχον, ἅτε δὴ ἀσύνθετον καὶ ἄλυτον, αἰώνιόν τε εἶναι καὶ τὴν ἀίδιον ζωὴν λελογχέναι, τὸ δὲ αἰσθητόν, πάντη διαλυόμενον καθ' ὃν καὶ συνέστη λόγον, ἄμοιρον εἶναι τῆς ἀιδίου ζωῆς. [9.7] θαυμαστῶς δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἑξῆς διδάσκει, τοὺς μὲν εὖ βιώσαντας, ψυχὰς δηλαδὴ τῶν ὁσίων τε καὶ ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν μετὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος ἀναχώρησιν ἐν τοῖς καλλίστοις τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καθιεροῦσθαι. ἀλλὰ καὶ βιωφελῶς· τίς γὰρ οὐκ ἂν πεισθεὶς αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν εὐτυχίαν ταύτην προσδοκήσας, τὸν ἄριστον βίον, δικαιοσύνην καὶ σωφροσύνην, ἀσκήσει, τὴν δὲ κακίαν ἀποστραφήσεται; ἀκολούθως δὲ τούτοις ἐπήνεγκεν τὰς τῶν πονηρῶν ψυχὰς Ἀχέροντός τε καὶ Πυριφλεγέθοντος ῥεύμασι ναυαγίων τρόπον φερομένας πλανᾶσθαι...” - (Chapter 9, Pin.9 θʹ. “Περὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων, οἳ διὰ τὸ πάντα βούλεσθαι εἰδέναι καὶ περὶ τὰς δόξας ἐσφάλησαν, καὶ κινδύνοις ἔνιοι προσωμίλησαν, καὶ περὶ τῶν Πλάτωνος δογμάτων,” Constantini imperatoris oratio ad coetum sanctorum 1.t Βασιλέως Κωνσταντίνου λόγος ὃν ἔγραψε τῷ τῶν ἁγίων συλλόγῳ. MPG.)

CONSTANTINE 1ST (circa. 272-337 C.E.): “...We ought, therefore, to aim at objects which are within our power, and exceed not the capacities of our nature. For the persuasive influence of argument has a tendency to draw most of us away from the truth of things, which has happened to many philosophers, who have employed themselves in reasoning, and the study of natural science, and who, as often as the magnitude of the subject surpasses their powers of investigation, adopt various devices for obscuring the truth. Hence their diversities of judgment, and contentious opposition to each others' doctrines, and this notwithstanding their pretensions to wisdom. Hence, too, popular commotions have arisen, and severe sentences, passed by those in power, apprehensive of the overthrow of hereditary institutions, have proved destructive to many of the disputants themselves. Socrates, for example, elated by his skill in argumentation, indulging his power of making the worse appear the better reason, and playing continually with the subtleties of controversy, fell a victim to the slander of his own countrymen and fellow-citizens. Pythagoras, too, who laid special claim to the virtues of silence and self-control, was convicted of falsehood. For he declared to the Italians that the doctrines which he had received during his travels in Egypt, and which had long before been divulged by the priests of that nation, were a personal revelation to himself from God. LASTLY, PLATO HIMSELF, THE GENTLEST AND MOST REFINED OF ALL, WHO FIRST ESSAYED TO DRAW MEN'S THOUGHTS FROM SENSIBLE TO INTELLECTUAL AND ETERNAL OBJECTS, AND TAUGHT THEM TO ASPIRE TO SUBLIMER SPECULATIONS, IN THE FIRST PLACE DECLARED, [Gk., ( καλῶς ποιῶν )] WITH TRUTH, A GOD EXALTED ABOVE [GK., ( τὴν οὐσίαν )] EVERY ESSENCE, BUT TO HIM HE ADDED ALSO [Gk., ( δεύτερον )] A SECOND, DISTINGUISHING THEM [Gk., ( δύο οὐσίας )] NUMERICALLY AS TWO, THOUGH [Gk., ( μιᾶς οὔσης τῆς ἀμφοτέρων τελειότητος )] BOTH POSSESSING ONE PERFECTION, AND [Gk., ( τῆς τε οὐσίας τοῦ δευτέρου θεοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἐχούσης ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου )] tHE BEING OF THE SECOND DEITY PROCEEDING FROM THE FIRST. For he is the creator and controller of the universe, and evidently supreme: while the second, as the obedient agent of his commands, refers the origin of all creation to him as the cause.[Gk., ( εἷς ἂν οὖν εἴη κατὰ τὸν ἀκριβῆ λόγον )] IN ACCORDANCE, THEREFORE, WITH THE SOUNDEST REASON, WE MAY SAY that there is one Being whose care and providence are over all things, even [Gk., ( θεὸς λόγῳ )] God the Word, who has ordered all things; but [Gk., ( ὁ δὲ λόγος αὐτὸς θεὸς ὢν )] the Word being God himself [Gk., ( αὐτὸς τυγχάνει καὶ θεοῦ παῖς )] is also the Son of God. For by what name can we designate him except by this title [Gk., ( τοῦ παιδὸς )] of the Son, without falling into the most grievous error? For the Father of all things is properly considered the Father of his own Word. [Gk., ( μέχρι μὲν οὖν τούτου Πλάτων σώφρων ἦν· ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἑξῆς εὑρίσκεται διαμαρτάνων τῆς ἀληθείας )] THUS FAR, THEN, PLATO'S SENTIMENTS WERE SOUND; BUT IN WHAT FOLLOWS HE APPEARS TO HAVE WANDERED FROM THE TRUTH, in that he introduces a plurality of gods, to each of whom he assigns specific forms. And this has given occasion to still greater error among the unthinking portion of mankind, who pay no regard to the providence of the Supreme God, but worship images of their own devising, made in the likeness of men or other living beings. Hence it appears that the transcendent nature and admirable learning of this philosopher, tinged as they were with such errors as these, were by no means free from impurity and alloy. And yet he seems to me to retract, and correct his own words, when he-plainly declares that a rational soul is the breath of God, and divides all things into two classes, intellectual and sensible: [the one simple, the other] consisting of bodily structure; the one comprehended by the intellect alone, the other estimated by the judgment and the senses. The former class, therefore, which partakes of the divine spirit, and is uncompounded and immaterial, is eternal, and inherits everlasting life; but the latter, being entirely resolved into the elements of which it is composed, has no share in everlasting life. He farther teaches the admirable doctrine, that those who have passed a life of virtue, that is, the spirits of good and holy men, are enshrined, after their separation from the body, in the fairest mansions of heaven. A doctrine not merely to be admired, but profitable too. For who can believe in such a statement, and aspire to such a happy lot, without desiring to practice righteousness and temperance, and to turn aside from vice? Consistently with this doctrine he represents the spirits of the wicked as tossed like wreckage on the streams of Acheron and Pyriphlegethon...” - (CHAPTER IX, “Of the Philosophers, who fell into Mistaken Notions, and Same of them into Danger, by their Desire of Universal Knowledge. -- Also of the Doctrines of Plato.” Quoted in Eusebius of CaesareaThe Oration of the Emperor Constantine Which He Addressed "To the Assembly of the Saints.” Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two, Volume 1, Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace American Edition, 1890.)

The point to take note of in the section above is this paragraph:

GREEK TEXT: “...πρῶτον μὲν θεὸν ὑφηγήσατο τὸν ὑπὲρ τὴν οὐσίαν, καλῶς ποιῶν, ὑπέταξε δὲ τούτῳ καὶ δεύτερον, καὶ δύο οὐσίας τῷ ἀριθμῷ διεῖλε, μιᾶς οὔσης τῆς ἀμφοτέρων τελειότητος, τῆς τε οὐσίας τοῦ δευτέρου θεοῦ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἐχούσης ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου...” - (Chapter 9:3, Pin.9 θʹ. “Περὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων, οἳ διὰ τὸ πάντα βούλεσθαι εἰδέναι καὶ περὶ τὰς δόξας ἐσφάλησαν, καὶ κινδύνοις ἔνιοι προσωμίλησαν, καὶ περὶ τῶν Πλάτωνος δογμάτων,” Constantini imperatoris oratio ad coetum sanctorum 1.t Βασιλέως Κωνσταντίνου λόγος ὃν ἔγραψε τῷ τῶν ἁγίων συλλόγῳ. MPG.)

CONSTANTINE 1ST (circa. 272-337 C.E.): “...First he indicates a god that is above, ([this] He has done well), but he subordinates to this one a second, he also distinguishes [these] two beings numerically, [though] the both of them are ( one completely perfect essence ), and the second god takes part in the substance of -- and also – originates from out of the First...” - (CHAPTER IX, “The Oration of the Emperor Constantine Which He Addressed To the Assembly of the Saints.” translated by Matt13weedhacker 6/9/12.)

CONSTANTINE 1ST (circa. 272-337 C.E.): “...First he indicates a god that is above, ([this] He has done well), but He [Gk., ( ὑπέταξε )] subordinates to this one a second, he also distinguishes [these] [Gk., ( δύο οὐσίας )] two beings numerically, [though] the both of them [Gk., ( μιᾶς οὔσης τῆς ἀμφοτέρων τελειότητος )] are ( one completely perfect essence ), and the second god [Gk., ( ἐχούσης )] takes part in [Gk., ( τὴν ὕπαρξιν )] the substance of -- and also -- [Gk., ( ἐκ )] originates from out of the First...” - (CHAPTER IX, “The Oration of the Emperor Constantine Which He Addressed To the Assembly of the Saints.” translated by Matt13weedhacker 6/9/12.)

Now compare the Nicene Creed and the consubstantial formula of Gk., ( ὁμοούσιον ) from Gk., ( ὁμός ) homós “...same...” and Gk., ( οὐσία ) ousía, “...being...”:

GREEK TEXT: “...τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων· φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί...” - (Greek Liturgical Text.)

NICENE CREED (circa. 325 C.E.): “...He originating from out of the Father, generated before all of the ages. A Light originated from out of Light, a God originated from out of God, a Genuine God originating out of Genuine God, generated not made, ( of the same - being ) as the Father...” - (Section 2, from the original un-amended Nicene Creed 325 C.E., translated by Matt13weedhacker 4/9/12.)

NICENE CREED (circa. 325 C.E.): “...He [Gk., ( ἐκ )] originating from out of the Father, generated before all of the ages. A Light [Gk., ( ἐκ )] originated from out of Light, a God [Gk., ( ἐκ )] originated from out of God, a Genuine God [Gk., ( ἐκ )] originating out of Genuine God, generated not made, [Gk., ( ὁμοούσιον )] ( of the same - being ) as the Father...” - (Section 2, from the original un-amended Nicene Creed 325 C.E., translated by Matt13weedhacker 4/9/12.)

LATIN TEXT: “...Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula. Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero, Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri...” - (Latin Liturgical Text.)

NICENE CREED (circa. 325 C.E.): “...And naturally produced from out of the Father before all of the ages. A God out of God, a Light out of Light, a True God out of True God, generated, not made, ( of the same - substance ) as the Father...” - (Section 2, from the original un-amended Nicene Creed 325 C.E., translated by Matt13weedhacker 4/9/12.)

NICENE CREED (circa. 325 C.E.): “...And naturally produced [Ltn., ( ex )] from out of the Father before all of the ages. A God [Ltn., ( de )] out of God, a Light [Ltn., ( de )] out of Light, a True God [Ltn., ( de )] out of True God, generated, not made, [Ltn., ( consubstantiálem )] ( of the same - substance ) as the Father...” - (Section 2, from the original un-amended Nicene Creed 325 C.E., translated by Matt13weedhacker 4/9/12.)

Emperor Constantine, (as Eusebius testifies below), did indeed introduce and add the crucial formula Ltn., ( consubstantialem ) or Gk., ( ὁμοούσιον ) to the Creed himself:

GREEK TEXT: “...Ταύτης [7.] ὑφ' ἡμῶν ἐκτεθείσης τῆς πίστεως οὐδενὶ παρῆν ἀντιλογίας τόπος, ἀλλ' αὐτός τε πρῶτος ὁ θεοφιλέστατος ἡμῶν βασιλεὺς ὀρθότατα περιέχειν αὐτὴν ἐμαρτύρησεν. οὕτω τε καὶ ἑαυτὸν φρονεῖν συνωμολόγησε καὶ ταύτῃ τοὺς πάντας συγκαταθέσθαι ὑπογράφειν τε τοῖς δόγμασι καὶ συμφωνεῖν τούτοις αὐτοῖς παρεκελεύετο, ἑνὸς μόνου προσεγγραφέντος ῥήματος τοῦ ὁμοουσίου, ὃ καὶ αὐτὸς ἑρμήνευε λέγων· ὅτι μὴ κατὰ τῶν σωμάτων πάθη λέγοιτο ὁμοούσιος<ὁ υἱός>, οὔτ' οὖν κατὰ διαίρεσιν οὔτε κατά τινα ἀποτομὴν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑποστῆναι· μηδὲ γὰρ δύνασθαι τὴν ἄυλον καὶ νοερὰν καὶ ἀσώματον φύσιν σωματικόν τι πάθος ὑφίστασθαι, θείοις δὲ καὶ ἀπορρήτοις λόγοις προσήκειν τὰ τοιαῦτα νοεῖν. καὶ ὁ μὲν σοφώτατος ἡμῶν καὶ εὐσεβέστατος βασιλεὺς τοιάδε ἐφιλοσόφει. οἱ δὲ προφάσει τῆς τοῦ ὁμοουσίου προσθήκης τήνδε τὴν γραφὴν πεποιήκασιν· [8.] [Ἡ ἐν τῇ συνόδῳ ὑπαγορευθεῖσα πίστις.] Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν, πατέρα, παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν, καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς μονογενῆ τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρί...” - (Book 1, Chapter 11, Sections 7-8, [1.11.7-8 MPG] Quoted in Theodoret “Ecclesiastical History,” “Εὐσεβίου Καισαρέως τοῦ ἀρειανόφρονος ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τοὺς τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ,” MPG.)

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (circa. 260-340 C.E. ): “...When this formulary had been set forth by us, there was no room to gainsay it; BUT OUR BELOVED EMPEROR HIMSELF WAS THE FIRST TO TESTIFY THAT IT WAS MOST ORTHODOX, AND THAT HE COINCIDED IN OPINION WITH IT; AND HE EXHORTED THE OTHERS TO SIGN IT, AND TO RECEIVE ALL THE DOCTRINE IT CONTAINED, WITH THE SINGLE ADDITION OF THE ONE WORD—‘CONSUBSTANTIAL.’ HE EXPLAINED THAT THIS TERM IMPLIED no bodily condition or change[367] for that the Son did not derive His existence from the Father either by means of division or of abscission, since an immaterial, intellectual, and incorporeal nature could not be subject to any bodily condition or change[368]. These things must be understood as bearing a divine and mysterious signification. THUS REASONED OUR WISEST AND MOST RELIGIOUS EMPEROR. THE ADDITION OF THE WORD CONSUBSTANTIAL HAS GIVEN OCCASION FOR THE COMPOSITION OF THE FOLLOWING FORMULARY: — The Creed published by the Council: “‘We believe in one God, Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father; only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father...” - (Book 1, Chapter 11, Quoted in Theodoret “Ecclesiastical History,” Translated by Blomfield Jackson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.)
[FOOTNOTE 367]: πάθη, πάθος.
[FOOTNOTE 368]: πάθη, πάθος.

FEEL FREE TO COMMENT

Members comments and thoughts are always welcome.

Genuine questions are always welcome.

Verbal abuse of Jehovah's Witnesses is not welcome.

DISCLAIMER: THIS WEBSITE IS --- ( NOT ) --- AN OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY This is a personal website that is not officially supported nor endorsed by the WBTS. The Watchtower Society cannot be held responsible or liable for the content found on this blog/website. Links are offered here for additional reading, however the manager of this site does not necessarily support every comment on all of these sites. You are invited to conduct your own research. To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information on beliefs, practices and news releases you should look to the source at http://www.watchtower.org/

ORIGEN & EUSEBIUS VEIWS ON THE HOLY SPIRIT

GREEK TEXT: “...Πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. [2.10.70] Οὐδέποτε τὴν πρώτην χώραν ἔχει τὸ«δι' οὗ», δευτέραν δὲ ἀεί· οἷον ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους·«Παῦλος δοῦλος, φησί, Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, ἀφω ρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὑτοῦ, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος ∆αβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, δι' οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ.» [2.10.71] Ὁ γὰρ θεὸς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἑαυτοῦ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν, ὑπη ρετούντων τῶν προφητῶν καὶ ἐχόντων τὸν λόγον τοῦ«δι' οὗ», καὶ πάλιν ὁ θεὸς ἔδωκε«χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι» Παύλῳ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς, καὶ ἔδωκε διὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος, ἔχοντος τὸ«δι' οὗ». [2.10.72] Καὶ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἑβραίους ὁ αὐτὸς Παῦλός φησιν·«Ἐπ' ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκε κληρονόμον πάντων, δι' οὗ καὶ ἐποίησε τοὺς αἰῶνας», διδά σκων ἡμᾶς, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς τοὺς αἰῶνας πεποίηκε διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ, ἐν τῷ τοὺς αἰῶνας γίνεσθαι τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἔχοντος τὸ«δι' οὗ». Οὕτω τοίνυν καὶ ἐνθάδε εἰ πάντα διὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐγένετο, οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου ἐγένετο, ἀλλ' ὑπὸ κρείττονος καὶ μείζονος παρὰ τὸν λόγον. Τίς δ' ἂν ἄλλος οὗτος τυγχάνῃ ἢ ὁ πατήρ; [2.10.73] Ἐξεταστέον δέ, ἀληθοῦς ὄντος τοῦ«πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο», εἰ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. Οἶμαι γὰρ ὅτι τῷ μὲν φάσκοντι γενητὸν αὐτὸ εἶναι καὶ προιεμένῳ τὸ«πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο»· ἀναγκαῖον παρα δέξασθαι, ὅτι καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα διὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐγένετο, πρεσβυτέρου παρ' αὐτὸ τοῦ λόγου τυγχάνοντος. Τῷ δὲ μὴ βουλομένῳ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ γεγονέναι ἕπεται τὸ«ἀγέννητον» αὐτὸ λέγειν, ἀληθῆ τὰ ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τούτῳ εἶναι κρίνοντι. [2.10.74] Ἔσται δέ τις καὶ τρίτος παρὰ τοὺς δύο, τόν τε διὰ τοῦ λόγου παραδεχόμενον τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον γεγονέναι καὶ τὸν ἀγέννητον αὐτὸ εἶναι ὑπολαμβάνοντα, δογματίζων μηδὲ οὐσίαν τινὰ ἰδίαν ὑφεστάναι τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἑτέραν παρὰ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱόν· ἀλλὰ τάχα προστιθέμενος μᾶλλον, ἐὰν ἕτερον νομίζῃ εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν παρὰ τὸν πατέρα, τῷ τὸ αὐτὸ αὐτὸ τυγχάνειν τῷ πατρί, ὁμολογουμένως διαιρέσεως δηλου μένης τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος παρὰ τὸν υἱὸν ἐν τῷ«Ὃς ἐὰν εἴπῃ λόγον κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ· ὃς δ' ἂν βλασφημήσῃ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, οὐχ ἕξει ἄφεσιν οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι». [2.10.75] Ἡμεῖς μέντοι γε τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις πειθόμενοι τυγχά νειν, τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ ἀγέννητον μηδὲν ἕτερον τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι πιστεύοντες, ὡς εὐσεβέστερον καὶ ἀληθὲς προσιέμεθα τὸ πάντων διὰ τοῦ λόγου γενομένων τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα πάντων εἶναι τιμιώτερον, καὶ τάξει πρῶτον; πάντων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς διὰ Χριστοῦ γεγενημένων. [2.10.76] Καὶ τάχα αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία τοῦ μὴ καὶ αὐτὸ υἱὸν χρηματίζειν τοῦ θεοῦ, μόνου τοῦ μονογενοῦς φύσει υἱοῦ ἀρχῆθεν τυγχάνοντος, οὗ χρῄζειν ἔοικε τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα διακονοῦντος αὐτοῦ τῇ ὑποστάσει, οὐ μόνον εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἀλλὰ καὶ σοφὸν εἶναι καὶ λογικὸν καὶ δίκαιον καὶ πᾶν ὁτιποτοῦν χρὴ αὐτὸ νοεῖν τυγχάνειν κατὰ μετοχὴν τῶν προειρημένων ἡμῖν Χριστοῦ ἐπινοιῶν. [2.10.77] Οἶμαι δὲ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα τήν, ἵν' οὕτως εἴπω, ὕλην τῶν ἀπὸ θεοῦ χαρισμάτων παρέχειν τοῖς δι' αὐτὸ καὶ τὴν μετοχὴν αὐτοῦ χρηματίζουσιν ἁγίοις, τῆς εἰρημένης ὕλης τῶν χαρισμάτων ἐνεργουμένης μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, διακονουμένης δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὑφεστώσης δὲ κατὰ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. [2.10.78] Καὶ κινεῖ με εἰς τὸ ταῦθ' οὕτως ἔχειν ὑπολαβεῖν Παῦ λος περὶ χαρισμάτων οὕτω που γράφων·«∆ιαιρέσεις δὲ χαρισμάτων εἰσί, τὸ δ' αὐτὸ πνεῦμα· καὶ διαιρέσεις διακο νιῶν εἰσί, καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς κύριος· καὶ διαιρέσεις ἐνεργημάτων εἰσί, καὶ ὁ αὐτός ἐστι θεὸς ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν.» [2.11.79] Ἔχει δὲ ἐπαπόρησιν διά τε τὸ«Πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο» καὶ τὸ ἀκολουθεῖν τὸ πνεῦμα γενητὸν ὂν διὰ τοῦ λόγου γεγονέναι, πῶς οἱονεὶ προτιμᾶται τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἔν τισι γραφαῖς, ἐν μὲν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ ὁμολογοῦντος Χριστοῦ οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπεστάλθαι μόνου, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος–φησὶ γάρ·«Καὶ νῦν κύριος ἀπέστειλέ με καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ»–, ἐν δὲ τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ἄφεσιν μὲν ἐπαγ γελλομένου ἐπὶ τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν ἁμαρτίας, ἀποφαινομένου δὲ περὶ τῆς εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα βλασφημίας, ὡς οὐ μόνον «ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι» μὴ ἐσομένης ἀφέσεως τῷ εἰς αὐτὸ δυσφη μήσαντι, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ «ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι». [2.11.80] Καὶ μήποτε οὐ πάντως διὰ τὸ τιμιώτερον εἶναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ οὐ γίνεται ἄφεσις τῷ εἰς αὐτὸ ἡμαρτηκότι, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ Χριστοῦ μὲν πάντα μετέχειν τὰ λογικά, οἷς δίδοται συγγνώμη μεταβαλλομένοις ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων, τοῦ δὲ ἁγίου πνεύματος τοὺς κατηξιωμένους μηδεμιᾶς εὔλογον εἶναι συγγνώμης τυχεῖν, μετὰ τηλικαύτης καὶ τοιαύτης συμπνοίας τῆς εἰς τὸ καλὸν ἔτι ἀποπίπτοντας καὶ ἐκτρεπομένους τὰς τοῦ ἐνυπάρχοντος πνεύματος συμβουλίας. [2.11.81] Εἰ δὲ κατὰ τὸν Ἡσαΐαν φησὶν ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπεστάλθαι καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ, ἔστι καὶ ἐνταῦθα περὶ τοῦ ἀποστεί λαντος τὸν Χριστὸν πνεύματος ἀπολογήσασθαι, οὐχ ὡς φύσει διαφέροντος ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν γενομένην οἰκονομίαν τῆς ἐνανθρω πήσεως τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐλαττωθέντος παρ' αὐτὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος. [2.11.82] Εἰ δὲ ἐν τούτῳ προσκόπτει<τις> τῷ λέγειν ἠλαττῶ σθαι παρὰ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα τὸν σωτῆρα ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, προσακτέον αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἑβραίους λεγομένων ἐπιστολῇ, καὶ ἀγγέλων ἐλάττονα διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου ἀποφηναμένου τοῦ Παύλου γεγονέναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν· φησὶ γάρ·«Τὸν δὲ βραχύ τι παρ' ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον βλέπομεν Ἰησοῦν διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφα νωμένον.» [2.11.83] Ἢ τάχα ἔστι καὶ τοῦτο εἰπεῖν, ὅτι ἐδεῖτο ἡ κτίσις ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἐλευθερωθῆναι ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος μακαρίας καὶ θείας δυνάμεως ἐνανθρωπούσης, ἥτις διορθώσεται καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ὡσπερεὶ ἐπέβαλλέ πως τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι ἡ πρᾶξις αὕτη, ἥντινα ὑπομένειν οὐ δυνάμενον προβάλλεται τὸν σωτῆρα, ὡς τὸ τηλικοῦτον ἆθλον μόνον ἐνεγκεῖν δυνά μενον, καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὡς ἡγουμένου ἀποστέλλοντος τὸν υἱὸν συναποστέλλει καὶ συμπροπέμπει τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα αὐτόν, ἐν καιρῷ ὑπισχνούμενον καταβῆναι πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ συνεργῆσαι τῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων σωτηρίᾳ. [2.11.84] Τοῦτο δὲ πεποίηκεν, ὅτε τῷ σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡσεὶ περιστερὰ ἐφίπταται μετὰ τὸ λουτρὸν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐπιστὰν οὐ παρέρχεται, τάχα ἐν ἀνθρώποις τοῦτο πεποιηκὸς τοῖς μὴ δυνηθεῖσιν ἀδιαλείπτως φέρειν αὐτοῦ τὴν δόξαν. ∆ιόπερ σημαίνει ὁ Ἰωάννης περὶ τοῦ γνῶναι, ὅστις ποτέ ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, οὐχὶ μόνην τὴν ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν κατάβασιν τοῦ πνεύματος ἀλλὰ πρὸς τῇ καταβάσει τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ μονήν. [2.11.85] Γέγραπται γὰρ εἰρηκέναι τὸν Ἰωάννην ὅτι«Ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν εἶπεν· Ἐφ' ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ' αὐτὸν, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτί ζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί». Οὐ γὰρ λέγεται·«Ἐφ' ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον» μόνον, τάχα καὶ ἐπ' ἄλλους καταβεβηκότος αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ «καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ' αὐτόν». [2.11.86] Ταῦτα δὲ ἐπὶ πολὺ ἐξήτασται σαφέστερον ἰδεῖν βουλο μένοις, πῶς, εἰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα διὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐγένετο, ἓν τῶν πάντων τυγχάνον ὑποδεέστερον τοῦ δι' οὗ ἐγένετο νοούμενον, εἰ καὶ λέξεις τινὲς περισπᾶν ἡμᾶς εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον δοκοῦσιν. [2.12.87] Ἐὰν δὲ προσιῆται τις τὸ καθ' Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον, ἔνθα αὐτὸς ὁ σωτήρ φησιν·«Ἄρτι ἔλαβέ με ἡ μήτηρ μου, τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ἐν μιᾷ τῶν τριχῶν μου καὶ ἀπήνεγκέ με εἰς τὸ ὄρος τὸ μέγα Θαβώρ», ἐπαπορήσει, πῶς«μήτηρ» Χριστοῦ τὸ διὰ τοῦ λόγου γεγενημένον«πνεῦμα ἅγιον» εἶναι δύναται. [2.12.88] Ταῦτα δὲ καὶ τούτῳ οὐ χαλεπὸν ἑρμη νεῦσαι· εἰ γὰρ ὁ ποιῶν «τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἀδελφὸς καὶ ἀδελφὴ καὶ μήτηρ ἐστὶν» αὐτοῦ καὶ φθάνει τὸ«ἀδελφὸς Χριστοῦ» ὄνομα οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τούτου θειότερα, οὐδὲν ἄτοπον ἔσται μᾶλλον πάσης χρηματιζούσης«μητρὸς Χριστοῦ» διὰ τὸ ποιεῖν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς πατρὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον εἶναι«μητέρα». [2.12.89] Ἔτι εἰς τὸ «Πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο» καὶ ταῦτα ζητητέον· τῇ ἐπινοίᾳ ὁ λόγος ἕτερός ἐστι παρὰ τὴν ζωήν, καὶ ὃ γέγονεν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ «ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων». Ἆρ' οὖν, ὡς πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, ἥτις ἐστὶν «τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων», καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐπίνοιαι, ἢ καθ' ὑπεξαίρεσιν τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ νοητέον τὸ «Πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο»; Ὅπερ δοκεῖ μοι εἶναι κρεῖττον. [2.12.90] Ἵνα γὰρ συγχωρηθῇ διὰ τὸ γεγο νέναι τὴν ζωὴν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τί λεκτέον περὶ τῆς προεπινοουμένης τοῦ λόγου σοφίας; Οὐ γὰρ δήπου διὰ τοῦ λόγου τὸ περὶ τὸν λόγον γεγένηται. Ὥστε χωρὶς τῶν ἐπι νοουμένων τῷ Χριστῷ πάντα διὰ τοῦ λόγου γεγένηται τοῦ θεοῦ, ποιήσαντος ἐν σοφίᾳ αὐτὰ τοῦ πατρός· «Πάντα, γάρ φησιν, ἐν σοφίᾳ ἐποίησας», οὐ «διὰ τῆς σοφίας ἐποίησας»...” - ( Book 2, Chapter 6, “Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John,” MPG.)

ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 185-254 C.E.): “...All things were made through Him.”  The “through[1] whom” is never found in the first place but always in the second, as in the Epistle to the Romans,[2] “Paul a servant of Christ Jesus, a called Apostle, separated to the Gospel of God which He promised before by His prophets in Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, determined the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we received grace and apostleship, for obedience of the faith among all the nations, for His name’s sake.”  For God promised aforehand by the prophets His own Gospel, the prophets being His ministers, and having their word to speak about Him “through whom.”  And again God gave grace and apostleship to Paul and to the others for the obedience of the faith among all the nations, and this He gave them through Jesus Christ the Saviour, for the “through whom” belonged to Him.  And the Apostle Paul says in THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS:[3]  “At the end of the days He spoke to us in His Son, whom He made the heir of all things, ‘through whom’ also He made the ages,” showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the “through whom” belonging, when the ages were being made, to the Only-begotten.  Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He.  And who else could this be but the Father?  Now if, as we have seen, all things were made through Him, WE HAVE TO ENQUIRE IF THE HOLY SPIRIT ALSO WAS MADE THROUGH HIM.  It appears to me that those who hold the Holy Spirit to be created, and who also admit that “all things were made through Him,” must necessarily assume that the Holy Spirit was made through the Logos, the Logos accordingly being older than He.  And he who shrinks from allowing the Holy Spirit to have been made through Christ must, if he admits the truth of the statements of this Gospel, assume the Spirit to be uncreated.  There is a third resource besides these two (that of allowing the Spirit to have been made by the Word, and that of regarding it as uncreated), namely, to assert that the Holy Spirit has no essence of His own beyond the Father and the Son.  But on further thought one may perhaps see reason to consider that the Son is second beside the Father, He being the same as the Father, while manifestly a distinction is drawn between the Spirit and the Son in the passage,[4] “Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, he shall not have forgiveness, either in this world or in the world to come.”  We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father.  We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order[5] of all that was made by the Father through Christ.  And this, perhaps, is the reason why the Spirit is not said to be God’s own Son.  The Only-begotten only is by nature and from the beginning a Son, and the Holy Spirit seems to have need of the Son, to minister to Him His essence, so as to enable Him not only to exist, but to be wise and reasonable and just, and all that we must think of Him as being.  All this He has by participation of the character of Christ, of which we have spoken above.  And I consider that the Holy Spirit supplies to those who, through Him and through participation in Him, are called saints, the material of the gifts, which come from God; so that the said material of the gifts is made powerful by God, is ministered by Christ, and owes its actual existence in men to the Holy Spirit.  I am led to this view of the charisms by the words of Paul which he writes somewhere,[6] “There are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit, and diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord.  And there are diversities of workings, but it is the same God that worketh all in all.”  The statement that all things were made by Him, and its seeming corollary, that the Spirit must have been called into being by the Word, may certainly raise some difficulty.  There are some passages in which the Spirit is placed above Christ; in Isaiah, for example, Christ declares that He is sent, not by the Father only, but also by the Holy Spirit.  “Now the Lord hath sent Me,” He says,[7] “and His Spirit,” and in the Gospel He declares that there is forgiveness for the sin committed against Himself, but that for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit there is no forgiveness, either in this age or in the age to come.  What is the reason of this?  Is it because the Holy Spirit is of more value than Christ that the sin against Him cannot be forgiven?  May it not rather be that all rational beings have part in Christ, and that forgiveness is extended to them when they repent of their sins, while only those have part in the Holy Spirit who have been found worthy of it, and that there cannot well be any forgiveness for those who fall away to evil in spite of such great and powerful cooperation, and who defeat the counsels of the Spirit who is in them.  When we find the Lord saying, as He does in Isaiah, that He is sent by the Father and by His Spirit, we have to point out here also that the Spirit is not originally superior to the Saviour, but that the Saviour takes a lower place than He in order to carry out the plan which has been made that the Son of God should become man.  Should any one stumble at our saying that the Saviour in becoming man was made lower than the Holy Spirit, we ask him to consider the words used in the Epistle to the Hebrews,[8] where Jesus is shown by Paul to have been made less than the angels on account of the suffering of death.  “We behold Him,” he says, “who hath been made a little lower than the angels, Jesus, because of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour.”  And this, too, has doubtless to be added, that the creation, in order to be delivered from the bondage of corruption, and not least of all the human race, required the introduction into human nature of a happy and divine power, which should set right what was wrong upon the earth, and that this action fell to the share, as it were, of the Holy Spirit; but the Spirit, unable to support such a task, puts forward the Saviour as the only one able to endure such a conflict.  The Father therefore, the principal, sends the Son, but the Holy Spirit also sends Him and directs Him to go before, promising to descend, when the time comes, to the Son of God, and to work with Him for the salvation of men.  This He did, when, in a bodily shape like a dove, He flew to Him after the baptism.  He remained on Him, and did not pass Him by, as He might have done with men not able continuously to bear His glory.  Thus John, when explaining how he knew who Christ was, spoke not only of the descent of the Spirit on Jesus, but also of its remaining upon him.  For it is written that John said:[9]  “He who sent me to baptize said, On whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon Him, the same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”  It is not said only, “On whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending,” for the Spirit no doubt descended on others too, but “descending and abiding on Him.”  Our examination of this point has been somewhat extended, since we were anxious to make it clear that if all things were made by Him, then the Spirit also was made through the Word, and is seen to be one of the “all things” which are inferior to their Maker.  This view is too firmly settled to be disturbed by a few words which may be adduced to the opposite effect.  If any one should lend credence to THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS, where the Saviour Himself says, “My mother, the Holy Spirit took me just now by one of my hairs and carried me off to the great mount Tabor,” he will have to face the difficulty of explaining how the Holy Spirit can be the mother of Christ when it was itself brought into existence through the Word.  But neither the passage nor this difficulty is hard to explain.  For if he who does the will of the Father in heaven[10] is Christ’s brother and sister and mother, and if the name of brother of Christ may be applied, not only to the race of men, but to beings of diviner rank than they, then there is nothing absurd in the Holy Spirit’s being His mother, every one being His mother who does the will of the Father in heaven. On the words, “All things were made by Him,” there is still one point to be examined.  The “word” is, as a notion, from “life,” and yet we read, “What was made in the Word was life, and the life was the light of men.”  Now as all things were made through Him, was the life made through Him, which is the light of men, and the other notions under which the Saviour is presented to us?  Or must we take the “all things were made by Him” subject to the exception of the things which are in Himself?  The latter course appears to be the preferable one.  For supposing we should concede that the life which is the light of men was made through Him, since it said that the life “was made” the light of men, what are we to say about wisdom, which is conceived as being prior to the Word?  That, therefore, which is about the Word (His relations or conditions) was not made by the Word, and the result is that, with the exception of the notions under which Christ is presented, all things were made through the Word of God, the Father making them in wisdom.  “In wisdom hast Thou made them all,” it says,[11] not through, but in wisdom...” - (Book 2, Chapter 6, “Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John,” Translated by Allan Menzies. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9. Edited by Allan Menzies. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896.)
[FOOTNOTE 1]: See R.V. margin, John i. 3.
[FOOTNOTE 2]: Rom. i. 1–5.
[FOOTNOTE 3]: i. 1, 2.
[FOOTNOTE 4]: Matt. xii. 32.
[FOOTNOTE 5]: Reading πρὸ πάυτων, with Jacobi.
[FOOTNOTE 6]: 1 Cor. xii. 4–6.
[FOOTNOTE 7]: Isa. xlviii. 16.
[FOOTNOTE 8]: ii. 9.
[FOOTNOTE 9]: John i. 32.
[FOOTNOTE 10]: Matt. xii. 50.
[FOOTNOTE 11]: Ps. civ. 24.

GREEK TEXT: “...τὸ δὲ παράκλητον πνεῦμα οὔτε θεὸς οὔτε υἱός, ἐπεὶ μὴ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὁμοίως τῷ υἱῷ καὶ αὐτὸ τὴν γένεσιν εἴληφεν, ἓν δέ τι τῶν διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ γενομένων τυγχάνει, ὅτι δὴ«πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν». [3.6.4] ταῦτα μὲν οὖν τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ καθολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ὧδέ πη διὰ τῶν θείων φωνῶν παραδίδοται τὰ μυστήρια...” - (Page 58, MPG.)

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (circa. 260-340 C.E. ): “...BUT THE PARACLETE SPIRIT IS NEITHER A GOD, NOR A SON, since it may not have orignitated out of the Father in the same manner as the Son, itself also being one of those things that have it's production [or generative origin] through the intermediate agency of the Son, brought into existence as it happens, what is more because [it says]: “all things have been brought into existence through his intermediate agency, and without him not one thing has come into existence.” [John 1:3] Therefore, just as it was referred to before, through the divnely inspired [Evangelist], these things are being voiced loudly as the sacred secret that has been handed down [by] the holy and universal [Christian] Congregation...” - (Book 3, Chapter 6:4, [3.6.4 MPG] “De Ecclesiastica Theologia,” Translated by Matt13weedhacker 10/09/12.)

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (circa. 260-340 C.E. ): “...THE SPIRIT, THE PARACLETE, IS NEITHER GOD NOR SON, because he took not his Origin from the Father, after the same manner as the Son did, being of the Number of those things that were made by the Son, “For whom all things were made all things...” - (Book 3, Chapter 6:4, [3.6.4 MPG] “De Ecclesiastica Theologia,” quoted on Page 46-47, Chapter 14, The Immediate Generation Of The World, “PLATONISM UNVEIL'D” Or “An Essay Concerning the Notions And Opinions Of Plato,” And some Ancient and Modern Divines his Followers ; In relation to the LOGOS, or WORD in particular, and the Doctrine of the Trinity in general. In Two Parts. Anno Dom. 1700.)

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (circa. 260-340 C.E. ): “...To assume that the Savior himself spoke all these things about himself is quite simple-minded and hard to cure. But through these words the Sav­ior himself clearly taught that the Holy Spirit is distinct from himself in honor, glory, and privileges; being more excellent, stronger, and higher than all intelligent and rational being (wherefore he is also included in the holy and thrice-blessed Triad) BUT INDEED LOWER THAN HIMSELF. […] Wherefore only this spirit has been included in the holy and thrice- blessed Triad. This is not different from the Savior’s explaining to his apostles his sacrament of rebirth for all those from the nations who believe in him. He commanded them to baptize “them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Of the Father because he has full authority and gives the grace. Of the Son because he ministers to this grace (for “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”). Of the Holy Spirit, that is, the Paraclete, who is him­self provided according to the di­versity of graces in himself: ‘Tor to one is given a word of wisdom through the Spirit, but to another a word of knowledge according to the same spirit. To another is given faith by the same Spirit” and likewise the things considered with these. So then the Holy Spirit, who was provided through the Son to whomever the Father might choose, was fond of dwelling in the saints alone. And such would be his work: to sanctify all, to whom he might give some one or even many of the gifts in himself, so that prophets, apostles, and every God- loving soul, and likewise the stronger and divine powers, would participate in the holiness from him. BUT ONLY THE SON HAS BEEN HONORED BY THE PATERNAL GODHEAD, THAT HE MIGHT BE THE MAKER AND CREATOR OF ALL THE GENETA, BOTH VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE, AND EVEN OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE PARACLETE SPIRIT. For, “through him all things came into being, and apart from him not one thing came to be” and “in him everything in heaven and on earth was created, things visible and invisible.” But the God over all and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, since he is something ineffable, is good and more excellent than all reasoning ability and thought, and every expression and consideration, whatever their commonalities or distinctions are, ALSO TAKES THE LEAD OVER AND ABOVE THE HOLY SPIRIT HIMSELF AND EVEN THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON. He alone is rightly called “the God over all and through all and in all” by the apostle who says: “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God the Father of all, who is over all, through all, and is in all.” And he alone might be called “one God and Father” “of our Lord Je­sus Christ.” The Son is “only- begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father.” BUT THE PARACLETE SPIRIT IS NEITHER GOD NOR SON, SINCE HE DOES NOT GET HIS ORIGIN FROM THE FATHER LIKE THE SON, BUT IS ONE OF THE THINGS WHICH CAME INTO BEING THROUGH THE SON because: “Through him all things came into being, and apart from him not one thing came to be.” Therefore these mysteries are handed over to the holy and catholic Church through the divine titles. BUT MARCELLUS CONFUSES EVERYTHING: sometimes he takes into himself the whole depth of SABELLIUS, another time he tries to revive the heresy of PAUL OF SAMOSATA, and other times he is openly refuted as a Jew FOR HE INTRODUCES ONE THREE-FACED AND, AS IT WERE, THREE-NAMED HYPOSTASIS by saying God, the Word in him, and the Holy Spirit are the same...” - (Book 3, Chapters 4:6; in “An extract from Eusebius, “Ecclesiastical Theology” III, 4-6,” August 30th, 2013 Blog by Roger Pearse, quoting “Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical Theology, written against Marcellus of Ancyra,” edited and translated in John Mackett, Eusebius of Caesarea’s Theology of the Holy Spirit. Milwaukee, WI : Marquette University,  1990.)

FEEL FREE TO COMMENT

Members comments and thoughts are always welcome.

Genuine questions are always welcome.

Verbal abuse of Jehovah's Witnesses is not welcome.

DISCLAIMER: THIS WEBSITE IS --- ( NOT ) --- AN OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY This is a personal website that is not officially supported nor endorsed by the WBTS. The Watchtower Society cannot be held responsible or liable for the content found on this blog/website. Links are offered here for additional reading, however the manager of this site does not necessarily support every comment on all of these sites. You are invited to conduct your own research. To those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, please remember that if you are looking for the authoritative information on beliefs, practices and news releases you should look to the source at http://www.watchtower.org/