Sunday, July 20, 2014

ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA ON ISAIAH 48:16

Greek or Latin Text will be posted later when available.

ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 185-254 C.E.): “...Now, that the Savior and the Holy Spirit were sent by the Father for the salvation of men has been declared in Isaiah, in the person of the Savior, saying, “And now the Lord hath sent me and His Spirit.”{5937} You must know, however, that this expression is ambiguous; for either God sent, but also the Holy Spirit sent, the Savior; OR, AS WE HAVE TAKEN IT, THE FATHER SENT BOTH—THE SAVIOR AND THE HOLY SPIRIT...” - (Chapter 18, Book 3, “Commentary On Matthew,” Translated by John Patrick. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9. Edited by Allan Menzies. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896.)
[FOOTNOTE 5937]: Isaiah 48:16

GREEK TEXT: “...[Ἐπεὶ δὲ Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν ὁ περὶ τοῦ ἀναγεγραμμένου ἁγίου πνεύματος κατεληλυθέναι ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπορῶν], λεκτέον ἂν εἴη πρὸς αὐτόν· [ὦ οὗτος, τίς ἐστιν ὁ ἐν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ λέγων· «Καὶ νῦν κύριος ἀπέστειλέ με καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ;» ἐν ᾧ ἀμφιβόλου ὄντος τοῦ ῥητοῦ, πότερον ὁ πατὴρ καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἀπέστειλαν τὸν Ἰησοῦν,ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέστειλε τόν τε Χριστὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, τὸ δεύτερόν ἐστιν ἀληθές. Καὶ ἐπεὶ ἀπεστάλη ὁ σωτήρ, εἶτα τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ εἰρημένον ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου], ἐχρῆν δὲ τὴν τῆς προφητείας πλήρωσιν ἐγνῶσθαι καὶ τοῖς ἑξῆς· διὰ τοῦτο ἀνέγραψαν οἱ Ἰησοῦ μαθηταὶ τὸ γεγενημένον...” - (Chapter 46, Book 1, “Contra Celsusm” or: “Against Celsus,” MPG.)

ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 185-254 C.E.): “...Who is it that saith in Isaiah, And now the Lord hath sent me and his Spirit? in which, as the expression is ambiguous, is it the Father and the Holy Spirit who have sent Jesus; or the Father, who hath sent both Christ and the Holy Spirit. THE LATTER IS THE TRUE INTERPRETATION [Gk., ( το δευτερον εστιν αληθες ) Literally: “...THE SECOND IS TRUE...”]...” - (Chapter 46, Book 1, “Contra Celsusm” or: “Against Celsus,” Translated by Adam Clarke, “Commentary on Isaiah 48:16,” “The Adam Clarke Commentary On The Whole Bible,” Published 1810-1826.)

ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA (circa. 185-254 C.E.): “...Sir, who is it that says in Isaiah, 'And now the Lord hath sent me and His Spirit? In which sentence, as the meaning is doubtful--viz., whether the Father and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus, or the Father sent both Christ and the Holy Spirit – THE LATTER IS CORRECT. [Gk., ( το δευτερον εστιν αληθες ) Literally: “...THE SECOND IS TRUE...”] FOR, BECAUSE THE SAVIOR WAS SENT, AFTERWARDS THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS SENT ALSO, that the prediction of the prophet might be fulfilled; and as it was necessary that the fulfillment of the prophecy should be known to posterity, the disciples of Jesus for that reason committed the result to writing...” - (Chapter 46, Book 1, “Contra Celsusm” or: “Against Celsus,” Translated by Frederick Crombie. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

Friday, July 18, 2014

GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN - ON THE HOLY SPIRIT

GREEK TEXT: “...Μᾶλλον δὲ φιλοσοφήσω σοι περὶ αὐτοῦ μικρὸν ἄνωθεν. Περὶ τριάδος γὰρ καὶ πρότερον διειλήφαμεν. Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον Σαδδου καῖοι μὲν οὐδὲ εἶναι τὸ παράπαν ἐνόμισαν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀγγέλους, οὐδὲ ἀνάστασιν· οὐκ οἶδ' ὅθεν τὰς τοσαύτας περὶ αὐτοῦ μαρτυρίας ἐν τῇ παλαιᾷ διαπτύσαντες. Ἑλλήνων δὲ οἱ θεολογικώτεροι, καὶ μᾶλλον ἡμῖν προσεγγίσαντες, ἐφαντάσθησαν μέν, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ· περὶ δὲ τὴν κλῆσιν διηνέχθησαν, νοῦν τοῦ παντός, καὶ τὸν θύραθεν νοῦν, καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα προσαγορεύσαντες. Τῶν δὲ καθ' ἡμᾶς σοφῶν οἱ μὲν ἐνέργειαν τοῦτο ὑπέλαβον, οἱ δὲ κτίσμα, οἱ δὲ θεόν, οἱ δὲ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ὁπότερον τούτων, αἰδοῖ τῆς γραφῆς, ὥς φασιν, ὡς οὐδέτερον σαφῶς δηλωσάσης. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὔτε σέβουσιν, οὔτε ἀτι μάζουσι, μέσως πως περὶ αὐτοῦ διακείμενοι, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ λίαν ἀθλίως. Καὶ τῶν θεὸν ὑπειληφότων οἱ μὲν ἄχρι διανοίας εἰσὶν εὐσεβεῖς, οἱ δὲ τολμῶσιν εὐσεβεῖν καὶ τοῖς χείλεσιν. Ἄλλων δὲ ἤκουσα μετρούντων θεότητα σοφωτέρων, οἳ τρία μὲν εἶναι καθ' ἡμᾶς ὁμολογοῦσι τὰ νοούμενα, τοσοῦτον δὲ ἀλλήλων διέστησαν, ὡς τὸ μὲν καὶ οὐσίᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ποιεῖν ἀόριστον· τὸ δὲ δυνάμει μέν, οὐκ οὐσίᾳ δέ· τὸ δὲ ἀμφοτέροις περιγραπτόν· ἄλλον τρόπον μιμούμενοι τοὺς δημιουργόν, καὶ συνεργόν, καὶ λειτουργὸν ὀνομάζοντας, καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασι τάξιν καὶ χάριν τῶν πραγμάτων ἀκολουθίαν εἶναι νομίζοντας...” - (Chapter 31, Oration 5, [31.5] “Fifth Theological Oration Oration,” MPG.)

GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN (circa. 329-390 C.E.): “...But as concerning [Or: “as respects”] those of us [Or: “among us” “in our midst”] who are wise [Or: “who are learned”], indeed, there are those who are [Or: “some who are”] of the opinion [Or: “support” “accept” “concieve” “take as their interpretation/opinion”] THAT IT IS AN ACTIVE FORCE [Or: “a power that is at work inwardly” “an energizing influence”], but others, a created thing [Or: “something resulting from an act of creation” “a creature”], yet others again, that it is a god [Or: “God” with a capital “G”], but there are ones who do not know which of the forgoing [they believe] out of a [Or: “their”] deep respect [Or: “profound awe or reverence”] for the opinion of the scriptures, merely affirming, that neither are clearly defined as actually written [Or: “explicitly made clear” “explained in an obvious manner” “distincly legible”]...” - (Chapter 31, Oration 5, [31.5] “Fifth Theological Oration Oration,” Translated by Matt13weedhacker 13/07/2014)

GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN (circa. 329-390 C.E.): “...some consider the holy spirit to be [Gk., ( ENERGIA ) Gk., ( ενέργεια )] A FORCE, others a creature, others God. Others making the vagueness of Scripture their excuse, decline to commit themselves...” - (Chapter 31, Oration 5, [31.5] “Fifth Theological Oration Oration,” Page 183, Subheading 7, “The Holy Spirit, (Pneumatology),” Chapter 8, “The 12 Essential Doctrines for Christianity,” in: “Essential Christianity Essential Christianity: Foundations for a Faithful Faith,” By Keith Sherlin, Forward by Dr. Mal Couch : 1st President of Tyndale Theological Seminary, Author House, 2006.)

GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN (circa. 329-390 C.E.): “...Of the wise amongst us some consider the Holy Spirit to be [Gk., ( ENERGIA ) Gk., ( ενέργεια )] an energy, others a creature, others God, while others again cannot make up their minds to adopt any definite view out of reverence for Scripture, as they put it, because it does not make any very definite statement on the point. On this account they neither accord to Him divine adoration nor do they refuse it to Him, and thus take a middle road, but which is really a very bad path. Of those again who hold Him to be God, some keep this pious belief to themselves, while others state it openly. Others to a certain degree measure the Godhead since like us they accept the Trinity, but they put a great distance between the three by maintaining that the first is infinite in substance and power, the second in power, but not in substance, while the third is infinite in neither of these two respects...” - (Chapter 31, Oration 5, [31.5] “Fifth Theological Oration Oration,” Page 115, Appendix: “The Doctrine of The Holy Ghost and of The Trinity,” in: “HISTORY OF DOGMA,” Volume IV, By Dr. Adolph Harnack, Translated from the Third German Edition, By Neil Buchanan, Published in the United Kingdom by Constable and Company Limited, 10 Orange Street, London W. C. 2. Dover edition, 1961.)
[FOOTNOTE]: Adolf Harnack (cica. 1851-1930 C.E.)

GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN (circa. 329-390 C.E.): “...Or rather, let me reason with you about Him from a somewhat earlier point, for we have already discussed the Trinity. The Sadducees altogether denied the existence of the Holy Spirit, just as they did that of Angels and the Resurrection; rejecting, I know not upon what ground, the important testimonies concerning Him in the Old Testament. And of the Greeks those who are more inclined to speak of God, and who approach nearest to us, have formed some conception of Him, as it seems to me, though they have differed as to His Name, and have addressed Him as the Mind of the World, or the External Mind, and the like. But of the wise men amongst ourselves, some have conceived of him as [Gk., ( ENERGIA ) Gk., ( ενέργεια )] an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call Him, out of reverence for Scripture, they say, as though it did not make the matter clear either way. And therefore they neither worship Him nor treat Him with dishonour, but take up a neutral position, or rather a very miserable one, with respect to Him. And of those who consider Him to be God, some are orthodox in mind only, while others venture to be so with the lips also. And I have heard of some who are even more clever, and measure Deity; and these agree with us that there are Three Conceptions; but they have separated these from one another so completely as to make one of them infinite both in essence and power, and the second in power but not in essence, and the third circumscribed in both; thus imitating in another way those who call them the Creator, the Co-operator, and the Minister, and consider that the same order and dignity which belongs to these names is also a sequence in the facts...” - (Chapter 31, Oration 5, [31.5] “Fifth Theological Oration Oration,” Translated by Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.)

THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA - ON THE HOLY SPIRIT


THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA{*} (circa. 350-428 C.E.): “...The people of the Old Testament WERE UNAWARE of a distinct hypostasis of a Holy Spirit identified as a person [GREEK FONTS] in its own right in God, since everyone before the coming of Christ the Lord knew of God and creation BUT NOTHING FURTHER. The divine Scripture taught this to its readers at that time without having an insight into anything in invisible creation consisting of separate kinds, referring to all the invisible and ministering beings in general as angels and powers, which according to its teaching carried out the divine decisions. Consequently, they WERE NOT in a position to know of a Holy Spirit as a distinct hypostasis in God, being unable even to list separate kinds among th eministering beings or to associate with God what could be described as a distinct person (provswpon), SINCE THEY UNDERSTOOD NOTHING OF THIS SORT...” - (Chapter 2.5, “[Commentary] On Haggai” Page 29, Introduction, Subheading 6, “Christological and Trinitarian theology of the Commentary,” in: “THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA COMMENTARY ON THE TWELVE PROPHETS,” Translated by Robert C. Hill, Australian Catholic University, in: “THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH - A NEW TRANSLATION,” The Catholic University Of America Press, Washington, D.C., Copyright © 2004.)
[FOOTNOTE *]: Also known as: “Theodore of Antioch.”

THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA{*} (circa. 350-428 C.E.):...J[oe]l 2.28, “I shall pour out my spirit on all flesh,” Theodore hastens to comment, “...The people in the time of the Old Testament did not understand the Holy Spirit to be a [GREEK FONT] distinct from the others, being both God and from God; by ‘spirit of God,’ ‘holy spirit,’ and every other such name at the time THEY REFERRED TO HIS GRACE, CARE, AND AFFECTION...” - (Chapter 2.28, “[Commentary] On Joel,” Page 28, Introduction, Subheading 6, “Christological and Trinitarian theology of the Commentary,” in: “THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA COMMENTARY ON THE TWELVE PROPHETS,” Translated by Robert C. Hill, Australian Catholic University, in: “THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH - A NEW TRANSLATION,” The Catholic University Of America Press, Washington, D.C., Copyright © 2004.)
[FOOTNOTE *]: Also known as: “Theodore of Antioch.”


HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME -- THE WORD WAS MADE, MADE AS A GOD

GREEK TEXT: “...Ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις τὸν πάντων ἄρχοντα δημιουργῶν, ἐκ πασῶν σύνθετον οὐσιῶν ἐσκεύασεν. οὐχ ὅτι δὲ θεόν σε θέλων ποιεῖν ἔσφηλεν, οὐδὲ ἄγγελον μὴ πλανῶ, ἀλλ' ἄνθρωπόν σε θελήσας ἐποίησεν. εἰ γὰρ θεόν σε ἠθέλησε ποιῆσαι, ἐδύνατο· ἔχεις τοῦ Λόγου τὸ παράδειγμα· ἀλλ' ἄνθρωπον θέλων, ἄνθρωπόν σε ἐποίησεν...” - (Book 10, Chapter 33, “ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΟΎΜΕΝΑ Ἢ ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΑΣΩ͂Ν ΑἹΡΈΣΕΩΝ ἘΛΈΓΧΟΣ,” or its alternate Latin title: “Philosophumena,” )

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME (circa. 170-236 C.E.): “…But after [Lit., “upon”] these things, the Prince [Or: “Ruler”] of all [mankind], He hand crafted into a work. He prepared him from out of a mixture of all substances. But not because He wanted to make you as a god, [and] somehow failed, or [to make you] as an angel, (may [you] not be lead astray), but as a man He made you. FOR IF IN FACT HE WANTED TO – ( MAKE ) – YOU AS A GOD, He did indeed have and continues to have the ability to do so. FOR YOU HAVE THE PRECEDENT [Or: “EXAMPLE” or: “ARCHITECTS MODEL” or: “PATTERN”] OF THE LOGOS. But it is was a man that He wanted, [and] as a man He made you...” - (Book 10, Chapter 33, “A Philosophical Investigation,” or “A Disproving” or “Inventory” or “Against All Heresies” 7/05/2014)

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME (circa. 170-236 C.E.): “…But on top of these things, the Prince of all [humankind], He crafted as by hand into [one of His] works. He prepared him from out of a mixture of all substances. But not because He wanted to make you as a god, or as an angel, [and] somehow failed, (may you not be mislead), but as a man He made you. FOR IF HE WANTED TO – ( MAKE ) – YOU AS A GOD, He, for a fact had, and continues to have, the ability to do so. FOR YOU HAVE THE PRECEDENT SET IN THE EXAMPLE OF THE LOGOS. But it was a man that He wanted, [and it was] as a man [that] He made you...” - (Book 10, Chapter 33, “A Philosophical Investigation,” or “A Disproving” or “Inventory” or “Against All Heresies” [Alternate Version Revised] 14/06/2014)

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME ON THE GENERATION OF THE WORD

GREEK TEXT: “...[33.1] Οὗτος οὖν [] μόνος καὶ κατὰ πάντων θεὸς Λόγον πρῶτον ἐννοηθεὶς ἀπογεννᾷ· οὐ [δὲ] Λόγον ὡς φωνήν, ἀλλ' ἐνδιάθετον τοῦ παντὸς λογισμόν. τοῦτον [οὖν] μόνον ἐξ ὄντων ἐγέννα· τὸ γὰρ ὃν αὐτὸς ὁ πατὴρ [33.2] ἦν, ἐξ οὗ τὸ γεννηθέν. καὶ αἴτιον τοῖς γινομένοις Λόγος ἦν, ἐν ἑαυτῷ φέρων τὸ θέλειν τοῦ γεγεννηκότος, οὐκ ἄπειρός τε ὢν τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ἐννοίας. ἅμα γὰρ τῷ ἐκ τοῦ γεννήσαντος προελθεῖν, πρωτότοκος τούτου γενόμενος, ὡς φωνὴν εἶχεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὰς ἐν τῷ πατρικῷ νῷ ἐννοηθείσας ἰδέας...” - (Book 10, Chapter , Section , “ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΟΎΜΕΝΑ Ἢ ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΑΣΩ͂Ν ΑἹΡΈΣΕΩΝ ἘΛΈΓΧΟΣ,” or its alternate Latin title: “Philosophumena,” )

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME (circa. 170-236 C.E.): “...Consequently, this One alone, and in accordance with [being] God of all persons, first causes a Word to be generated, by an act of inward thinking. Not as a spoken Word, but as a conceptual idea from within the All's reasoning faculties.{1} This one [i.e. “Word”], he alone,{2} has a generation from out of existing things. For: “the Existing One”{3} Himself was the Father, from out of Whom originate the things that are generated. And a source of things that come into existence was a Word, [for] he bore{4} within himself what the Originator{4(B)} purposed{5}, and also not as one being ignorant of the inner conceptual idea of the Father.{*} For simultaneously{6} by his going forth first{7} from out of the Originator, [he] came into existence as a first one to have been born of this One.{9} He carries like a spoken word, which he hears within himself, within his mind, the inner conceptual ideas by the Paternal Origin{10}...” - (Book 10, Chapter 33, Section 1-2, “A Philosophical Scrutinizing,” or it's alternate title: “A Refutation [Or: “Disproving”] Of [Or: “Against”] [Or: “An Inventory of”] All Heresies” Translated by Matt13weedhacker 9/05/2014 [Revised 2/06/2014])
[FOOTNOTE 1]: Gk., ( λογισμόν ) = active -( μός ) suffix .
[FOOTNOTE 2]: Compare John 3:16 “the Only-begotten” and John 1:3 “apart from him”.
[FOOTNOTE 3]: Or: “the Existing One” Exodus 3:14 LXX, perhaps: “that which was existing” or: “He who is definitively Existence”.
[FOOTNOTE 4]: Or: “carried”.
[FOOTNOTE 4(B)]: Gk., ( τοῦ γεγεννηκότος ) Or: “of the Progenitor”.
[FOOTNOTE 5]: Or: “wanted” or: “willed”.
[FOOTNOTE *]: An phrase targeted at Gnostic theology.
[FOOTNOTE 6]: Or: “at once” “at the same time”.
[FOOTNOTE 7]: Gk., ( προελθεῖν ) or: “advance procession”.
[FOOTNOTE 8]: Gk., ( πρωτότοκος τούτου γενόμενος ). It's remotely possible that Gk., ( τούτου ), could be a plural, “of these ones” pointing back to Gk., ( τοῖς γινομένοις ) as being the 33.1 Gk., ( πρῶτον ) “first” of these. He is either Gk., ( πρωτότοκος ) “a first-born” of the Father, Gk., ( τὸ ... ὃν αὐτὸς ὁ πατὴρ ) and Gk., ( τοῦ γεννήσαντος ) and Gk., ( τῷ πατρικῷ ), or “a first-born” of Gk., ( τοῖς γινομένοις ) those who begin existence. Both interpretations fit the context, but I've settled for the Father being the most obvious referent.
[FOOTNOTE 9]: Gk., ( γενόμενος ) = participle, singular number, aorist tense, middle person, masculine gender, nominative case agreeing with Gk., ( λόγος ) noun, singular number, masculine gender, nominative case. Or: “enters existence” “comes into being” “comes to be” “begins existence”.
[FOOTNOTE 10]: Gk., ( τῷ πατρικῷ ).

HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME (circa. 170-236 C.E.): “...Consequently, this One alone, and in accordance with [being] a God of all persons,{1(A)} first causes a Word to be generated, by an act of inward thinking. Not as a spoken Word, but as a conceptual idea from within the All's reasoning faculties.{1(B)} This [i.e. “Word”], he alone,{2} has a generation from out of existing things. For: “the Existing One”{3} Himself was the Father, from out of Whom originate the things that are generated. Also as a source of things that come into existence was a Word, [for] he bore{4} within himself what the Originator{4(B)} purposed{5}, and also not as one being ignorant of the inner conceptual idea of the Father.{*} For simultaneously,{6} from out of the Originator, by his going forth first{7}, [he] came into [Or: “began”] existence as a first one to have been born of this{9} One [i.e. “the Father” or “Originator”]. He [i.e. “Word”] carries like a spoken word, which he hears within himself, within his mind, the inner conceptual ideas by the Paternal Origin{10}...” - (Book 10, Chapter 33, Section 1-2, “A Philosophical Scrutinizing,” or it's alternate title: “A Refutation [Or: “Disproving”] Of [Or: “Against”] [Or: “An Inventory of”] All Heresies” Translated by Matt13weedhacker [Alternate Revised Version 8/06/2014])
[FOOTNOTE 1(A)]: Gk., ( κατὰ πάντων θεὸς ) or: “in accordance with [being] God of all”. Gk., ( θεὸς ) is lacking the article, thus: “a” above. Gk., ( πάντων ) is in the masculine gender of persons, in contrast to neuter gender of things, thus: “of all persons” above.
[FOOTNOTE 1(B)]: Gk., ( λογισμόν ) = active -( μός ) suffix .
[FOOTNOTE 2]: Compare John 3:16 “the Only-begotten” and John 1:3 “apart from him”.
[FOOTNOTE 3]: Or: “the Existing One” Exodus 3:14 LXX, perhaps: “that which was existing” or: “He who is definitively Existence”.
[FOOTNOTE 4]: Or: “carried”.
[FOOTNOTE 4(B)]: Gk., ( τοῦ γεγεννηκότος ) Or: “of the Progenitor”.
[FOOTNOTE 5]: Or: “wanted” or: “willed”.
[FOOTNOTE *]: A phrase targeted specifically at Gnostic theology.
[FOOTNOTE 6]: Or: “at once” “at the same time”.
[FOOTNOTE 7]: Gk., ( προελθεῖν ) or: “advance procession”.
[FOOTNOTE 8]: Gk., ( πρωτότοκος τούτου γενόμενος ). It's remotely possible that Gk., ( τούτου ), could be a plural, “of these ones” pointing back to Gk., ( τοῖς γινομένοις ) in 33.1 as being the Gk., ( πρῶτον ) “first” of these. He is either Gk., ( πρωτότοκος ) “a first-born” of the Father, Gk., ( τὸ ... ὃν αὐτὸς ὁ πατὴρ ) and Gk., ( τοῦ γεννήσαντος ) and Gk., ( τῷ πατρικῷ ), or the first one among those who begin existence. Both interpretations fit the context, but it's a matter of who is the referent. I've settled for the Father as being the most obvious.
[FOOTNOTE 9]: Gk., ( γενόμενος ) = participle, singular number, aorist tense, middle person, i.e. concieved as directing an action toward or participating in himself, masculine gender, nominative case, i.e. concieved as the person doing the action, grammatically agreeing with the noun Gk., ( λόγος ) which is also in the singular number, masculine gender, nominative case. Or: “enters existence” “comes into being” “comes to be” “begins existence”.
[FOOTNOTE 10]: Gk., ( τῷ πατρικῷ ).

TERTULLIAN AND THE NEW PROPHECY - ADVERSUS PRAXAEN 30.5

Page 239, Subheading: “The Historical Development of the Doctrine,” Chapter 12, “The Doctrine of the Trinity,” Section 2: “Christian Theology,” in the Book: “Christian Theology : An Introduction,” By Alister E. McGrath, Welley-Blackwell, 5th Edition, 2011.

...The theologian who may be argued to have been responsible for the development of the distinctive trinitarian terminology is Tertullian (c. 160-225). According to one analysis, Tertullian ( coined ) 509 new nouns, 284 new adjectives, and 161 new verbs in the Latin language.[…] Trinitas. Tertullian ( invented ) the word: “Trinity” (Trinitas), which has become so characteristic a feature of Christian theology since his time...”

TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE (circa.145-225 C.E.): “...This one, in the meantime, has been the recipient of the gift from the Father, which he has poured forth, the Spirit of Holiness, the third name of the Divinity, and the third stage of the Divine Majesty, the Preacher [= Montanus] of a unified monarchy, in fact it's Interpreter, [= Montanus] even by means of it's economy, for anyone who will permit admittance to the sermons of HIS [= Montanus] NEW PROPHECY, even the guide [Or: “leader”] of all truth, [= Montanus] which consists in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that comes [Or: “follows”] after the Christian sacrament [Or: “sacred oath of allegiance” = Montantist oath]...” - (Chapter 30, Section 5, “Adversus Praxaen,” or “Against Praxaes,” Translated by Matt13weedhacker 18/07/2014)

VINCENT OF LERINS ON TERTULLIAN

LATIN TEXT: “...Sed et Tertulliani quoque eadem ratio est Nam sicut ille apud Graecos, ita hic apud Latinos nostrorum omnium facile princeps judicandus est. Quid enim hoc viro doctius, quid in divinis atque humanis rebus exercitatius? Nempe omnem philosophiam et cunctas philosophorum sectas, auctores, adsertoresque sectarum, omnesque eorum disciplinas, omnem historiarum ac studiorum varietatem mira quadam mentis capacitate complexus est. Ingenio vero nonne tam gravi ac vehementi excelluit ut sibi nihil pene ad expugnandum proposuerit quod non aut acumine inruperit, aut pondere eliserit? Jam porro orationis suae laudes quis exsequi valeat, quae, tanta nescio qua rationum necessitate concerta est ut ad consensum sui quos suadere non potuerit impellat; cujus quot pene verba, tot sententiae sunt; quot sensus, tot victoriae. Sciunt hoc Marciones, Apelles, Praxeae, Hermogenes, Judaei, Gentiles, Gnostici, caeterique; quorum ille blasphemias multis ac magnis voluminum suorum molibus, velut quibusdam fulminibus, evertit. Et tamen hic quoque post haec omnia, hic, inquam, Tertullianus, catholici dogmatis, id est, universalis ac vetustae fidei parum tenax, ac disertior multo quam felicior, mutata deinceps sententia, fecit ad extremum quod de eo beatus confessor Hilarius quodam loco scribit: Se quenti, inquit, errore detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem [28]. Et fuit ipse quoque in Ecclesia magna tentatio. Sed de hoc nolo plura dicere. Hoc tantum commemorabo, quod contra Moysi praeceptum exsurgentes in Ecclesia novellas Montani furias et insana illa insanarum mulierum novitii dogmatis somnia [29] veras prophetias adseverando, meruit ut de se quoque et scripturis suis diceretur: Si surrexerit in medio tui propheta. Et mox: Non audies verba prophetae illius. Quare? Quia, inquit, tentat vos Dominus vester utrum diligatis eum an non...” - (Chapter 18:46, “Commonitory” [Or: “Remembrancer”] by Vincent Lirinensis, “Adversus Profanas Omnium Novitates Haereticorum Commonitorium Cum Notis,” The Latin Library Text.)
[FOOTNOTE 28]: Hilarius in Matth. c. 5.
[FOOTNOTE 29]: Intelligit Priscillam et Maximillam, nobiles ac opulentas feminas, quae Ecclesias plures auro primum, deinde nefariis corrupere dogmatibus. De his ac Montano Prosper in Chronico ad Consulat. Cethegi et Clari, qui incidit in ann. Christi 170: «Hâc tempestate pseudoprophetia, quae Cataphrygas nominatur, accepit exordium, Montano auctore, Prisca Maximillaque insanis vatibus. Nomen errori Provincia Phrygia dedit, quia inventores ejus illic primitus exstiterunt, ibique vixerunt, et nunc etiam in eisdem partibus populos habent. Adventum Spiritus Sancti a Domino promissum, in se potius, quam in Apostolos fuisse asserunt: secundas nuptias pro fornicationibus habent; et ideo dicunt eas permisisse Apostolum Paulum, quia ex parte sciebat, et ex parte prophetabat; nondum enim venerat quod perfectum est. Hoc autem perfectum in Montanum, et in ejus prophetissas venisse delirant.» Vixit Tertullianus usque ad mediam aetatem Ecclesiae presbyter; «invidia postea, inquit Hieronymus in Catal. Scrip. Eccl. cap. 53, et contumeliis Clericorum Romanae Ecclesiae, ad Montani dogma delapsus, in multis libris meminit novae prophetiae: specialiter autem adversum Ecclesiam texuit volumina: de pudicitia, de persecutione, de jejuniis, de Monogamia, de extasi libros sex, et septimum quem adversus Apollonium composuit.» Dolendus sane hominis lapsus, quia Hieronymo eodem teste in Epist. ad Magnum, inter Latinos nihil Tertulliano eruditius, vel acutius; quando Apologeticus ejus, et contra Gentes libri, cunctam seculi obtinent disciplinam. Fertur vixisse usque ad decrepitam aetatem.
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vicentius.html#28
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/vicentius.html
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/christian.html

VINCENT OF LERINS (died circa. 445 C.E.): “...The case is the same with Tertullian. For as Origen holds by far the first place among the Greeks, so does Tertullian among the Latins. For who more learned than he, who more versed in knowledge whether divine or human? With marvellous capacity of mind he comprehended all philosophy, and had a knowledge of all schools of philosophers, and of the founders and upholders of schools, and was acquainted with all their rules and observances, and with their various histories and studies. Was not his genius of such unrivalled strength and vehemence that there was scarcely any obstacle which he proposed to himself to overcome, that he did not penetrate by acuteness, or crush by weight? As to his style, who can sufficiently set forth its praise? It was knit together with so much cogency of argument that it compelled assent, even where it failed to persuade. Every word almost was a sentence; every sentence a victory. This know the Marcions, the Apelleses, the Praxeases, the Hermogeneses, the Jews, the Heathens, the Gnostics, and the rest, whose blasphemies he overthrew by the force of his many and ponderous volumes, as with so many thunderbolts. Yet this man also, notwithstanding all that I have mentioned, this Tertullian, I say, too little tenacious of Catholic doctrine, that is, of the universal and ancient faith, MORE ELOQUENT BY FAR THAN FAITHFUL, CHANGED HIS BELIEF, and justified what the blessed Confessor, Hilary, writes of him, namely, that: “By his subsequent error he detracted from the authority of his approved writings.” He also was a great trial in the Church. But of Tertullian I am unwilling to say more. This only I will add, that, contrary to the injunction of Moses, by asserting the novel furies of Montanus which arose in the Church, and those mad dreams of new doctrine dreamed by mad women, to be true prophecies, he deservedly made both himself and his writings obnoxious to the words, "If there arise a prophet in the midst of you," you shall not hearken to the words of that prophet. For why? "Because the Lord your God does make trial of you, whether you love Him or not...” - (Chapter 18:46, "Commonitory" [or "Remembrancer"], Translated by C.A. Heurtley. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.)
[FOOTNOTE]: The date of the writing of the Commonitory is held to be 434 C.E.

PACIAN OF BARCELONA - SAYS PRAXEAS - WAS A MONTANTIST OF SOME CELEBRITY

PACIAN OF BARCELONA (circa. 310-391 C.E.): “...you declare your agreement with the Phrygians. But, most illustrious Lord, so manifold and so diverse is the error of these very men, that in them we have not only to overthrow their peculiar fancies against penance, but to cut off the heads, as it were, of some Lernaean monster. And, in the first place, they rely on more founders than one, for I suppose Blastus the Greek is of them; Theodotus also AND --- ( PRAXEAS ) --- WERE ONCE TEACHERS OF YOUR PARTY, THEMSELVES ALSO PHRYGIANS OF SOME CELEBRITY, who falsely say they are inspired of Leucius, boast that they are instructed by Proculus. FOLLOWING MONTANUS, AND MAXIMILLA, AND PRISCILLA, how manifold controversies have they raised concerning the day of Easter, the Paraclete, Apostles, Prophets, and many other disputes, as this also concerning the Catholic name, the pardon of penance...” - (Chapter 2, Epistle I, “On the Catholic Name,” Pages 317-327, “The Extant Works of S. Pacian, Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church 17,” Translated by the Rev. C. H. Collyns, M.A., Student of Christ Church 1842.)
 
PACIAN OF BARCELONA (circa. 310-391 C.E.): “...Who therefore, must first be refuted through my letter? Even if you wish it, these pages will not be able to hold just the mere names of all these heretics,{4} unless by your own writings, which in every way are condemnatory of penance, ( you declare that you have shared the veiws of the Phrygians ).{5} But, dear Sir, so manifold and diverse is the error alone of these individuals [= the Montantists] that among them [= the Montantists] we have not only to strike against that belief which they [= the Montantists] hold against penance, but also to cut off the heads, as it were, of some Lernaen creature.{6} [Section 2.] First of all, they [= the Montantist's] rely on several authorites, for, I think, Blastus the Greek [= mentioned by Irenaeus] is one of them ; Theodotus also, AND PRAXAES WERE ONCE [= accounts for Praxaes departure] TEACHERS OF [= accounts for Tertullians ferocity] YOUR GROUP. [= the Montantist's] THEY THEMESELVES, [= Praxaes included] ALSO PHRYGIANS [= the Montantist's] OF SOME NOTERIETY [= accounts for Tertullians defence and attack] who falsely allege that they [= the Montantist's] are inspired by Leucius, boast that they are instructed by Proculus. And having followed Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla, what numerous controversies have they [= the Montantist's] roused concerning the day of Easter, the Paraclete, the apostles, the prophets, and many other things, – as for example, the appelation “Catholic” and the forgiveness of penance...” - (Chapter 2, Sections 1-2, Epistle I, [To Sympronian] “On the Catholic Name,” Page 18, “Pacian of Barcelona,” in: “The Fathers of the Church,” Iberian Fathers, Volume 3, Pacaian of Barcelona – Orosius of Braga,” Translated by Craig L. Hanson, 1999.)
[PERSONAL NOTE]: Comments in highlighting added by me.
[FOOTNOTE 3]: Another, earlier name for the Montantists. Such writers as Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Salamis used the phrase: “...heresy of Gk., ( KATA ) the Phyges...” to designate this heretical movement ; hence “...Cataphrygians...”. Its birthplace was the region between Mysia and Phrygia in Asia Minor.
[FOOTNOTE 4]: Peyot here conjectures a gap in the text. Rubio Fernandez notes such in his critical apparatus, but maintains the text. Either interpretation is possible.
[FOOTNOTE 5]: Again, the Montantists are meant. Also, Pacian here as elsewhere in his letters purposely links Sympronian and his Novationist colleagues with the Montantists.
[FOOTNOTE 6]: A reference to the mythological Lernaen Hydra, a multiheaded serpentine monster disposed of by Heracles in the course of his Labors. The Hydra's mortal heads were believed to regenerate themselves and multiply when cut off.

HILARY OF POITIERS ON TERTULLIAN

LATIN TEXT: “...De orationis autem sacramento necessitate nos commentandi Cyprianus vir sanctae memoriae liberavit. Quamquam et Tertullianus hinc volumen aptissimum scripserit : [ Variant Text: Sequenti errore ] sed consequens error hominis, detraxit scriptis probabilibus [ Varient Text: auctoritatem ] auetoritatem...” - (Chapter 5, Book 1, “In Matthaeum,” or: “Commentary On [Or: “In”] Matthew,” [Section 913 Migne Latina])

HILARY OF POITIERS (circa. 300-368 C.E.): “...Concerning a discourse on the sacred oath of [Christian] alegiance [Or: “the sacrement”], however, we have Cyprian, a hero of sacred rememberance who has absolved us from this obligation. Even though Tertullian also on this very point composed a volume [Textual variant: “who [Or: “that”] strayed into error”] worthy of aquiring, yet, by the subsequent error of this man, he has detracted [Or: “diminished” or: “taken away from”] from his writings which are worthy of approval [Textual variant: “have been decreed as allowed by official authorization”]...” - (Chapter 5, Book 1, “In Matthaeum,” or: “Commentary On [Or: “In”] Matthew,” [Section 913 Migne Latina] Translated by Matt13weedhacker 7/04/2014.)

HILARY OF POITIERS (circa. 300-368 C.E.): “...Concerning the sacrement{3} of prayer, Cyprian, the man of blessed memory, has freed us the necessity of making comment.{4} And although Tertullian wrote a most competent volume on this matter,{5} the subsequent error of the man has detracted from the authoity of his commendable writings.{6}...” - (Chapter 5, “St. Hilary of Poitiers – Commentary On Matthew,” Page 74, Translated by D. H. Williams, The Catholic University of America Press, USA, 2012.)
[FOOTNOTE 3]: Sacremento.
[FOOTNOTE 4]: The Cyprian mentioned here was bishop of Carthage from ca. 248 to 258, martyred under the reign of Decius.Among his surviving writings is De Dominica Oratione, a breif and apparently well known set of observations on the Lord's Prayer.
[FOOTNOTE 5]: Tertullian, De Oratione. Tertullain, a layman who also lived in Carthage, focuses on the Lord's Prayer in Chapters 2-8 of this work.
[FOOTNOTE 6]: The negative reference is to Tertullian's embrace of the New Prophecy later in his life. By Hilary's day, the New Prophecy, or Montantism, had become completely discredited as a heretical movement. See Jerome, De Viris Illust. 26, 40, 41, 53; Augustine, De Haer. 26-27. Vincent of Lerins cites this passage of Hilary's in Comm. 18.46, slightly altering it to read: “...by is subsequent error he undermined the authority of his commendable writings...” (PL 50:664). Hilary's attitude toward the value of Tertullian's contributions is probably typical. The latter's theological and biblical work utilized extensively, but despite its importance, the writer is never regarded in nomine as an authority.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

ATHANASIUS "...FIRST AND ALONE..." TO TEACH THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY ACCORDING TO GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN

Athanasius, the first? 

And alone? 

To write the correct doctrine on the Tri{3}nity?

GREEK TEXT: “...Τῶν γὰρ ἄλλων ἁπάντων, ὅσοι τοῦ καθ' ἡμᾶς λόγου, τριχῆ νενεμημένων, καὶ πολλῶν μὲν ὄντων τῶν περὶ τὸν Υἱὸν ἀῤῥωστούντων, πλειόνων δὲ τῶν περὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἔνθα καὶ τὸ ἧττον ἀσεβεῖν εὐσέβεια ἐνομίσθη, ὀλίγου δὲ τῶν κατ' ἀμφότερα ὑγιαίνοντος· πρῶτος καὶ μόνος, ἢ κομιδῆ σὺν ὀλίγοις ἀποτολμᾷ τὴν ἀλήθειαν σαφῶς οὑτωσὶ καὶ διαῤῥή δην, τῶν τριῶν μίαν θεότητα καὶ οὐσίαν ἐγγράφως ὁμολογήσας· καὶ ὃ τῷ πολλῷ τῶν Πατέρων ἀριθμῷ περὶ τὸν Υἱὸν ἐχαρίσθη πρότερον, τοῦτο [35.1124] περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος αὐτὸς ἐμπνευσθεὶς ὕστερον, καὶ δῶρον βασιλικὸν ὄντως καὶ μεγαλοπρεπὲς τῷ βασιλεῖ προσενεγκὼν, ἔγγραφον τὴν εὐσέβειαν κατὰ τῆς ἀγράφου καινοτομίας· ἵνα βασιλεῖ μὲν βασιλεὺς, λόγῳ δὲ λόγος, γράμματι δὲ γράμμα κατα παλαίηται...” - (Oration 21.33, “In Laudem Athanasii,” or: “Εἰς τὸν μέγαν Ἀθανάσιον ἐπίσκοπον Ἀλεξανδρείας," “On the Great Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria,” [ΛΟΓΟΣ ΚΑʹ, Page 12, 35.1123-1124 M.P.G.])

GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN (circa. 329-390 C.E.): “...Here too was shown in a very high degree the simple-mindedness of Athanasius, and the steadfastness of his faith in Christ. For, ( when all the rest who ) sympathized ( with us ) were divided into three parties, and ( many ) were faltering in their conception of the Son, and ( still more ) in that of the Holy Ghost, (a point on which to be only slightly in error was to be orthodox) AND ( FEW INDEED ) WERE SOUND UPON ( BOTH ) POINTS, HE WAS --- THE FIRST AND ONLY ONE, --- OR WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF BUT A FEW, to venture to confess in writing, with entire clearness and distinctness, the Unity of Godhead and Essence of the Three Persons, AND THUS TO ATTAIN IN LATER DAYS, UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INSPIRATION, to the same faith in regard to the Holy Ghost, as had been bestowed at an earlier time [= Nicea 325 C.E. ] on most of the Fathers in regard to the Son. [= Consubstantial ] This confession, a truly royal and magnificent gift, he presented to the Emperor, opposing to the unwritten innovation, a written account the orthodox faith, so that an emperor might be overcome by an emperor, reason by reason, treatise by treatise...” - (Paragraph 33, Oration 21, "On the Great Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria," Translated by Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co.,1894.)

Was not the “Orthodox” the majority? Completely unified on this teaching from the beginning? From the time of the apostles?

Is this not a historical anomaly?

This should not be!

If Tri{3}nitarian claims, and theory is correct?

But of course, the Tri{3}nitarian theory and claims are definitely not correct.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL IS JESUS CHRIST ACCORDING TO SIR ISAAC NEWTON

You'll be interested that Sir Isaac Newton said this about the identidy of Michael in scripture:

SIR ISAAC NEWTON (circa. 1642-1727 C.E.): “...That Iesus [i.e. "Jesus"] - is - the seed of the woman who should bruise the serpents head, the Shiloh predicted by Iacob, the Prophet predicted by Moses, the Paschal Lamb, the son of David whose throne should be established for ever, the son of God mentioned in the Psalms, the son of Man predicted in Daniels prophesy of the four Beasts, the Messiah predicted in Daniels prophesy of the weeks, the Prince of Princes predicted in Daniels prophesy of the Ram & He Goat, THE GREAT PRINCE MICHAEL MENTIONED IN THE END OF DANIEL --- & --- IN THE APOCALYPS, & the Word or Oracle of God whose testimony is the spirit of prophesy...” - (Section 8, Folio or Page 67r, "Drafts on the History of the Church Section 4," Author: Isaac Newton, Source: Yahuda Ms. 15.4, National Library of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel
Published online: July 2006.)

...THAT IESUS ISTHE GREAT PRINCE MICHAEL MENTIONED IN THE END OF DANIEL - & - IN THE APOCALYPS...”

Sunday, February 16, 2014

PHILO JUDAEUS (circa. 20 B.C.E to 50 C.E.): “...I now proceed to the fifth commandment, relating to THE HONOR DUE TO PARENTS; which is, as I showed in the mention I made of it separately before, on the borders between those which relate to the affairs of men and those which relate to God. [225.] For parents themselves are something between divine and human nature, partaking of both; of human nature, inasmuch as it is plain that they have been born and that they will die; and of divine nature, BECAUSE THEY HAVE ENGENDERED OTHER BEINGS, AND HAVE BROUGHT WHAT DID NOT EXIST INTO EXISTENCE: FOR, IN MY OPINION, WHAT GOD IS TO THE WORLD, THAT PARENTS ARE TO THEIR CHILDREN; since, just as God gave existence to that which had no existence, they also, in imitation of his power, as far at least as they were able, make the race of mankind everlasting. [226.] And this is not the only reason why a man's father and mother are deserving of honor, but here are also several other reasons. For among all those nations who have any regard for virtue, the older men are ESTEEMED ABOVE the younger, and teachers ABOVE their pupils, and benefactors ABOVE those who have received kindnesses from them, and rulers ABOVE their subjects, and masters ABOVE their slaves. [227.] ACCORDINGLY, PARENTS ARE PLACED IN THE HIGHER AND SUPERIOR CLASS; for they are the elders, and the teachers, and the benefactors, and the rulers, and the masters. AND SONS AND DAUGHTERS ARE PLACED IN THE INFERIOR CLASS; for they are the younger, and the pupils, and the persons who have received kindnesses, and subjects, and slaves. And that every one of these assertions is correct is plain from the circumstances that take place, and proofs derived from reason will establish the truth of them yet more undeniably. [228.] I affirm, therefore, THAT THAT WHICH PRODUCES IS ALWAYS OLDER THAN THAT WHICH IS PRODUCED, AND THAT THAT WHICH CAUSES ANYTHING IS OLDER THAN THAT OF WHICH IT IS THE CAUSE; BUT THOSE WHO BEGET OR BRING FORTH A CHILD ARE IN SOME SENSE THE CAUSES AND PRODUCERS OF THE CHILD WHICH IS BEGOTTEN OR BROUGHT FORTH, and they stand in the light of teachers, inasmuch as all that they know themselves they teach to their children from their earliest infancy, and they not only exercise and train them in the supernumerary accomplishments, impressing reasoning's on the minds of their children when they come to their prime, but they also teach them those most necessary lessons which refer to choice and avoidance, the choice, that is to say, of virtues, and the avoidance of vices, and of all the energies in accordance with them....” - (Book II, Chapters 224-228, [Sections 38-39, ( XXXVIII-XXXIX )] “De Specialibus Legibus,” or “On Special Laws,” in “The Works of Philo Judaeus, The contemporary of Josephus, translated from the Greek,” By Charles Duke Yonge, London, H. G. Bohn, 1854-1890.) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book28.html

PHILO JUDAEUS (circa. 20 B.C.E to 50 C.E.): “...I am at my fifth article about the honour due to parents. As I demonstrated in a commentary especially devoted to the subject, we are here at the very border between human and divine things. [225.] Indeed, parents are ( midway between ) human and ( divine nature and participate in both ): in human anture, obviously because they are born and have to die ; ( in divine nature ) because they have ( pro-created and brought non-being into being ). Parents are to their children, I think, what God is to the world ; as God gave existence to non-existence, they too, imitating divine power as far as is humanly possible, bring immortality to our species...” - (Book II, Chapters 224-225, “De Specialibus Legibus,” or “On Special Laws,” Translated by Suzanne Daniel, Paris: Cerf, 1975.)
[FOOTNOTE]: Cross referrence also Decal. Chapter 107, and Spec. Bk II, Chapter 228.
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=APjy8z7tIsAC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=I+am+at+my+fifth+article+about+the+honour+due+to+parents.+As+I+demonstrated+in+a+commentary+especially+devoted+to+the+subject,+we+are+here+at+the+very+border+between+human+and+divine+things&source=bl&ots=nCYL5NPYSv&sig=ToF5SzaeS9tZ9_nvQDlcppUy4rE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TWIBU9iBBsuqlAW51oG4Bw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=I%20am%20at%20my%20fifth%20article%20about%20the%20honour%20due%20to%20parents.%20As%20I%20demonstrated%20in%20a%20commentary%20especially%20devoted%20to%20the%20subject%2C%20we%20are%20here%20at%20the%20very%20border%20between%20human%20and%20divine%20things&f=false

PHILO JUDEAUS (circa. 20 B.C.E to 50 C.E.) ON THE RELATIONS OF THE GREEK PREPOSITIONS AND WORDS Gk., ( ὑφ’, ὑπὸ ) “...BY...” Gk., ( διὰ ) “...THROUGH...” Gk., ( ἐξ ) “...OUT FROM OF A SOURCE...” Gk., ( ὄργανον ) “...INSTRUMENT...” Gk., ( αἴτιον ) “...CAUSE, ORIGIN, SOURCE...”

GREEK TEXT: “...ὅτι ὁ θεὸς αἴτιον, οὐκ ὄργανον, τὸ δὲ γινόμενον δι’ ὀργάνου μὲν ὑπὸ δὲ αἰτίου πάντως γίνεται. Πρὸς γὰρ τήν τινος γένεσιν πολλὰ δεῖ συνελθεῖν, : τὸ ὑφ’ οὗ, τὸ ἐξ οὗ, τὸ δι’ οὗ, τὸ δι’ ὅ· καὶ ἔστι τὸ μὲν ὑφ’ οὗ τὸ αἴτιον, ἐξ οὗ δὲ ἡ ὕλη, δι’ οὗ δὲ τὸ ἐργαλεῖον, δι’ ὃ δὲ ἡ αἰτία...” - (Chapter 125, [Section 35, ( XXXV )], “De Cherubim,” or “On the Cherubim,” Philo Judaeus, Edition L. Cohn, post R. Khazarzar, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 1. Berlin: Reimer, 1896, Pages 1–60, Reprinted by De Gruyter, 1962.)

PHILO JUDAEUS (circa. 20 B.C.E to 50 C.E.): “...Because He that is definitively God is a cause, not an instrument, but in contrast the thing brought into existence ( through ) a secondary intermediate agency{*} is of an instrument, but ultimately this thing is given existence ( by ) the{*} Cause of all things. For it is necessary with the genesis of anything for many things to be coordinated together. He of whom the thing is ( directly by ), He of whom it ( originates from out of ), he whom it is ( through ), [and] that which is ( through ) the agency. For also, He ( by of whom ) the thing originates is the ultimate Cause, the thing that ( originates from out of Him ), is the material{*}, but he whom [this thing comes] ( through ) is the instrument,{*} but by reason of{*} Him who is the ultimate Cause...” - (Chapter 125, [Section 35, ( XXXV )], “De Cherubim,” or “On the Cherubim,” Translated by Matt13weedhacker 17/02/2014.)
[FOOTNOTE *]: Or: “medium”
[FOOTNOTE *]: Literally: “Of a cause”
[FOOTNOTE *]: Or: “matter” or “stuff”
[FOOTNOTE *]: Or: “tool”
[FOOTNOTE *]: Gk., ( διὰ ) can also mean: “for” or: “on account of”
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CE%B4%CE%B9%E1%BD%B0&la=greek#lexicon

Friday, January 31, 2014

PHILO JUDAEUS MOB-RULE VERSES ONE GOD RULE

GREEK TEXT: “...δεύτερον δ’ ὅτι θεὸς εἷς ἐστι, διὰ τοὺς εἰσηγητὰς τῆς πολυθέου δόξης, οἳ οὐκ ἐρυθριῶσι τὴν φαυλοτάτην τῶν κακοπολιτειῶν ὀχλοκρατίαν ἀπὸ γῆς εἰς οὐρανὸν μετοικίζοντες...” - (Chapter 61, Section 171(A), “Περι της κατα Μωυσεα κοσμοποιιας,” or “De Opificio Mundi,” “Concerning the Creation of the World,” Philo Judaeus, Edition L. Cohn, post R. Khazarzar, Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, vol. 1. Berlin: Reimer, 1896, Pages 1–60, Reprinted by De Gruyter, 1962.)

PHILO JUDAEUS (circa. 20 B.C.E-50 C.E.): “...But secondly, for the reason that, God, He is One!{1} This was with a veiw to those authors who propose to bring in THE POLYTHEISTIC OPINION. These ones do not even blush at transplanting the lowest{2} and worst{3} forms of [mans] government, MOB-RULE,{4} from earth to heaven...” - (Chapter 61, Section 171(A), “De Opificio Mundi,” “Concerning the Creation of the World,” Translated by Matt13weedhacker 1/2/2014)
[FOOTNOTE 1]: Quotation from the Shema LXX Deuteronomy 6:4.
[FOOTNOTE 2]: Or Gk., ( τὴν φαυλοτάτην ) alternatively: “cheapest” “commonest”
[FOOTNOTE 3]: Or Gk., ( τῶν κακοπολιτειῶν ) alternatively: “ugly” “bad” “base”
[FOOTNOTE 4]: Gk., ( ὀχλοκρατίαν )